Trust the people
Well, I guess the Liberal leadership race is on again. I don't want to overstate things, but this business of Emerson and Fortier has all the makings of a public relations fiasco for the Tories -- on their first day, and on their issue: ethics and accountability.
At least, I hope it does. It may be that the big brains around Harper are right, and this is a "one-day issue," of interest to the media and no one else. The Liberals can't say anything about it, of course, and the poor defrauded citizens of Vancouver-Kingsway can be bought off, rather as Emerson was, with a cabinet seat. Cynical, true, but who knows, maybe they're right.
But suppose they're wrong, and this quickly metastasizes, casting doubt on everything the Tories do -- the filter through which every subsequent statement or action is viewed, the moment when they squandered their biggest asset: the expectation that this time, after so many governments came to power promising to "clean house in Ottawa", this time would be different.
Then I think the Prime Minister would be well advised to alter course, admit he made a mistake -- two, actually -- and get out in front of this. There's a simple way to do it, one that could even turn a retreat into an advance. Announce, no later than tomorrow, that both appointments will be put before the people: Emerson's, in a byelection, allowing his constituents to pass judgment on his change of party; Fortier's, in Quebec's first-ever Senate election.
I think it's just possible that the shock of actually being asked their permission might overcome people's revulsion at the appointments. Had Dalton McGuinty, in a similar situation, put his 2004 tax hikes to the people -- which was no more than he was legally required to do by law, before he amended it to evade the obligation -- there is every possibility they would have passed.
But it will be a near thing. The talk radio shows in Vancouver are boiling with listeners' rage. And who can blame them? I know, I know: Emerson is eminently qualified for cabinet, with brains and experience to burn, where Stronach brought nothing to the table but her vote in that week's confidence showdown. Her case really was an explicit trade of one office for one vote (an office, what is more, that the government had no legal authority to offer her, at least in my opinion), where his might more genuinely be based on a willingness to broadly support the government's aims and policies -- which is after all the same terms required of every member of cabinet.
But still: it stinks. We now know two things after the election that we should have been told before -- that Dave Dingwall was to be paid $418,000 severance for being fired, and that Dave Emerson is a Conservative. The seat he holds does not belong to him. It is not his "entitlement." It belongs to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway. And they can be forgiven for feeling as if they've been had.
As for Fortier, it is a fine thing for a Prime Minister elected on a platform of democratic accountability, who promised he would not appoint anyone who was not elected, either to cabinet or to the Senate, to then turn around and do both at one go. And to appoint his campaignmanager co-chair, to boot!
Maybe I'm wrong, and no one cares. But if they do, then the government has a clear path before it. Put both appointments before the voters. Abide in their judgment. Seek their confidence, and it will be repaid. Trust the people.
*It used to be, until almost the Second World War, that every appointee to Cabinet was expected to first resign and run in a byelection -- to seek his constituents' approval for "crossing over" from being a watchdog on the government to being a member of it. It was wildly impractical, since in an evenly divided House it meant the government temporarily lost its majority -- both King and Macdonald exploited the gaps in power thus exposed to unscrupulous ends -- but you have to admire the spirit of it.
At least, I hope it does. It may be that the big brains around Harper are right, and this is a "one-day issue," of interest to the media and no one else. The Liberals can't say anything about it, of course, and the poor defrauded citizens of Vancouver-Kingsway can be bought off, rather as Emerson was, with a cabinet seat. Cynical, true, but who knows, maybe they're right.
But suppose they're wrong, and this quickly metastasizes, casting doubt on everything the Tories do -- the filter through which every subsequent statement or action is viewed, the moment when they squandered their biggest asset: the expectation that this time, after so many governments came to power promising to "clean house in Ottawa", this time would be different.
Then I think the Prime Minister would be well advised to alter course, admit he made a mistake -- two, actually -- and get out in front of this. There's a simple way to do it, one that could even turn a retreat into an advance. Announce, no later than tomorrow, that both appointments will be put before the people: Emerson's, in a byelection, allowing his constituents to pass judgment on his change of party; Fortier's, in Quebec's first-ever Senate election.
I think it's just possible that the shock of actually being asked their permission might overcome people's revulsion at the appointments. Had Dalton McGuinty, in a similar situation, put his 2004 tax hikes to the people -- which was no more than he was legally required to do by law, before he amended it to evade the obligation -- there is every possibility they would have passed.
But it will be a near thing. The talk radio shows in Vancouver are boiling with listeners' rage. And who can blame them? I know, I know: Emerson is eminently qualified for cabinet, with brains and experience to burn, where Stronach brought nothing to the table but her vote in that week's confidence showdown. Her case really was an explicit trade of one office for one vote (an office, what is more, that the government had no legal authority to offer her, at least in my opinion), where his might more genuinely be based on a willingness to broadly support the government's aims and policies -- which is after all the same terms required of every member of cabinet.
But still: it stinks. We now know two things after the election that we should have been told before -- that Dave Dingwall was to be paid $418,000 severance for being fired, and that Dave Emerson is a Conservative. The seat he holds does not belong to him. It is not his "entitlement." It belongs to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway. And they can be forgiven for feeling as if they've been had.
As for Fortier, it is a fine thing for a Prime Minister elected on a platform of democratic accountability, who promised he would not appoint anyone who was not elected, either to cabinet or to the Senate, to then turn around and do both at one go. And to appoint his campaign
Maybe I'm wrong, and no one cares. But if they do, then the government has a clear path before it. Put both appointments before the voters. Abide in their judgment. Seek their confidence, and it will be repaid. Trust the people.
*It used to be, until almost the Second World War, that every appointee to Cabinet was expected to first resign and run in a byelection -- to seek his constituents' approval for "crossing over" from being a watchdog on the government to being a member of it. It was wildly impractical, since in an evenly divided House it meant the government temporarily lost its majority -- both King and Macdonald exploited the gaps in power thus exposed to unscrupulous ends -- but you have to admire the spirit of it.
0 Comments