Tweet
In the West, a deep sense of betrayal
Of the many story lines that flowed from the recent federal election, one of the most discussed was the growing irrelevance of the Liberal Party west of Ontario.
Westerners had turned their backs on Canada's once-natural governing party in ever greater numbers. It lost seats in every western province except Alberta, where it had none to lose.
After the ballots were counted, the party had a single MP in Manitoba, a single MP in Saskatchewan and five in British Columbia, down from the 10 seats it won in 2006. The leadership of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was resoundingly rejected.
It was visceral. Many westerners felt no connection with the erudite Liberal Leader and believed he was a pointy-headed personification of the lack of connection his party had with their views and values. Many Liberals concurred.
But that would be fixed, party officials vowed after the election. Once they dumped Dion and crowned a new leader the rebuilding would begin. It might take years, but fences in the West would be mended. The party would again speak for most of the country, not just shrinking sections of it.
It is against that backdrop that British Columbians, and westerners in general, are reacting today to a plan by the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois to kick the Conservatives from office and take over in Ottawa. And the reaction has not been kind.
In all my years listening to talk radio in Vancouver, I have never heard such anger. Of the dozens who phoned in yesterday morning to Bill Good's No. 1-rated talk show on CKNW, calls were running 95 per cent against the coalition.
Of course, it makes sense that in a province that voted mostly Tory in the last election people wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of a Prime Minister Stéphane Dion running the country, however temporarily. Still, the rage directed at the coalition proposal is a rage I have rarely heard.
Not that people aren't steamed at Stephen Harper for creating this mess.
Oh, they are. But there is an overriding feeling, one which I share, that the Prime Minister should be given a chance to fix his problems and address the concerns of the opposition before he and the Conservatives are turfed in favour of a coalition led by someone whose leadership and party were rejected in overwhelming numbers just weeks ago.
But the coalition partners have no interest in doing this. It's all about power now, power they couldn't have imagined a month ago. Power they will do anything for, even if it means holding hands with separatists.
This is the part of the deal that many Canadians find so vile and unseemly. It is certainly the element that has upset British Columbians.
How do you bury your values and ideals, your sense of country, to that degree and have any credibility left?
As one caller to Mr. Good said: “When I heard that I felt sick to my stomach.”
I think that's how a lot people continue to feel today. There is something morally dishonest about what the Liberals and the NDP are trying to do, and both parties are taking an enormous risk proposing it.
If the plan goes ahead, there will be a backlash that will emanate from the West but will be felt, to varying degrees, right across the country.
There will certainly be damage done to the state of national unity. I don't see how both the Liberals and the NDP, but particularly the Liberals, won't end up paying a heavy price for it down the road.
As repulsive as the idea sounds, I think Canadians would prefer an election to settle this matter before seeing the Governor-General hand power to a coalition born at the hands of separatists.
Of the many story lines that flowed from the recent federal election, one of the most discussed was the growing irrelevance of the Liberal Party west of Ontario.
Westerners had turned their backs on Canada's once-natural governing party in ever greater numbers. It lost seats in every western province except Alberta, where it had none to lose.
After the ballots were counted, the party had a single MP in Manitoba, a single MP in Saskatchewan and five in British Columbia, down from the 10 seats it won in 2006. The leadership of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion was resoundingly rejected.
It was visceral. Many westerners felt no connection with the erudite Liberal Leader and believed he was a pointy-headed personification of the lack of connection his party had with their views and values. Many Liberals concurred.
But that would be fixed, party officials vowed after the election. Once they dumped Dion and crowned a new leader the rebuilding would begin. It might take years, but fences in the West would be mended. The party would again speak for most of the country, not just shrinking sections of it.
It is against that backdrop that British Columbians, and westerners in general, are reacting today to a plan by the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois to kick the Conservatives from office and take over in Ottawa. And the reaction has not been kind.
In all my years listening to talk radio in Vancouver, I have never heard such anger. Of the dozens who phoned in yesterday morning to Bill Good's No. 1-rated talk show on CKNW, calls were running 95 per cent against the coalition.
Of course, it makes sense that in a province that voted mostly Tory in the last election people wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of a Prime Minister Stéphane Dion running the country, however temporarily. Still, the rage directed at the coalition proposal is a rage I have rarely heard.
Not that people aren't steamed at Stephen Harper for creating this mess.
Oh, they are. But there is an overriding feeling, one which I share, that the Prime Minister should be given a chance to fix his problems and address the concerns of the opposition before he and the Conservatives are turfed in favour of a coalition led by someone whose leadership and party were rejected in overwhelming numbers just weeks ago.
But the coalition partners have no interest in doing this. It's all about power now, power they couldn't have imagined a month ago. Power they will do anything for, even if it means holding hands with separatists.
This is the part of the deal that many Canadians find so vile and unseemly. It is certainly the element that has upset British Columbians.
How do you bury your values and ideals, your sense of country, to that degree and have any credibility left?
As one caller to Mr. Good said: “When I heard that I felt sick to my stomach.”
I think that's how a lot people continue to feel today. There is something morally dishonest about what the Liberals and the NDP are trying to do, and both parties are taking an enormous risk proposing it.
If the plan goes ahead, there will be a backlash that will emanate from the West but will be felt, to varying degrees, right across the country.
There will certainly be damage done to the state of national unity. I don't see how both the Liberals and the NDP, but particularly the Liberals, won't end up paying a heavy price for it down the road.
As repulsive as the idea sounds, I think Canadians would prefer an election to settle this matter before seeing the Governor-General hand power to a coalition born at the hands of separatists.
Comment