I’ve been watching closely the mayhem that is Canadian politics and wondering if, with the coming Senate changes, we are also in for an equally unstable period of politics.
While I know that a newly compliant Senate does change a lot - a situation that is relatively unique to Australian politics - this will really be much the same as that experienced permanently in Canada where the Senate really is ‘unrepresentative swill’ because new members and vacancies are appointed by the Government (PM) of the day.
In practice the Canadian upper house is supposed to act as a house of sober review, but in reality it’s populated by a bunch of drunks and political hacks (the perfect repository for someone like Laurie Ferguson by the way). Despite the useless appendage that the upper house really is, Canadian democracy, politics and society continue, however crazily, to function. It functioned when the Canadian Liberals had total control, and it functions in a minority situation with the NDP as a reticent partner and the renewed Conservatives in opposition; it also functions with a strong Quebec based political party dedicated to the break-up of the country. I think the same will also apply here whatever the outcomes. .
Total dominance does not automatically suggest stability for a government. In fact the total dominance held by the Canadian Liberals since the destruction of the old Progressive Conservatives (oxymoron alert) has led to its present precarious position. Yes, we can call it hubris, but mostly it was political greed. Were it not for an ineffective and nutty opposition they would be out on their arses.
In this new scenario for Australia there is a lot of potential for mischief making, and certainly the junior party in the Coalition (and the other minor parties) will have a renewed reason to exist and work harder. Will Mark Vaile and Warren Truss, in this situation, maintain discipline and resist the temptation to act as an unofficial opposition and just make up the numbers, or will they, sensing a opportunity to show their relevance to electorates they would like to reclaim and represent, flex their muscle in the Senate?
As an outsider I’ve never really understood the Nationals permanent affiliation with the Liberals, at first glance I had always thought that their best chance to make a difference stood in being at arms length from a party that just pays lip service to their concerns, and slowly steals their constituency, or in a loose coalition with the Labor Party. Hopefully they will wake up and realise that the decline in their political fortunes are a direct result of not representing their constituencies effectively, this is evidenced by the number of independents that notionally would be National Party members, who now represent seats formerly held by them.
Secondly, history shows that when oppositions and minor parties get their act together, a good and creative understanding of political and media tactics can be used very effectively in what may on the surface appear to be a losing political position. In effect, opposition can work. That’s why Labor’s tactic to oppose the tax cuts was a good one. And that’s why the Nationals should now be crazy brave and walk out of the Coalition.
For Labor, opposing the tax cuts started the process in beginning a more effective policy difference. You’ve got to start somewhere; tax cuts are just the economic equivalent of red cordial and need to be exposed as such. At least on this issue Beazley stood for something other than yet another case of metooism.
And for the Nationals, walking away from the Coalition might on the surface look self destructive, but could also do much to rejuvinate the party and the political scene in Australia by bringing another independent political force into play, with the consequence of increased relevance to their electorates and the possibility of winning back some of their core constituency. In the current situation they are on a losing proposition so they might as well take the radical option.
Lets hope for a bumpy ride.
Canada is like the Bizzaro World Australia. Both really, really big countries where almost everyone lives in a thin strip along one edge. Both have similar issues with their aboriginal populations, but Canada had treaties and more recently created a self-governing aboriginal territory, and the Federal government apologised to their stolen generation for the forced removal of children. Both countries have an ‘artifical capital city’ geographically within the most populous state/province, but in a special federal territory. etc etc
The really interesting bizzaro world comparision coming out of the main post, is that in Canada the Farmers’ movements responded to the great depression by radicalising and forming an alliance with the Labour movement. By 1932 the “United Farmers” movements and their allies came together in Calgary to form the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation with the slogan “Farmer, Labour, Socialist”. In 1961 they formalised their relationship with the Canadian Labour Council (the CA ACTU) and changed their name to the “New Democratic Party”.
They’re good fun, those Canadians.
I’m professionally fascinated by Canada. Crucible of a very different but at the same time very similar practice of multiculturalism to that in Australia. Perhaps some day, when I’m extremely old, I’ll even begin to understand their whole political Party history.
I can hope…
The Nats would never split from the Libs while they’re in Government - they’d lose all their Ministerial spots.
It’s something they’d only do in Opposition, I think.
Thanks for that addition Darryl, yep, those were the roots of my post, and of course the NDP now hold the balance of power in the Canadian Parlt.
But yes, farmers rights are always best served by those on the left. It’s interesting to note the dovetailing of green consensus and farming practise. Because of my Canadian history lessons I’ve always been puzzled by the strange alignment of Liberals and National.
Liam, no one understands Canadian politics and despite Nabakov saying it’s boring I love it and try to keep my interest despite the tyranny of distance.
Naomi, you;re probably right, maybe they are so dumb as to believe that their interests will be best served at the right hand of god. However, Vaile is reportedly made of sterner stuff, so we shall see, even though I can’t see how, he totally caved in on free trade.
… farmers rights are always best served by those on the left …
How odd that you should say that, since just a month ago on this very blog the lefties were arguing for an end to farm subsidies.
Farmers aren’t dumb. They know who best represents their interests, and it ain’t the basketweavers of Balmain.
EP, subsidies were never mentioned, don’t put words in my mouth when they are not even implied.
If you would like an example of serving the interest of farmers, I would suggest something like seed security, pesticide use and bio diversity.
And yes farmers are not dumb, they know that the seed and pesticide MNC’s are trying to stitch them up.
If The Greens can convince farmers to vote for them on the basis of their environmental policies, then let them do so.
So far, the farmers appear unconvinced.
True, they are a hidebound lot, but issues like salinity etc cry out for a green solution and they are coming around.
Lets not forget the Nationals are already a separate force in the only state in which they dominate conservative politics.
Personally, I find Canadians to be bit unsociable, reserved, an unlikely to have a yarn when you’re travelling. Of course, that in itself its probably a reaction to live next door to those affable, yet tiresomely loquacious people to the south. Quebecois are rather more fun, naturalment. Mind you, they’re way more conservative -politcally I mean- than you expect from your average national minority.
And yes indeed, Canadian politics is a real head-scratcher. I just cant figure out the basics…. Where’s a decent webpage?
The farmers in the seat of Richmond last election weren’t particularly convinced of the National Party’s advocacy of their cause—the Greens got a two-and-a-half percent swing, nearly double the swing to Labor, who won the seat.
Ferals in Byron Bay mate. Ferals.
Confusedbeavers.com. Kidding.
The basics? The french want to fuck up the country and the Anglos appease them. Albertans are hicks and Ontario rules the country in every way, so everyone hates them, there’s more, but…….
Anglo Canadians sometimes are a touch reserved, once you get to know them it’s all good. But look at the politics, there’s passion there. Or is that confusion?
I know ferals, LE, and even if they are enrolled to vote they usually can’t be fucked.
True, Liam, hufti-smoking chiba monkeys the lot of em. But seriously, big demographic changes around BB would account for it. Seachangers.
The ALP almost took it in ‘01 as well. Anthony was done for.
Yes, I recall Jenny McAllister’s stories about the Nationals letterboxing the caravan parks with leaflets describing the ALP’s plan to give people’s homes to refugees.
I voted for One Nation when I lived in Byron Bay. Memories …
Funnily enough! Speaking of Canada, and One Nation, I got interviewed today by the Canadian ‘National Post’ about Hanson becoming a minor media celeb as a crap dancer. Its all part of my ongoing pretense at being an academic…. Once some uni gave me an office and a phone the whole thing really took off. Even the Canucks are buying it.
F*ck knows why they care what she’s up to, but there you go.
You’re not going to get a swing out of ferals. Unless they were all so drugfucked in 2001 that they mistakenly voted tory en masse.
It makes sense that a populist right wing rag like the National Post is interested in Hanson. They would dance to her tune.
Used to be owned by Conrad Black, now it mainly rabble rouses for the Conservative Party.
I hope you feel dirty all over now Lefty.
Lefty E, it’s down to that book you edited with Geoff Stokes!
I know ferals, LE, and even if they are enrolled to vote they usually can’t be fucked.
Right, so Liam, you’re saying that anyone who visits the Byron Bay Writers’ Festival is doomed not to pick up?
I can never feel dirty enough, Phil. And lets face it, Canadian conservatives dont leave nearly enough grime on a bloke. But since you raise the point, some one should do a guide book for aca’s about who’s kosher to be interviewed by. I wouldntt have a clue about Canada. Anyway, how relevant can they possibly be? Who listens to Canada?(although, I must admit, the ‘post’ thing had me worried. remember the australasian post? QUALITY JOURNALISM!)
Mark, you’ve sprung me! I am indeed Ian Ward.
Lefty E, yikes! I never saw you as an intense glasses wearing methodologically obsessed denizen of the Michie Building… mea maxima culpa!
I’m in real trouble now if you are Ian Ward. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Well, unaccustomed to public speaking as I am, Herr Bahnsich…..
You ‘freaker’. How’s LB these days? You’re doing a fine job here btw. Its really is a great site.
Ian
Ian, can I talk to you about my 5 for GT100? I deserved better!
LB’s good, but she was more the English department floors of Michie, so I’m surprised you knew her, Ian!
I got a 6 for GT100, Kim. Just sayin… (Ha!) That was in Paul Reynolds’ day, though, before Lefty E joined the dep’t.
Well Mark, we had a parsing acquaintance, arf.
Kim, the whole GT100 reference blows my mind. circa 87, Pretty Flamingo by the Huxton Creepers, Howard losing an election. Yuppies. Canvas shoes. Bjelke.
And lord , here we are at Bahnisch’s house. Its all too much flashback.
I think i’d rest retire.
Ian
GT100 was a moveable feast, Ian. I’m younger than our host, so did it in 92 with you.
Lord, I did it in ‘92 with so many people…. Kim, ay? I bet you had a big girlie crush on me…
Night all!
Naah, you probably had a crush on me, Ian
Possibly Kim. Cetainly, no one has a cuter gravatar.
Beddy bo-bos!
Ian
It’s a good likeness, Mike… oops, I mean, Ian.
When are the gravatars back?
Yawn…. (groan)….Morning!
Yes, I wish to make it clear that I am of course NOT Ian Ward. Good to see I wasnt fooling anyone, as I didnt mean to be.
I’ve met Ian though, and he’s a lovely bloke and a fine scholar.
Whereas I am a scoundrel and a blaggard! And, as far as Im aware, while he’s a bit of Lefty, he’s not particularly elitist. As I am.
So, having retracted any implication…. let me also make it clear that I have a headache.
Hilarious, the morning after regrets. Hair of the dog I say.
Yes, it got rather out of hand…. Too many chardonnays, not enough French clock watching. Sorry Ian, if you’re tuning in! Mea extra ultra culpa.