No, Craig ... Western Separatism Is More Fiction Than Fact

I was wondering where Craig Chandler had gotten to - especially in the run up to the current election - a time that usually draws him out to comment on something.

Well ... apparently he's been nursing his inner western separatist back to health after the 'flare-and-fizzle' of David Crutcher's Western Business and Taxpayers Association in 2008.

“Western Canada will not tolerate a purposeful slap in the face if the government they chose is rejected by Canada’s Central Canadian parties. The threat of the West organizing to separate is real and reared it’s head in a serious way last time the coalition threat occurred. Unlike Quebec, the West can afford to leave and even pay its share of the debt on the way out” stated Craig B. Chandler, Executive Director of the PGIB.

What people like Chandler don't seem to understand is that the idea of separation from Canada has been tossed about from time to time for decades. I first encountered it in the late 1970s when the Western Canada Concept party came into being. It didn't exactly go anywhere then, and in the thirty years since, entities like the WCC have flared up and died out repeatedly - usually led by a bunch of loudmouths who have no real idea what they're on about and gaining absolutely no real traction with the public as whole.

Why? Unlike Quebec, where separatism has its roots in the cultural history of the province and is deeply influenced by the colonial wars between England and France, the concept in western Canada is rooted solely in political and economic arguments with little or no grounding in our cultural identity as Canadians.

Simply put, most Western Canadians are quite happy to be Canadian first. We know that economic and political upsets happen from time to time - and we've likely as not lived through a few of them. The idea of separatism is a fantasy that gets played with occasionally, but really doesn't have any traction with people's sentiments.

Mr. Chandler seems to take great offense at the idea of a coalition being formed in our parliament and then governing. Sadly, his sense of offense is rooted in his blindness to the subtleties and workings of the Westminster Parliament system that we use in Canada.

Far too many people these days assume that we are voting "for the party leader" that we want as Prime Minister. In fact, we are electing our local representative to Parliament. It is up to the members of parliament to form a workable government that has "the confidence of the house". That may or may not be led by the party with the most seats, and if a couple of parties band together to form a government that is in fact perfectly legitimate - in spite of the lies that Harper has told the public about coalitions. (Perhaps, Mr. Chandler would like to muse a little bit on Harper's past dalliances with the concept of coalition as well)

Rather than fuming about Western Separatism as an alternative, Mr. Chandler would be better off focusing his energies on trying to understand why it is that voter turnout has been declining for so long. Why, for example, did 22% of the electorate decide 80% of the seats in the last Alberta provincial election? Why did over half the voters just stay home that day? (Of course, an engaged electorate generally doesn't bode well for today's conservatives, who know damn good and well that most people would object violently to their policies - if they bothered to look)

Stephen Harper On Coalitions

So, Harper's running about the country blathering on about a "coalition" that would be so very awful for Canada if the electorate doesn't grant him his majority.

How awful would a coalition government be? Well, awful enough that in 2004 he signed a letter that implicitly is asking the Governor General to allow him to set up a coalition government should the then Liberal minority government collapse.

In a minority Parliament, it is in fact the opposition parties that have the greatest number of seats, and therefore reflect the will of the greater part of the voters. His current meme about "only the party with the most seats" should get to form the government conveniently ignores the reality that the majority of seats didn't go to his party last election.

The man is a hypocrite and a liar on this matter.

More Signs That Harper's Planning An Election

The Con$ Start Sliming The Liberals in an attempt to deflect public attention from the seething cesspool of Conservative corruption.

In the midst of the Afghan Detainee documents scandal, the Geurgis/Jaffer affair, growing suspicion over the activities of MP Shory, a "Maternal Health" initiative that's so blatantly a dog whistle to the extremist base and the squirming of the secretive "pro-Life Caucus" headed up by Harper's ideological bed-mate Rod Bruinooge, we find the latest HarperCon lies are aimed at discrediting Michael Ignatieff as some kind of evil conspirator seeking to form an "illegitimate" coalition with the other opposition parties:

“Today, Ignatieff is once again out talking about coalitions with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats,” according to Conservative Party talking points circulated today to MPs and supporters.

To bolster their conspiracy/coalition theory the strategists compiled several recent statements from prominent Liberals: “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he’s always been prepared to work with other parties to form a coalition … (Hill Times, May 17, 2010.)”

This has been representative of the Conservative party's tactics since day one - when the situation gets too hot, they try to deflect attention elsewhere ... and you have to admit, it's gotten pretty warm in Ottawa in recent weeks.

Of course, the Con$ like to argue that any coalition would be "illegitimate", or even outright illegal. They're lying. Canada's parliamentary system is fundamentally identical to Britain's - and they've got a coalition government now. Open your eyes, Canada - the HarperCon$ are lying to you about how Parliament works - what else are they lying to you about?

So ... Where's The Outrage From CPoC Supporters?

It was only a few months ago that the HarperCon$ were running about telling us about the evils of an "illegitimate coalition" government.

Now, we find a Conservative/NDP/Bloc coalition forming up.

So, CPoC supporters, which is it? Are you going to express your outrage at a possible Conservative/NDP/Bloc coalition, or are you going to admit to gross hypocrisy?

Dear Mr. Kenney:

Let's chat for a moment about your comments yesterday, shall we?

"It says to me that the people of Canada want democracy respected. They just voted for a Conservative government six or seven weeks ago. They don't appreciate Opposition politicians trying to overturn election results and make a deal with the Separatists six weeks later."

This is a blatant lie on so many levels it's ridiculous.

Six or seven weeks ago, a majority of Canadians did not vote conservative. Let's be absolutely clear about this. The Conservatives got just over 30% of the popular vote - which means that about 22% of the eligible voters actually voted for you and Mr. Harper.

Second, I think you need a little remedial education in the form and structure of Canada's government - apparently you have forgotten some basics that you should have been taught back in grade school.

In Canada, we elect a Parliament - and we give a mandate to that parliament to govern the country. It is by convention that the party with the most seats is asked to form the government. In reality, it is in fact the party (or group of parties) that can control the majority of the seats that forms the government. The Conservatives are quite some distance from forming a majority in this situation.

Second, you don't get to squawk about a coalition being "anti democratic" when your party has gone after the same gambit. You know damn well that it is both legal, and a legitimate expression of democracy in Canada.

Third, it is the Conservative party that is behaving in a manner that is deeply offensive to the democracy in Canada. This is not the first time, but the third time that Mr. Harper has shut down parliament to avoid debate and to avoid being held accountable for his government's actions and policies. Instead of facing his opposition, or trying to work with the opposition, he tries to skewer them at every turn. When challenged in a serious manner, he folds like a cheap tent.

By shutting down parliament to avoid a confidence vote, Mr. Harper has done far worse damage to Canada's democracy than a coalition government would have. Why do I say this? Because in doing so, the Prime Minister of a Minority Government has silenced the voices of our duly elected representatives - including yourself Mr. Kenney. He has stifled debate solely because he cannot defend his actions as anything other than vicious partisan politics, and he is afraid to be accountable for them.

Your statements, Mr. Kenney, merely demonstrate that you are a toadie to Mr. Harper's will and whim. (Not that you've ever even attempted be anything other than a partisan politician - heaven forbid that you might actually have to deal with a constituent who isn't of like mind to yourself)

On Coalition Government and Legitimacy

Since the HarperCon$ have been running about trying to claim that a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is somehow "undemocratic", it's worth spending a few minutes to debunk those talking points.

(1) In the October election, Canadians returned a minority government. The Con$ervatives won 143 seats, with the remaining 165 seats split between the Liberals, NDP and BQ.

(2) Based on voter turnout, and popular vote percentages, the Conservatives aren't exactly in a place to assert that they got more than a plurality of seats - sort of.

Conservative Popular Vote: 37.7%
Voter Turnout: 59.1%

So...37.7% of 59.1% is 22.3% of Canada's eligible voters actually voted for the Conservatives.

Comparatively speaking, 54.4% of those who voted marked their ballots for one of the Liberals, Bloc or NDP. Which means that 32.2% of Canada's eligible voters voted for the parties now threatening to form a coalition.

Let's be clear about this - Canadians did not grant the Con$ervatives a majority of the seats in the house, nor would anyone be able to claim that this is a ringing endorsement of Stephen Harper as a leader, either.

(3) We don't elect our Prime Minister. He is just the leader of the party that is able to control the most seats in the house.

(4) In a minority parliament, the governing party is always obliged to get at least some of its support from among the opposition members, especially anything that is a confidence vote. (money votes are always confidence votes)

(5) So, the difference between Harper's minority and a Liberal/Bloc/NDP coalition is merely that there is an agreement between party leaders to collaborate. Harper has made it clear that he's quite unwilling to collaborate with anyone - including his own party.

Is a coalition "undemocratic"? Not really. It's actually the first sign in a long time of the parties in the House of Commons actually trying to make it work at all. Canadians need to remember that we sent back a rather 'checkered' parliament this last election, and we told them to find a way to make it work. That doesn't mean it has to work with Harper sitting in the PMO.