Roundup: The spectre of a Leitch Party

Posted on by

A rather remarkable exchange happened during Trudeau’s visit to Nunavut when he was pressed about his electoral reform promise. Trudeau responded to his questioner “Do you think Kellie Leitch should have her own party?” and laid out a realistic case where parties like that can hold enough seats to affect the balance of power in a parliament. His questioner was taken aback and “respectfully disagreed,” which isn’t surprising because the narrative we are always given when it comes to proportional representation is that it will give us nice left-wing coalition governments forever, which is certainly not the case, and we need to challenge that particular narrative more often, and to point to what’s happening in Europe right now. And to be honest, I’m glad that Trudeau is being a bit more forceful on this point about the potential rise of extreme parties and that such a system would be bad for Canada. Big tent parties have done a lot for this country, and have moderated a lot of regional tensions within them.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/829903477773971456

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/829906382396624896

Of course, Trudeau bringing up Leitch in such a manner could have unintended consequences of its own.

In a not unrelated note, Michelle Rempel was at an immigration conference in Montreal, and she noted her frustrations in bashing her head against her own party as much as she was with the Liberals that she is critiquing. And she made some very salient points in here about how we can’t pretend that we’re immune to populist rhetoric in this country, because we have a history of it bubbling up (hello 1993 election) and the sentiments still exist here where you have groups of disenfranchised people looking to blame Others. And this brings us back to why changing our electoral system to give incentives to these elements to form their own parties and try to win seats that they can use to leverage power is a very real and present danger. Add to that, there are concerns from experts in the field that the anti-immigrant rhetoric in the States is bubbling up here and fuelling a rise of racism in this country because it’s being seen as more socially acceptable.

So do we change our system to incentivise these voices to better organise and try to win themselves political leverage? Or do we do we maintain institutions and practices that have been successful in dispersing these elements because they know that there is no pathway to victory by pursuing it? It seems to me that it’s a fairly simple answer.

Good reads:

  • As part of their review of “unfounded” sexual assault cases, the RCMP have until April to review all cases closed as such last year.
  • A number of Conservative MPs and senators issued a statement calling on the government to deport those refugee claimants who crossed the border there.
  • The Commons immigration committee might look into the drop in accepting claims from LGBT Iranian refugees.
  • A new report questions if it’s possible to end First Nations water advisories within five years as promised because many projects can take up to 10 years.
  • Former Supreme Court Justice John Major will head the government’s new firearms advisory panel.
  • The government will be participating in post-TPP talks in Chile next month.
  • The government is tabling a new human trafficking law after one passed in the previous parliament but not brought into force was likely unconstitutional.
  • The government could be looking to raise some user fees, as they haven’t kept pace with the costs that they’re supposed to be recovering.
  • A marijuana supplier was found to have hidden pesticides from Health Canada inspectors, raising questions about oversight of the industry.
  • The government recently held a scientific conference about looking to eliminate the gay blood donor ban, and getting the right data to back up the decision.’
  • Maclean’s checks in with Rona Ambrose.
  • In Vancouver, Kevin O’Leary was playing the Trump-lite™ card of declaring his lack of political experience being an asset because he doesn’t “owe anyone.”
  • Michael Den Tandt wonders if the NDP aren’t headed toward irrelevance with their obsession over electoral reform and protectionism.
  • Paul Wells argues that a face-to-face meeting with Trump may be what Trudeau needs to do to keep us on his good side.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a good debunking of the conspiracy theories surrounding the anti-Islamophobia motion coming to the Commons.

Here’s the Liberal candidate in Stephen Harper’s old riding.

5 thoughts on “Roundup: The spectre of a Leitch Party”

  1. Whenever the discussion of PR comes up, I hasten to remind folks of the mire that Israel has found themselves in for over 65 years, because of their democratic urges and use of PR. They themselves are quick to admit that, while nobly inspired, it was not implemented well (min % of the vote required set too low). The result has been an endless succession of coalitions that have often had to yield to fringe parties to maintain the stability of the coalition, often veering away from sensible productive policy in the process. They have had as many as 17 parties represented in the Knesset.

    Our own current predilection with PR is born largely out of the growth of the NDP, and emergence of the BQ and Green parties. With so much vote-splitting (and with only 5 parties!), we find ourselves somewhat torn. We are remiss to consider coalitions as a viable path from here on, yet unable to easily achieve the “true” majority governments (most of the votes from most of the electorate) that would provide compelling mandates. We changed governments, but both were, in the eyes of many, “false majorities”.

    It may not be the strongest argument, but the PM’s remark is not without merit or relevance. Drawing on the Israeli experience, conceivably any attempt at PR would need to identify a % threshold, and system, that would preclude establishment of single issue or otherwise unpalatable fringe parties that would end up obliging unwieldy coalitions forced to make unsavoury compromises (I’ve watched enough episodes of Borgen to see that one coming). I think it also bears noting that there are no nations with PR that span as large an expanse, and have such huge regional disparities and interests, as Canada does. PR may be just the ticket for some places and periods (just as communism and monarchies have occasionally been). But is it the ticket for here and now?. The BQ was established to defend Quebec’s interests, and in some respects the Reform Party was established to defend the west’s interests. Do we want to see the emergence of northern parties, maritime parties, etc., who each garner the majority vote in their region but end up creating a House of Commons that feels like a First Ministers conference times 30?.

  2. There are many ways of preventing Israel situations. We could divide the seat allocations by province instead of nationally. We could further divide into urban and rural within provinces. Ontario and Quebec are so big they could be divided into urban, rural, and Northern divisions. Sask has 14 seats. A fringe party would need 8% of the vote to get a seat. In PEI a fringe party would need 25% of the vote. An extremist fringe would have a hard time getting elected this way.

    We don’t have to be Israel. And incidentally I prefer ranked ballots.

  3. Trudeau’s response to the women in Iqaluit advanced beyond the Kellie Leitch argument. He went on to claim, “You can’t say [you want] electoral reform without putting forward a specific idea.” True. So why the heck didn’t he? As recently as December 2016, Justin was promoting the absolute necessity of electoral reform but he didn’t advance any case for the option he supposedly preferred, the ranked ballot. He should have taken his own advice; don’t claim you are in favour of electoral reform if you don’t have the courage to make the case for a specific reform proposal.

    • Mr. Trudeau has also yet to learn that it’s not all about him.

      In Iqualuit he said: ““But this was my choice to make, and I chose to make it…”

      Well, it’s not his choice: how we elect representatives should be a direct decision by the voters, not by the representatives.

      It would be interesting to see an opposition motion for a 2019 referendum on whether voters want to change the electoral system. This would keep the issue alive for the pro-PR lobby and confirm the importance of a referendum for the Conservatives.

      • I agree. Keep it going. Discuss for a year the pros and cons of fixing our electoral system, then referendum. Next we discuss for a year whether we want a prop or a pref based replacement system, and have a referendum on it.

        Finally we discuss variations of the basic system we want.

        All we have to do is convince a majority that election reform is necessary.

Comments are closed.