"Harpocricy 2: Elected Senate Unless an Unelected Senate Helps Me Keep My Job"

Consider the following statement made by Stephen Harper:

"Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia remain ashamed of Canada`s senior legislative body. They are ashamed the Prime Minister continues the disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation."*

On the other hand, Stephen Harper has no problem with the digraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Conservatives to the undemocratic Senate...

Perhaps Stephen Harper said it best himself:

"As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform - on their way to the top. But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done."**

It seems Harper has learned the lesson learned by every previous Prime Minister: Senate reform doesn't go over well with Senators who like their jobs. Therefore, you might as well just appoint friendly Senators who can help you get things done.

And boy did Harper learn his lesson! He appointed 18 new Senators (Senate breakdown is now 58 Liberal-ish and 38 Conservative-ish, and some others).*** Looking at the Globe and Mail list of new appointees, I can see that at least 12 are Conservatives, at least one is a provincial Liberal (BC), and the other 5 seem to be overtly neutral politically.

I'm not going to be a Liberal without hindsight - I'm not going to decry Harper's partisan Senate appointments. Every Prime Minister in history, including every Liberal PM, has made overtly partisan appointments.

I am, however, going to duly note Harper's hypocricy on this issue. As shown by the above quotes, Harper has, over and over, spoke out against appointing Senators. He has, over and over, made it clear that he would reform the Senate and make Senators elected. But alas, like balanced budgets and fixed election dates, Stephen Harper has broken his promise.

*****
* Hansard (March 7, 1996)
** Speech on Senate Reform before Senate Committee, September 7, 2006
*** The "-ish" is thrown in because, technically, there are no party affiliations in the Senate.

A Liberal's Manifesto

 I’ve been asked many times before, often by my former co-blogger Mr. McIver, why I support the Liberal Party of Canada.  My explanations range from legitimate politics, to historical alignment, to convenience.  Here follows some of my reasoning.

I have always seen myself as a Liberal.  My first political memory is probably Jean Chretien’s electoral victory in 1993 (when I was 11).  I vaguely remember hearing about the GST and NAFTA before that, but I didn’t have any understanding of what they meant.  It wasn’t until well into the Chretien years that I started to understand and admire how the Liberals rationalized government spending.  But more than how the Liberals governed, I think I was made a Liberal simply because they governed.  At that time the Liberals dominated federal politics.  The PC Party had been destroyed and the only viable opposition was the Bloc.  Who could I have supported at the time?  From 1993 until the new millennium there was no legitimate alternative for a political neophyte.

Then came the resurgence of the Conservatives.  I remember watching as Preston Manning, whom I quietly supported, lost the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party.  I decided I couldn’t support Stockwell Day.  Then I watched Peter MacKay hand the PC Party over to Stephen Harper.  Those two events have kept me from considering a shift to the political right.

The other primary reason I originally aligned myself with the Liberals was a job.  After two years studying political science at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo I got a summer job at then-MP Roger Gallaway’s constituency office.  I was recruited by the many local Liberals who passed through the office.  My respect for these people (and, secondarily, my own selfish reasons) made me want to join the party and I haven’t wanted to leave since.

But more than coincidence and timing, I consider myself a Liberal for many concrete reasons.

I believe in fiscal prudence.  While some might point to Martin’s liberal spending increases during the latter years of his reign, I prefer to point to how he and Chretien gave the government a surplus and how he left the government with a surplus.  Martin's spending increases came when the economy was growing.  To do otherwise would have been irrational.

I believe in a strong national government.  I believe that Canadians need national standards.  I understand that there are federal and provincial jurisdictions, but they too often lead to varying standards and inconsistencies.  What good will BC’s carbon tax do when Alberta’s tar sands industry is ravaging our environment?  How can we have Ontario’s manufacturing base and Alberta’s energy base fighting tooth-and-nail?

I believe in giving Canadians a level playing field.  Tax cuts shouldn’t be for the wealthy, but for the poor.  Social programs are necessary.  War can be justified in extreme circumstances.  Policy isn’t good or bad based on the public’s ability to understand it.  It is a party’s and a politician’s obligation to educate the public about policy.  Elections should be fought on policy and principle, not vague concepts, lies, and libel.

Ultimately, I support the Liberal Party because I have, over my seven years as a member, felt a part of the party’s decision making.  I have drafted policy proposals, and voted for leaders and candidates.  I have supported fundraising and profile-raising events.  I have been intimately involved in election campaigning.  I have seen discussion and disagreement within the party.

Could I ever switch allegiances?  Perhaps.  Crowning Ignatieff instead of insisting on a vote is just one example of where I’ve disagreed with the party.  But for now, I respect the tradition and believe in the future of the party.

Do I always support the Liberal Party?  No.  If you’ve read my blogging you know I have a mind of my own.  When conceiving the Political Polarity blog, Pat had suggested names that included the words “Grit” and “Tory”, but I suggested something more non-partisan (thus we had www.politicalpolarity.com).  I believe I am slightly left of center on many issues, but surprisingly right on others.  I believe the Liberal Party best represents my political philosophy - more often than any other party.  Perhaps Pat put it best: the Liberal Party “stands up for my freedoms and my rights as a citizen, respects my pocket book whenever possible and has clearly defined positions, regardless of other people’s opinions, on the major issues of the day.”

And that’s what matters to me.

Here Come the Deficits

Granted, Canadians didn't vote for a coalition Prime Minister, but they also didn't vote for 4 years of deficit. In fact, you can still go the the Conservative Party website and see Tory campaign pledges to maintain a balanced budget (here's one, here's another).

Of course, being a Conservative campaign promise of real significance, the Tories are now officially admitting it will be a broken promise. According to CBC (citing a Department of Finance report), the Canadian government will run a $5 billion deficit for 2009-2010 and a $5.5 billion deficit for 2010-2011. The CBC is also reporting that the report, if extrapolated for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, tells Canadians we can expect 4 years of spending more than we make.

The Tories, who apparently knew and planned for the current fiscal crisis, told us they would give us balanced budgets. Now they're practically guaranteeing that won't be the case for at least the next 4 years.

The list of Tory lies just keeps getting longer. Maybe you didn't vote for the Liberals or the NDP, but you also didn't vote for more economic mismanagement. The Harper government has to go. Flaherty did this to Ontario and now refers to his home province as "a bad place to invest." When he's done with Canada, will Canada be "a bad place to invest?" It is starting to look that way.

Vote Liberal and get budget surplus with social programs. Vote Conservative and get budget deficit with tax breaks for the wealthy. Seems like an easy choice unless you own RIM or your last name is Thompson...

What About Me?

It seems the Liberal Party had decided to select its new leader via a vote by 800 high-ranking Liberals. While Bob Rae has rendered that vote moot by stepping aside, the outcome essentially remains the same: Liberals didn't choose their leader.

Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian professor in Boston, has ascended to the leadership of Canada's traditional ruling party (fact, not arrogance). A man who has been in federal politics for less time than I have (only since 2006...though at a much higher level) is now our Leader. A man who had spent much of his adult life in another country is now our leader. A man who was never elected as leader by Liberals is now our leader.

As if there wasn't enough fodder for the Tory media machine to counter Ignatieff, now he's been appointed the leader. Why did the Liberal executive drag their feet so long on a permanent leadership convention that could have been held before January 26, 2009?

Ignatieff's eloquently forceful media acumen may not be enough to win a probable March election. Perhaps, as a friend noted, his centre-right political bias might be able to save the party in the long-run, but will he have that opportunity? What happens if the Liberals get trounced in a March election? If Ignatieff delivers even fewer seats than did Dion (which I fear is probable), will Liberals give him an extended mandate in May? Likely not.

That will leave Liberals with a meaningful leadership convention in May. At which point, Dominic LeBlanc will likely challenge Rae and Ignatieff for the leadership. Perhaps, if we're lucky, Justin Trudeau will join the race and we'll get a sneak preview of another Chretien-Martin regime.

Our Media Betrays Us (Except for this Guy...and Maybe a Few Others...)

At least one journalist can see through the lies:

Our Robert Mugabe moment, and other unpleasant memories, by Lawrence Martin:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081205.wcomartin08/EmailBNStory/politics/

On a somewhat related note, I'd like to ask Harper if he ever intends on allowing Canadians to choose their government based on real issues like the economy, the environment, and foreign policy. Another election based on vague concepts such as "leadership" might make me sick. More importantly, it certainly won't help Canada rediscover the principle of "good government".

Finally, and I've always been against this in the past, but does anybody else out there think maybe our Head of State should be elected? Is it time to finally replace the last remaining remnants of our monarchical past? Maybe I'm being rash.

Spin the Top (You are the Top) and Our House of Hostages

Are you getting dizzy? Stephen Harper is trying desperately to save his job and he's intent on doing it with nothing more powerful than political spin.

He's telling you that the coalition is outrageous and detrimental to national unity. He's telling you that the Liberals and NDP have abandoned Canada. Nevermind that the Bloc isn't a full member of the coalition (they've merely agreed not to bring down a coalition government). Nevermind that in 2004 Stephen Harper was actively trying to broker a coalition with the Bloc to replace Paul Martin's government.

He's trying to tell you that the coalition is disrupting Parliament and that he wants to keep working to move Canada forward. Nevermind that he's asked the Governor General to shut down Parliament until the end of January.

If a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc is good for Canada, why is a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc bad for Canada? If Harper wants Parliament to work for Canada, why has he shut it down?

Harper caused this turmoil by losing the confidence of the House. He showed the inability or unwillingness to support Canadians. He even tried to destroy democracy in Canada! He tried to pull the funding of political parties in Canada knowing fully that this would bankrupt his competitors leaving him to run alone in the next election (which he likely would have called in 2009) . A one-party election is not a democracy. That was Harper's hope and all other members of the House of Commons recognized this as an assault on democracy akin to Germany's Enabling Act.

On another note, shame on the Governor General. She has virtually guaranteed that Canadians will weather the global economic storm without help from their own government. She has essentially left Canada without a government. How can Harper justify spending Canadians' money knowing full well that he has no legitimate claim to the Prime Ministership? He knows his government is walking dead. The Governor General has hung Canadians out to dry. She's simply delayed the inevitable and given a dead government another few weeks of air.

The Governor General, knowing that Harper does not have the confidence of the House, should have refused his request for prorogation and allowed Canada's elected officials to lead Canada through the economic maelstrom. Stephen Harper has lost the support of Canada's elected officials and, with the help of an unelected official, is stopping our representatives from representing us.

I've never trusted Stephen Harper. I've long known his only goal was power, but I never thought he'd take it so far as to shackle our elected representatives. And he did it with the assistance of a witless neophyte out of place in her job.

Did I wake up in Haiti?

Reading the Rhetoric

The rise of the coalition has thrown the House of Commons into the spotlight. People who've never before been interested in Canadian politics are stopping me at work asking what the heck is going on in Ottawa. Therefore, I've decided to try to put aside my blatantly Liberal views in order to sort through the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa. Nevermind the ads coming from Conservative headquarters, even the media seems to be running wild. So here is the reality, the issues and the facts straight up. People are calling this a coup d'etat. They're saying the coalition is holding the House hostage. This is pure hyperbole, pure sensationalism.

After an election, the leader with the most support in the House of Commons is asked by the Governor General to form the government. That leader then forms the government and becomes Prime Minister. After the October election, Stephen Harper had the support of 143 Members of Parliament, more than any other leader. He was therefore asked to form the government and became Prime Minister.

While Parliament is in session, the Prime Minister must maintain the confidence (or support) of the House of Commons. Stephen Harper has lost the confidence of the House. The coalition, lead by Stephane Dion, now has more support in the Hosue than do the Conservatives. The coalition has committed to defeating the government because the government has lost the confidence of the House.

When a government loses the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister must go to the Governor General and ask her (or him) to dissolve the government. At this point the Governor General must ask if any other leaders can form a government (i.e. if any other leader has the confidence of the House). If there is no such leader, the writ is dropped and we have an election. However, if another leader can form the government, that leader becomes Prime Minister. The government will (either on December 8 or January 27) lose a confidence vote and the Prime Minister will be forced to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. At this point, the Governor General must ask Stephane Dion if he can form a government. He will say yes and will become Prime Minister.

However, the Governor General's duties in this case are not well defined. There really is no precident to tell her how to act. Traditionally, because the Governor General is not elected, she must take the advice of her top advisor (the Prime Minister). Stephen Harper will advise her to call an election. While there is no precedent for her to ignore this advice, her normal duty is to ask other leaders if they can form a government. Which decision the Governor General will make is unknown. She will have to consider the ramifications of: (1) having another election so soon, and (2) having a seperatist party as part of a coalition government. She must also decide if the coalition can reasonably form a stable government. We have a signed document showing that the coalition can form a stable government for at least 18 months, but the other two questions are still looking for answers.

The other issue that has arisen is the issue of proroguement. The Prime Minister may ask the Governor General to "prorogue" Parliament. To prorogue Parliament is to end the current session early. Stephen Harper wants to prorogue Parliament in order to buy his government time by avoiding a vote of confidence. The Governor General may refuse this request, but doing so would be unprecedented. The coalition is (as I write this) trying to convince the Governor General that, since Stephen Harper does not have the confidence of the House, she does not need to heed his advice. This is also completely unprecedented...

11:38am ET - Members of the Prime Minister's Office are telling the CBC that proroguation has been granted.

If this is correct, we will see the House of Commons shut down until January 26, 2009 and the government will fall on January 27, 2009. At that time, the Governor General will either allow the coalition to form the government or call an election for early March.

I hope this post, while long and boring, has helped clarify what has and may happen.

Harper Enlists KGB Tactics in Desperate Attempt to Hold on to Power

As you may have read already, the Liberals, currently under the leadership of Stephane Dion, will form a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc with the intention of usurping the Tory government and making M. Dion the next Prime Minister of Canada. This is almost entirely unprecedented.

Dion, Layton and Duceppe have decided that the Harper government has dropped the ball. The Tories had previously denied the economy was in trouble and now have neglected to introduce a meaningful economic package to help Canadians weather the storm. They have also, through past mismanagement, virtually assured that our government will run its first deficit in more than a decade.

The much-maligned Stephane Dion may have done it again. He looked defeated at the last Liberal leadership convention only to win on the strength of compromise and coalition. Then, in the last election, he looked embarrassed and defeated, but now seems to have again found a way to rise from the ashes. It looks like he will become the next Prime Minister.

Some very intelligent people, most importantly Patrick McIver, have decried this coalition as hypocricy, accused Dion of making a deal with the devil (aka Duceppe), and called the opposition poor losers. McIver says 74% of Canadians told Dion they didn't want him. However, I will remind him of two facts: 1) 64% of Canadians rejected Harper, and 2) only 36% of Canadians chose Harper while 54% of Canadians voted for the coalition parties. Fact is, this would be one of the strongest majorities in Canadian history, and one of the few true majorities (perhaps only, I don't know).

What a most exciting time for politicos like myself!

Update:
It occured to me after first posting this article that I didn't reference Harper's KGB tactics anywhere after the title. The Harper Tories taped a conference call between the NDP and the Bloc in a desperate attempt to save the Harper government. These tactics are frightening and entirely inappropriate in a modern, democratic, free country. Harper sank to a new low, giving Canadians yet another reason to support the coalition.

President Obama...*Yawn*

A few weeks ago Senator Barack Obama was elected Most Powerful Man in the World. Upon his inauguration he will become the first African-American President in United States history. So what does this mean for the world? It means no more G.W. Bush. Perhaps that means no more unilateralism/bilateralism. Perhaps that means decreased militarism. Perhaps that means more fiscal responsibility. Perhaps it means nothing.

A veteran US campaign analyst noted that Democratic Presidential candidates tend to campaign from the left then (if elected) govern from the centre. Obama campaigned from the left, but, especially considering his staffing choices, seems poised to govern from the centre. Going back through the history of American Presidents, it seems apparent that who is President is less significant than we might assume. Like the two Bushes, Clinton fought in the Middle East. Like the two Bushes, Clinton never created universal health, never fixed the broken banking system, never fixed the broken insurance system, never really governed from the left. So, in my mind, the President of the United States doesn't generally change the course of American history.

Why do American Presidents not matter so much? For a few reasons. The establishment in Washington is too large, too entrenched. For instance, G.W. Bush essentially hired G.H.W. Bush's crew and so far Obama has brought back a number of Clinton's people. More precisely, when G.W. Bush was trying to mount a response to 9/11, he was getting advice from the State Department headed by Colin Powell and the Department of Defense headed by Donald Rumsfeld. On one hand, Powell was pushing for a multilateral response headed by the UN. On the other, Rumsfeld was pushing for a bilateral response headed by the US. Rumsfeld eventually won the battle and Bush will be remembered as the ultimate bilateralist. It was the establishment, not the President, who directed American foreign policy. The bureaucracy is too large, too powerful. Government bureaucracies rely on government funding and changes in government mean potential changes in funding. To combat this reality, bureaucracies have become very similar to interest groups - they campaign for money and, in some cases, for their continued existence. At the end of World War II, the US government dissolved the Office of Strategic Security (OSS). William J. Donovan (creator and Head of the OSS) suggested that President Truman create an office to supply the US government and armed forces with intelligence. Truman agreed and created the CIA. Don't be fooled by the name change, Donovan was campaigning to have his department restored, and he was successful. Truman was President, but it was the bureaucracy that made history by restoring the OSS/creating the CIA. And corporate America is too big and too powerful. Why have universal health care and insurance remained American pipe dreams? Because the corporations behind health care and insurance in America are far too large, rich and powerful. "Money is power."* No President has ever had a chance to create a national health insurance program because every President has relied on insurance company money. President Obama may be the first to have this opportunity considering the current bank and insurance meltdown that has sunk the world into economic recession. Basically, I don't believe life will be considerably different for anyone with Obama as President. And I don't think life would have been considerably different for anyone had John McCain won the election.

That's why I don't tend to follow the American election very closely. That's why it has taken me so long to comment on the election (sorry Anne-Marie!).

On a more positive note, I'm hoping Obama will become one of those rare Presidents who is able to positively shift the course of American (and world) history. Obama is the son of a Kenyan economist, giving him a real connection to the poorest part of the world. Perhaps this bodes well for a continent in dire need of financial and developmental aide. He was against the war in Iraq and has generally been a Dove in the past. This should bode well for world peace. These are the two areas I most believe Obama will change the path taken by G.W. Bush. For all other major areas, including the ones I mentioned above and including environmental policy, don't count on any significant change.

Lets see if I'm right.

*****
* quote taken from Marc "Loafy" Henein

New Additions

I've slightly tweeked my blog by adding two new features:

The first is at the top right of the page and will keep you up-to-date on what I'm reading. The plan is to give my readers a sense of what is influencing my thoughts while I write. Hopefully, it will have the side-effect of guilting me into being more vigilent in my reading - I don't want to leave a book in my "Currently Reading..." section too long lest I start to look borderline illiterate!

The second addition is further down on the right, and is a poll. Right now the poll asks when the next Canadian federal election will be held. Take a look and have your say! I was the first voter and I voted 2012.

Thanks for reading my blog!

The Next Liberal Leader

Stephane Dion officially announced that he will not continue on as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada beyond its next Leadership and Biennial Convention (likely in May 2009). With this in mind, I’ve decided to come up with a blueprint for who I think the next Liberal leader should be.*

The next Liberal leader should be able to speak both official languages fluently. Our last leader was unable to effectively express his ideas in english, and that became his Achilles’ heel. If there is no suitable candidate who can speak both, then the right candidate should speak english.

This person should have a long political background. Dion had only been in politics for a little over a decade and his riding was so solidly Liberal that he never really had to run a contested campaign. As a result, he disintegrated under the constant pounding of Conservative money and media. On the other hand, this person’s political experience doesn’t necessarily need to be in federal politics. The bottom line is this person needs to be war tested.

The next Liberal leader needs to be capable of being powerful and empathetic at any time, whenever necessary. Dion came across as a bit weak and he didn’t seem to be capable of being assertive without sounding whiney. Stephen Harper is perfectly flat. He sometimes sounds a little bit assertive and sometimes sounds a little bit empathetic, but no one can ever really tell. His demeanor is so flat he seems robotic at times. The next Liberal leader needs to be able to expose that weakness by showing a personality. A friend of mine said Canadian politics needs an injection of charisma. I agree.

Like it or not, Ontario and Quebec are still the major battlegrounds in Canadian federal politics. The next leader doesn’t necessarily need to be from either province, but must have a high profile in both. If not both, then Ontario is the more important province. It has more seats in Parliament, and Quebec can be left to the Bloc (just as long as the Conservatives don't take it). Further, Liberal support in Montreal remains strong, so Ontario plus Montreal is more likely than Quebec plus Toronto.**

The combined vote total of the Liberals and the NDP outweighs the total Conservative vote by over 800,000. The next Liberal leader needs to be slightly leftist. I’m not necessarily saying Bob Rae, with his NDP background, but, in this respect, he’s a good example of the type of person I’m talking about. By retaking a significant percentage of leftist votes, and by retaking lost votes, the Liberal Party would break the Conservative hold on power.

Finally, and most importantly, the next Liberal leader must know how to raise money. The NDP raised nearly the same amount of money as did the Liberals prior to the last election. The Liberal leader needs to be able to deliver the money required to counter the Tory ad barrage.

That’s the type of person who should be the next Liberal leader. Gender doesn’t matter. Where the person is from isn’t nearly as important as where they enjoy a high profile.

If I’ve missed anything, leave it in the comments. I need to know who to vote for should I find the money to attend the Leadership and Biennial Convention (it’s likely going to be in Vancouver, which makes it very expensive).

*****

* This blog post is actually the result of a spur-of-the-moment request I made of my good friend Patrick McIver in a comment on his blog.

** This may not sound like good politics, but Toronto and Montreal make up about 1/3 of Canada's population. Add scattered support in various provinces, some seats in Vancouver and Atlantic Canada, and you have a strong Liberal party.

"Perfect Symmetry" by Keane

Do I like this album or not? I've listened to it multiple times and have been unable to decide.

I recently read a review of Keane's Perfect Symmetry that touted it as a new sound for the band. This review convinced my to buy the album. Previously, Keane was to Coldplay what Silverchair was to Nirvana - an undesireable derivative. But Perfect Symmetry is a new sound; Rolling Stone calls Keane the new Thompson Twins (for me, not a flatering comment, but it works for Keane...I think), and likens one of the hooks to David Bowie's 'Ashes to Ashes.' As much as I generally dislike 80s pop-rock, I do appreciate its outrageous excess. This album comes up short of that excess, but it does leave you, as Rolling Stone puts it, "in good cheer." Unfortunately, the album occasionally reduces itself to Coldplay mimicry.

I'm so conflicted.

As an aside, isn't it interesting that Coldplay and Keane have both tried to shake the piano-balladeer stigma?

Great Canadian Political Scandals of the Past Decade

Near the end of the 2008 federal election, I read a comment on CBC's election website that mused about the $200 million wasted through the Canadian government's sponsorship program. The program was designed to promote Canada and the federal government to Canadians, especially in Quebec. The dollar amount ($200 million) is not entirely accurate since that is the approximate value of the program, and not all program money was misspent. Having said that, this still ranks as one of the most expensive examples of corrupt politics.

What is the most expensive example of corrupt politics? The 40th Canadian General Election. The Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Elections Act on November 6, 2006. C-16 was the result of the Conservative Party's campaign promise to give Canada fixed election dates. The first election was to be held on October 19, 2009. Since then, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on September 7, 2008, had Governor General Michaelle Jean dissolve Parliament thereby forcing an election. Less than 3 years after promising Canadians fixed election dates, Stephen Harper broke his own law. We went to the polls (some of us...begrudgingly) on October 14, 2008 - a full year before we were legally supposed to. This blatant violation of Canadian law cost taxpayers (approximately) $300 million. This is the most expensive abuse of power and taxpayer money in Canadian history.

So why don't Canadians vote? The answer seems obvious enough - corruption. The Liberals were corrupt during their last reign as governing party and the Conservatives are corrupt now. So who do Canadians vote for? The NDP - a party that offers all-encompassing social programs without concern for how to pay for them? The Greens - a party whose raison d'etre begins and ends with protecting the environment? The Christian Heritage Party? The Marxist-Leninist Party? The Marijuana Party? The Communist Party of Canada...?

Maybe now we know why voter turnout is so low.

Let's hope we don't get asked to vote again until the next legislated date (October 15, 2012 ).

Invalid Vote

I am officially declaring yesterday's election invalid.

Taxpayers shelled out $300 million or so to stage an election that meant nothing, proved nothing, and changed nothing. The Conservatives still have a minority government. The Liberals are still second. The Bloc are still third. The NDP is still fourth. And the Elizabeth May still doesn't have a seat.

I could probably still accept all this if Canadians had bothered to show up, but they didn't. The last estimate I saw yesterday predicted a voter turnout of somewhere around 56%. That's despicable. Almost half the vote-eligible population chose to remain voiceless. That's not democracy. If my math is correct (and if this prediction proved accurate) less than 20% of eligible voters gave Stephen Harper a de facto majority. Why not just go back to the good ol' days when the wealthiest 20% of the population ran everything, and the other 80% had no voice? It would be cheaper to run irrelevant elections.

Locally, Tim Fugard and Andy Bruziewicz, even if combined, couldn't fell encumbent Pat Davidson. What makes this so hard to swallow is that barely half the vote-eligible population of Sarnia-Lambton bothered to vote. What a joke.

For these reasons, I am officially declaring yesterday's federal election invalid.

Vote on October 14

Tomorrow is election day, so I decided to post some links for my loyal readers.

If you don't know where to vote, click here.

If you want to know when you can vote, click here.

If you're a young voter, and want information, click here.

If you are out of the country and want to vote, click here.

If you want more information about the candidates in Sarnia-Lambton (and their party):

AndyBruziewicz (New Democratic Party)

Pat Davidson (Conservative Party of Canada)

Christopher Desormeaux-Malm (Christian Heritage Party)

Tim Fugard (Liberal Party of Canada)

Alan McKeown (Green Party)

Take the time to look at the parties and their candidates, then go vote for the party/candidate you think speaks best for you.

I'm a Liberal. I will be voting for Tim Fugard and I've been working on his campaign from the start.

Go vote on October 14!

Cover Songs

There are good covers (Imagination by the Rolling Stones, I Believe in Miracles by Pearl Jam) and there are bad covers (Simple Man by Shinedown, Billie Jean by Chris Cornell). I was listening to some music today when I got to thinking about what makes a good cover song, what makes a bad one, and if releasing cover songs is akin to selling out.

As you may have already surmised, I think it is possible to record and even release good cover songs. The Rolling Stones, the Beatles, the Animals, and virtually every other band from that era did. From House of the Rising Sun to Harlem Shuffle, great bands have released great cover songs, and there are some keys to releasing good ones.

The band should truly respect and enjoy the band and song being covered. When the Beatles and the Rolling Stones both recorded Chuck Berry covers in 1963 (Roll Over Beethoven and Come On, respectively), they fulfilled this requirement (the Stones broke one of my fundamental rules, but we'll get to that later). Both bands were highly influenced by Berry. John Lennon once opined, "If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." Keith Richards, while inducting Berry into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame said, "It's hard for me to induct Chuck Berry, because I lifted every lick he ever played." On the other hand, when a band like Guns n Roses covers Since I Don't Have You by the Skyliners, it comes off as a bad joke.

A band should NEVER release a cover as their first single. There's nothing worse than a band (or record label) trying to sell a mediocre band by choosing to release a cover as their first single (had anyone ever heard of Shinedown before their version of Simple Man?). Here's where we come back to the Rolling Stones' cover of Come On. It was their first single. If there is any way I can justify this violation, it is that Chuck Berry and Come On were not well known in England, or even in much of North America at the time.

Which leads to another key: a really good cover song should take a little known track and make it something special. When Eddie Vedder turned Indio's Hard Sun into a smash hit, he followed this key.

A slightly different take on the previous key is to take a song and make it your own. The aforementioned Chris Cornell version of Billie Jean changed the song entirely. While I'm not a fan of the version, Cornell had the right idea. The Rolling Stones' version of Imagination (originially by the Temptations) took a smooth, doo wop song and made it a genuine Stones' rocker. When Run DMC covered Aerosmith's Walk this Way, they helped rap break into the mainstream, and even helped create a new genre of music defined by bands such as Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park.

In the early days of rock and roll, recording a cover song was considered very normal. Artists would record, and often even release, another artist's song, sometimes even concurrently. Now, releasing a cover song has a negative connotation, after all, the easiest way to record a hit song is to re-record an old hit. But when done properly, cover songs can be respectable, can be cool. Otherwise, they're just annoying.

On a similar note - I'm almost always 100% against sampling. Some of the worst offenders: Vanilla Ice stealing Under Pressure; P. Diddy stealing Let's Dance...

*For an example of the difference between a good cover and a bad cover check out David Bowie and Mick Jagger's version of Dancing in the Street and contrast that with Van Halen's version.

Election Prediction

The venerable Mr. McIver emailed me a few days ago asking if I was willing to make a friendly prediction about the results of the October 14th election. I obliged, and here was my prediction:

Tories (currently 127) between 115 and 120 seats.

Liberals (currently 95) between 110 and 115 seats.

The Bloc (currently 48) will lose seats, the NDP (currently 30) will stay about the same, and the Greens (currently 1) will have a coming-out party (official party status?).

And...

Another election within a year or two...

Old Politics, New Party

There is a little known tradition in Canada. Though few people could tell you about it, it happens as sure as the sun rises. What is it? The pre-election spending spree. Yup, in the weeks and months leading up to an election call, the governing party launches a spending spree. The Liberals did it, and now the Tories are doing it. PMSH has spent over $8.8 billion since June - $6 billion of that in a mere 7 days! I guess Stephen Harper just doesn't know how to win votes without spending money. I wonder if the Tories have enough money to buy another minority government?

Can we trust a party that relies on money to buy votes? I don't think so - especially not when that party has no regard for the law.

Harper Finally Pulls the Trigger

It is official. On October 14th Canadians will go to the polls (or at least slightly over half of all eligible voters will). Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally made the trip to Rideau Hall and asked Governor General Michealle Jean to dissolve the government.

Stephen Harper decided that Parliament was "disfunctional" - that work could not get done because party philosophies were too dichotomic. Nevermind that his party has never lost a confidence vote (having faced 40 or so in 2 years). How can a government with that kind of success rate be disfunctional? The answer lies squarely on the shoulders of Harper and his minions. PMSH's strategy in Commons committees has been to stonewall, filibuster, and otherwise stall - by any means necessary. When any Commons committee turned in a direction PMSH didn't like, the Tory committee chair would simply walk out. That creates disfunction. The Tories have also mired themselves in scandal - Bernier Affair, Cadman Affair, In-and-Out Scheme. A parliament simply cannot work when half of the governing party is facing some form of legal investigation. That creates disfunction.

So today, with the opening speeches from the party leaders, an election begins. And things nearly began squarely. The NDP and the Conservatives both launched campaign ads even before the election was made official (this contravenes Canadian law). Remember those Tory ads where "common Canadians" talked about how much they love Harper? Remember the young voter at the end? The young lady who tells us that she'll be voting for the first time and that she'll be voting for Stephen Harper? That's an election ad and it aired long before the election began.

But I won't begrudge these little cheats. They're not as critical as actual party policies. What are those party policies? Here's a quick rundown for those of you looking for somewhere to start:

Conservative Party - Stephane Dion is not a leader, and the Green Shift is not proven. Otherwise, we don't really have a policy.

Liberal Party - We believe in a fairer, richer, greener Canada and we're giving you an actual policy platform to prove we can deliver....and Harper sucks.

New Democratic Party - Some Canadians have financial issues and we're going to fix that by spending taxes on massive, comprehensive social programs...and Harper sucks.

Green Party - We're all going to die if we don't fix the environment, and we're going to eschew the usual political gamesmanship...and Harper sucks.

Bloc Quebecois - Canada sucks - we're going to make Quebec an independent nation...and Harper sucks.

I hope that was helpful.

Get Your Pencils Ready...?

A few weeks ago I was watching one of the many political face-off programs (I can't recall exactly which) and the final question of the panel asked when they felt the next election would be. Most of the panel of experts and insiders thought early next year. I thought fall 2009 (which is when the next election has to be called if it hasn't already). The venerable Mr. Patrick McIver (if I recall correctly from our last visit) thought this fall.

Now word from various sources sides with Pat. I've been told to expect an election to be called September 4th and to be held mid- or late October. My thoughts? No disrespect to my sources, but I'm still not 100% expecting a fall election. I won't be surprised to hear an election called (nor will I be disappointed), but I also won't be surprised to see fall turn to winter then spring before the writ comes down. Face it. We've heard the rhetoric long enough to know you can't believe in the impending election.

Then again, perhaps this is the cry we should finally heed. A spring election keeps ours from being overshadowed by our southerly neighbour's. It also cuts short the time Liberal leader Stephane Dion has to sell his Green Shift (which so far is being recieved cautiously, curiously at best). But Prime Minister Stephen Harper still doesn't seem to have any reason to believe he's in serious trouble, nor does he have reason to believe a fall election will boost his current House numbers. So why now?

Maybe Harper is finally tired of the "I dare you's" coming from across the House. Or maybe Harper has rediscovered the arrogance that cost him the 2004 election versus Paul Martin's Liberals. I think, if an election is called, it will be because Harper is tired of waiting for the majority government he craves.

What will come of a fall election? Expect the Liberal Green Shift to be the deciding factor. Expect a lot of dirty politics from Harper's Conservatives. Expect a resurgent NDP and a bigger Green Party. But most importantly, expect much of the same - another minority government. Perhaps a rather flimsy Liberal government propped up by fairweather friends wearing green and orange. Or one teetering atop the House alone - governing bill to bill. Or perhaps another Tory minority beleaguered by disappointing election results.

And locally, in Sarnia-Lambton? So far Pat Davidson has done nothing of note. She's quietly sat back pleasantly accepting handouts from Harper (since he knows ours is a very lose-able riding). While she may not have won because of the In-and-Out Scheme, she was very much involved and complacent. Expect newcomer Tim Fugard of the Liberal Party to recolour the riding red. His work ethic, honest politics, and enthusiastic commitment to do politics right will make the difference.

This could be an interesting fall!

And You Think I'm Ugly...

Apparently this is how you cheer me up:

http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/20962966/the_field_guide_to_guitar_jam_face

I was pissed. But that made me smile. Kudos Rolling Stone.

Cheers!

"Democracy" or "Governing for the Next Election"

...unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless, that is to say, political power and philosophy meet together, there can be no rest from troubles...for states, nor yet, as I believe, for all mankind... (Plato, Republic)

...He who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. (Aristotle, Politics)

I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with politics. Why? Democracy. Democracy is the problem.

I'm not the only one who holds this belief. I'm not even the first to argue this. Aristotle classified democracy as one of three perverted constitutions.* He was building upon Plato's idea of the philosopher king. In Republic, Plato argued that we are too easily seduced by our own selfish desires to rule properly and that only a philosopher, who is only interested in virtue (and who knows true virtue), could truly rule for the collective good. Plato also spoke of the decline of this ideal state as the eventual corruption of the philosopher king. Plato says that there can be no true philosopher king because philosophers, once they've seen what real justice (virtue) is, will no longer be interested in ruling this unjust world. Therefore Plato admits that kings and rulers must become "sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom," rather than, as is ideal, philosophers, who already have this genuine desire, be compelled to become kings.** Because of this, the philosopher king will not be a true philosopher and Plato's ideal state will fall. Aristotle's answer is to have law rule, not man. In his view, law is inalienable and intrinsic in nature. It is not law found in books and court rulings, but law found in nature. Philosophers can see this law, but the average person does not. In democracy we create law. Our law is at best, in the views of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, imperfect representations of an ultimate reality (or of real law). As such, democracy is not a good form of government. As Winston Churchill said, it is "the worst form of government" (except for all the others that have been tried).

For me, politicians have been fairly good. For the most part, politicians do an honest job of doing what they honestly believe to be the best for their population. Problem is they soon realize they can only do this if they're elected (and re-elected). The result is that politicians have a habit of becoming consumed with public opinion polls and special interests. The weakest politicians allow this to consume them, while the strongest ones try to rise above this. Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin wobbled back and forth on ballistic missle defence (he was for it, then due to fears about his electability in Quebec, against it) and the war in Iraq (he spoke out against it to buy the passifist vote even though speaking for it would have been in our national interest and would not have cost many lives or much money - we were over-extended in Afghanistan and therefore had nothing left to commit to Iraq except a hearty "good-luck"). On the other hand, Pierre E. Trudeau looked straight into the eyes of the dissenters and told them he was going to give us a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms because (he believed) it was in Canada's best interests. Louis St Laurent, as Justice Minister supported conscription in 1944 inspite of its unpopularity because it was in Canada's national interest. He also agreed to expand Canada's military commitments abroad in the 1950's (Korea and NATO commitments in Germany). The former, Paul Martin, governed for the next election while that latter, Trudeau and St Laurent, governed for Canada. Whether or not you agree with how Trudeau and St Laurent went about promoting Canada's interests, they were promoting their view of Canada's interests rather than promoting their electability. Unfortunately, the examples of good politicians are too few, and the example of bad ones, too many.

The best way to ensure politicians govern for the people instead of for the next election is to remove the need to worry about the next election. Some politicians, notably Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, take the approach of doing the "general good" things as early into a mandate as possible because by the time the next election comes up, people forget. McGuinty introduced his "Health Premium" very early so people might forget when the next election came around in four years (it seems to have worked since he was re-elected with another majority). Assuming this philosophy is a popular one among power-seekers (as all politicians naturally are) in democracies, it might be wise to extend the period during which they believe they can get away with governing for the "general good". I'm proposing a "Decade Democracy".

My Decade Democracy will see fixed elections at the beginning of each decade (January 2010, January 2020...). This will extend the period of time for which politicians like Dalton McGuinty could govern for the general good. With a full decade to govern, politicians will have to be concerned with the long-term good of the country (after all, ten years is pretty long-term). But there's more.

My Decade Democracy will see leaders limitted to one term - no possibility of re-election. This way they will never have the incentive of governing for the next election. With out electibility concerns, politicians, who are generally good, will be able to act free from election considerations - they will act purely for the "general good".

My Decade Democracy will see the winning party given 50% plus 1 seats in the house (currently, 155 seats - or 308 divided by 2 plus 1). The rest of the seats (currently 153) will then be divided between parties relative to the percentage of total votes (not including votes won by the winning party) earned.*** This would guarantee a majority government (which historically work much better than minority governments in Canada), while equitably distributing the remaining seats. Such a small minority, however, would also mean the government would be unable to bully the rest of the House.

My Decade Democracy would see the Senate elected, every ten years, mid-way through the House's tenure (i.e. January 2015, January 2025...). This would give the government a sort of progress report half way through their mandate. It would keep the Senate from worrying about the next election. The Senate would have a similar duty as they do now - sober second thought, but without much legislative power. The Senate would consist of 130 members (10 from each province and territory), would be party-neutral, and elections would depend mostly on attaining media coverage, not on buying one's way into the media.**** The Senate would have 10 votes in the House of Commons. This would allow them to first influence the House via their reading of bills and would allow them to overturn only those votes that are very narrowly decided (i.e. by fewer than 10 votes).

Otherwise, the political system would remain mostly unchanged, meaning democracy cannot be legislated out of existence (as Hitler did in Germany) and those inalienable rights and freedoms in our Charter would be guaranteed.

Consider this a couple hours worth of rough draft and rather superfiscial idealizing. I'll refine this over time through discussions and further thought.

*****
* Nelson, Brian R., Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, (2nd Ed), Prentice Hall, 1996, p. 59
** Plato, Republic
*** For example, if the vote were to break down as follows:

Liberals - 44% (440,000 votes)
Conservatives - 26% (260,000)
NDP - 20% (200,000)
Green - 10% (100,000)
Total Votes Cast - 1,000,000

The Liberals would win 155 seats. The Conservatives would win 71 seats (26% of 1,000,000 equals 46.4% of the 560,000 votes not won by the winner which equals 46.4% of the votes not won by the winner, which equals 71 of the remaining 153 seats). With the same math, the Greens would win the remaining 27 seats.
**** Twenty to twenty-five Senate candidates would be chosen in each province/territory by a coalition of local government, business and academic leaders, then there would be a general vote in which the population would chose 10 of the 20 to 25 candidates. (I'll refine this later, as it is clearly quite problematic.)

The Return (aka. World Food Crisis...and Canada)

I call this post "The Return" because it has been nearly a year (10 months, 13 days to be precise) since I last blogged. I apologize to my faithful reader for my neglect. I add, in parentheses, "aka. World Food Prices...and Canada" because that's what this post is actually about. My interest spawned from an article in Time magazine and is the latest in an exchange of emails with a friend. Enjoy!

After your response I decided to do a little more research into the subject. I think I did perhaps overstate the roll of biofuels, but nevertheless was correct that they are a major factor today, and will be an increasingly impactful factor in the years to come. Second and third generation biofuels (such as the switchgrass that you mention, and algea) are perhaps a decade away (though my money says much sooner). This article at http://www.wikipedia.org/ was a very good starting point for me in my research: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007-2008_world_food_price_crisis).

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that "the very tight situation of the current 2007/08 season has led to a steady rise in world prices of all cereals, pushing up the food import bill of many importing countries and generating widespread sharp increases in domestic food prices." This suggests that, world-wide, supply is a major aspect of the current crisis. Further in the same report, the FAO claims that, "World wheat stocks by the close of seasons in 2008 are forecast at 144 million tonnes, down 9 percent from their already reduced opening level." These reduced supply numbers, combined with increased diversion from food to fuel (100 million tonnes of cereals, or about 5% of total production, will be used for biofuels according to the FAO), are significant. I believe 5% is meaningful, especially if, as the FAO claims, world supply is already down. These figures indicate that supply and demand is a major factor in world food prices and that (as you suggested) market speculation is exaggerating this big problem into a crisis (1).

I also somewhat suspect that you are arguing more based on the situation in Canada, which I assume is somewhat less dire than the international situation. In fact the FAO projects an 5% increase in wheat production from 2007 to 2008 in Canada (2). But while production is projected to increase, cereals stocks are projected to be at barely half the level they were in 2006: 8.5 million tonnes in 2008 versus 16.2 million tonnes in 2006 (3).

I guess my only argument would be that this is a world food crisis, not simply a Canadian one. If the Canadian government is interested in taking up this cause (as it must), it needs to think globally, not just nationally. That means it needs to consider global factors. Especially since Canadians (for the most part) can afford to pay a bit more for food - the roughly 1.1 billion people living in extreme poverty, who are most affected by this price increase, simply cannot.

(I hope this friend doesn't mind!)