would real jeffrey simpson please

Would the real Jeffrey Simpson please stand up?

Some fresh air for those of us who are depressed today about the

miserable defeat of the PEI electoral reform referendum: it seems that

the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson may be coming around on just that

topic. Now, granted, he's not exactly standing up and saying: "I once

was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see," but there's

certainly something different going on in that bespectacled little

head of his. His latest column (behind the subscriber wall) predicts

"major changes" for Canadian federal politics in the future, and

includes the following fascinating paragraphs:

Minority government circuses, such as the one Canadians just

witnessed, could continue with a series of similar parliamentary

shows, but that's unlikely. This minority Parliament has been quite

disgusting at a theatrical level. It has featured what minority

governments usually exhibit: orgies of spending, short-term

survival tactics, wheeling and dealing, and extensive bad manners.

The way politicians and the political process are now perceived,

combined with the winter weather, will make the voter turnout the

lowest on record.

Another shapeless, shameless Parliament such as the one just ended

will produce change. Here are some options.

A structured coalition government will emerge -- a Liberal/NDP

coalition, for example -- that will bring somewhat greater

stability than the issue-a-day manoeuvring of this Parliament.

Or, another shapeless, shameless Parliament will cause Canadians to

admit that the day of national parties is largely over. As a

result, more voices will demand that the electoral system be

changed to make coalitions among parties the norm, as in all

countries with proportional representation.

Can this really be the same Simpson who, just two months ago, wrote a

whole column about how the crazy German and New Zealand election

results could be blamed on That Evil Proportional Representation? The

guy who threw two entirely different forms of government into the same

pot by coining the nonsensical phrase "minority/coalition

governments"? The guy who said that the inevitable results of

proportional representation were regional and ideological parties,

small parties lording massive amounts of power over parliament, and

dogs and cats sleeping together? (Okay, maybe he didn't say that last

part.)

Did the bloggers and letters-to-the-editor writers spank him hard

enough that he finally got the message? Did he figure out on his own

that his anti-reform stance was not only completely misinformed, but a

little silly? Or is there a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Simpson thing going on

here? Inquiring (albeit pleased) minds want to know.

Posted by Idealistic Pragmatist at 12:58 PM