Despite a number of philosophical differences, I understand why many Canadians support the idea of a fiscally conservative government that only offers the most essential of services in exchange for costing less through taxes. I do understand the attraction; there are some policies that I support from both ends of the political spectrum, and I’ve had many a debate on these issues with family and friends.
What I don’t understand is how anyone, from any political stripe, can support Stephen Harper. The partisanship, the disrespect for both the democratic process and for the Canadian people, repeated defiance of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the outright corruption boggles my mind. When the Liberal ad scandal broke, the then (Liberal) Prime Minister ordered a public inquiry despite the obvious political cost, and yet some of my Conservative friends still hurl “corrupt” at the Liberal party while seemingly finding this crap to be acceptable. I cannot grasp how anyone with any moral values could say that.
This year, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Harper, and a vote for more of the same from him and his unelected PMO staff. You may counter that a Conservative vote is nothing more than a vote for your local candidate, but it is Harper who has muzzled his back-benchers, and stripped them of the ability to represent their constituents in the Commons and in committee, so this defence is invalid. A Conservative vote is a vote for Harper, and a vote for him endorses all of this corrupt, morally bankrupt activity.
I understand how your philosophical position might preclude you from voting for one of the other parties. I confess I have reservations about both and I am uneasy about my still wavering support for the NDP in this one. Since reaching voting age there have been two provincial elections where I’ve gone in and declined my ballot — I found none of the available options acceptable. But that’s not an option at the federal level. I’m pretty sure that if I was a hardcore Conservative and unable to support an alternative, this time around I’d be showing up on Election Day and spoiling my ballot in disgust.
Justin Trudeau is entering the race for the leadership of the Liberals. Polls within the party are said to show that he’s likely to win. While this might not be a great thing for the Liberals, it’s great for the country.
If the Liberals elect Trudeau, they’ll be sending a clear signal: that their collective wisdom favours the iconic over substance. It will show that they believe – as a whole – that a descendant of the Marilyn Monroe of Canadian Politics (no I’m not talking about Maggie here) will lead us to the nirvana of the centre left.
The challenge with Canadian politics is that our multi-party system won’t work as long as the method of electing representation is the primitive first past the post system. With our irrational fear of coalition governments, and an increasing tendency to move the locus of power from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s Office, it’s virtually impossible to construct a government that is representative of the will of the Canadian people unless they’re presented with a binary choice: Leftish or Rightish.
The Right suffered from this for years, with votes split between the Progressive Conservatives and Reform; now the Left suffers with a split between the Liberals and the NDP.
Justin can fix all that. In one decisive stroke, the Liberals can transform themselves from a crusty dynasty in need of renewal into a national joke. One can only hope that the liberals will subsequently poll in the range of the Natural Law Party. Centrist voters will be forced to choose the NDP in spite of it’s soft socialist heritage, the Conservatives will be back in opposition, and we’ll have a government that is less unrepresentative of the national character. Refugees from the Liberals will join the NDP, taking it further toward the centre, and all will be well.
So go for it, Justin, for the good of the country.
It’s probably pretty obvious from this blog that my political philosophy most closely aligns with the Liberal Party. What’s less obvious is that it’s hardly a tight fit. Its more of an alignment of averages. Some probably perceive me as radical left (for example I believe in a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians), some as radical right (along with guaranteed income comes the cancellation of many social assistance programs). I believe in competition, but I don’t subscribe to the interpretation that competition requires traditional capitalism. (more…)
In The Conference Board of Canada’s Deceptive, Plagiarized Digital Economy Report Michael Geist attacks the Conference Board for a variety of faults that call its claims of objectivity into question. Subsequently, in Conference Board of Canada Responds, Stands By Its Report he comments on their inadequate response.
What is perhaps most informative is this quote from the response “The Conference Board regularly produces custom research. Our guidelines for financed research require the design and method of research, as well as the content of the report, to be determined solely by the Conference Board.” [Note to conference board: that is how you cite sources.]
This quote suggests that they take full responsibility for the incompetence, sloppy methodology, poor fact checking, and many other faults in their work. They appear to either be completely disconnected from reality or to be fully aware that they have no credibility whatsoever.
I suppose it doesn’t matter which.
There is no question that the Liberal Party of Canada needs to pick a new leader, and fast. Not only do they have to do it quickly, but they have to do it right.
While Michael Ignatieff might be the right choice, and might even be the winner at a convention, Bob Rae’s observation that a process of installing him is “undemocratic” carries some weight. Simply installing Ignatieff based on polling results and some “consultation” with riding leadership may be prudent, but it’s not smart.
I put “undemocratic” in quotes for two reasons. Firstly, the word has been horribly misused over the past few weeks. All the political drama we have just experienced has been nothing but democracy. Those who call it otherwise are merely uninformed. Anyone who says “I voted for Harper, not Dion” is in desperate need of education on the political system that this country uses. On the second count, the normal process that the Liberals use to pick a leader is anything but democratic. To anyone who wants to argue this, I merely observe that this was the process that got Dion the leadership in the first place.
The “transferable delegate” system might make for great television, but it has clearly been demonstrated that not only is it out of touch with the party grassroots, it doesn’t pick the best leader. Time to chuck this tradition along with Mr. Dion. This time, let’s lose the baby and the bath water.
This gives the Liberals an amazing opportunity to demonstrate that there is a fix for the problem. What they should do is quickly set up an online leadership voting system. They should mail cards with a security PIN code to every party member in good standing. Party members should then be required to combine this PIN with some piece of personal information that’s on file, such as the member’s phone number and year that they joined the party. There will need exception handling process for those who have problems, but I guarantee that they’ll get a democratically elected leader in a short period of time and at a lot less cost than a convention.
The catch to all of this is that we’re talking about a party that can’t manage to get a critical video for a national address done on a reasonable schedule, and even then they can’t do a job that wouldn’t embarrass a grade seven student. It’s painfully evident that the Liberal communications people are under siege at best, or woefully incompetent at worst.
Still, an online leader selection process would be relatively straightforward. I’d even be willing to help implement such a system, because I think real democracy is important. Then we can talk about moving federal elections to a Single Transferable Vote system (in particular, BC-STV) and then maybe we can get on to building governments that are formed from meaningful, relevant, and functional coalitions. It is possible. (more…)