Grandinite

The most obvious beneficiary of a coalition government in Ottawa are those who subscribe to the ideas of western separatism. Thus, western separatists ought to support a coalition government and let it do its damage to this country. Let the country fail, and let’s get on with it. Most likely, though, a western separatist bloc would get integrated into a North American Union framework to facilitate regional co-operation. Already, BC and Alberta have strong North-South trade ties with the US, and the construction of Port Alberta will give the province access to markets in Asia while driving stronger BC-Alberta economic ties. Alberta’s political ties to Ottawa will lessen under a coalition government that will increasingly eye up Alberta’s wealth and transfer payments.

That said, the Great Carve-up of Canada fits perfectly into the conspiracy theory that Stephen Harper’s goal is to divide the nation and bring about a Balkanized Canada that would beg for North American regional integration in the so-called North American Union. This conspiracy theory has Stephen Harper colluding with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe to break the nation apart, and then propose a solution: North American Integration.

An old article at Agora takes the view that Harper, Layton, Dion and Duceppe are all colluding to break the nation apart and implement a fascistic North American Union template on the country in the interest of ‘Big Business”.

I find this line of thinking to be a bit of a stretch, but I can’t rule it out from a Hegelian Dialectical perspective. In the old problem-reaction-solution paradigm, Stephen Harper has instigated a crisis by daring to take away source funding for the Bloc, NDP and Liberals at a critical juncture in the Liberal Party’s history. Harper’s created the crisis, and the other parties are following their script on cue. If the coalition succeeds, it will succced in driving Canada down the drain. If it fails, the People’s Government of Canada will get hammered at the polls for seeking power at any price.

But why would Harper do such a thing? There has been talk of a coalition government even before this election, so I don’t think voters can pull the old “This isn’t the government I voted for”. Hell yeah, it is. It’s your fault for not being informed on the issue. It was there, even before the election.

Knowing that such negotiations were happening beforehand, Harper may have provided fuel to fire for this coalition government to go ahead. He’s bringing it out in the open, calling a bluff, and watching the nation burn.

This coalition government will not benefit the West. As such, I expect to see plenty of western separatist sentiment coming out of the closet here in Alberta. Counter to that, I can readily predict that Eastern Political Masochism will also manifest itself as Ontarians tie up Alberta and punish the province for being so naughty. Hopefully Alberta can avoid provincial-federal namecalling, and market itself as a haven of stability in a nation led by a reactionist three-headed monster in Ottawa. Perhaps Alberta will be able to lure a Chartered bank away from Bay Street afterall.

A coalition government will introduce further uncertainties in a world of economic turmoil. Alberta does not like uncertainty. It is a capital-intensive province, and capital intensity requires long time horizons. Any changes cause expected returns on capital to evaporate with the increased risk premium, to coin a phrase. That’s probably why we vote the same government in, election after election, and switch horses once the old political paradigm is on its last legs.

Stephane Dion believes a leader ought to be reactionary and ‘do something - anything and everything’ when faced with a crisis. Harper, on the other hand, believes in letting the markets sort things out. In case you missed it, the day the coalition was announced, the TSX recorded an historically significant point drop as the market re-evaluated its perceptions of the future.
The People’s Government of Canada will become a form of Parliamentary Kakistocracy as every special interest gets their turn at gang-raping the public purse to fulfill their lust for power and free wealth. It’ll be lollipops and ponies for everyone.

I’m split on this issue of the breakup of Canada. On one hand, interprovincial and provincial-federal relations might come to a point where they deserve their own appearance on Maury; in that case, sometimes it’s best to call it quits and go our separate ways. Let Alberta and BC work out their newfound love for eachother in the form of TILMA, and find satisfaction in leaving our unappreciative eastern counterparts behind, with no alimony-transfer-payments to prop themselves up. Yeah, that’ll teach ‘em, won’t it!?!?! wink wink nudge nudge

On the other hand, I wonder if separatism in the West would make us more vulnerable to integration within a broader framework. I can see it happening - a nation that is separate, but together, in the way couples have kids, divorce, yet still manage to hammer out a visitation agreement to raise the little tyke. In one sense, a separated Alberta-BC-Sask-Yukon union would be separate from Canada, yet would probably get swallowed into a larger regional framework such as the NAU.