The Shotgun Blog
« Where is the gay rights movement going, and should libertarians follow? | Main | St. Albert gets $450,000 for “safety initiatives,” highlighting need for law-and-order back-to-basics strategy in Alberta »
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Canadians want a majority government: poll
Canadians are fed up with consecutive minority governments in the House of Commons, according a new poll conducted by Harris-Decima. The survey found that 64 per cent of respondents would prefer a majority government in the next election, up from 52 per cent a year ago. This is good news for the Liberals and Conservatives—the two parties that have a chance of winning the next election—and bad news for smaller parties, like the NDP, which could see a significant drop in support if enough Canadians choose to vote strategically in order to try and obtain a majority government.
It is not all good news for the Conservatives, however, as 44 per cent of respondents prefer a Liberal government (majority or minority) to another Conservative government (33 per cent). These numbers are a little skewed, since respondents were only given four options: Conservative majority or minority, or Liberal majority or minority. A similar study conducted by Angus Reid at the end of June found the Conservatives maintaining a slight lead with 32 per cent support, compared to 31 for the Liberals.
While I would not put too much stock in these numbers (considering the earliest the government could fall is the end of September, which is an eternity in politics) the numbers do show that Canadians are not happy with the consecutive minority governments that we've witnessed since 2004. And can you blame them? While 60 per cent of respondents said that these minority governments have accomplished about as much as they expected, they were also twice as likely to say they've accomplished less, rather than more, than expected.
This is, of course, all a matter of perspective. Many Canadians still seem to like the idea of big government, so it's no wonder they would be dissatisfied with the government's inability to pass numerous pieces of legislation. There are some of us, however, who don't like when government accomplishes things, because it usually means more government intervention in our lives and less freedom. A minority parliament does slow government down to some extent. For example, the Conservatives have so far been unable to enact major changes to Canada's copyright law, which would allow the government to be even more intrusive.
Yet, minority governments still do not provide enough checks and balances to appease those of us who favour small government. On the contrary, when it comes to government spending, minorities seem to provide an incentive for governments to waste taxpayer dollars. No wonder Canadians are unsatisfied. It doesn't matter if you favour big government or small government, a minority parliament will be of no help either way.
Let's face facts here. Despite what the politicians say after every election, electing a minority government is not a collective decision made by Canadians. I don't call up my friends in Ontario and tell them to vote Liberal because I'm voting Conservative in the West. The makeup of the House is a result of how votes are split down partisan lines and the relative success of smaller parties. The Conservatives have not been able to build a broad enough base of support to form a majority and many Canadians are still wary of the Liberals after many years mismanagement and corruption. If we truly want small and stable government, we need to consider real institutional reform.
Instead of continuing with the government's piecemeal approach to Senate reform, we should be trying to create a body that can act as a real check on the excesses of the House of Commons. Turning the Senate into an equal and effective body, whose members are elected using a system of proportional representation would provide a number of benefits. First, it would allow a greater diversity of parties to have representation in parliament. This would mean that votes that are currently wasted on smaller parties, such as the Greens, could go to support stable majorities in the House of Commons, while at the same time giving small parties a voice in the Senate. Second, it would provide a real check on the power of the Prime Minister and cabinet, who can run the country as though it were a dictatorship if they have a majority in the House. This would hopefully make it harder for parliament to pass legislation on a whim, meaning less intrusive government, while at the same time giving Canadians a greater say in the future of their country.
Posted by Jesse Kline on July 14, 2009 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
Comments
I keep hearing that if Harper gets a majority he will be able to do all those "conservative" minded things he keeps promising to do. Like repeal the long gun registration. Thing is, Harper voted "for" gun control. This makes him ingenuine like all politicians. I'm actually glad no one ahs a majority and that they're locked up in squabbling....we're probably all a little safer that way.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 8:21:02 AM
I like minority governments, they do less damage.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-14 9:13:11 AM
Not only minority governments do less damage, the best legislation for all people gets passed. When they decide to work together and get past the partisan bullshit, the government finally works for the good of the people.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-14 12:50:34 PM
If they want a majority, they'll have to vote one in. Canada west of Lake Superior has no reason to change the way they vote; by and large, it's run well, the voters generally satisfied. Central and eastern Canada, on the other hand, are now both a financial and a political mess. The government can't be blamed for the recession, or the recent spending spree (since either government would have done it), so it all boils down to this: Who do we want running the country through this difficult time? An economist, or a professor of history?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-14 1:42:21 PM
Who do we want running the country through this difficult time? An economist, or a professor of history?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-14 1:42:21 PM
Since the economist is of the Keynsian variety and the Historian knows nothing of history repeating itself...I'd prefer a Pragmatist.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 2:05:59 PM
"Since the economist is of the Keynsian variety and the Historian knows nothing of history repeating itself...I'd prefer a Pragmatist."
Fair enough, but has any pragmatist offered himself for election? Failing that, for whom then do you vote?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-14 8:41:32 PM
There's nothing reasonable on the horizon Shane,
so I don't have an answer. But I won't be wasting any fuel on our present selection...Sad isn't it?
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 8:58:19 PM
This is stupid.
Everyone wants their party to have a majority to steam roller their ideals over people who don't share them.
I'm a Libertarian, I want a majority but only if it's a Libertarian majority. I don't want a majority if it's the Liberals.
Posted by: Pete | 2009-07-14 10:27:26 PM
You may as well vote for the best of the bunch, JC...even if you think all the choices are crappy, there must be one who is less crappy than the others. Someone's going to win...and you may as well help pick him.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-15 6:19:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.