Roundup: For fear of extremists rising

Posted on by

In damage control mode, the Liberals have sent out senior sources to talk about why they pulled the plug on electoral reform, and have brought up the relatively new talking point about concerns for the rise of extremist parties, while cabinet was opposed to a referendum (not surprisingly given the referenda we’ve seen globally lately) and to a PR system in general. I say relatively new talking point because it was raised as part of the MyDemocracy survey, but as Paul Wells stated on Power & Politics last night, for a government that purports to be eloquent, they never made the case. I also suspect there was the added problem that in making it known that he was open to being convinced, Justin Trudeau allowed Nathan Cullen and others to steal the narrative away from him, which is a big reason why the Liberals completely lost the plot on that file.

Colby Cosh goes through the promise and given the choice as to whether Trudeau was being sleazy or stupid in making that promise, Cosh goes on the side of stupid – for which I would agree – and notes that a retreat was the best he could hope for rather than some truly unsavoury outcomes, particularly with regard to a referendum or a more purely proportional system. And here we get back to the rise of extremist parties.

Canada is not immune to this rabid and toxic populism that is going around globally, and we’ve seen examples of it manifesting in this country, from the election of Rob Ford, to some of the identity politics being attempted in previous elections both federally and provincially. Just because it has been relatively contained and not entirely successful doesn’t mean it can’t succeed in the future, particularly with its proponents feeling emboldened by what’s happening south of the border. And while Nathan Cullen insists that the rise of alt-right parties is “a load of crap,” he is blinkered by this notion, primarily coming from the left-wing, that a PR system would incentivise all of these left-wing and progressive parties that would somehow always form nice coalition governments. Right now we’re seeing something very different playing out in Europe, with all of their myriad of PR systems producing growing hard-right parties on the verge of winning power in several countries. Trudeau has every right to be concerned about that in Canada, and we have demonstrated proof that our current system has blunted their growth because they can’t command enough broad-based support to dominate our big-tent brokerage parties. That’s not a bad thing.

https://twitter.com/benjaminokinsey/status/827582598109069312

Oh, PR proponents claim. We’ll just raise thresholds so that these parties can’t get seats! But that’s just as problematic because if the thresholds are too low – say below three percent – you’re likely to cut off the Greens and the Bloc, for which they would cry bloody murder. (Their self-interested insistence that more people would vote for them if they knew they were guaranteed PR seats doesn’t help their case). It’s also another way of saying that you want to game the system to produce party configurations that you like, which again is self-interested, and doesn’t make the case for how it makes the system better.

In related news, Paul Wells looks at Karina Gould’s new mandate of cyber-security for our electoral system now that electoral reform is out of the question, and no, it’s not a trivial matter even if we don’t use any kind of electronic ballots in this country. Both Elections Canada and the various parties all have databases, and the party databases most especially are vulnerable, in part because they aren’t subject to any federal legislation which deals with privacy or information security, and that could prove to be a problem in the future.

Good reads:

  • Oh, hey, so Rona Ambrose also spent her holidays on a billionaire’s yacht. But no rules were broken. Just to be clear.
  • LGBT refugees from Iran were told to apply to the US since Canada shifted priority to resettling Syrians. Then Trump happened, and they’re trapped in Turkey.
  • Trump’s “Muslim ban” has just revoked the Nexus cards of all Canadian permanent residents from the seven named countries.
  • Meanwhile, the government is also seeing if enforcing Trump’s “Muslim ban” is even legal under Canadian law.
  • Harjit Sajjan will meet with his US counterpart on Monday, as the UN waits on Canada to figure out if we’re still sending troops to Mali given the Trumpocalpypse.
  • The PBO says that the deficit is likely not as deep as the government expects.
  • Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has said she’s not seeking another term.
  • Here’s a preview of what Bill Morneau’s economic advisors plan to tell him, which is heavy on trade, champion sectors, buying from start-ups, and some venture funds.
  • The federal government has signed an agreement with the Métis in Ontario to start negotiating around what obligations the federal government has toward them.
  • The leader of the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservatives has condemned Kellie Leitch and Steven Blaney as he hosts all 14 candidates for a debate this weekend.
  • Susan Delacourt warns that Nick Kouvalis, and the alt-right ilk he’s brought with him, aren’t going anywhere.
  • Paul Wells looks at the current global situation and where other countries are looking to Trudeau for cues as to how to deal with the Trumpocalypse.

Odds and ends:

PCO is getting Macs instead of new Windows machines, which is a fairly rare thing in government.

New senator Wanda Thomas Bernard talks about what Black History Month means to her.

Shameless plug: The Unbroken Machine comes out in one month from today. Available for pre-order now!

5 thoughts on “Roundup: For fear of extremists rising”

  1. I think the toxic populism excuse is pretty lame. We suffered through a pretty toxic government prior to this one, and there is no guarantee that O’Leary wouldn’t lead another one, more toxic than the last, under our current FPTP system. There are two main reasons why the toxic populism excuse doesn’t hold water:
    First, FPTP favors two main parties, whereas MMP usually gives rise to several. There is a strong possibility that a toxic populist party will split off from the CPC, which barely holds together now, and thus gathers all the RWNJ into one small basket. This would be balanced by parties on the left as well, possibly a communist edition.
    Second, FPTP favors parties with a strong regional representation, such as the CPC in the West, and The Bloc in Quebec. Since The West seems to be the current bed of toxic populism, it’s probable that they wouldn’t be as well represented as they are now.
    Of course, there’s always the probability that the toxic populists would win lots of seats. but that’s because their representation would reflect the voting wishes of Canadians more closely than FPTP does now. Much as I don’t like it, that’s democracy.

  2. It happens I agree that PR is not a good system for Canada, primarily because it puts the primary focus on parties, rather than voters. But, really, Dale, you’ve won! You can relax and stop campaigning against it. As to the notion that referenda are inherently bad, it’s worthwhile remembering it was the good sense of Canadians that, through the 1992 referendum, put the boots to the egregious Charlottetown Accord.

  3. “Preventing the Rise of Extremist Parties” has a lovely ring to it. It’s adaptable to many uses from reneging on a campaign promise to developing new program initiatives and party platforms. I doubt the Liberals would be averse to linking it to the tragedy at the Quebec City mosque, either.

    • No, PR advocates have already linked the lack of PR to that tragedy (which Elizabeth May then tweeted out while claiming it wasn’t an endorsement).

Comments are closed.