Possibly. Although the NDP is still the "New Democratic Party," as it was then, not the "National Democratic Party". :-)
To clear up some of the confusion about that, by the way: the NDP will probably be willing to align itself with the Conservatives only with respect to the very limited things that the two parties are already aligned on (mostly in the area of cleaning up government corruption) or could reach a compromise on (mostly in the area of democratic reform). Luckily, those are some of the most essential things any Canadian government could do at this particular point in time, so it might actually work out just fine.
Serge,
I concur with Graydon (wow, haven't seen you for years, Graydon, how's by you?): As a now-Canadian who grew up in the U.S., I can say that you couldn't be more wrong about the reach of the Canadian political spectrum. In fact, if anything, the bulk of the Conservative party is more aligned with rightish Democrats like Hillary Clinton, and everybody else is to the left of them. And I say this as a card-carrying member of the NDP who doesn't agree with the lot of them at all. "Different country, very very different politics" indeed.
Patrick,
Part of me hopes you're right, but I still think you're not. I suspect Harper is going to temper the Conservative agenda even beyond the mostly harmless version they came up with for this election (except possibly the same-sex marriage free vote, which he can't win in this parliament, but probably doesn't really want to win anyway), and do his best to work with each of the various parties on the parts that he can cobble enough votes together on. The positive side of this: the other parties will each have the right to demand concessions in exchange, and this may mean there will finally be some movement on electoral reform. The negative side: it means that when this government does fall, there might be enough goodwill toward the Conservatives to elect a majority next time.
I wouldn't hold my breath--this is a country that loves its Liberals like it loves its hockey--but it could happen.
Patrick,
Actually, I was with you more on the post than I was on your first comment. Stephen Harper is hardly a "nitwit" (he's actually quite intelligent, even eggheadish) nor is he likely to do much sucking up to Bush unless their agendas match up exactly. That's the American spin on our election that has been making my Canadian friends living in the U.S. right now want to gouge their eyes out with spoons.
You might do well to read some Canadian news sources to find out what Harper's really all about. I'm not in agreement with most of his agenda (which is why I, like the majority of Canadians, didn't vote Conservative), but he's hardly a Bush clone. And there are a few things--particularly on the democratic reform front--that will clearly be of benefit to the country if he has a chance to pass them, and which the other parties are likely to support his minority government on.
Incidentally, the Harper Conservative government is the slimmest minority any party has ever won, in the whole of Canadian history. And it happened only after the ruling Liberals had not only appeared corrupt and tired in public for years, but had also run what may have been the most inept national campaign ever. In case you or some of your readers were tempted to fall victim to the "Canada's turned into a red state" handwringing.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 4 |
Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Idealistic Pragmatist:
Show all comments by Idealistic Pragmatist.