Haven't seen anything that leads to a shakeup of the top names in the political parties, but the polls are suggesting that the PM's decision to prorogue the parliament to escape criticism hasn't worked out very well for them.
There sure is a lot of ammunition for proving that the Government's pre-power words about transparency, smaller government and accountability have all been tossed aside in favour of reaching for absolute power without oversight or criticism from those pesky voters.
Big protests last weekend were positive to see. I may well have participated myself had I heard about their pending occurrence. As it was, it still sounds like the turnout was good. Perhaps the outrage is beginning to get some foothold.
Sadly I saw an article on how favourable people across the country feel about people of minority groups, such as Jews, non-whites, French-Quebecers and so on. The charts all showed the least tolerant people as being Albertans! Why is that? The fact that this current government has it's power-base and roots in Alberta makes me even more dismayed. Were they to get a majority, I shudder to think about what sorts of things they would do to equality, multiculturalism, immigration and arts policy to please their rural Albertan base.
Well, at least the winds are blowing in an encouraging direction just now. Would still love to see some new blood at the tops of some of these parties, but I think we'll still have a bit of waiting.
Thursday
Tuesday
Don't Look At Me
I've given up trying to predict an election anytime soon. The leader of the opposition is a obfuscating mute, the leader of the government has decided to pretty much cancel parliament rather than face criticism and oversight, and the other parties are too small to matter.
There's no hope of electoral reform in the coming 5 years that I can imagine. The media doesn't seem to be able to put in enough effort to make anything stick to the antidemocratic, non-communicative government that gets people vow to boot them out.
It's a dark period for Canada for sure. We're back where we were two years ago - needing a shakedown in the parties to get new people involved at the top.
I can't see an easy way out of this one. We can only hope a leader of some kind emerges from the back benches.
There's no hope of electoral reform in the coming 5 years that I can imagine. The media doesn't seem to be able to put in enough effort to make anything stick to the antidemocratic, non-communicative government that gets people vow to boot them out.
It's a dark period for Canada for sure. We're back where we were two years ago - needing a shakedown in the parties to get new people involved at the top.
I can't see an easy way out of this one. We can only hope a leader of some kind emerges from the back benches.
Elusive Election
Funny how quickly the shenanigans change things around. So I'm thinking spring before we see an Election. There seems to be some concensus that there wouldn't be an election during the Olympics. Not sure why, but there it is.
Lately, the federal conservatives have been getting exposed for their partisan abuses of public events, funding, etc. They've been spotted with Conservative Party logo's on gov't funding novelty cheques. And when the logo isn't on it, the colour scheme is miraculously their party colours. And the signatures are always the nearest conservative.
Also, the bulk of the funding events seem to be in the ridings of Conservative members.
I'm getting jaded, knowing that even though the ethics commissioner has been referred to these events, and even if he can bring himself/herself (who is it these days?) to criticize, nothing will stick on these guys. They could bring out pictures of the whole bunch of them riding orphaned immigrant children like ponies, and the electorate would shrug and ignore it.
Oh well, let's let this stew a bit longer.
Lately, the federal conservatives have been getting exposed for their partisan abuses of public events, funding, etc. They've been spotted with Conservative Party logo's on gov't funding novelty cheques. And when the logo isn't on it, the colour scheme is miraculously their party colours. And the signatures are always the nearest conservative.
Also, the bulk of the funding events seem to be in the ridings of Conservative members.
I'm getting jaded, knowing that even though the ethics commissioner has been referred to these events, and even if he can bring himself/herself (who is it these days?) to criticize, nothing will stick on these guys. They could bring out pictures of the whole bunch of them riding orphaned immigrant children like ponies, and the electorate would shrug and ignore it.
Oh well, let's let this stew a bit longer.
Politics Gets More Depressing
Well, it's looking like the Liberals are further messing up the state of their party. Meanwhile a poll suggested last week that the Conservatives are nearing potential majority status.
Mr Ignatief has pulled a Dion-like move with his strategy to not tell anyone his platform details for fear of the Conservatives snagging all his planks, meanwhile petty childishness erodes any firmness to their Quebec numbers.
Meanwhile the NDP are sheepishly hiding due to their support of the Conservative agenda on the last vote, and the Greens are snoozing as well.
I am really truly worried about what would happen to the country if the conservatives got a majority. I would actually start investigating possible other destinations to live. Perhaps somewhere in a UN highly ranked country like Norway or something. I truly think we'd see totalitarian moves to oppress the people, move religious-right policy into place, isolate the media, eliminate public broadcaster, keep most of government out of the public visibility, move the country closer to the US, eliminate the Canadian dollar, make guns wide-open for broad availability, move our incarceration rate up as high as the US and so on. Our treatment of Canadians abroad, our positions in international bodies and our environmental positions have all been eroded to embarrassingly malformed states.
There is absolutely a secret agenda waiting. We see it regularly in the strategy of the PMO to silence their people so that their constantly mouth-occupying feet don't get exposed. Their racism and intolerance would be set free, and their ideology would guide all their paths. They know that the fear-factor has held them back from majority territory, so they've tried to have us forget the crazy stuff they espoused early in their formation.
Even worse, with a majority all of the Bush/Cheney advisors who find themselves impotent in the USA would be quickly employed (some already are) by the Conservatives, and we'd get to experience that regime ourselves. Welcome to 2001.
Ignatief has got to lay open his kimono and make take ownership of his platform. Yes, Harper will steal parts of it, but that won't be hard to prove. In fact, plan on it. Introduce the platform, point out the government's position, and as each plank is stolen be ready to point out that they have done so to prop up their minority.
It sounds like an election has been delayed until at least Q1 of 2010. Let's hope we can find some way to make it an election that makes Canada a better place than a worse one.
Mr Ignatief has pulled a Dion-like move with his strategy to not tell anyone his platform details for fear of the Conservatives snagging all his planks, meanwhile petty childishness erodes any firmness to their Quebec numbers.
Meanwhile the NDP are sheepishly hiding due to their support of the Conservative agenda on the last vote, and the Greens are snoozing as well.
I am really truly worried about what would happen to the country if the conservatives got a majority. I would actually start investigating possible other destinations to live. Perhaps somewhere in a UN highly ranked country like Norway or something. I truly think we'd see totalitarian moves to oppress the people, move religious-right policy into place, isolate the media, eliminate public broadcaster, keep most of government out of the public visibility, move the country closer to the US, eliminate the Canadian dollar, make guns wide-open for broad availability, move our incarceration rate up as high as the US and so on. Our treatment of Canadians abroad, our positions in international bodies and our environmental positions have all been eroded to embarrassingly malformed states.
There is absolutely a secret agenda waiting. We see it regularly in the strategy of the PMO to silence their people so that their constantly mouth-occupying feet don't get exposed. Their racism and intolerance would be set free, and their ideology would guide all their paths. They know that the fear-factor has held them back from majority territory, so they've tried to have us forget the crazy stuff they espoused early in their formation.
Even worse, with a majority all of the Bush/Cheney advisors who find themselves impotent in the USA would be quickly employed (some already are) by the Conservatives, and we'd get to experience that regime ourselves. Welcome to 2001.
Ignatief has got to lay open his kimono and make take ownership of his platform. Yes, Harper will steal parts of it, but that won't be hard to prove. In fact, plan on it. Introduce the platform, point out the government's position, and as each plank is stolen be ready to point out that they have done so to prop up their minority.
It sounds like an election has been delayed until at least Q1 of 2010. Let's hope we can find some way to make it an election that makes Canada a better place than a worse one.
Yes, Seems to be That Time Again
The ducks are being lined up for another election. It seems to be in the cards for this autumn. The deciding factor will be if the NDP decide to use their leverage to advance some of their agenda with the government. I know people will complain, but this is really how the NDP add value to our system. They are not going to get elected in the next decade, surely. I'm a bit doubtful that they will ultimately survive the next few years, with pressure from the greens.
However, their value in the past has been to use what leverage they have to advance items from their platform with the government in power to get change for which they can claim ownership. Hey, it got us medicare didn't it?
Meanwhile, the Liberal party leader Mr. Ignatief seems to be in a decent jumping off spot. The media is kind of getting this wrong, saying, 'oh look he's neck and neck with Harper, what tough times for any chance of a Liberal win.' But in reality, this is his starting position. He's basically been neutral, AND had a negative campaign attack for a few weeks - though I haven't seen that lately.
So as he begins to roll out his platform details, he has the opportunity to build on, or subtract from, this current position. Basically any positive response, and he's in the black.
The Liberals have also managed to test-fly a few items. They haven't got much response to a campaign built on EI reform, so now they're tuning it to address jobless numbers. They need to move forward with an autumn election, because the recession is wrapping up, and they don't want the conservatives - who denied there would even be any downturn at all a year ago - to take credit for this incoming tide.
Two things resonate with me for this coming election. One - leadership: I MUCH more trust a guy who has actually had a job. Seems a minor thing, but look at Mr. Harper who has never really held down a job - he went from school to political backroom activity under Manning, and into eventual political leadership. How does a person like that relate to the process of applying for a position, going to interviews, answering to management hierarchy, getting paycheck (or not). It's a fundamental life-skill thing. And delivering things! He's probably never had to create and deliver something! Ignatief as a journalist and a professor has had to deal with deadlines, delivery and completion of tasks. Man, these are such basic things that we SURELY should have in our leaders.
Add to that the leadership ability on the world stage - who would you want someone who has never travelled anywhere on his own time (post PM-ship doesn't count), or someone who spent decades travelling and reporting on issues around the world. I feel much more comfortable with the global awareness of an Ignatief, than someone who has never been there.
Even when he does travel, Harper cannot seem to figure out such basic things as how to get to a meeting on time. Again - a skill we learn in the workplace, but not having held a job, Harper is habitually late for media events when EVERY other leader in the G20 can manage to pull it off.
So that's the leadership piece.
The second issue for me is respect for the rights of Canadians. There seems to be case after case after case of Canadians abroad who are ignored by our government when they get into difficulty abroad. The most infuriating is the case of an autistic man in Africa who was abandoned for 3 years and STILL isn't able to come home. There is the disturbing element that all the people affected appear to be people of colour.
Add to this the case of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khater. Every rule in the book says that we need to bring this young man home. Regardless of his role in the Afghanistan. I think that our civilization proves itself not in the easy situations but in the difficult situations. Not under idle calm but under stress. We demonstrate our humanity and fundamental principles through how we handle the difficult situations. A minor child involved in a war situation - the UN position on it is clear. The position of the courts is clear. Yet the government continues to appeal court decisions and allows the guy to remain in illegal US detention.
I dislike what the man and his family have espoused and advocated. But we should recognize that as a Canadian he has unalienable rights that we will support. We either have or should have a means for dealing with him here. We can imprison him if necessary, apply judicial process, and restrict his personal freedom in an appropriate way. However, he has an unalienable right to have his government support his return.
There seems to be an innate racism in the Federal Conservative party that pokes it's head out occasionally. Even though their approach has become to never allow anyone except the inner cadre to ever speak to Canadians through the media, it doesn't manage to mask that ugliness.
So those elements- leadership and the rights of Canadians abroad - are big issues for me. I don't know that I will vote for Liberals, but I have to advocate an anyone but Conservatives position.
Independent of those two issues, the other element I touched on there, the isolation of the government from the people is surely something that is not appropriate for a democratic government. Media interviews are almost never granted, and the politicians never speak except in very scripted situations. Can't we get some people in there who can think on their feet, aren't so bigotted and inept that they have to be muzzled?
Bring on the election! We need some change. For once it seems like we're a year behind the US political status. They flushed their right wing wackos last year, we're still stuck with ours.
However, their value in the past has been to use what leverage they have to advance items from their platform with the government in power to get change for which they can claim ownership. Hey, it got us medicare didn't it?
Meanwhile, the Liberal party leader Mr. Ignatief seems to be in a decent jumping off spot. The media is kind of getting this wrong, saying, 'oh look he's neck and neck with Harper, what tough times for any chance of a Liberal win.' But in reality, this is his starting position. He's basically been neutral, AND had a negative campaign attack for a few weeks - though I haven't seen that lately.
So as he begins to roll out his platform details, he has the opportunity to build on, or subtract from, this current position. Basically any positive response, and he's in the black.
The Liberals have also managed to test-fly a few items. They haven't got much response to a campaign built on EI reform, so now they're tuning it to address jobless numbers. They need to move forward with an autumn election, because the recession is wrapping up, and they don't want the conservatives - who denied there would even be any downturn at all a year ago - to take credit for this incoming tide.
Two things resonate with me for this coming election. One - leadership: I MUCH more trust a guy who has actually had a job. Seems a minor thing, but look at Mr. Harper who has never really held down a job - he went from school to political backroom activity under Manning, and into eventual political leadership. How does a person like that relate to the process of applying for a position, going to interviews, answering to management hierarchy, getting paycheck (or not). It's a fundamental life-skill thing. And delivering things! He's probably never had to create and deliver something! Ignatief as a journalist and a professor has had to deal with deadlines, delivery and completion of tasks. Man, these are such basic things that we SURELY should have in our leaders.
Add to that the leadership ability on the world stage - who would you want someone who has never travelled anywhere on his own time (post PM-ship doesn't count), or someone who spent decades travelling and reporting on issues around the world. I feel much more comfortable with the global awareness of an Ignatief, than someone who has never been there.
Even when he does travel, Harper cannot seem to figure out such basic things as how to get to a meeting on time. Again - a skill we learn in the workplace, but not having held a job, Harper is habitually late for media events when EVERY other leader in the G20 can manage to pull it off.
So that's the leadership piece.
The second issue for me is respect for the rights of Canadians. There seems to be case after case after case of Canadians abroad who are ignored by our government when they get into difficulty abroad. The most infuriating is the case of an autistic man in Africa who was abandoned for 3 years and STILL isn't able to come home. There is the disturbing element that all the people affected appear to be people of colour.
Add to this the case of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khater. Every rule in the book says that we need to bring this young man home. Regardless of his role in the Afghanistan. I think that our civilization proves itself not in the easy situations but in the difficult situations. Not under idle calm but under stress. We demonstrate our humanity and fundamental principles through how we handle the difficult situations. A minor child involved in a war situation - the UN position on it is clear. The position of the courts is clear. Yet the government continues to appeal court decisions and allows the guy to remain in illegal US detention.
I dislike what the man and his family have espoused and advocated. But we should recognize that as a Canadian he has unalienable rights that we will support. We either have or should have a means for dealing with him here. We can imprison him if necessary, apply judicial process, and restrict his personal freedom in an appropriate way. However, he has an unalienable right to have his government support his return.
There seems to be an innate racism in the Federal Conservative party that pokes it's head out occasionally. Even though their approach has become to never allow anyone except the inner cadre to ever speak to Canadians through the media, it doesn't manage to mask that ugliness.
So those elements- leadership and the rights of Canadians abroad - are big issues for me. I don't know that I will vote for Liberals, but I have to advocate an anyone but Conservatives position.
Independent of those two issues, the other element I touched on there, the isolation of the government from the people is surely something that is not appropriate for a democratic government. Media interviews are almost never granted, and the politicians never speak except in very scripted situations. Can't we get some people in there who can think on their feet, aren't so bigotted and inept that they have to be muzzled?
Bring on the election! We need some change. For once it seems like we're a year behind the US political status. They flushed their right wing wackos last year, we're still stuck with ours.
Thursday
Autumnal Poll Visit?
The scuttlebutt says an election is looking virtually certain for the Autumn. There is no clear idea yet about which issue Mr. Ignatieff will centre his push around, but it does seem logical that his current position as leader of the liberal party for long enough now to be fresh, yet not spoiled goods means he'll do it.
As well, the Conservatives seem to have made enough recent messes that they will be rather damaged goods the next time around. It's clear their attacks upon Iggy will be based on his career's travels around the globe, and time at Harvard in the US.
It's a bit sad that the argument will carry some weight in some quarters. Just think, a political party, in a climate where the global ecomony and foreign policy issues are at the forefront perhaps more than they have been since WWII is going to make the argument that the other candidate has spent a career travelling and engaged in employment in international culture and issues, while their candidate has rarely been out of the country, and has never held an actual, real 'job.'
What a bizarro-land situation that will be.
Meanwhile the Greens and NDP are looking a bit has been. I would have thought the best option for them would be for the NDP to drop the trade-union focus, and join up with the Greens becoming he "New Green Democrats." or something. Of course that would likely split the left of centre vote, and help out the conservatives, but in terms of their fortunes probably make more sense.
Well still a whole summer to work through. But mark you Calendars for Octoberish I suppose.
As well, the Conservatives seem to have made enough recent messes that they will be rather damaged goods the next time around. It's clear their attacks upon Iggy will be based on his career's travels around the globe, and time at Harvard in the US.
It's a bit sad that the argument will carry some weight in some quarters. Just think, a political party, in a climate where the global ecomony and foreign policy issues are at the forefront perhaps more than they have been since WWII is going to make the argument that the other candidate has spent a career travelling and engaged in employment in international culture and issues, while their candidate has rarely been out of the country, and has never held an actual, real 'job.'
What a bizarro-land situation that will be.
Meanwhile the Greens and NDP are looking a bit has been. I would have thought the best option for them would be for the NDP to drop the trade-union focus, and join up with the Greens becoming he "New Green Democrats." or something. Of course that would likely split the left of centre vote, and help out the conservatives, but in terms of their fortunes probably make more sense.
Well still a whole summer to work through. But mark you Calendars for Octoberish I suppose.
Friday
Making Them Wear It
Ignatief at the helm and the Liberals have approved the "Conservative" budget. I have a hard time finding a slate of policies that would endear me to any party. My morals and common sense tells me that bits of each platform adds up to responsible government. I'm rather surprised though, in the whole budget after the prorogation thing that:
a) Iggy didn't at least suggest a few constructive changes to the budget (spend more on this, less on that)
b) The "we already fixed it last year" conservatives could suddenly become the NDP
c) That Jack Layton isn't playing this a bit more astutely. Read more constructively, less attacky
I'll avoid too much policy picking, as this blog is focussed on the path to election(s). But my preferred play through this whole thing is that Iggy lets it lie enough that the spending gets going and money starts flowing, and the paperwork is in place for the programs, then pulls the plug.
My big concern is that the conservatives will be as lame at actually moving the funds as they have been for $billions announced years ago for city infrastructure funding that have barely moved.
So that next election, or movement to a much needed coalition is still a good 4-6 months away.
a) Iggy didn't at least suggest a few constructive changes to the budget (spend more on this, less on that)
b) The "we already fixed it last year" conservatives could suddenly become the NDP
c) That Jack Layton isn't playing this a bit more astutely. Read more constructively, less attacky
I'll avoid too much policy picking, as this blog is focussed on the path to election(s). But my preferred play through this whole thing is that Iggy lets it lie enough that the spending gets going and money starts flowing, and the paperwork is in place for the programs, then pulls the plug.
My big concern is that the conservatives will be as lame at actually moving the funds as they have been for $billions announced years ago for city infrastructure funding that have barely moved.
So that next election, or movement to a much needed coalition is still a good 4-6 months away.
Tuesday
Churn
Stephan Dion has announced his resignation, and it appears the Liberals will have a replacement for him by mid-week. Again, it appears that they are taking the wrong path to do it though. I'm amazed at the crappy decision making they are using to get through this. There must be some real boneheads involved in running that party. It's like a cat in a harness running along a path and you've got to yank them back onto the path.
I was thinking they were reading my blog, or listening to my coffee-shop discussions for a while, as they seem to be dealing with my problems as I bring them up. Getting rid of Dion and making a move toward a quick replacement process is good. But of course, they're picking the wrong process, which leaves them open to criticism of putting a leader, and potentially a PM into place based on the choices of some inner circle of proven-inept organizers.
Bob Rae has been pointing out that it should be a broader voting of all Liberal members - that's the guy who's thinking. I think that Ignatief would still win the vote in that situation, but they really need to understand that the process should be broad and quick. This isn't 1982 - they can easily do a phone/internet thing pretty easily. I could write a javascript form for them with some basic security in about two hours. Why can't they figure this out.
The Bloc and NDP are pretty quiet. Now the talk about the Conservatives is that they messed up by proroguing. If they had kept parliament in session, they may well have won the non-conf vote and still be around. Instead they have focussed the Liberals on their weakness (their leadership) and may still yet get their house in order.
The saga continues. We'll see if they can change their mind a few more times and get this thing settled so that we can get a bit of stability into Canadian Politics.
I was thinking they were reading my blog, or listening to my coffee-shop discussions for a while, as they seem to be dealing with my problems as I bring them up. Getting rid of Dion and making a move toward a quick replacement process is good. But of course, they're picking the wrong process, which leaves them open to criticism of putting a leader, and potentially a PM into place based on the choices of some inner circle of proven-inept organizers.
Bob Rae has been pointing out that it should be a broader voting of all Liberal members - that's the guy who's thinking. I think that Ignatief would still win the vote in that situation, but they really need to understand that the process should be broad and quick. This isn't 1982 - they can easily do a phone/internet thing pretty easily. I could write a javascript form for them with some basic security in about two hours. Why can't they figure this out.
The Bloc and NDP are pretty quiet. Now the talk about the Conservatives is that they messed up by proroguing. If they had kept parliament in session, they may well have won the non-conf vote and still be around. Instead they have focussed the Liberals on their weakness (their leadership) and may still yet get their house in order.
The saga continues. We'll see if they can change their mind a few more times and get this thing settled so that we can get a bit of stability into Canadian Politics.
Sunday
Change of plan
Well things are changing fast. Blogging from my ipod is not optimal but seems to kind of work. Watching the news, it appears that Dion will shortly step aside and iggy will take over. I think the latter is a mistake though. The use of some open process would be more sensible and inclusive. I keep spouting that they can both fix this mess and appear hep and hapnin' by orchestrating it all thru YouTube.
Probably lots more to come tomorrow.
Probably lots more to come tomorrow.
Wednesday
Thanks for the Mess Steve
I'm quite saddened by this whole thing. Watching the goings-on in Thailand, Zimbabwe and various banana-republics, I fear that the Harper cronies will try to throw us into that mix.
I have no political party affiliation or loyalty - but I do recognize dangerous behaviour when I see it. I see blatant lying and more worrisome propagandist messaging coming from the government. Watch for jingoistic language straight out of the Republican play-book. This plus the advertising campaign they are setting off borders on incitement to violence. Have they no respect for our system, our way of government?
Here are my issues:
Now, I'll also wrap up by saying I wish that Stephan Dion had stepped down and that we had an interim Liberal leader, or jeeze even Jack Layton taking the lead on this. But in spite of my distaste for Dion as an attempted leader, I'm prepared to accept the parliamentary tradition of the current leader taking the reins and take him at his word that he's step down in May when Ignatief takes over. (don't get me started on him).
I have no political party affiliation or loyalty - but I do recognize dangerous behaviour when I see it. I see blatant lying and more worrisome propagandist messaging coming from the government. Watch for jingoistic language straight out of the Republican play-book. This plus the advertising campaign they are setting off borders on incitement to violence. Have they no respect for our system, our way of government?
Here are my issues:
- Use of the word 'Canadians' - they've positioned this to be the right-wing conservative sympathizers. It becomes almost threatening to people who don't share their point of view.
- Use of phrases of 'the other' that stereotype and marginalize people based on their thoughts and beliefs: "socialists" "separatists."
- The use of 'the big lie' - their communications take the position of thinking up a hollywood-esque melodromatic scene, and they they happily invent facts to fill in the picture, then repeat it ad nauseum, blatantly ignoring reality, happy to paint their picture around lies. "They wouldn't even include the Canadian Flag in the pictures when they signed their agreement" - Well, first, their was a flag there - and second, what the HELL has that got to do with anything. This smacks of the Republican 'he didn't wear a flag pin' attack upon Obama in the US. I swear they have a US handler brought in on these PR things, who just recycles all their dirty politics.
- The big PR campaign that is just getting into gear now. As I type there are people in sound booths and edit suites piecing together propaganda pieces that are all sad eyed kids and sneering opposition members.
- These are tough times and the gov't made all sorts of orchestrated speeches about cooperative government, but instead they came along with a weak financial statement during a Worldwide Recession and Economic Crisis, and instigated confusion at a time when we need stability and leadership.
- The fervour being whipped up in Alberta serves nobody and hurts our country more than does the 'separatists' vowing to not defeat the coalition. Inclusion in the political process helps pull bloc supporters over to the side of constructive collaboration and positivity, and away from negativity, isolation and hatred. Which way are Albertans being pushed?
- Crazy phraseology about 'democracy' and 'the constitution'. The opposition members represent over 60% of the population, and the parliamentary system around the world sees constant use of coalitions to bring about progress in government. These lies are all attempting to confuse Canadians who are already too influenced by American TV, and in fact are banking on the assumption that they are. This isn't a US presidential system - nobody votes for a PM, we put in parties, and the proposed coalition has support of the vast majority of Canadian voters.
- If anything was anti-democratic it was the move by the gov't to cripple any opposition by removing their funding and trying to push them back into begging for handouts from developers, special interests, lobbyists and cronies.
Now, I'll also wrap up by saying I wish that Stephan Dion had stepped down and that we had an interim Liberal leader, or jeeze even Jack Layton taking the lead on this. But in spite of my distaste for Dion as an attempted leader, I'm prepared to accept the parliamentary tradition of the current leader taking the reins and take him at his word that he's step down in May when Ignatief takes over. (don't get me started on him).
Monday
Pass the Sour Cream
So if Harper Prorogues parliament, does that make him the proroguer and the rest of the MP's prorogies?
Things continue to develop quickly, and its looking that they are ignoring my Layton hand-off to new-Liberal-guy idea, and going with Dion as the new PM. It's also looking like the conservatives are going to prorogue, which is frighteningly like a step toward a dictatorship. Shut down parliament so nobody can dissent and do what you want. I don't know if the PM has to ask the GG to prorogue parliament - I would have thought so. I can't imagine that our GG (really her room full of handlers - she's just a figure-head afterall) has any option, but if she did she'd say that the business of the house has not been completed, and proroguing is inappropriate. Come back with the confidence of the house and we can talk.
It's a surprising turn of events, and hopefully we can see a new government take over who can put a solid plan forward to quiet the markets and add some sense of astute, economic policy in place.
A good question that nobody has asked is will Dion put the Green Shift into play? The NDP would likely support it. It would also be astute to roll back the GST at least one percent to where it was before. Low impact on consumers and good impact on the budget. Hell, they could fund the whole stimulus package on the back of the billions it brings in.
Things continue to develop quickly, and its looking that they are ignoring my Layton hand-off to new-Liberal-guy idea, and going with Dion as the new PM. It's also looking like the conservatives are going to prorogue, which is frighteningly like a step toward a dictatorship. Shut down parliament so nobody can dissent and do what you want. I don't know if the PM has to ask the GG to prorogue parliament - I would have thought so. I can't imagine that our GG (really her room full of handlers - she's just a figure-head afterall) has any option, but if she did she'd say that the business of the house has not been completed, and proroguing is inappropriate. Come back with the confidence of the house and we can talk.
It's a surprising turn of events, and hopefully we can see a new government take over who can put a solid plan forward to quiet the markets and add some sense of astute, economic policy in place.
A good question that nobody has asked is will Dion put the Green Shift into play? The NDP would likely support it. It would also be astute to roll back the GST at least one percent to where it was before. Low impact on consumers and good impact on the budget. Hell, they could fund the whole stimulus package on the back of the billions it brings in.
Saturday
"We've Already Got One," Say Torrie Slugs
I have to respond to the current message track of the Conservatives - as I know Mr. Harper is waiting for me to do :)
His current popular sound bite is that Stephan Dion doesn't have the right to become prime minister. He needs to be voted in by Canadians, not some people in a back room.
He seems to forget that we have a well established parliamentary democracy - and nobody is making up new rules on this.
The prime minister is not on the ballot of any of our elections, and just like how nobody voted for Dion nobody voted for him either. Nobody votes for PM - we vote in a party (his only received 38% of the vote BTW), and the leader of the party (parties?) in power becomes the PM. As usual someone needs to point out to Harper that we do not live in the United States. If the GG asks another group during a minority to form a government, the leader of that group, as chosen by our elected representatives, is the PM. There's no dirty tricks involved, its just how it works... and it's a lot better than going to the polls. Surely he isn't suggesting an election is a better path forward out of their self-dug hole.
I'm always disgusted when he starts throwing around the word "Canadians", it is invariably insulting and divisive, in that he is telling us what to think, and invariably it's something diametrically opposed to how we are thinking.
Plus this constant, constant need to try and contrast the trailer-park, tim hortons crowd against a bunch of lounging greeks with palm fronds and grape-feeders is a pathetic excuse for constructive debate. It's a page right out of the American's republican playbook.
When talking about the funding for parties this morning on CBC's "The House", Pierre Pollievre was doing it as per his script. He says, hockey teams and church groups (or some similarly parochial groups) can raise their own money, so our political parties can as well. As usual - 'salt of the earth folk' against 'silk and velvet ensconced elites'. That is SO Karl Rove.
Well in truth, our parties are supported by a tiny amount of cash from the federal budget to decouple their viability from cheques handed out by powerful businesses seeking favours. The conservatives have no shortage of those from the Alberta oil sands, so they are happy to cut the greens and NDP off of the funds they need to represent their constituents. As I've said before - their prime motivation is to hamstring the Liberals at a point where their finances are already low.
I don't believe in any of the parties' magical abilities to get us out of this current financial situation, but if there's one thing I do believe, it is that these current bums thinking that the best response to the crisis is to claim they fixed already fixed it a year before it started is one of the stupidest things I've heard in my life of listening to political theatre.
His current popular sound bite is that Stephan Dion doesn't have the right to become prime minister. He needs to be voted in by Canadians, not some people in a back room.
He seems to forget that we have a well established parliamentary democracy - and nobody is making up new rules on this.
The prime minister is not on the ballot of any of our elections, and just like how nobody voted for Dion nobody voted for him either. Nobody votes for PM - we vote in a party (his only received 38% of the vote BTW), and the leader of the party (parties?) in power becomes the PM. As usual someone needs to point out to Harper that we do not live in the United States. If the GG asks another group during a minority to form a government, the leader of that group, as chosen by our elected representatives, is the PM. There's no dirty tricks involved, its just how it works... and it's a lot better than going to the polls. Surely he isn't suggesting an election is a better path forward out of their self-dug hole.
I'm always disgusted when he starts throwing around the word "Canadians", it is invariably insulting and divisive, in that he is telling us what to think, and invariably it's something diametrically opposed to how we are thinking.
Plus this constant, constant need to try and contrast the trailer-park, tim hortons crowd against a bunch of lounging greeks with palm fronds and grape-feeders is a pathetic excuse for constructive debate. It's a page right out of the American's republican playbook.
When talking about the funding for parties this morning on CBC's "The House", Pierre Pollievre was doing it as per his script. He says, hockey teams and church groups (or some similarly parochial groups) can raise their own money, so our political parties can as well. As usual - 'salt of the earth folk' against 'silk and velvet ensconced elites'. That is SO Karl Rove.
Well in truth, our parties are supported by a tiny amount of cash from the federal budget to decouple their viability from cheques handed out by powerful businesses seeking favours. The conservatives have no shortage of those from the Alberta oil sands, so they are happy to cut the greens and NDP off of the funds they need to represent their constituents. As I've said before - their prime motivation is to hamstring the Liberals at a point where their finances are already low.
I don't believe in any of the parties' magical abilities to get us out of this current financial situation, but if there's one thing I do believe, it is that these current bums thinking that the best response to the crisis is to claim they fixed already fixed it a year before it started is one of the stupidest things I've heard in my life of listening to political theatre.
Friday
Well, This is Awkward
So fancy meeting you here. Who'd have thunk?
Yesterday, Canada's New, New Government, same as the old government, delivered a fiscal statement in the midst of perhaps the greatest global financial crisis seen since the 1930s, and somehow forgot to include any substantial measures to deal with it. In a CBC interview with the abrasive Mr. Baird. His response to lack of attention to stimulus? Oh, we did that last year.
Now, I'm not sure which of the two implications is more shocking - that he is claiming they knew about the soon to arrive Worldwide Financial Crisis before anyone else, and didn't tell anyone, or that he considers reducing the GST a valuable financial stimulus. That cut creates an almost imperceptible reduction in prices for all but the biggest of big-ticket items, yet robs the government coffers of billions: low incentive for consumers with big negatives for deficit avoidance.
Also buried in the mini-budget speech, was the elimination of funding for political parties. The buck and a bit per vote that each party receives. The whole point of which, is that the parties are then beholden to the taxpayers, rather than to the guy in a suit that can slip them the biggest cheque.
The opportunistic leaders of the CRAP party have realized that the liberals are in a tough financial position. In their usual effort to silence and pummel anything that could be considered opposition, the surely figure that eliminating this source of funding will hamstring them for longer into the future. Just like their earlier elimination of legal support for people who find themselves in subjugated by government and forced to address it in the courts.
Anyway, those are the events that precipitate an untimely return to the consideration of potential elections. Now reports suggest that Messrs. Broadbent and Chretien are working at a potential coalition to take over government. The idea being a confidence vote on Monday, and a new government by next weekend. Clearly while I disagree that the chances of earlier election calls that preceded this last one were not a great concern to Canadians, I'm sure Canadians do not want to go to the polls with the same slate as our last round.
This led me to think there should be a new rule - when a minority government falls, all parties have to change leaders. Ha!
But presumably our GG will accept a proposal that sees a coalition government proposed following the failure of a confidence vote. So who will be PM? Clearly either Dion, Layton or Duceppe. The first and last seem impossible, so are we about to see a PM Layton?! What an amazing turn of events.
I'd suggest that the coalition might agree that Layton gets the keys until the Liberals elect their new guy, then he takes over with a guarantee of no election call until he's done an equivalent period, then it's all bets are off.
Would Duceppe stick it out? It would be preposterous to have a separatist take over the PM role - Ha! So what will they need to give him to keep him on side. The numbers don't work out without him.
There are 308 seats and C=143 while L=76 N=37 B=50 O=2 So clearly it takes em all.
The bottom line though - what kind of government puts us in this situation in the middle of a global financial crisis. Instead of building a concensus, collaborative government to get us through the tough times, they are bitter and divisive and put us into turmoil when we need strength and leadership.
Shame on them.
Who knows where we'll be by next week!
Yesterday, Canada's New, New Government, same as the old government, delivered a fiscal statement in the midst of perhaps the greatest global financial crisis seen since the 1930s, and somehow forgot to include any substantial measures to deal with it. In a CBC interview with the abrasive Mr. Baird. His response to lack of attention to stimulus? Oh, we did that last year.
Now, I'm not sure which of the two implications is more shocking - that he is claiming they knew about the soon to arrive Worldwide Financial Crisis before anyone else, and didn't tell anyone, or that he considers reducing the GST a valuable financial stimulus. That cut creates an almost imperceptible reduction in prices for all but the biggest of big-ticket items, yet robs the government coffers of billions: low incentive for consumers with big negatives for deficit avoidance.
Also buried in the mini-budget speech, was the elimination of funding for political parties. The buck and a bit per vote that each party receives. The whole point of which, is that the parties are then beholden to the taxpayers, rather than to the guy in a suit that can slip them the biggest cheque.
The opportunistic leaders of the CRAP party have realized that the liberals are in a tough financial position. In their usual effort to silence and pummel anything that could be considered opposition, the surely figure that eliminating this source of funding will hamstring them for longer into the future. Just like their earlier elimination of legal support for people who find themselves in subjugated by government and forced to address it in the courts.
Anyway, those are the events that precipitate an untimely return to the consideration of potential elections. Now reports suggest that Messrs. Broadbent and Chretien are working at a potential coalition to take over government. The idea being a confidence vote on Monday, and a new government by next weekend. Clearly while I disagree that the chances of earlier election calls that preceded this last one were not a great concern to Canadians, I'm sure Canadians do not want to go to the polls with the same slate as our last round.
This led me to think there should be a new rule - when a minority government falls, all parties have to change leaders. Ha!
But presumably our GG will accept a proposal that sees a coalition government proposed following the failure of a confidence vote. So who will be PM? Clearly either Dion, Layton or Duceppe. The first and last seem impossible, so are we about to see a PM Layton?! What an amazing turn of events.
I'd suggest that the coalition might agree that Layton gets the keys until the Liberals elect their new guy, then he takes over with a guarantee of no election call until he's done an equivalent period, then it's all bets are off.
Would Duceppe stick it out? It would be preposterous to have a separatist take over the PM role - Ha! So what will they need to give him to keep him on side. The numbers don't work out without him.
There are 308 seats and C=143 while L=76 N=37 B=50 O=2 So clearly it takes em all.
The bottom line though - what kind of government puts us in this situation in the middle of a global financial crisis. Instead of building a concensus, collaborative government to get us through the tough times, they are bitter and divisive and put us into turmoil when we need strength and leadership.
Shame on them.
Who knows where we'll be by next week!
Wednesday
Wrapping it all up
Well, can't say that I'm surprised with the outcome. I can certainly say I've heard enough about it for a few days, with just a couple of hours of coverage. There's not much to report, but every radio program introduces the story of the election as if nobody else is covering it, and treads the same ground.
The fact is that participation is down, and with a small fraction of the total vote, the ruling conservatives have increased their minority government.
But the story is not one that has finished. This is, to an large extent, just a continuation of the same story that has been developing from the day that Paul Martin's cronies decided to attack Cretien while he was still in office. Ever since then the Liberals have been in disarray, and the left side of the spectrum (if such a spectrum really is relevant anymore) has been without a dominant force.
In the coming year (man, do we really have to watch that long?) Dion will be pushed back out, Rae and Ignatief will again split their party in half vying for leadership. What will be different this time? Will Kennedy come up the middle this time as another weak liberal leader? Will Manley throw his hat in the ring and split the party three ways? Will one of the previous guys turn out to have weakened his position letting someone move into a dominant role? Hard to say.
I can't help but think that an 'instant run-off' voting system would have worked so much better. In each riding if voters had picked their first and second choices we'd likely have seen a liberal minority with a substantial green presence and a stronger NDP, leaving government open to form around a coalition of a pair of parties, and we would not have a small percentage of the popular vote resulting in so many seats going conservative.
Such is life.
Something tells me this blog will be coming back to life in the 18months, to chatter about yet another trip to the polls. 'Till then - happy politics! (And enjoy the dog and pony show to the south!)
The fact is that participation is down, and with a small fraction of the total vote, the ruling conservatives have increased their minority government.
But the story is not one that has finished. This is, to an large extent, just a continuation of the same story that has been developing from the day that Paul Martin's cronies decided to attack Cretien while he was still in office. Ever since then the Liberals have been in disarray, and the left side of the spectrum (if such a spectrum really is relevant anymore) has been without a dominant force.
In the coming year (man, do we really have to watch that long?) Dion will be pushed back out, Rae and Ignatief will again split their party in half vying for leadership. What will be different this time? Will Kennedy come up the middle this time as another weak liberal leader? Will Manley throw his hat in the ring and split the party three ways? Will one of the previous guys turn out to have weakened his position letting someone move into a dominant role? Hard to say.
I can't help but think that an 'instant run-off' voting system would have worked so much better. In each riding if voters had picked their first and second choices we'd likely have seen a liberal minority with a substantial green presence and a stronger NDP, leaving government open to form around a coalition of a pair of parties, and we would not have a small percentage of the popular vote resulting in so many seats going conservative.
Such is life.
Something tells me this blog will be coming back to life in the 18months, to chatter about yet another trip to the polls. 'Till then - happy politics! (And enjoy the dog and pony show to the south!)
Tuesday
Done!
Well, I did it. I voted the crap out of that election - boom, in the box.
Did you? Get out there - several minutes remain!
Did you? Get out there - several minutes remain!
Saturday
Election Prediction
I have a lot more confidence in the UBC election stock market than I do any of the polsters for predicting the election results. It's looking like there will be another conservative minority with a slightly diminished seat count for them, but also a substantial diminishment of the Liberal seats. NDP position seems to have strengthened a lot, though no to the historic high which I think was around 45seats under Ed Broadbent.
I'd love to see the conservative numbers drop down to a lower number to create something more interesting for us. Perhaps some sort of coalition government, with some legs to run for a few years... at least long enough for the Liberals to re-group. We need some stronger people in leadership, and the only avenue that I can see producing someone any time soon is probably the Dion door.
That would mean the old Rae vs. Ignatief thing again. Not sure if either of them fit the bill. Perhaps Manley will dust off his old election signs and give it a whirl as well. The country might be hungry enough for someone that he could potentially take a pretty good crack at it. I suspect, however, that his strategy will be to wait for the Rae/Ignatief battle to run a little further through before popping his head above the parapet.
I'd love to see the conservative numbers drop down to a lower number to create something more interesting for us. Perhaps some sort of coalition government, with some legs to run for a few years... at least long enough for the Liberals to re-group. We need some stronger people in leadership, and the only avenue that I can see producing someone any time soon is probably the Dion door.
That would mean the old Rae vs. Ignatief thing again. Not sure if either of them fit the bill. Perhaps Manley will dust off his old election signs and give it a whirl as well. The country might be hungry enough for someone that he could potentially take a pretty good crack at it. I suspect, however, that his strategy will be to wait for the Rae/Ignatief battle to run a little further through before popping his head above the parapet.
Thursday
Stephan does The National
I watched a goodly chunk of the National's Q & A with Stephan Dion yesterday. Insert big sigh here.
I accept that he's passionate for what he believes in. And I also believe that he wouldn't do a bad job. He's utterly charisma-free, which generates a gut reaction in me of "wrong guy for the job" but I can happily over-ride that with my trusty brain which I keep handy for just such moments.
His almost desperate delivery is probably what gives some that sense of passion. I suppose to as an ordinary sort of guy, there is a certain amount of nerves talking on national television perhaps? Plus he was trying to squeeze in 5 pounds of potatoes into a 1 pound bag in most of his responses. The result is that he seemed to be ignoring the question. Sacrificing the answer to cram in some more details.
A more concerning thing personality-wise is that he seems to be utterly humourless at all times. Never cracks a smile. Never seems to calmly ponder the answer to a question. I'm not looking for a creepy Harper smile, but some sense of calm, confidence would be good. Then again, maybe those are traits that get wrapped up in the concept of charisma.
There was a moment when he expressed an answer to one of Mansbridge's questions with a sentence of French. I'm sure he lost a few thousand western voters with that one. I guess the idea was "here's a very a propos proverb that we all know well." Well, it wasn't "comme ci comme ça" - we didn't know that one, and it came across like someone unable to think of the words in English. Not the sign of a strong communicator who will connect with the people from sea-to-sea.
There were some pretty direct questions that he should have been prepared for. Ones for which he could have delivered a nice clean, to the point answer. First, I recall a woman saying she earns $12k a year and has two kids, and inquiring how is she and other poor people going to afford a new carbon tax.
The answer was a gimme! Slam-dunk opportunity. And if delivered with compassion and understanding could have really connected. Instead, he immediately forgot the detail of the question: "I don't remember how much her revenue, er, income was," he began "but let's say it's $20k..." and he launched into how much money she would save based on his green shift shtick.
No Stephan! First - $20k is a lot more than $12k. Surely you could have retained that nugget from a 15second clip. And the right answer was an emphatic: "With our green shift you get to keep more of your hard earned money - it is not a tax on your income." He could even have slammed Harper's lie and deny approach (straight from his US republican advisors no doubt) "Mr. Harper repeats at every opportunity the lie that the green shift is a tax on individuals. This is not true."
There, done - say it with some compassion and you're through the question. But no go.
The other question I saw was a small biz owner with an aviation company asking if the green shift was going to tax his business out of existance. Dion's response was totally off topic, talking about airplane manufacturing jobs at Bombardier doing well 'cause they were building more green planes.
He had actually given the right answer earlier in his conversation - where he pointed out that the green shift is phased in. While a small businessman has no ability to drop his plane and buy a new state-of-the-art bio-plane, he should have suggested that he could alter his business to embrace more green friendly processes, and the green shift would not knock him out of business. He could have also projected a tough line to say though, that if his business was unable, over the long term, to become more green friendly, that was a cost of doing business in the new reality, but they weren't going to hit him over the head right away. Perhaps throw in some comment about a special element of the Green shift plan to help small businesses of fewer than 5 employees or something. Done.
Poor guy - can't project his way out of a soggy paper bag. I don't doubt that he'd do a decent job. I just don't know that an average voter can see the strength in the platform beyond the anti-charisma that their leader exudes.
Hope you get out and vote next week. Remember to take a look at the polls in your riding and just pick the strongest non-conservative and go with it.
Seriously, just think what fun it would be to have an awkward, bookish PM! Really, it would truly make me proud to have someone totally charisma free representing us world-wide. There's nothing that says 'integrity' like someone who doesn't come across like a used-car salesman... or a creepy cult-religion pastor like our current guy. So perhaps putting your vote behind Stephan is not such a bad thing!
I accept that he's passionate for what he believes in. And I also believe that he wouldn't do a bad job. He's utterly charisma-free, which generates a gut reaction in me of "wrong guy for the job" but I can happily over-ride that with my trusty brain which I keep handy for just such moments.
His almost desperate delivery is probably what gives some that sense of passion. I suppose to as an ordinary sort of guy, there is a certain amount of nerves talking on national television perhaps? Plus he was trying to squeeze in 5 pounds of potatoes into a 1 pound bag in most of his responses. The result is that he seemed to be ignoring the question. Sacrificing the answer to cram in some more details.
A more concerning thing personality-wise is that he seems to be utterly humourless at all times. Never cracks a smile. Never seems to calmly ponder the answer to a question. I'm not looking for a creepy Harper smile, but some sense of calm, confidence would be good. Then again, maybe those are traits that get wrapped up in the concept of charisma.
There was a moment when he expressed an answer to one of Mansbridge's questions with a sentence of French. I'm sure he lost a few thousand western voters with that one. I guess the idea was "here's a very a propos proverb that we all know well." Well, it wasn't "comme ci comme ça" - we didn't know that one, and it came across like someone unable to think of the words in English. Not the sign of a strong communicator who will connect with the people from sea-to-sea.
There were some pretty direct questions that he should have been prepared for. Ones for which he could have delivered a nice clean, to the point answer. First, I recall a woman saying she earns $12k a year and has two kids, and inquiring how is she and other poor people going to afford a new carbon tax.
The answer was a gimme! Slam-dunk opportunity. And if delivered with compassion and understanding could have really connected. Instead, he immediately forgot the detail of the question: "I don't remember how much her revenue, er, income was," he began "but let's say it's $20k..." and he launched into how much money she would save based on his green shift shtick.
No Stephan! First - $20k is a lot more than $12k. Surely you could have retained that nugget from a 15second clip. And the right answer was an emphatic: "With our green shift you get to keep more of your hard earned money - it is not a tax on your income." He could even have slammed Harper's lie and deny approach (straight from his US republican advisors no doubt) "Mr. Harper repeats at every opportunity the lie that the green shift is a tax on individuals. This is not true."
There, done - say it with some compassion and you're through the question. But no go.
The other question I saw was a small biz owner with an aviation company asking if the green shift was going to tax his business out of existance. Dion's response was totally off topic, talking about airplane manufacturing jobs at Bombardier doing well 'cause they were building more green planes.
He had actually given the right answer earlier in his conversation - where he pointed out that the green shift is phased in. While a small businessman has no ability to drop his plane and buy a new state-of-the-art bio-plane, he should have suggested that he could alter his business to embrace more green friendly processes, and the green shift would not knock him out of business. He could have also projected a tough line to say though, that if his business was unable, over the long term, to become more green friendly, that was a cost of doing business in the new reality, but they weren't going to hit him over the head right away. Perhaps throw in some comment about a special element of the Green shift plan to help small businesses of fewer than 5 employees or something. Done.
Poor guy - can't project his way out of a soggy paper bag. I don't doubt that he'd do a decent job. I just don't know that an average voter can see the strength in the platform beyond the anti-charisma that their leader exudes.
Hope you get out and vote next week. Remember to take a look at the polls in your riding and just pick the strongest non-conservative and go with it.
Seriously, just think what fun it would be to have an awkward, bookish PM! Really, it would truly make me proud to have someone totally charisma free representing us world-wide. There's nothing that says 'integrity' like someone who doesn't come across like a used-car salesman... or a creepy cult-religion pastor like our current guy. So perhaps putting your vote behind Stephan is not such a bad thing!
Wednesday
A Peep from the Finance Minister
Well, RH Harper took the shackles off Flaherty long enough for him to pipe up and issue some firm words against deficits.
I had a funny moment standing in my kitchen a couple of days ago, listening to the news when I suddenly couldn't think who the finance minister was. Wow, I thought, we didn't have that issue back in liberal days. I was not a big PM as PM fan - but it's hard to fault Paul Martin on his fiscal policy, and solidity as a Finance Minister. They churned out surpluses over and over, and left things in pretty good shape when they decided to turn inwards and set their own offices ablaze with in-fighting.
A few moments later Flaherty's name came to mind, and my heart sunk recalling all the childish sniping at Ontario's government. Oh grow up, you lost that election and new guys are doing a better job of it than you did. Scuttling a province by generating bad press from the feds isn't going to make people sing the praises of the Harris government of yesteryear.
So, the knitted curtain (made out of surplus sweaters don't you know) was lifted long enough for Flaherty to say "We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt." Great, thinks I, that sounds reasonable enough. But so much of a country's perception in a volatile market is the confidence that the outward facing officials can generate. A government that keeps the media out of all its activities, does not evoke a sense of transparency.
Truth be told, I'd prefer the finance ministers of yesteryear. I like Martin in the role, I thought too that Michael Wilson, to go back a few years, did a decent job as a Conservative FM (ie non-CRAP conservative). I even remember Allan MacEachen appearing decent. Granted I didn't have as much flesh in the game in those distant years past, so may not have noticed all the nuances.
There's a good resource to be found here, a list of all the FM's.
I would have preferred if, in the Martin years, we had inched a bit more towards debt repayment, when those multi-billion dollar surpluses were rolling in. And we could have done with somewhat less habitual under-estimation.
And out of all of the special interests I can think of, I would loved to have seen a few billion dropped into modernizing Canadian Transportation. Not creating the Mississauga Palace of Versailles that Pearson Airport turned into (I was all for updates, but I think they went a bit overboard there) Rather they should have focussed on steel and rubber transportation on the ground. A world class railway - like we had in the 50's (you can still see it if you want, it's pretty much the same stuff). And some heavy-handed, micromanaged municipal transit build-outs to get me out of my car would have been a good use for those things as well. (Municipal governments would gobble the cash up unless it's well wrapped in strings).
Now we've heard of some infrastructure money in the past few years, but I think it's still an order of magnitude lower than it should be.
Greens and NDP are both talking up a re-investment in these areas. Dion is also talking a green streak - so what the hell, go pick the one that's leading in your area and cast your vote next week.
Let's just avoid buying the sweater thing and putting them back in.
I had a funny moment standing in my kitchen a couple of days ago, listening to the news when I suddenly couldn't think who the finance minister was. Wow, I thought, we didn't have that issue back in liberal days. I was not a big PM as PM fan - but it's hard to fault Paul Martin on his fiscal policy, and solidity as a Finance Minister. They churned out surpluses over and over, and left things in pretty good shape when they decided to turn inwards and set their own offices ablaze with in-fighting.
A few moments later Flaherty's name came to mind, and my heart sunk recalling all the childish sniping at Ontario's government. Oh grow up, you lost that election and new guys are doing a better job of it than you did. Scuttling a province by generating bad press from the feds isn't going to make people sing the praises of the Harris government of yesteryear.
So, the knitted curtain (made out of surplus sweaters don't you know) was lifted long enough for Flaherty to say "We will maintain a surplus in Canada and we will continue to pay down debt." Great, thinks I, that sounds reasonable enough. But so much of a country's perception in a volatile market is the confidence that the outward facing officials can generate. A government that keeps the media out of all its activities, does not evoke a sense of transparency.
Truth be told, I'd prefer the finance ministers of yesteryear. I like Martin in the role, I thought too that Michael Wilson, to go back a few years, did a decent job as a Conservative FM (ie non-CRAP conservative). I even remember Allan MacEachen appearing decent. Granted I didn't have as much flesh in the game in those distant years past, so may not have noticed all the nuances.
There's a good resource to be found here, a list of all the FM's.
I would have preferred if, in the Martin years, we had inched a bit more towards debt repayment, when those multi-billion dollar surpluses were rolling in. And we could have done with somewhat less habitual under-estimation.
And out of all of the special interests I can think of, I would loved to have seen a few billion dropped into modernizing Canadian Transportation. Not creating the Mississauga Palace of Versailles that Pearson Airport turned into (I was all for updates, but I think they went a bit overboard there) Rather they should have focussed on steel and rubber transportation on the ground. A world class railway - like we had in the 50's (you can still see it if you want, it's pretty much the same stuff). And some heavy-handed, micromanaged municipal transit build-outs to get me out of my car would have been a good use for those things as well. (Municipal governments would gobble the cash up unless it's well wrapped in strings).
Now we've heard of some infrastructure money in the past few years, but I think it's still an order of magnitude lower than it should be.
Greens and NDP are both talking up a re-investment in these areas. Dion is also talking a green streak - so what the hell, go pick the one that's leading in your area and cast your vote next week.
Let's just avoid buying the sweater thing and putting them back in.
Tuesday
A Platform! Wow. Is that The Kind of Election We Want?
In a bizarre, unexpected moment of sanity, the governing Conservative party has scrambled around and is going to actually announce a platform in this election. Sure the advanced polls have already closed, so many thousands of people have had to vote without knowing what their party was suggesting for the future. And sure we're in the midst of one of the most significant financial industry collapses in history, without any real recognition of it from that same party. But hey, what more do those little people need to know anyway.
Seeing the poll graph that flashes past the screen each night on CBC, I see that the Conservative line is dipping, and the NDP & Liberal ones are cranking up. The Greens gained a bit, but there's a sharp snap back on them too. Since nothing specific has happened, I'd expect that's a statistical error - something within their margin of uncertainty. Those graphs should really be drawn with error bars to give us an idea of their uncertainty. Since the Conservative number is 32% and the liberals 25%, if the margin of error is 3 or 4 points, it could be that the conservatives are at 29 and the liberals at 28. I'm sure that is not the case, but we can't really tell what is within the realm of possibility.
So two comments to make that really outline what I'm feeling most strongly about during this campaign. First, how everyone in the country should vote - Yes, I'm talkiing to you, and second my read on how ideology driven people think.
First you need to find a source of polling data for your riding. Now remember, these things are never bang on - but that's okay you just need a rough idea. Since I assume everyone else in your riding is reading this as well, all will be fine.
If you can't find one check here. It's not very scientific but it might fit the bill. The discussions in each riding often include some recent numbers that someone mentions. Otherwise, just google "riding polls" and click the "pages from Canada" search button.
How every you do it, just look at your riding's numbers. This part is the easy step:
simply vote for the leading non-conservative party. That's it. Done.
So, if the conservatives are ahead (my condolences) but look at the next number down, and cast your vote for that party, regarless of which way you are otherwise leaning.
If the conservatives are not leading, simply vote for the leading party in the polls. This avoids the vote splitting. Plus it's pretty democratic really. Since we don't have a proper "first choice, second choice" instant run-off voting system like we SHOULD have if we were in the 21st century, this deals with the challenge of 'anyone but the conservatives' without splitting the vote and letting them come up the middle.
Problem solved.
My fundamental fear of a conservative majority is their ideology driven agenda. It's been very carefully hidden for a few years now. They've effectively cut the media off from being able to participate in the democracy. There are no more scrums in the house. The local MP's in the their ridings don't talk to any media. Thus no media will hear when one of their many loose cannons spews vitriol at minorities, aboriginals, gay/lesbian communities, or immigrants, or when they spout some crazy right wing conspiracy theory about the jews, or advocate adopting the US currency (wouldn't that be great right now as their banking system falls apart.)
What motivates the leaders of this party? I beleive it is an ideology that they have a world view, heavily influenced by religion and class structure, and they are driven to re-mould the country in that image. I fear that their perception is this. "If we can just get that majority, we can fix everything. If we can get around these pesky citizens, who don't know what's good for them, we'll make everything right. Then, we can 'eliminate' the naysayers because they will be overwhelmingly quieted by the vast majority of people who will be won over by our amazing approach to reforming the country."
The problem with that - besides the inherent assumption that they know better than the people - is that the mould they would advocate would involve creating a state infused with christianity-based philosophy, where the border between the US and Canada is largely erased, and Alberta becomes some oil-rich oligarchy within a weak, probably militaristic, Canada.
So we all need to find a means to ensure that the majority (ie at least 65% of the population by recent polls) is not led by this party. Assuming some of the 35% support does not fully grasp the ideology of the conservatives, we are looking at some crazy situation where we can all be led by a minority with a vastly different view of the country.
Then after election day we need to get the voting system changed. Not to some crazy MMP thing like Ontario explored briefly, but changed instead to an 'instant run-off' approach that recognizes that people often have an 'anyone but that guy' perspective. Our current system allows the 'anyone but him' situation to disasterously end up electing exactly that person due to spreading of the majority vote among a diffuse base of alternatives.
Whew. There - I've outlined the solution to all the woes of our country in one brief blog post, and it's not even lunch time yet.
Seeing the poll graph that flashes past the screen each night on CBC, I see that the Conservative line is dipping, and the NDP & Liberal ones are cranking up. The Greens gained a bit, but there's a sharp snap back on them too. Since nothing specific has happened, I'd expect that's a statistical error - something within their margin of uncertainty. Those graphs should really be drawn with error bars to give us an idea of their uncertainty. Since the Conservative number is 32% and the liberals 25%, if the margin of error is 3 or 4 points, it could be that the conservatives are at 29 and the liberals at 28. I'm sure that is not the case, but we can't really tell what is within the realm of possibility.
So two comments to make that really outline what I'm feeling most strongly about during this campaign. First, how everyone in the country should vote - Yes, I'm talkiing to you, and second my read on how ideology driven people think.
HOW TO VOTE TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY
First you need to find a source of polling data for your riding. Now remember, these things are never bang on - but that's okay you just need a rough idea. Since I assume everyone else in your riding is reading this as well, all will be fine.
If you can't find one check here. It's not very scientific but it might fit the bill. The discussions in each riding often include some recent numbers that someone mentions. Otherwise, just google "riding polls" and click the "pages from Canada" search button.
How every you do it, just look at your riding's numbers. This part is the easy step:
simply vote for the leading non-conservative party. That's it. Done.
So, if the conservatives are ahead (my condolences) but look at the next number down, and cast your vote for that party, regarless of which way you are otherwise leaning.
If the conservatives are not leading, simply vote for the leading party in the polls. This avoids the vote splitting. Plus it's pretty democratic really. Since we don't have a proper "first choice, second choice" instant run-off voting system like we SHOULD have if we were in the 21st century, this deals with the challenge of 'anyone but the conservatives' without splitting the vote and letting them come up the middle.
Problem solved.
THE IDEOLOGS PHILOSOPHY
My fundamental fear of a conservative majority is their ideology driven agenda. It's been very carefully hidden for a few years now. They've effectively cut the media off from being able to participate in the democracy. There are no more scrums in the house. The local MP's in the their ridings don't talk to any media. Thus no media will hear when one of their many loose cannons spews vitriol at minorities, aboriginals, gay/lesbian communities, or immigrants, or when they spout some crazy right wing conspiracy theory about the jews, or advocate adopting the US currency (wouldn't that be great right now as their banking system falls apart.)
What motivates the leaders of this party? I beleive it is an ideology that they have a world view, heavily influenced by religion and class structure, and they are driven to re-mould the country in that image. I fear that their perception is this. "If we can just get that majority, we can fix everything. If we can get around these pesky citizens, who don't know what's good for them, we'll make everything right. Then, we can 'eliminate' the naysayers because they will be overwhelmingly quieted by the vast majority of people who will be won over by our amazing approach to reforming the country."
The problem with that - besides the inherent assumption that they know better than the people - is that the mould they would advocate would involve creating a state infused with christianity-based philosophy, where the border between the US and Canada is largely erased, and Alberta becomes some oil-rich oligarchy within a weak, probably militaristic, Canada.
Vote on Election Day
So we all need to find a means to ensure that the majority (ie at least 65% of the population by recent polls) is not led by this party. Assuming some of the 35% support does not fully grasp the ideology of the conservatives, we are looking at some crazy situation where we can all be led by a minority with a vastly different view of the country.
Then after election day we need to get the voting system changed. Not to some crazy MMP thing like Ontario explored briefly, but changed instead to an 'instant run-off' approach that recognizes that people often have an 'anyone but that guy' perspective. Our current system allows the 'anyone but him' situation to disasterously end up electing exactly that person due to spreading of the majority vote among a diffuse base of alternatives.
Whew. There - I've outlined the solution to all the woes of our country in one brief blog post, and it's not even lunch time yet.
Wednesday
Integrity, Debates and Polls
Wow - it's tough to blog about a subject that is just so depressing. Walking along the street today I saw a headline about John Baird being ahead in some poll. This is one of the reasons I dislike media carrying poll information, as it's just put out there in a few words in 200pt font on a masthead, and nobody gets any detail about the question asked or the margin of error.
I'm amazed and saddened that people can actually see that guy in normal operating mode and think "hey, there's a guy I want to support." I lose faith in humanity, in that people seem incapable of detecting (or perhaps caring about) sleaziness.
Meanwhile, I note at night on the CBC national news that a nightly flash of a chart showing the trend over several days is given. Luckily that goes by so fast that nobody can be very influenced by it.
With the freezeframe button on my remote, I can look at it long enough to figure out what it says. It's pretty much showing variations within the margin of error, but seems to indicate some growth for the NDP - perhaps at the expense of the liberals. There's some drop in the Conservatives, but again within the margin of polling error.
Given the incessantly negative advertising of the conservatives, and their lack of a platform and their ongoing avoidance of allowing their people to talk for fear their propensity to insert their feet, I would think integrity would be a bigger issue in this election.
The recent plaigiarism scandel has been trivialized by some, but I think this speaks directly to integrity. However, I think the story is bigger than what the media is half-assedly reporting. Contrary to their reports, I think the issue is likely not that they copied an Aussie PM's speech, but rather that they were given text by someone in the US Republican party, and they parroted it 'cause that's what Uncle George told them to do. It seems unlikely that Harper's androids were sitting around watching John Howard speeches. Getting the daily communiqué from their republican handlers seems much more likely.
Does anyone care that our PM gets his speech text from a Republican handler? Seems not.
Meanwhile the debates are queued up, and set to clash directly with the US veep debates. You'd think they could have planned a bit better for this. I mean the pure theatre value of the swan dive being set-up for Gov Palin at the hands of crazy-man Biden should be pretty entertaining.
But debates have gone beyond their original purpose. God-forbid that we should have people tune in to the Cdn debate for the purpose of seeing who has the greater strength to lead the country. No, instead people watch it to see if someone can 'score points' against someone else. It's become purely theatre - more a sport than an intellectual discussion. We want to see losers hammered, not eloquent leaders. We don't want to see someone inspire us, we want to see someone trip-up the other guy.
I like to think that my interest in the US Veep Debate is to pull the cloak of lies off this Palin character, and expose her for the lightweight that she is.
I like to think that my interest in the Cdn debate is to hear who can put to gether the most cogent arguments for their platform. Given that certain parties have chosen to introduce no platform at all, and campaign purely on personal attacks doesn't leave me very inspired.
I'm amazed and saddened that people can actually see that guy in normal operating mode and think "hey, there's a guy I want to support." I lose faith in humanity, in that people seem incapable of detecting (or perhaps caring about) sleaziness.
Meanwhile, I note at night on the CBC national news that a nightly flash of a chart showing the trend over several days is given. Luckily that goes by so fast that nobody can be very influenced by it.
With the freezeframe button on my remote, I can look at it long enough to figure out what it says. It's pretty much showing variations within the margin of error, but seems to indicate some growth for the NDP - perhaps at the expense of the liberals. There's some drop in the Conservatives, but again within the margin of polling error.
Integrity
Given the incessantly negative advertising of the conservatives, and their lack of a platform and their ongoing avoidance of allowing their people to talk for fear their propensity to insert their feet, I would think integrity would be a bigger issue in this election.
The recent plaigiarism scandel has been trivialized by some, but I think this speaks directly to integrity. However, I think the story is bigger than what the media is half-assedly reporting. Contrary to their reports, I think the issue is likely not that they copied an Aussie PM's speech, but rather that they were given text by someone in the US Republican party, and they parroted it 'cause that's what Uncle George told them to do. It seems unlikely that Harper's androids were sitting around watching John Howard speeches. Getting the daily communiqué from their republican handlers seems much more likely.
Does anyone care that our PM gets his speech text from a Republican handler? Seems not.
Meanwhile the debates are queued up, and set to clash directly with the US veep debates. You'd think they could have planned a bit better for this. I mean the pure theatre value of the swan dive being set-up for Gov Palin at the hands of crazy-man Biden should be pretty entertaining.
But debates have gone beyond their original purpose. God-forbid that we should have people tune in to the Cdn debate for the purpose of seeing who has the greater strength to lead the country. No, instead people watch it to see if someone can 'score points' against someone else. It's become purely theatre - more a sport than an intellectual discussion. We want to see losers hammered, not eloquent leaders. We don't want to see someone inspire us, we want to see someone trip-up the other guy.
I like to think that my interest in the US Veep Debate is to pull the cloak of lies off this Palin character, and expose her for the lightweight that she is.
I like to think that my interest in the Cdn debate is to hear who can put to gether the most cogent arguments for their platform. Given that certain parties have chosen to introduce no platform at all, and campaign purely on personal attacks doesn't leave me very inspired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)