Believe it or not, I'm not going to say "Conservative Majority". I'm half hoping that with a majority, Stephen Harper will be able to put aside all the cheap, dishonest, partisan, stupid tricks he used with a minority, and start to govern the way he said he would as Leader of the Opposition so many years ago. I'm hoping that now, with the comfort of a majority, he will be able to clean up the scum on Parliament Hill, be able to lead with truth and honesty, be able to manage Canada's finances responsibly, and disclose the information he is legally bound to disclose. Here's hoping.
No, the worst thing about yesterday's election is not Stephen Harper's ill-gotten majority. The worst thing about last night's election is the scores of no-name NDP candidates who became MPs. The stories of nobodies, with no campaign, with no effort, who became NDP MPs is truly frightening. We've long known the days of the local candidate meaning anything are gone, but now we have irrefutable proof. Give a piece of stool a name, put it on the ballot next to the letters "NDP" and call it a Parliamentarian. I have no problem with anybody becoming MP. I'm not disrespecting these people for winning seats as unknowns. I would love it if that happened more! I think it would be good for democracy. My problem is that they did nothing to earn it. I expect, at least, that a candidate would have to at least campaign to win. But many stories indicate some of these newbies were nothing more than names on the ballot. What a shame. These people are going to waltz onto Parliament Hill without having earned a thing.
But enough about the bad. What good came of last night? The near-death of the Bloc Quebecois. Finally, a federalist party was able to conquer Quebec. Hopefully this means the return of classic Quebec: the economically competitive, culturally massive bearer of the french language in North America. I also wonder, with no Bloc to pander to, will Stephen Harper back away from his promise to pay Quebec for its HST adoption?
I am truly apprehensive about this Conservative majority. I worry that an emboldened Stephen Harper will irreversibly change Canada into something we're not prepared for. I worry that he will continue to ensure Canada is unprepared for the environmental crisis on the horizon. I worry that he will build jails and forget to build the bridges required to keep people out of those jails. I fear he will continue to commit to expenditures he doesn't know if he can afford (i.e. fighter jets), causing him to start cutting spending elsewhere. Will he continue to pursue measures that oppose each other (i.e. if you're going to cut income taxes, you can't also cut value-added taxes [HST])? Will he bother to keep promises like the HST payoff to Quebec or the continuation of the 6% escalator in health transfers? If he does, how will he balance the budget? He promised $11B in savings through efficiencies in the public service, but everyone involved doubts he can find even one-tenth of that.
I look forward to the Liberal Party finally having the opportunity to develop it's base, create some stable policy directions, and develop a leader outside the fire (which I'm still not certain will happen). Neither Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff had a chance to develop outside the dual fires of Parliament and Conservative attack ads. Maybe Trudeau, or Leblanc, or whoever, will be able to find their sea-legs before being tossed into the perfect storm. Maybe Liberal supporters will start to see the need to open their pocket-books a little wider. Maybe the Liberal Party will be able to more clearly define policy direction, and stick with that direction beyond the next question period.
A lot of good and a lot of bad happened last night. Here's hoping a Conservative majority, with an NDP minority, will balance into something Liberal.
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Politics. Show all posts
02 May 2011
Election Day: Day to Point Out How Off I Was!
Every time there is an election I try to avoid making predictions. This comes from an awareness that I'm no good at making predictions. Every time there is an election I make predictions. This comes from a lack of restraint. Here are the three different prognostications I've made since the 41st Federal General Election was called:
March 25: Conservative minority, more Liberals, fewer NDP and fewer Bloc members.
March 25: Conservative minority, more Liberals, fewer NDP and fewer Bloc members.
- I believe I will be correct on just two counts: we will get a Tory minority, and there will be fewer Bloc MPs. Having said that, it seems clear that my prediction was as far off as everyone else's from around this time.
- This is the only time I called for a Tory majority (albeit a small one), and I don't think it'll hold up (even though I said it yesterday). I was still of the belief that the increase in support for the NDP wouldn't turn into as many seats as it seems. I may still be correct. I also may still be correct in thinking the Tories will get a small majority.
- It's election day, and Elections Canada, rest assured, I'm not broadcasting results before polls close, I'm just making a prediction. I think we're going to see a Conservative minority, a successful NDP surge into second, the Liberals getting demolished (much to the delight of still bitter PCers from the early 1990s), a shrunk Bloc (largely thanks to the NDP), Elizabeth finally finding a riding that likes her, and Helena Guergis retaining her seat.
16 April 2011
Election 2011: What's Happening
We're pretty well at the mid-point of the 2011 General Election. Looking back over the last few weeks, I've noticed some trends.
The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy. The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election. While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election. My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone. The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready. What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote. The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt. Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly. So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt. The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.
The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate. They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two. After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre. The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls. Then came the turning point.
At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals. Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives. The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally. Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter. That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion. All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning. Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility. With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.
The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage. While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened. The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.
So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed. Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority. That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now. The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture. The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media. They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth. Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.
Where do we go from here? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message. Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working. The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch. Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence. While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new. They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones. The message needs to be health care. That's what Canadians care about. That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable. And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.
Let`s see where we go from here!
The campaign started with the Tories determined to brand the election as government versus coalition on the economy. The Prime Minister has shameless mislead Canadians by telling them the coalition didn't like the Conservative budget and that's why we're having an election. While the other parties in the House of Commons may not have liked the budget, that's not why we're having an election. My suspicion is that none of the opposition parties in the House could have been able to justify defeating the government on the budget alone. The Tories were too high in the polls, the budget was too neutral, and Canadians weren't ready. What actually felled the government was a lost no-confidence vote. The Prime Minister shrugs it off saying his party doesn't agree that they were in contempt. Well, of course not, but this was not a mere vote in the House, it was a confidence motion, losing which means the Prime Minister has failed to do his job properly. So, legally, technically, speaking, the governing Tories were found in contempt by Parliament, and, more than just that, the Speaker of the House, the neutral leader, also found the Tories in contempt. The Prime Minister's flippant dismissal of these basic facts reinforces the need for this election.
The Liberals started the campaign seemingly determined to slowly introduce Michael Ignatieff to the electorate. They decided instead to leak small portions of their platform until it was finally released in full early in week two. After which, Ignatieff has been thrust front and centre. The Liberals, on the back of a solid, popular platform and a surprisingly comfortable rookie leader began to make small steps in the polls. Then came the turning point.
At some point, for some reason, while the Tories were being dragged through the mud by the media, Canadians decided they'd had enough of the Liberals. Outside of Ontario, the Liberals have stalled 6 to 10 points behind the Conservatives. The Tories had to struggle to explain why a student in London was booted from a Conservative rally. Then they desperately released a damning draft of the Auditor General's report on the G8/G20 Summit because it was less damning than the one previously released by (I hear) an NDP supporter. That was followed by an alleged attempt to steal a ballot box at a University of Guelph special ballot while former Tory cabinet minister Helena Guergis took aim at her former boss for throwing her under a bus driven by secret allegations of indiscretion. All this adds up to a disastrous week of campaigning. Except that Stephen Harper, appearing overly medicated behind rimless glasses and under hair that would make Kerry Fraser proud, keeps trolling along proving his inexplicable invincibility. With a quick flick of the tongue, Harper manages to shrug all of this off as partisan politics and redirect the debate back to the economy.
The economy is where the Conservatives hold a real advantage. While we might be inclined to think that massively over-inflated deficits and exorbitant expenditures on jets, jails, and G8 summits would overwhelm the obvious advantage a sitting Prime Minister has in metrics like leadership and economic stewardship, it hasn't happened. The Conservatives continue to float above the rest on a cloud of voter apathy and willful blindness.
So now, half-way through the campaign, nothing much has changed. Polls are indicating anything from a very narrow Conservative majority to a weakened minority. That is to say, of course, pretty close to what we have now. The legions of Liberals who supposedly stayed away from Stephane Dion and the vote in 2008 don't seem to have been flooding back into the picture. The one place where the Liberals are showing strength is in social media. They seem to be winning the support of the connected youth. Unfortunately, these people are historically less inclined to show up on election day, meaning all the social media support in the world may not be enough to swing the vote.
Where do we go from here? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives need to continue to float along, not straying from their strict message. Scrutinized guest lists and 5 question limits may be offensive to those with democratic sensitivities, but they are working. The Liberals, readying to release their crop of living (former) Prime Ministers, need to make a switch. Their message of respect for democracy has had little influence. While they need to continue to hammer this message, they also need to introduce something new. They haven't been able to dent Harper's advantage in leadership or economic stewardship, so those should be considered no-fly zones. The message needs to be health care. That's what Canadians care about. That's where Harper is seriously vulnerable. And that is where undecideds can be lured into the Liberal camp.
Let`s see where we go from here!
17 January 2011
If an election is coming, here's how the Liberals can win it
My former co-blogger Pat McIver tweeted today in reference to a recent Globe and Mail article. The article explores Liberal Party and Official Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff's options should an election everyone thinks is coming actually come this spring. The numbers show a slight Conservative advantage (generally in the range of about 5% +/- a couple). So where should Iggy and the Grits be looking for votes? Should they target the NDP, who has long been stealing left-leaning Liberal voters, or the Conservatives themselves?
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
In my opinion, the Liberals need to go straight at the Conservatives. Bold? Absolutely. But not foolish. And besides that, nobody ever got anywhere without taking a chance.
The Conservatives have alienated a large portion of their supporters. The last - disastrous - budget sent many fiscally conservative Tories into a major tizzy (Mr. McIver included). While many of them will have a hard time finding evidence that a Liberal budget would have been any different, the fact remains that the last time any fiscal conservative was properly served by their government, it was a Liberal government with a right-leaning Finance Minister. Well, the current Liberal Party has done one better: it has a right-leaning leader (and would-be Prime Minister) and a former RBC Chief Economist (and would-be Finance Minister). Since advocating for expensive economic subsidies in late 2008 and early 2009, the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff has consistently advocated for responsible budgets.* There is a large section of (small-c) conservatives who are looking for that kind of fiscal direction from federal politicians.
But Ignatieff can't afford to lose his current supporters either. Current Liberals, while many of them are also looking for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, value social responsibility. This means continuing to advocate and protect Canada's successful and valuable social programs, and cutting the ones that don't work. This also means coming up with a meaningful environmental policy that Canadians are telling government they want. Canadians, Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, are ashamed of being part of Canada the pariah state. To be clear, being environmentally and socially responsible does not require being fiscally irresponsible. By directing tax breaks and subsidies in the right direction, instead of continuing in the wrong direction (for example, the [admittedly] Liberal initiated subsidies for tar sands exploration), the government can promote growth while being fiscally responsible.** Ideally, that means putting a few billion dollars into a struggling green industry instead of a booming oil industry.
The big issue right now, the issue the federal political parties are drawing the line in the sand over, is corporate tax cuts. The Conservative government committed to, and has refused to abandon, absurd corporate tax cuts. Rather than relying on some pie-in-the-sky theory that cutting corporate tax cuts in the middle of a massive deficit will boost the Canadian economy and create growth, the Liberals (and the NDP) have advocated a more responsible approach: cancel the tax cuts until the government's fiscal house is in order. Corporate tax cuts now are like asking for a pay cut at work so that your company can save money when you can't afford to pay the rent. Unfortunately the Conservative government is committed to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
My message to Michael Ignatieff: go at the Conservatives with a strong, responsible fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and reasonable spending. Show Canadians how a Liberal government will turn massive deficits into a small surplus over the course of their term in office. Show Canadians how we can make the right environmental steps by promoting the right industries. A government that is willing to protect the environment by stimulating the right sectors of the economy (instead of the wrong ones) will be rewarded by the majority of reasonable Canadians. Even the left-leaning Liberals who've been voting NDP will be won with that simple message. Canadians have never really liked Stephen Harper, but neither have they had a reason to go anywhere else. It is time to give them that reason.
----------
Notes:
* The disastrous budget of the "Coalition of the Willing" (including the Tories who actually introduced it and voted for it) was a mistake. But two years on the Liberal message, under a new leader (that budget was initially advocated for while the Liberals were led by Stephane Dion), has been fiscal restraint and responsibility. Yes, Ignatieff's Liberals have asked Stephen Harper why he didn't spend the money in the budget as he said he would, but that's not advocating irresponsible spending, that's advocating an adherence to the law of the budget. It's like saying, "Would we have introduced that last budget? No. But Parliament approved it and now you need to stick to it, right or wrong." Ignatieff's Liberals have advocated, consistently, fiscal responsibility.
** Yes, the Liberals in the 1990s created the tar sands subsidies that I'm advocating against. And in the 1990s, when oil was cheap and the tar sands industry was floundering, those subsidies and tax breaks made economic sense. That industry is booming now (and booming as irresponsibly as possible). It is time to revoke those subsidies - they no longer make economic sense. Subsidizing an industry is something a government can reasonably do when that industry is struggling or in its infancy, not when it is mature and booming. It is time to shift those subsidies to a new struggling, infant, industry - green industry.
22 December 2008
"Harpocricy 2: Elected Senate Unless an Unelected Senate Helps Me Keep My Job"
Consider the following statement made by Stephen Harper:
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:
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.
"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.
18 December 2008
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...
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...
10 December 2008
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.
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.
08 December 2008
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.
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.
04 December 2008
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?
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.
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.
01 December 2008
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.
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.
22 October 2008
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,
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
*****
* 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.18 October 2008
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 ).
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 ).
15 October 2008
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.
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.
13 October 2008
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.
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!
07 September 2008
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...
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.
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.
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.
23 August 2008
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!
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!
27 May 2008
"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)I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with politics. Why? Democracy. Democracy is the problem.
...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 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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)