The people of Canada have spoken and it was the Liberal Party and the Bloc Quebecois to which they emphatically said "No!"
But, oddly enough, it is Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives who find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Let me explain. As long as the Conservatives led a minority Parliament, they could tell their most radical supporters that, so sorry, they were unable to advance their far-right agenda because those perfidious Liberals, unpatriotic Bloquistes and annoying but insignificant New Democrats kept getting in the way.
But now, with a comfortable majority, they have no one but themselves to blame for failing to implement a more radical agenda.
And yet, as the New Democrats under Opposition Leader Jack Layton so amply proved by sweeping Quebec and increasing their popular vote everywhere in Canada, Conservatives now have real political considerations to ponder as they contemplate their future. Indeed, the day may come when they recall the Liberals fondly, or at least the vote-splitting opportunities the now moribund L-Shaped Party presented.
For the great Liberal coalition that flows down from Alexander Mackenzie through Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau to Jean Chrétien is gone forever. It was steered onto the shoals of history by the unsteady hand of Stephane Dion and the arrogance of Michael Ignatieff.
Yet since Trudeau, Canada's last truly liberal prime minister, the party has drifted ever closer to advocating identical policies to the Conservatives, the only difference being that they were framed in softer and occasionally greener language during election campaigns. On issues of substance, Ignatieff was indistinguishable from Harper in all but his strategic incompetence.
Advertising
Canadian voters have now revealed they are onto that game, and a new moderate coalition has emerged under the New Democratic banner, which more accurately represents the views of centrist Canadian voters in all parts of the country. The NDP clearly enjoys significantly greater support than the Conservatives in French Canada.
The problem this represents for the Conservatives is that they are a coalition too, as all successful Canadian political parties must be.
The specific difficulty for the prime minister, who is personally far to the right of most of his Conservative supporters and yet who is obviously no fool, is how to get Canada to where he wants it without alienating enough voters to make Layton prime minister in the next federal election, which under our Constitution must take place within five years.
Harper has already demonstrated he has the tactical smarts to achieve his goals intelligently, by treating Canadian voters like the proverbial frog in a pot of water atop a stove and raising the temperature a degree at a time.
The problem with this strategy is the danger his most radical supporters will quickly grow disillusioned with the slow pace of "reform" and split his own alliance of old Progressive Conservatives, Western Reformers, Blue Liberals and others.
Thus, in the short term, it seems unlikely the Conservatives will do much more than close the long-gun registry and continue with their purchase of overpriced stealth fighter-bombers -- the first a policy the Liberals likely wish they could have adopted, and the second one they probably would have if they'd had the opportunity.
Over time, Harper the shrewd tactician may try more radical moves, but only in the context of a Canada he has edged -- not shoved -- to the right.
Ironically, the fact Harper succeeded during his minority years in easing Canada toward a more American style two-party system now increases the risk to the Conservatives of moving too sharply to the right, since there is really only one alternative.
The prime minister is now in a position where he risks straining his own coalition by sticking with policies most Canadian voters will accept, and risks opening the door to a revitalized NDP with support in every part of Canada by pushing policies he believes in.
This post originally appeared as David Climenhaga's column in yesterday's edition of the Saint City News, a weekly newspaper in St. Albert, Alberta. It is also posted on his blog, Alberta Diary.
Ironicly, Harper can only buy those overinflated Jet Fighters if the U.S. Govt first agrees to buy them too. Considering the massive U.S. Debt, that just may not happen now...smile
I see no evidence of a split; Hugh Segal was able to get over his images of boxcars and side alongside Manning's Reformers ultimately. Harper has a majority and a free ride to do whatever he wants which makes me sicker and sicker.
@Tryder 1: What planet do you live on that says we don't need new fighter jets? Although we don't need those ones, we do need new ones if the situation changes, and we end up going to war with the States. For that, we will need a fighter capable of standing toe to toe with the best hardware the Americans would be (hypothetically) throwing at us, and that hardware, if not Canadian made, will have to come from somebody else.
War between Cda and USA? That was sarcasm, correct?
No, it wasn't scarcasm. That could happen, and we would be foolish not to have anything in case the States decides to frack with us.
Uh they own us pretty much outright now. What is to defend?
I was not aware that we were so intergrated that the possibility of an invasion was not warrented.
Uh I have only worked for US companies for most of my adult life as have most of the people I know. Here in Manitoba, Monsanto and ConAGra have huge roles in agricultureal economy. In Westman, US oil companies have a huge role. When the NAFTA debated first started in the US, Pat Buchanan bragged on CNN's Crossfire that the US had essentially been given Canada in the previous FTA and he laughed at Canadian for being so gullible and stupid.
Pat Bucannan is full of hot air and you know it.
Economically intergrated or not, if ever the situation in America changes, and all we have is obsolete crap that is shot out of the sky by the U.S. armed forces, then we will be fucked and then some. So, while I don't think that we have to buy these fighter jets, we do have to replace our obsolete ones with new ones, be they Canadian made, Russian made, Chinese made, French made or even Indian made. You and everybody else here doesn't begruge Cuba to defend itself from the USA with jet fighters (most of which are probably obsolete), why would you begrudge your own country in doing so?
There is nothing to fight about; Canada is fully intergrated into USA/Wall St corporate interests. You have not really countered anything in the past 4 months but take your time; mabye next year. Sheesh!
And you've not done anything except proven how much of a robot you are in arguing the same point over and over and not coming out with a valid counter to what I've said that makes any sense other than repeating somebody else's platitude and talking point. Don't you have a mind of your own?
You said 'integrated or not'; why would somebody bomb facilities, oil wells, etc they already own? The Allies made a point not to bomb stuff that was owned by the Allied countries during WW2 so why would that change? All of our governments have toadied the US line to some degree or another (sometimes covertly as when two Canadian ships provided support to this second war against Iraq).
'Integrated or not' is like saying 'hot and cold' are the same thing. You need to dry out from whatever is clouding your discernment.
'Integrated or not' still means 'integrated or not'; things change, and leaders can be unpredictable in their tactics. Even those nations in the former Warsaw Pact had armies to defend themselves against anybody (neighbors included) trying to invade them-again, you didn't or wouldn't bergrudge them said armed forces or the right to equip said armed forces, why would you object to your own country doing so? An armed force does not only fight an invader if they're not economically intergrated with that invader, they have one in spite of the fact that they are.
I'm ony objecting to the kind of fighter to be brought, not the need for said fighter (when all is said and done, we should be building our own jet fighters anyway.)