Election Time in Canada (Part 4)

Now the election is really getting interesting.  The insurgent Layton campaign really does appear to have legs.  The establishment Liberals are clearly in third place and the NDP is even closing in on the Conservatives in first place.

The response of the establishment mouthpieces should have been expected.  Both the Globe and the Star have published stories highlighting the foibles of some NDP candidates who were anonymous until now.  They have run several stories about one NDP candidate in Quebec who is employed as an assistant manager of a pub in Ottawa.  She is reportedly in Las Vegas, having booked a vacation before the writ was dropped.  As a single mother, we are told that she couldn't afford to cancel this vacation.  There are other candidates who went on vacation during the campaign and a couple of the NDP candidates in Quebec are still in University.

The real scandal here is the reporting and the poor candidates run by ALL of the major parties.  Anyone who has watched any election closely would know that the "national" parties who boast of fielding candidates in every riding often put up candidates who have no hope, no resources, no profile and (often) no campaign office.  Just exactly how well known or well funded is the Liberal candidate in Red Deer, Alberta?  Similarly, I wonder how 'good' the Conservative candidate is in York Centre (Bob Rae's riding).  All of the major parties run candidates who, in hockey, would be called pylons.

The truth is that the Conservatives are probably running credible candidates in no more than two thirds of the ridings.  I would guess that the Liberals are at about half and the NDP at much less than a third.

It is scandalous that our national parties run so many poor candidates.  It should surprise no one when a few very unqualified people are elected to Parliament.   Frankly the single mother/assistant pub manager (Ruth Ellen Brosseau is her name) running for the NDP may turn out to be far from the least qualified person elected.

It is scandalous that the reporting has focussed so much on such trivial matters.  It should not be surprising that people have warmed to Jack Layton's 'folksy' demeanour.....that's mainly what they are reporting on.  You have to read very diligently to see the reporting on the party platforms and some expert analysis on what it all means.

Yes Stephen Harper comes across as 'cold' yet 'competent.'  Michael Ignatieff is 'professorial' and 'aloof.'  Gilles Duceppe is 'cranky' and Jack Layton is 'folksy' and 'friendly.'

In those last two lines, I summarized about 90% of the reporting by the media.  Maybe the media could start reporting some more useful information and leave that kind of nonsense to bloggers?

Election Time in Canada (Part 3)

With a little over a week to go, it has finally gotten very interesting.

Iggy the American continues to underwhelm.  At this point it appears as if he will lead the Liberal Party to a defeat of historic proportions.  He may win more seats than John Turner did in 1984 but Turner was at least still the Leader of the Opposition.  At this point it is possible that the Liberals will slide to third place.

Now some of this may be wishful thinking on my part but it is clear that the more people see of Ignatieff, the less they like him.  Jack Layton is precisely the opposite.  People seem to have a greater affinity for him as they see more of him.  Harper has pretty much stayed unchanged.  This is not surprising.  As Prime Minister, he is the most well known of all of the leaders and a change in opinions of his likability were never very probable.

Pundits are rightly pointing out that we have seen this before with the NDP, (Ed Broadbent was on his way to 24 Sussex at one point according to the polls), however I do think that this time it is different.

Jack Layton has steadily increased his support during his time as leader...as has Harper.  Those two trends will converge to lead to a Tory majority.  (I see no reason not to stick to that prediction).  I'm not yet ready to predict Jack Layton's taking up residence at Stornoway.

The most interesting question is what happens next.  Michael Ignatieff will almost certainly quit as leader of the Liberals.  What then?  Bob Rae is the presumptive heir apparent but the people of Ontario still remember well his disastrous term as Premier.  He has a lot of baggage, too much to be a real force for rebuilding the Liberal brand.  There is a shocking lack of bench strength within Canada's natural governing party.  The Liberals would do well to acknowledge that their spell in opposition will not be a short one and they should really commit to passing the torch to a new generation of Liberals....and I don't mean that lightweight Justin Trudeau.

I am going out on a limb on a few of these predictions but what the hey, I'm not a journalist.  Who cares if i'm wrong?

Royal Succession

Most people know that the British Monarchy's rules for succession favours male heirs over female heirs.  Queen Elizabeth would have never ascended to the throne if she'd any male siblings.   However some of the other provisions of the Act of Settlement are less well known.

As the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, the Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically bans Catholics from ascending to the throne.  Curiously, a good Anglican Prince is also barred from succession should he have the temerity to marry a Catholic.

The current Deputy Prime Minister has mused aloud about changing the rules of succession such that any children of William and Kate would ascend to the throne based upon order of birth without regard to gender.  Deputy PM Nick Clegg has stated that most people find the rules "a little old fashioned."

I must admit to nearly falling off my chair in laughter when I read that.  The idea that an archaic institution ought to have "modern" rules of succession ignores the somewhat salient view that the entire monarchy is a "little old fashioned."

I find myself in a rather surprising position of opposing a change in the rules of succession.  For one thing, I'm not sure why a first born (boy/girl) is necessarily more qualified to be King/Queen than a second born.  I suppose one could argue that sexism is merely being eliminated while ageism is being strengthened., (to say nothing of the bias against Catholics)

I oppose a change in the rules of succession precisely because they are so "old fashioned."  Eliminating the sexism while reaffirming ageism as well as the bias against Catholics shows the monarchy to be the a pointless entity.  I oppose a change because the rules show clearly how absurd the whole institution is.

In this day and age, any Royal Family should only exist as a link to the past without requiring any public funds and they should have no role in government.

I think that Canada should become a republic rather than having a foreigner serve as our Head of State.  However if Michael Ignatieff should be elected Prime Minister, the we would have a foreigner as head of state and an American serving as her first minister.

Election Time in Canada (Part 2)

So we are halfway through the election campaign.  As both French and English debates are done, we are more than halfway done in terms of significant milestones.

At this point, I don't see any reason to change my prediction that it will be a Conservative majority.  The followup coverage of the english language debate was interesting.  Michael Ignatieff's performance in the debate has been the subject of increasingly negative reviews in the media.  (this is just my impression)

Current projections call for a Conservative win that falls just shy of a majority mandate.  I think that this is wrong due primarily to an interesting trend in Quebec.  Before the Tory breakthrough in Quebec a couple of elections ago, Quebec was a battle between the Bloc and the Liberals.  It wasn't much of a battle really, the Liberals won a bunch of ridings in Montreal and the Bloc took the rest.  The rise of the Tories around Quebec city (which was cemented in the last election) changed that dynamic.  The rise of the NDP, beginning with the election of Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 bye election, changes the dynamic further.

Up until now, politics in Quebec has been all about sovereignty.  The Bloc favours it and all other Federalist parties oppose it.  However there has been an underreported distinction as well.  The Bloc are a left of centre party.  Ideologically, social democrats in Quebec had nowhere to go but the Bloc.  The rise of the NDP changes that equation materially.  Another left of centre party allows francophone social democrats to vote for a party that is not committed to the breakup of Canada.

The NDP needs a massive surge in support to elect a large number of MP's in Quebec.  However, a modest surge in francophone support of the NDP may lead to the Bloc losing a number of close ridings.  A bump in the number of Liberal and Conservative MP's as well as a Tory majority may be the result.

Finally I cannot write without taking one shot at Michael Ignatieff....also known as Iggy the American.  Today he made an announcement before the cameras:  as Prime Minister, he would convene a health care summit meeting of First Ministers within 60 days of taking office.

He looked very serious as he announced that he would take the bold and decisive step of holding a meeting. It is a continuing story line that the more people see and hear of Ignatieff, the worse his prospects become.

Stephen Harper will win this election by default....I have seen nothing that would change my mind on this point.

Observations of Left and Right

I've heard it said that Conservatives believe that markets are good and people are bad....hence we must trust the markets and lecture people on why they are just not living right.

I've also heard that Liberals believe that people are good and markets are bad.  Hence we must trust people to make their own decisions and talk about the evils of the markets.

Of course both generalizations are pretty silly since markets are really a collection of individual spending choices....you can't have one without the other.

This kind of debate where the left and right simply talk past each other occupy enormous amounts of time in all forms of media.  I find the ignorance on both sides to be more than irritating, it is downright painful.

I'll take two particular issues that are favourites of the right and left respectively......1) Deficits/Debt. 2) Climate Change.

Deficits/Debt

If you listen to the left, monstrous government debts occupy too high a place on the right's priority list.  The fact of large deficits ranks way below in importance behind a growing economy and generous social programs.  The right will howl in disgust that we are spending our children's money and their children's money.

They are talking right past each other and getting nowhere.

Let's have some common sense here.  Let's call deficits by a descriptive name that fits.  Let's call it "Spending Someone Else's Money."  So when we Spend Someone Else's Money in greater numbers year after year, then there comes a time to pay the piper.  It is not true that borrowing money is like taking another bucket of water out of the Niagara River.  There is a limited amount of that water.

When the tipping point of excessive debt arrives (as it has for Greece and Ireland and Portugal), then it is too late to avoid severe consequences.  Like most consequences, the sooner you face up to it, the less painful it is.

Climate Change

Many on the right will tell you that climate change is not a proven fact.  The left will call the climate change non-believers something creative and caustic like "Members of the Flat Earth Society."

They are talking past each other and getting nowhere.

I have a newsflash for those who deny climate change......if you burn all of the oil and cut down all of the trees, THE CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!!  Besides that it's really irrelevant whether the earth is warming due to man made pollution or whether it's part of a natural cycle.  It's irrelevant because anyone with a modicum of common sense will agree that pollution is bad.   Let's call pollution something more descriptive like "Fouling someone else's air."

Much as with excessive debt, when the tipping point arrives it is too late to escape severe consequences.  So if some feel that we are not yet at a tipping point yet, then I say "Great, so then it's the right time to reduce emissions drastically so that we don't get to the point of man made climate change."

Generalizations are often unfair since there are many on the left who understand the importance of cutting public debt and there are many on the right who feel very strongly about a cleaner environment.  However they generally get nowhere due to the demogogues on both sides.

As we are in the midst of an election campaign, I'd really love to see our leaders address these issues with a bit of common sense rather than make endless pie in the sky announcements about new spending programs that cannot possibly be met.

There is a solution to both burning issues that is just common sense. When times are tough, we should tighten our belts and not spend someone else's money.....we shouldn't do that ever.  When the government doesn't stimulate the economy in such a way, then people will drive less (or drive smaller cars) and fly less and generally waste less.....and hence foul other people's air less.

Taxes should be raised (perhaps a carbon tax introduced along with a hike in the GST).  Spending should be reduced even in our cherished social programs.  This will reduce our deficits and make for a cleaner environment.  I don't think our quality of life will suffer in the long term since necessity is the mother of invention.  

I won't hold my breath waiting for one of our elected leaders to suggest any of this.

Election Time in Canada

Canada is heading to a fourth national election in 7 years.  Most people of all political stripes are suffering from election fatigue.  The last three elections produced minority governments.  This should not be surprising in a country where a party committed to the breakup of the country routinely wins around 50 seats in a 308 seat Parliament.  Of course a party with a separatist agenda cannot be part of a coalition seeking to govern a united country so the remaining parties are faced with the daunting task of winning approximately 60% of the seats in order to have a majority of 50% in the House of Commons.

While many people understandably feel that an election that results in roughly the same balance of power as currently exists is a waste of time, they are wrong to say that this election is an unnecessary one.  We have seen the Conservative Government under Stephen Harper effectively govern as a majority for the past two years as one of the opposition parties inevitably failed to show up for confidence votes in order to avoid going to the polls.

This is not healthy for democracy.  The truth of the matter is that the voters gave Stephen Harper a minority government.  When members of Parliament, who have been tasked by their voters to oppose the Harper government, decide to sit out a debate for fear of triggering an election, they dishonour the voters who elected them.  This is not to say that a party in opposition should not work with the governing party if they can get part of their platform enacted.  However if that is the case, then the only honourable thing to do is to show up in the House of Commons and vote in support of the Government.  This nonsense where the leader of an opposition party shows up to vote against the governing party while most of his caucus is absent to ensure that an election is not triggered is sheer stupidity.  It is this type of shenanigan that turns many people off from the political process.

Now onto my prediction for this election.  I am going to predict a Conservative majority that shows how unhealthy our democracy is.

We saw Jean Chretien win three consecutive majority governments with support  that ranged a few points on either side of 40%.  He had the advantage of a splintered right wing that couldn't get their act together.  Neither the Progressive Conservatives under Jean Charest/Peter McKay nor the Reform/Alliance crowd under Preston Manning/Stockwell Day were in any position to govern.  In effect, he won by default.

This election will be a Conservative victory by default.   The Liberal party of Canada is led by Michael Ignatieff who has been subjected to some devastating attack ads by the Tories pointing to his 30 year absence from Canada.  The ads make the point that "He didn't come back for you."

These ads are devastating because they are so very true.  It is well known that Ignatieff chose to live, virtually his entire adult life, outside of Canada.  Strictly speaking, having some experience living in another country is not a disqualifier.....in fact it is generally a plus.  Living in another country for a time gives one a broader view of the world and might enhance one's ability to think outside the box.  I've lived outside Canada for part of my adult life and am so very glad that I had that experience.

However there is a point at which it is not a plus.  There is a point where one has chosen not to be Canadian and has decided that life is better elsewhere.  There is a point where one can no longer effectively relate to fellow Canadians.  I don't know exactly where that point is (it may be different for different individuals) but I can't escape the feeling that Michael Ignatieff crossed that point a long time ago.

It is not disputed that Michael Ignatieff has lived virtually his entire adult life outside of Canada.  It is well known that he came back to Canada after Liberal emmissaries visited Harvard and dangled the prospect of succeeding Paul Martin to become Prime Minister.  He did in fact run (unsuccessfully) to succeed Paul Martin at the first available opportunity.

It is also well known that his writings include articles where he wrote of "When we invaded Iraq...."  Canada did not invade Iraq.  Just who exactly was he referring to??

I am Conservative in my political leanings but this is not an ideological argument against Ignatieff.  In fact, as Liberals go his ideology is much more to my liking than most. (Bob Rae? gag!!!!)

To put it in simple terms, he may have a Canadian passport but he is not Canadian.  How can he relate to people that he has chosen to live apart from for as long as he could make his own decisions?

Ignatieff is not qualified to be Prime Minister and as such the Tories will win by default.  This is very unfortunate for democracy in Canada.

To put any personal conflict of interest to rest, I will not be returning to Korea to run for President.  I am proud of my roots but I am Canadian.  That is a choice that I have made.