Anniversary Post and a Call for Political Advice

Pample the Moose is seven calendar years old today. I'm not sure how old that is in blog years. My posting has become more erratic in recent years, but I'm still committed to keeping it going for the foreseeable future.

So as to have some content here beyond a simple age statement, I'm hoping for a wee bit of advice in the comments section - and this is one of those rare occasions where I'll tolerate some partisanship. I'm making my end-of-year donations right now, trying to beat the deadline for tax receipts. I've figured out my charitable donations, but I had been considering making a political contribution or two as well this year. The trouble is, I'm not certain where best to donate. Over the last decade, I've voted for Liberals, NDPers and Greens, although to be honest my main consideration this year is Liberal vs. NDP. My dilemma is that both of the major parties are leaderless at the moment, and their future policies uncertain. I am an anyone-is-better-than-a-Conservative voter, and so like the idea of contributing to the efforts of the opposition parties during this post-election re-building phase. However, I'm not currently feeling energized by either campaign enough to want to take out a membership.

So, do I donate to the Liberals, the NDP, both or neither? Suggestions and rationales are welcome!

Recommend this Post

Partisan dreck: Seat Redistribution Edition

The new seat redistribution bill recently passed the House of Commons, awarding new seats to Ontario, Quebec, BC and Alberta. Rarely have I seen commentary about legislation so thoroughly skewed by short-term partisan and regional interests, and it makes me ill.

I'll get my principles on the table. I favour representation-by-population in the House of Commons. If there are to be regional counterweights in our parliamentary and federalist system, they are supposed to be found in a Senate (which could be revamped) and in the provincial governments (which hold most of the key powers these days anyways). As such, I have no sympathy with the claim that Quebec's share of the House of Commons should remain fixed at a given percentage (a provision of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord that was widely denounced outside that province), and would have no difficulty with reducing the seat tallies of the Maritime and Atlantic Canadian provinces, overturning earlier legislation, if the appropriate legislative and/or constitutional changes were made. As such, there has been a lot for me to take issue with in the craven pandering that both the Liberals and NDP (the two parties I normally vote for) have been engaged in by objecting to this legislation.

And today, Twitter is abuzz with more partisan dreck in response to John Ibbitson's column hypothetically allocating these new seats according to the 2011 election results. This is not a "Conservative windfall". It's a long-overdue correction in an electoral system that has cheated urban Canada, and particularly Ontario, BC and Alberta of their equitable share of seats in the House of Commons. A decade ago the same allegation could have been made that such a change would have favoured the Liberals. Voting allegiances change over time, and seats are allocated based on population, not the party affiliation of the seats being divided and redistributed. It's not like the Conservative party is able to take the riding of Crowfoot (historically the site of some of their biggest single-riding majorities) and split it into 31 new ridings. And frankly, if you look at the Ontario provincial election, there is extremely good reason to think that new seats created in Mississauga-Brampton would be fair game for all three parties.

If our political discourse is devolving to the point where we refuse to engage in what should be routine corrections to the electoral map, then our system is completely broken. Perhaps the most ardent critics of these changes should openly admit that they are inspired by the political strategies of Maurice Duplessis, the Quebec Premier so well known for turning the rurally-skewed electoral map of his province to the advantage of the Union Nationale machine. It turns my stomach to watch one of the key principles of how Canadian democracy is supposed to operate being undermined for short-term political advantage and media soundbites.

Also, a word to the NDP and the Liberals. Do you honestly think that the Conservative Party of Canada is not keeping a detailed dossier for the next election of your quotes of why your party thinks Ontario, BC and Alberta don't deserve equitable representation in the House? How about making winning those new seats your priority, rather than trying to prevent their creation?

Recommend this Post

Ontario Election: NDP gives up on Guelph, saves me a decision

I try so darned hard to support the NDP. I am sympathetic to their message of social justice, of social welfare programs, of equitable treatment for Canadians. I have had great respect for many of the party's leaders past and present. If only I could ignore their local candidates, literature and e-mails.

The following quote is from a message that arrived in my inbox today from the local candidate's - James Gordon - campaign, announcing the opening of the campaign office, which will feature an appearance by MP Charlie Angus:

"Guitars in hand, James and Charlie are going to send a message through song: we can win this riding, and work together to build an even better Guelph and Ontario.

Sending a message through song?!? Seriously?! In an election where the Mike Harris acolyte Mike Hudak (be prepared for multiple references to "the evil forces of Hudak" for the remainder of the campaign, kids) is poised to potentially topple the McGuinty government, the local NDP is going with a message of song? What sort of hippie bull is this? And this follows on the "summer of listening" email from July. I thought it was bad in 2007 when the NDP candidate ran on the message of "vote for me because I am an immigrant woman of colour" platform, but apparently the depths of the no-hoper barrel had yet to be plumbed.

In one sense, this makes my decision easier, narrowing my potential vote candidates to two. But I'm really disappointed that in a riding with a sizable left-wing population, the NDP continues to put up candidates that could not possibly appeal beyond the hardest of the hardcore 60s radicals.

Recommend this Post

Federalism - It's not just for Centralizers any more!

As an addendum to yesterday's post, I see that Nycole Turmel has re-stated her commitment to federalism, and plans to end her membership in the sovereignist Quebec Solidaire. But here's the central issue for me, as someone who teaches courses on Canadian politics and federalism. Saying that you are a "federalist" is a pretty meaningless statement in some important respects. The central feature of "federalism" as a system of government is that power is divided between a central government and regional governments, with each sovereign in their own sphere - although often with some overlapping jurisdictions. Where the balance of power lies between the two levels of government, and how responsibilities are divided up, varies wildly between different federations around the world. Switzerland, for example, gives almost all of the powers to the cantons, while the USA has swung back and forth between a state-centric and national government-centered approach. So when Nycole Turmel says that she is a commited (or strong) federalist, all this really means is that she is not a supporter of Quebec separatism.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate even this level of clarity. As someone who has studied Quebec history for years, I'm well aware that the sovereignist parties have basically monopolized left-wing politics for decades, and many NDP supporters hold their noses and vote Bloc, or PQ, or QS because of their social policies. But for many NDP supporters outside the province of Quebec, it actually does matter a lot whether the party is still committed to a strong national government role in the provision of social welfare. And this, at least for me, is one of the big unknowns about what the May election means for the future of NDP policy. I'm happy that Turmel does not support the sovereignist planks of the two sovereignist parties that she has been a member of, but I'd still like to know more about how she conceives of the future of Canadian federalism. For me, this isn't about using national unity as a political wedge issue, it's about getting more information about how the NDP is conceiving of future directions for the funding and delivery of Canadian social programs.

Recommend this Post

Nycole Turmel, meet Jean Lapierre

Gosh, the Twitterverse is atweet today with spin and counter-spin on Daniel Leblanc's article in the Globe and Mail about interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel's very recent membership in the Bloc Quebecois. Some partisans are crying foul and alleging that this is a smear campaign. Other commentators are observing that it's commonplace to switch political allegiances.

Here are my two cents: Welcome to the big leagues Dippers! Changing political allegiances is pretty common in Canadian politics. Jean Lapierre did it. Rene Levesque did it. Bob Rae did it. Belinda Stronach did it. Scott Brison did it. Lucien Bouchard did it (a bunch of times, in fact). Heck, I've been a card carrying member of different parties in my lifetime (none at the moment though). Over one's lifespan, your political ideals may shift, and so too might your party affiliations. But if you're going to run for political office, you'll need to be prepared to be clear about your political past, and why you've changed your beliefs.

What appears to be igniting the firestorm in this case is the apparent absence of changed political beliefs on the part of Turmel, at least insofar as the letter obtained by Leblanc would indicate (which is not necessarilly the full extent of her reasoning). And let's get real, kids, separatism/sovereigntism is a big deal in Canadian politics. It's legitimate for Canadians to want to know where their politicians stand on this issue. And if that makes the current NDP, with its Quebec-heavy caucus, uncomfortable, that's too bad. Ever since May, the party appears to have been trying to dance around the éléphant in the room, and at some point, that's going to become impossible. The party known for heralding strong national social programs in English-speaking Canada is going to have to publicly reconcile this stance with its asymmetric-federalism stance in Quebec.

This might well be a good opportunity to start that public conversation and provide some clarity. Because without Jack Layton's personal popularity to hold the party together, things might become very tense, very quickly. A clear public statement from Turmel would be an excellent start.

Recommend this Post

Quebec NDP: The Kids [Could Be] All Right

Monday was an exciting night for Quebec university NDP clubs, as a number of members of their executives were elected to the House of Commons, amidst a wave that elected NDP members in almost 80% of Quebec's ridings (on the strength of about 43% of the province's popular vote, although that's a subject for a different post). Since that day, news sites, Twitter and Facebook have been aflame with commentary and angry retorts regarding the issues of the youth, experience, and suitability for office of these newly-elected MPs.

To the vitriolic partisans on both sides of this issue, I say a pox on both your houses. Everybody has to start somewhere in politics, and many, many members of parliament (and indeed leaders of some major political parties) have been thrust into political office with no prior political experience. In many cases, this is what people find "fresh" about them. Many are elected at a young age, in their mid-20s, and seem to settle into the position without much difficulty. In both cases, they often stumble a bit as they get their footing, and many settle into the job quite nicely. Others don't, and our current House of Commons has many examples of "veterans" who were initially elected at a variety of ages who I'd argue are not fit to hold elected office. So this lack of experience is not necessarily a problem at all, and it's a cheap attack ploy when these individuals have not yet had a chance to prove themselves. It's particularly hollow and bitter coming from Liberal partisans, because they barely held on to less than half of their seats, electing very few rookies at all.

But to the NDP partisans who have been on their high horse about this issue, a little less self-righteous posturing would be appreciated. Many of these candidates were placeholder candidates. They knew it, Jack Layton knew it, and you know it. And they got lucky. So now the best line of argument is to make the case that they should be given a fair shot. But pretending that it is invalid to question and closely examine the credentials and political positions of people who were probably not closely scrutinized by the party when they agreed to run as the sacrificial lamb in the riding - to collect the $1.75 subsidy and reinforce claims to national party status - rings false to those on the outside. How about a bit more honesty? Admit that some of these people were not necesarily ideal picks with perfect qualifications, but make the case for their capacity to prove themselves despite their surface-level lack of experience and perceived lack of aptitude for public office.

I imagine that out of the current crop of rookie MPs, some will distinguish themselves. But at least a few others will likely be disastrous and make some serious media gaffes. It might be better to admit this earlier on in the process and perhaps earn a slight reprieve from the circling journalistic vultures when the inevitable first set of mistakes occur.

Recommend this Post

NDP in Quebec: Who are these prospective MPs?

With all the excitement/panic/drama surrounding the apparent NDP wave in Quebec, it's fair to wonder who might suddenly become the new crop of MPs from Quebec if polling data translates into seats in the House of Commons. I, for one, am very curious. Here in Guelph, the NDP ran fourth in the 2008 election, and even today, a week before the election, there is still no candidate bio on the website for the local candidate, Bobbi Stewart. I have no idea from the website who she is, other than the election preparedness chair for the local riding association.

If that's the case in Ontario, it's no surprise that speculation is rampant about the Quebec crop of candidates for the party. The Globe and Mail has started digging, and has turned up at least a handful of university students. I'm not surprised at all. When I volunteered for the local NDP candidate in Outremont in the 2004 election, I was rather surprised to discover that the entire provincial campaign was being run out of a single office on St. Laurent Blvd, and that most of the candidates for the province were in fact the campaign management team, based almost entirely out of Montreal, many of them university students, and most of them under thirty years of age. A quick glance through the list of candidates seems to indicate that this is again the case in at least a sizeable number of ridings.

As a person who genuinely would love to see the NDP replace the Bloc as the choice of Quebec voters, I'm hoping that some of the blue seats in that province will turn orange, and that the newly elected MPs will do a good job. It's just that nagging memory of the ADQ surge to become the official opposition in Quebec in 2007 that has me a little concerned of what could happen when a series of placeholder candidates suddenly become MPs.

Let's just say that I'm hopeful, yet concerned...

Recommend this Post

An Orange Revolution in Quebec: The NDP in la belle province

I'm somewhat surprised by the latest CROP and Ekos polls coming out of Quebec, showing the NDP cruising into first place, and the Bloc vote steadily falling. But as I'll get to later in this post, there are good historical reasons to explain this trend. In the immediate context, to understand better why this is occurring, I'd strongly recommend reading Vincent Marissal in La Presse this morning, although the unilingual among you (ETA: or to be more accurate, those who can only read one of our two official languages) could get a slightly more negative appraisal of the cause of Layton's rise by reading Jeffrey Simpson's column in the Globe yesterday. Taken together, what emerges is that Layton personally is quite popular in Quebec, he fared very well in the leaders' debate, and, more importantly, the NDP in Quebec is running on the soft nationalist platform, endorsing an application of Bill 101 to federal institutions and an asymmetric vision of federalism.

Whoa! What's that you say, in English-speaking Canada? The grand old party of federal government control and centralization is advocating more powers for Quebec? What's up with that? Well, gentle reader, how about a brief history lesson...

It has been a rough and complicated ride for the left in Quebec over the last 80 years. The CCF, founded in the Depression years, encountered a Quebec ready for change, as decades of provincial Liberal dynasties were about to be cast off. However, in a province still heavily dominated by the Catholic Church, a socialist party was viewed with suspicion. And then things got worse, when Maurice Duplessis seized control of the would-be-progressive Union Nationale from his co-leader Paul Gouin and set about implementing his conservative vision for the province. For the left, this was disastrous, especially once the "loi de cadenas" or Padlock Law was passed in 1937, allowing the provincial government to lock down premises being used to promote bolshevism, a law widely used against unions and left-wing organizations. The arrest of Fred Rose, a Montreal-area Labour MP on charges of supporting communism in the wake of the Gouzenko spy affair in the mid-1940s didn't help matters.

Fast forward three decades, and Quebec's political Quiet Revolution led the provincial Liberals of Jean Lesage into office as the modernizers and pro-government intervention party. At the national level, Lester Pearson and then Pierre Trudeau's Liberals offered a safe option for left-wing Quebecers. Quebec's political culture opened up to government intervention and social programs. Indeed, the time should have been ripe for an NDP breakthrough in the province. However, in the 1960s, the party was seen as the standard-bearer for nationally-run social programs, which sold well to its constituencies in other parts of the country, but left them high and dry in Quebec, where the provincial government was fighting for more autonomy over social and cultural programs (including the Quebec Pension Program of 1964-65).

As Canada slipped into the 1970s, support for left-wing initiatives - support for unions, social programs and government intervention - were all growing in Quebec. But then things get derailed for the NDP. The Union Nationale collapsed, and the standard-bearer for all things progressive became the sovereignist Parti Quebecois, which promised a dynamic, interventionist, progressive - and largely independent - Quebec. Ever since the mid-1970s, a sizable chunk of the left-wing vote in Quebec has also identified with the sovereignist option, with many seeing the greatest potential for these policies outside of a more (small-c) conservative Canada. Quebeckers have come to love their social programs - witness the provincial daycare and drug plans. And so, in election after election, many soft nationalist, left-of-centre voters, particularly francophone ones, have supported the PQ at the provincial level, and later the Bloc federally (although the Bloc also attracts a lot of more conservative voters from rural Quebec who used to support the Creditistes and the ADQ). If you track the Bloc's positions on a lot of social issues at the federal level, they consistently end up left-of-centre. Heck, the CBC's who-should-you-vote-for tool pegged me, a Trudeau federalist, as a potential Bloc voter.

And so, under Jack Layton, the NDP has adopted a new strategy. While outside Quebec the party continues to champion a strong federal role in social programs, within the province they speak of accommodation and asymmetrical federalism. They embrace Quebec's protective language laws and sing the song of the soft nationalist. It helped with the Outremont breakthrough, and appears to be selling well in this election, when Duceppe has not been in his best fighting form. And talk of coalition government does sell very well in Quebec. So in these respects, an NDP surge in the province should not be seen as all that surprising (although it's understandable why are surprised given this long history), but long overdue, especially given that active support for separatism is quite low at the moment.

The big questions are as follows: a) Will this support hold until election day and be concentrated enough to yield more seats in the province? and b) Will the NDP's core voters in other parts of the country continue to support Layton and his party despite these promises made in Quebec, if and when they become more aware of them?

Recommend this Post

Wild election predictions

I haven't blogged nearly as much about contemporary politics of late as I did when this blog got started. In no small part, it's because I've found both federal and provincial politics to be rather depressing, and largely without policy initiatives to inspire me. I've also thus far refrained from most of the election speculation that has been running rampant. But since a former student asked me last night for my thoughts about what is increasingly looking like an election train pulling out of the station, here's my wild speculation on the outcome of such an election.

Best case scenario (from my perspective): Another Conservative minority. Some shuffling of the deck in terms of Conservative-NDP-Liberal seats, but overall more-or-less the same ratios in the house, and no major Bloc losses.

Worst case scenario (from my perspective): A Conservative majority. Bloc stays constant. NDP and Liberal losses, particularly in Ontario.

Why do I think this? I don't think that voters are nearly as outraged about the various contempt scandals facing the Conservatives as they were about Adscam in the Martin years, and Harper has wisely (from a strategic standpoint) decided to try to put out the fires rather than throwing more fuel on them (launching an inquiry, declaring his outrage, and stamping about like a ninny). Most Canadians, frankly, don't even understand the finer points of what his government has done wrong, and probably don't care, because they're so disenchanted with all politicians right now. And so, the major election issue that the Liberals and NDP are banking on, I think, will fizzle. Neither of their leaders is particularly beloved, and I don't think that will change either. I hope to be proven wrong on this. (And sorry, Elizabeth May, but the Greens are going to be totally marginalized this time.) But with the Conservatives able to spend way more money on advertisements than the other two parties, I think they'll get to set the narrative this time.

What are the outcomes of these scenarios. Well, the big one is that Iggy gets shown the door in both cases. (Jack will be allowed to stay if he wants to, because nobody is going to launch a coup against a leader recovering from medical treatment.) After that... well, my suspicion is that the Liberals then crown "Premier Bob", and let him go down in flames in Ontario in the following election. And then we might actually see some renewal in that party.

Thus endeth a really, really pessimistic and bitchy post. Do you see now why it's better to have me posting about historical issues?

Recommend this Post

Senate salaries - and other trivialities that Peter Stoffer is studying

There's a lot of idiocy to comment on these days in Canadian political life, and I'm too busy with work to deal with it all. But Nova Scotia NDP MP Peter Stoffer's "revelation" of what 27 new Conservative Senate appointees will cost in salaries and expenses if they serve their full term falls firmly in the category of pot-calling-the-kettle-black on the "wasting taxpayer dollars" front. All Senators - Liberal, Conservative, NDP - are paid out of taxpayer dollars. As are MPs. As are their staffs. As is the entire freaking bureaucracy. This is not news. And until we have Senate reform that is accepted by both the federal government and the provinces, I'd rather that the upper house not sit completely vacant, unable to carry out its responsibilities or represent the provinces it is supposed to serve. Moreover, assuming that days spent sitting in the upper chamber is the only thing that Senators do as part of their jobs is a classic example of setting up a straw-man argument.

Canadian Press, which wrote the non-story, at least isn't wasting taxpayer dollars by writing it. CBC, which decided to cover this non-announcement and waste time on it, did. So did Peter Stoffer, who clearly thinks this is how his time as a Member of Parliament (and the time of his taxpayer-paid staff) should be spent, also wasted taxpayer dollars preparing this media release.

If you want Senate reform, that's fine. But let's not pretend that whatever configuration a revamped upper house assumes will not also entail the spending of taxpayer dollars on salaries and expenses.

And let's also not pretend - even among NDP voters - that until the House of Commons moves to some sort of proportional representation system, that there aren't large swaths of the population that are extremely relieved that the Senate can slow down legislation rammed through a "majority" government elected with 39-43% of the popular vote.

ETA: In other conversations, I've been having, it's been pointed out to me that the NDP isn't in favour of Senate reform, but of complete abolition of the upper house. In that case, I will retract /some/ of what I've said about hypocrisy - but only in so far as it pertains to the cost savings of complete abolition. But let me make two other points here. First, I think the Senate serves useful functions. It does initiate legislation, and it does provide an important corrective to the wording/phrasing of bills. This is particularly important because often legislation is rushed through the House to serve highly partisan aims. Without having a reformed electoral system for the House of Commons, it's also the only check that we have on the false majority governments of the day. And I, for one, would be quite concerned about eliminating the upper house without reforming the lower one.

But my bigger concern is the way that Stoffer has chosen to go after the Senate. If the NDP has principled objections to the role of the Senate or the manner of its appointment, it should tackle them directly. Using the "government is too expensive" line feeds into a very nasty discourse, usually used by the right wing, about trying to eliminate all sorts of government programs and salaries/benefits for public officials. While the NDP may take issue with how certain spending is conducted, I don't think they'd be happy to see public health care eliminated on the basis of what doctors (or even better, nurses) will earn in their lifetime. Nor would they argue in favour of its abolition on the basis of what 27 Conservative citizens of Alberta could potentially cost the health care system over their lifetimes.

Or perhaps they would. But it's a dangerous tactic to start down the path of "government officials/programs are too expensive" argument. Therein lies building massive public support for deep cuts to most of the social programs that the NDP holds dear (as they should!)

Recommend this Post

No Confidence in Parliament... at all!

I, for one, am shocked, absolutely shocked that the Liberals' non-confidence motion failed to pass in the House of Commons. I'm even more shocked that the NDP would chose to abstain on the motion rather than either support the government or the Liberals' motion. I mean, what sort of party would ever follow that particular tactic?

/end dripping sarcasm

At least Rick Mercer is back on TV to help me laugh at the absurdity of it all.


ETA: Hat tip to Canadian Soapbox who is more eloquent on who is winning in this gong show.

Recommend this Post

CCF-NDP-DP-SDP-WXYZ

A lot of ink has, and will, be spilled over the issue of whether or not the New Democratic Party should change its name. We'll see more this weekend at their convention in Halifax.

My friend Ian Capstick has an interesting commentary on this in the Globe and Mail today.

My own take on this issue is that a name change, while not a bad idea in and of itself, isn't really a crucial issue for the party. If the party is smart, some new key policies and a campaign strategy will come out of the Halifax convention this weekend, and these will get press coverage along with the who-hah over the name change, whatever the party's decision is.

While branding is important, it is unlikely to make a difference at the polls for at least a few more elections (witness the number of people who still refer to the federal Conservatives as "Tories" or "PCs"), as everyone will keep using the old name in conversation (much as most people I know who are around my age still talk about the "Skydome" and the "O'Keefe Centre" despite their changes in name). As a long term rebranding exercise, a name change is not a terrible idea, but the short term gains will be pretty much non-existent. A major policy announcement, on the other hand, could attract some real attention.

Recommend this Post

"The fundamentals are sound" and other Liberal self-delusions

Although I was clenching my fists on election night, praying that we wouldn't get a Conservative majority, a bit of time to watch the post-election fallout has convinced me that such an outcome might at least have been good in terms of allowing - or perhaps forcing - the other parties to rebuild and rethink their positions on several issues. With that introduction, here are some thoughts on what we've seen in the last two weeks.

Cabinet shuffle: Let's start with Canada's new new government. I think that the shuffle shows a few signs that Harper is being intelligent (at least in some limited ways). He's moved his pitbull from the sensitive Environment dossier and replaced the anti-safe-injection site crusader in Health. I'm hoping that the appointment of Jim Prentice to Environment is a sign that we're going to see some constructive action on that file. Likewise, I'm pleased to see James Moore get a promotion to Heritage. I don't know why I keep seeing commentators praise the "great wisdom" of Jason Kenney - I don't think he needs any more clout than he already has.

Liberal leadership: Anyone who thought that the pummeling of the Liberals on election day would lead to some, er, sober second thoughts will have their hopes dashed. I spent time at a political science/history conference last weekend with a number of Liberal political scientists, historians, senators and party activists (I'd call them "Liberal insiders", but I would prefer to avoid becoming the Jane Taber of the blogging world), and was very disillusioned with the general discourse of the weekend.

The gist of the collective wisdom of most delegates was that "the fundamentals are sound", both with the Liberal party and its brand, and with Canada's electoral system more broadly. Panelist after panelist decried the regionalization of Canada's political parties and the rise of minority governments. When I suggested that perhaps some form of electoral reform might be needed, the panel turned on me like a pack of wolves. Their response: "Majority governments are good and bring stability. Liberal majority governments are good for Canada. When Canadians are thinking right, and not being 'tricked', they vote the way they should - for a Liberal majority." There was no acknowledgment that our current set-up came within a hair's breadth of producing a Conservative majority.

Moreover, the consensus seemed to be that the problem with the last several years has been the personal failings of Paul Martin and Stephane Dion. People at the conference - many of whom are warriors from the Meech Lake days - seemed to think that if the party could just find the "right" leader and the "right" platform, they would be rewarded with a majority. What I didn't hear much of was discussion of how that platform should be crafted, or what values it should reflect.

Beyond the academic world, I think we're seeing this same malaise in the leadership race itself. I'm not seeing any fresh faces in the race. I don't think that a new face is necessarily what the Liberals need, or that this would be a magic bullet. But the fact that we aren't seeing these faces could be a sign of the lack of vitality and enthusiasm for the party. Domenic Leblanc is far from an injection of new blood, as the scion of an old Liberal family in New Brunswick. When the great hope and speculation is whether Frank McKenna or John "Beaker" Manley might run, you know that the party is grasping at straws.

It's time for a more serious reflection than we're seeing. It might mean that the next election is a rebuilding election which results in another minority. But the Liberals need to realize that their house of cards is tumbling.

NDP/Greens: I should probably say a word or two about the other parties. Kudos to the NDP for increasing their vote and seat share (albeit slightly) despite having the Green party nipping at their heels. I am wondering if Jack Layton has done all he can to bring his party along, and if it might be time for someone with a bit more gravitas. That being said, I'm not sure who that would be, so he may well be safe for a while longer, unless the party really wants to gamble on Thomas Mulcair. I happen to think that the path to growth runs through Western Canada, but I could be proven wrong.

As for the Greens, I think that Elizabeth May's days are numbered. I found her to be a fresh voice on the national scene. However, she demonstrated the strategic sense of a toaster on too many fronts. Specifically, she violated several of my basic rules for riding selection for a representative of an outsider party:
1) Don't run against an incumbent in the Maritimes.
2) Don't run against a cabinet minister.
3) Don't run against a favoured son of an established Maritime family.
May managed to break all these rules, and in a remarkable combination - running against an incumbent Cabinet minister in the Maritimes who is a favoured son, and moreover, the son of a former Cabinet minister from the Maritimes from the same riding. Had she chosen another riding - even my own riding of Guelph - she might well have been in the House of Commons.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Parliamentary gong show.

Recommend this Post

A superficial stache-related post

Disclaimer: I have voted NDP in the past, and will likely do so again in the future.

That being said, this post on my sister's blog made me split my side laughing. She's not the first member of my left-leaning immediate family to have commented on Jack Layton's moustache. Another family member pointed out that there hasn't been a Canadian or American leader in recent memory to win election to the government benches with their facial hair intact.

Yes, it's superficial, and yes, Canadians should be thinking about the issues, rather than being distracted by image. But politicians should also be practical. If shaving the stache will win a few more seats, isn't it worth considering? If he can shed the godawful NDP orange clothing for the Quebec leader's debates, surely a bit of sub-nasal fuzz could be trimmed as well?

I'm thinking that I should probably watch the debates about 40 minutes from now. I'm clearly becoming more and more crotchety the longer this campaign drags on, and need to re-focus on the issues. I'm just not convinced that I can stomach it if the English debate also features the "say something nice about the person to your left" question.

Recommend this Post

Greens in the debate - and the nature of Conservative "principles"

Interesting. The NDP has reversed its position on letting the Greens participate in the leaders' debate, and the Conservatives have followed suit. Incredible what looking like an anti-democratic thug in the mass media and the blogosphere can do to one's opinions on an issue.

What I find particularly choice is the Conservative party's talking point on the issue, stated here:

“It appears the NDP has changed their position. Our position has been to support the NDP on this point of principle. We are not going to be the only ones to boycott the debate,” Mr. Teneycke said."

Assuming that this is a direct quote from Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke, can we therefore infer that the Conservative position on the debate issue was completely unprincipled? Or that the Conservatives are in the habit of supporting NDP principles - unless those principles change?

Just a thought...


Update:When this issue first broke in the media, I wrote to my local NDP candidate Tom King's campaign office to ask what his position was on including the Greens in the debate. I just got a phone call back from the campaign office - after the announcement - and the campaign worker informs me that Tom King was one of the voices in the party urging the inclusion of May in the debates. Given that his campaign is focusing on environmental issues and that the Greens are such a force here in Guelph, I'm inclined to believe him. It would have been nice to hear it before the official party line changed though.

Recommend this Post

Confidential Election Documents from the NDP - or - Please help the NDP to replace its dot-matrix printers

It appears that the advertizing campaigns of the next federal election will feature a "cheap-off" between the major parties as they attempt to provide the least slick campaign materials. Perhaps this will be how they demonstrate how "authentic" and "close to the people" they are. Certainly the miserable photostats that Diane Ablonczy's office keeps sending to my door are in that vein - a nice echo of the low-tech handicam television ads the Conservative party has been running.

The NDP appears to be trying to do them one better - their fundraising letter comes in an envelope with bright orange printing that reads "CONFIDENTIAL ELECTION DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED INTENDED FOR THE EYES OF THE ADDRESSEE ONLY", taking a page from the Publisher's Sweepstakes Clearinghouse, no doubt. This week's gimmick is to provide internal polling information as a "Confidential Dispatch - NDP Election-readiness Report" which is printed in all caps in the font of an old dot-matrix printer - complete with perforated edges with holes for the printer tracks.

I'm not certain what message this is intended to convey. Perhaps "Please vote for us so we can move out of the technological stone age"? While I'm currently rather upset with the Liberal party, I would really like to have confidence that the party I do vote for is at least somewhat modern and savvy. These gimmicks just further alienate me.

Recommend this Post

The significance of Outremont

As I write this post, it looks like Thomas Mulcair is on his way to a victory in Outremont. As someone who once lived in that riding, and volunteered for the NDP in the 2004 election campaign, I'm pleased for him.

But by-elections are strange beasts, and rarely mean all that much in the broader scheme of events. Indeed, the last (and only other) time the NDP won a seat in Quebec, it was a by-election victory. Heck, a Communist MP managed to win a by-election in Quebec in 1943 (Fred Rose, re-elected in 1945). By-elections are great opportunities for local issues to rise to the fore, or for frustrations to be vented without fear of affecting the overall structure of government. However, they often do not indicate what they appear to on the surface.

And so while I am happy for Thomas Mulcair, I think that he will ultimately be another flash in the pan for the NDP in Quebec. He was elected at least partly on the strength of his high profile in the province from his years in the Charest cabinet. Previous NDP candidates in the riding (where the party has fared far better than elsewhere in the province) have barely eked out 10-20% of the vote. And so, much as I wish it were otherwise, I don't think this is indicative of a broader trend for NDP strength in other constituencies.

I think the bigger story, unfortunately for the Liberals, is the further decline of their vote from the 2004/06 levels which were already lower in Outremont under Jean Lapierre than they had been under Martin Cauchon. The Bloc vote does appear to be declining, but in one of the other by-elections, it was the Conservative who picked up those votes, not the NDP. And while a single NDP seat in the House of Commons from Quebec is a pleasing thought for me, the spectre of over a dozen new Conservative pick-ups in former Bloc (and perhaps even Liberal) seats does not.

On a side-note, Quebec's historic election results are one of the reasons why I support electoral reform towards some system of MMP. The left-wing/NDP vote and the Liberal vote alike are concentrated on the heavily-populated island of Montreal, and yet the high raw voting numbers for candidates who espouse these values or political leanings rarely translate into a seat count in the legislature that reflects this fact. For decades now, it has been possible for separatist/sovereignist/Union Nationale parties to win more seats than their share of the popular vote entitles them to, largely because their vote is dispersed across less-populous rural ridings.

Most egregious was the 1994 election, where the Liberals took a greater share of the popular vote (44.75%) than the PQ (44.4%) and yet were outnumbered in the legislature 77 seats to 47. As a result, we were treated to a Jacques Parizeau-led government, and the 1995 sovereignty referendum. I recognize that even if Quebec had had the version of MMP that is proposed for Ontario, Parizeau would have still formed the government. But the crushing majorities that do not reflect the voters intentions would no longer be the norm, and third parties might have a chance to break through the entrenched and often stale dynamics that characterize most provincial electoral systems.

Recommend this Post

Ontario election

So apparently an election has been called in Ontario. Who should I vote for? The governing Liberals of Dalton McGuinty, who hasn't done a great deal to excite me, other than proposing to ban fresh sushi-grade fish a few years back(and that wasn't the good kind of excitement)? The Conservatives of John Tory, who want to undermine the public school system, and perhaps allow the teaching of creationism - or maybe not? (Oops, perhaps I should be saying PC party, since the party seems to be running scared from the Conservative brand - so much so that the word does not appear on the entry page of their website). The tired NDP of Howard Hampton, who are "fighting for working families," a slogan that gets under my skin like no other, and are still trying to rid themselves of the albatross of the Bob Rae years? Or the Green Party of a leader who has made such an impression on me that I had to go look up his name (it's Frank de Jong) and have no chance of forming government?

As you can probably tell, while I'm pleased to be back in my home province, its political life is not exactly filling me with glee and excitement. I will, however, be diligent in trying to decide which way to vote, and inform you, my friendly readers, with what I find out about issues that are near and dear to my heart. I'll also attempt to put up some content about the referendum on changing the electoral system to a Mixed-Member Proportional system, which I am supporting. I'll also be placing a particular focus on my home riding of Guelph.

In the meantime, my first observation on the campaign is that I find it curious that in a province with a sizeable Franco-Ontarian minority community and a French-language services act, only one of the four aforementioned parties - the Liberals - has bothered to create a bilingual webpage. It's not like this election date wasn't set a long way in advance. If I were a francophone, I'd find this very insulting indeed.

Recommend this Post

It's about the policies, people!

Allow me a moment to draw your attention to this post by my former hallmate and colleague Andrew Nurse, a Canadian Studies prof at Mount Allison University. Andrew, a good socialist if ever I met one, speaks to a lot of the frustration that I'm feeling right now as a left-leaning swing voter, frustrated by the lack of policy options being presented on the Canadian left.

As I note in the comments on his blog, I share his frustrations at the new "politics of honesty and accountability" which appear to have been substituted for policy discussions. Moreover, while I think parliamentary reform is necessary, I'm not willing to vote for a party or candidate on the sole basis that they support this initiative. I'd like something more concrete in terms of policy debate to win my next vote.

Recommend this Post

Heavy mudslinging in the off season

The new Conservative attack ads have been getting most of the media buzz this week, but clearly they aren't the only party that is terrified by Stéphane Dion's potential, and is upset that they aren't facing off against Michael Ignatieff.

My NDP membership, taken out while I lived in Outremont, home to Separatist Jean, lapsed a couple of years ago, but I still recieve regular appeals for donations. The most recent call was a six-page(!) letter from Jack Layton begging for money. First off, I don't know who told him that anyone would read through a six-page letter asking for money. But whoever it was should have thought twice before putting pen to ink. Amidst the attacks on Harper were some rather nasty digs at Stephane Dion. His main crime seems to be that he doesn't understand "ordinary Canadians and middle-class families" (I'd go after the nauseating political lingo, but that's another post - and don't get me started on "in solidarity"). That, and that he appointed the devil incarnate, Michael Ignatieff, who supported the Iraq war, as his deputy leader. Both the NDP and the Conservatives really want to play up the Iggy card against Dion. It makes you wonder what they would have done if he'd actually won the leadership.

I'm not an expert on the effectiveness of attack ads. But I do wonder how Canadians will respond to hard-core nasty political advertizing when there isn't even an election on. I also don't think that slinging mud randomly at Dion is going to be an effective tactic. Even though he isn't the most charismatic of leaders, I don't think that many people dislike him, or even harbour secret fears of him (unless they're Quebec separatists). I suspect that the Conservative ads will be perceived as the acts of a schoolyard bully attacking the geek with the knapsack, and the NDP attacks will be seen as an act of desperation. I expected this from the Conservatives, but from the NDP I find it disappointing. I said as much to the NDP fundraiser who called me two days after I received the fundraising letter. I'm a swing NDP-Liberal voter, and you aren't going to win my vote by attacking the other party that I'm considering. Convince me that your policies are better, and you might stand a chance.

Recommend this Post