It's a hard news day, really, despite supposedly being a "day off". The bad news is, ironically, the surge by the NDP that threatens to hand over a majority to the Conservatives by splitting the vote in otherwise Liberal-leaning ridings. Do we really want to vote NDP where our lost Liberal vote will let the Tories coast by and claim a seat?
More bad news comes in the form of the Canada Free Press--a tabloid-style online right-wing rag, having more in common with the Communist and Marxist-Leninist papers of years gone by in their toxic spewing of ideology, and on the hustings now to promote Sun News Network, aka Fox News North. If ever there was any doubt that Harper has the knives out for the CBC, it should be dispelled here. Don't look for any meaningful political discourse, just diatribes and stink bombs. If people read this pernicious tripe and set any store by it, well, God help us all.
Which brings me to the themes of the day--crucifixion, today being Good Friday; the Jewish escape from slavery celebrated in the Passover; and, ultimately, the resurrection of Easter. From both a religious and a secular perspective, these themes have resonance, I think. Canada is undergoing its own form of enslavement under Harper, from the suppression of dissent to the quieting of information and the inflammation of partisan rhetoric. The landscape is being crucified both literally through the environmental degradation that is encouraged to flourish and metaphorically through fear-mongering and shameless abuses of democracy.
I can only hope--and pray--that May 2 brings deliverance to this beautiful country and its people so that a resurrection may begin.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Let the majority speak
Until now, I've been overwhelmed by the news that 40% of us still want Harper to run our country despite everything (the Youtube video pretty much says it all). But you know, that still means that a majority--60% of us--do not want Harper running the country. And many of us feel more passionately than we have ever felt about an election. So it's time to stop feeling trapped by the numbers. If we play our cards right, we might just be able to harness those numbers to our own "majority". It could happen.
Three Hundred Eight is a constantly updated site showing the voting patterns in ridings across the country. From a cursory glance, close to 50 seats appear vulnerable to strategic voting. That's a lot of seats. Thirty-three of these seats are currently projecting Tory wins; some are very tenuous Liberal or NDP leaning. All of them could have significantly altered outcomes if the supporters of parties out of contention would agree to "hold their nose and vote." And the latest in strategic voting aides are sites such as votepair.ca and Avaaz based on the premise that if you know your vote won't count in the riding you're in, offer it to the party for whom it can count in exchange for someone elsewhere in the country agreeing to vote for your party where it will count. You register, stating how you want to vote and which parties you are willing to vote for, and then you are matched with a voting partner, where possible.
"Weird" is how one Liberal party worker described it when I spoke with her today. Are we really comfortable swapping our votes? How does it avoid abuse and fraud? Well, it does involve an act of faith that your partner will honour your request, but there's really nothing to be gained in not doing so, except, I suppose, a tiny increase in the popular vote, which as we know is next to worthless politically. Open in theory to all parties, in practice there aren't many people willing to swap with Conservatives. And if you try to hide which party you really want to vote for, there's no point. Your "deceitful" vote is still only one vote. But the potential to double the impact of your vote, especially where it won't count otherwise, has considerable appeal.
Just think, if the Liberals and New Democrats in Saanich BC agreed to vote Green in exchange for Greens returning the favour to the NDP in, say, Burnaby-Douglas and to the Liberals in Kitchener Centre, we could a) give a much-deserved seat to Elizabeth May, and b) wrest three ridings from the Tories.
We, the people, could coalesce to achieve our mutual goals.
Three Hundred Eight is a constantly updated site showing the voting patterns in ridings across the country. From a cursory glance, close to 50 seats appear vulnerable to strategic voting. That's a lot of seats. Thirty-three of these seats are currently projecting Tory wins; some are very tenuous Liberal or NDP leaning. All of them could have significantly altered outcomes if the supporters of parties out of contention would agree to "hold their nose and vote." And the latest in strategic voting aides are sites such as votepair.ca and Avaaz based on the premise that if you know your vote won't count in the riding you're in, offer it to the party for whom it can count in exchange for someone elsewhere in the country agreeing to vote for your party where it will count. You register, stating how you want to vote and which parties you are willing to vote for, and then you are matched with a voting partner, where possible.
"Weird" is how one Liberal party worker described it when I spoke with her today. Are we really comfortable swapping our votes? How does it avoid abuse and fraud? Well, it does involve an act of faith that your partner will honour your request, but there's really nothing to be gained in not doing so, except, I suppose, a tiny increase in the popular vote, which as we know is next to worthless politically. Open in theory to all parties, in practice there aren't many people willing to swap with Conservatives. And if you try to hide which party you really want to vote for, there's no point. Your "deceitful" vote is still only one vote. But the potential to double the impact of your vote, especially where it won't count otherwise, has considerable appeal.
Just think, if the Liberals and New Democrats in Saanich BC agreed to vote Green in exchange for Greens returning the favour to the NDP in, say, Burnaby-Douglas and to the Liberals in Kitchener Centre, we could a) give a much-deserved seat to Elizabeth May, and b) wrest three ridings from the Tories.
We, the people, could coalesce to achieve our mutual goals.
It's personal to a lot of people
I don’t usually think of an election, or even government, as being overly 'personal' affairs. Heck, my mother even tried to convince me early on that the leaders of opposing parties “could be good friends” in real life. Not sure that’s ever been true. But beyond the opposition wrangling and the fierce competition for votes, the personal aspect of elections in Canada has never stood out. Yes, one’s favoured party might not win, neighbours might be perturbed by the lawn signs, and a few things might change in the public sphere. But real personal pain?
The case of Helena Guergis is particularly interesting in this regard. Her treatment by the party provides a disturbing glimpse into the personal implications of being a Tory who falls out of favour. Her faults: being rude in an airport, and being married to a cocaine user/drunk driver who lost his Alberta seat in the last election. Sensational allegations were later made against her for which no evidence was found. But she had to apply to the Access of Information Act to find out the nature of these charges, and to the PM she is now a nameless “individual” not welcome in the caucus and replaced as the Tory candidate of choice on the ballot in her riding.
The case of Remy Beauregard, a civil servant at the end of a distinguished career, is even more concerning. In a letter to The Toronto Star, Suzanne Trepanier, outlines how her husband was the subject of a sustained and baseless assault on his character that caused him to die of a stress-induced heart attack. She explains how the assault came about through a secret performance evaluation of his work at the human rights organization Rights and Democracy by three Harper appointees to the board. In a move that negates every principle of fair employee treatment, Beauregard was never shown this evaluation, let alone given a copy. He had no knowledge of what he was fighting against, or why the negative attacks had been made.
A year later the organization is proceeding in the direction Beauregard originally laid out, building upon his obviously valued ideas, while his wife waits for an apology for "destroying" their lives.
The discipline exerted within a political party to sanction members who’ve chosen to run for election is one thing. Treating a distinguished public servant as "an inconsequential and incidental casualty of political games," as Trepanier puts it, takes things to another level altogether. And these are just the stories that have broken out.
And of these two stories, relatively little airplay has been given them, really, considering what they say about the modus operandi of the Harper government. So I wonder how many similar stories are out there, how many people say nothing for fear of losing their jobs or their health or both. Are our journalists worried that they too could find themselves sidelined, especially if Harper’s secretly planned new government media outlet with its promise of “robust physical and information security measures to protect the prime minister and cabinet” goes ahead? Which would only be the beginning. . .
Saturday, 16 April 2011
It must be the Sarah Palin glasses
As the polls continue to show strong support for Harper as a leader and the Conservatives in general, I wonder how does this man do it? Each day brings fresh cause for outrage--a Tory report misrepresenting Sheila Fraser by stealing from a previous report on the spending of the LIBERALS following 9/11, hints of gross misspending during the G8, Tory thugs trying to wrest away a U of Guelph ballot box, sensational revelations about the unfounded but damaging character assassination of Helena Guergis. All this in less than a week.
Still, despite everything, it seems that 4 in 10 Canadians trust not only his leadership capability but his vision. His vision! Go figure!
Margaret Wente, in her March 29 article "The Amygdala Election," puts forward the argument that we decide who we will vote for on the basis of our emotions and fears and then look for the justification that fits our decision (G&M). When it comes to this election, she says, the current leader hasn't been in office long enough to wear out his welcome, and our "paleomammalian brains are not in particularly high distress." She might be on to something. Clearly, not enough of us are alarmed in spite of all that's been happening.
During the English language debate, Harper looked not at the individual leaders as he responded to their questions but at the camera. While one could argue that, as his words were intended to win over the people, the camera was the most appropriate place for his gaze, nevertheless, refusing to look directly in the face of one's opponent is dismissive at best, if not downright rude, and it was bizarre to watch. There were those eyes, staring relentlessly from behind Sarah Palin glasses, and there was the mantra: It's all about the economy--let us be clear--the economy.
Harper's catalogue of anti-democratic manoeuvers is longer and more insidious than that of any previous prime minister, and our debt is the highest it's ever been, higher even than under Mulroney, the last big spender. In an odd way, the days of Brian Mulroney cozying up to Ronald Reagan with their "Irish eyes are smiling" duet feel almost benign by contrast. Then at least the spell had some warmth. Now, it seems, we are well and truly under some spell, but the eyes mesmerizing us are just plain cold. Let's hope we can snap out of it before it's too late.
Still, despite everything, it seems that 4 in 10 Canadians trust not only his leadership capability but his vision. His vision! Go figure!
Margaret Wente, in her March 29 article "The Amygdala Election," puts forward the argument that we decide who we will vote for on the basis of our emotions and fears and then look for the justification that fits our decision (G&M). When it comes to this election, she says, the current leader hasn't been in office long enough to wear out his welcome, and our "paleomammalian brains are not in particularly high distress." She might be on to something. Clearly, not enough of us are alarmed in spite of all that's been happening.
During the English language debate, Harper looked not at the individual leaders as he responded to their questions but at the camera. While one could argue that, as his words were intended to win over the people, the camera was the most appropriate place for his gaze, nevertheless, refusing to look directly in the face of one's opponent is dismissive at best, if not downright rude, and it was bizarre to watch. There were those eyes, staring relentlessly from behind Sarah Palin glasses, and there was the mantra: It's all about the economy--let us be clear--the economy.
Harper's catalogue of anti-democratic manoeuvers is longer and more insidious than that of any previous prime minister, and our debt is the highest it's ever been, higher even than under Mulroney, the last big spender. In an odd way, the days of Brian Mulroney cozying up to Ronald Reagan with their "Irish eyes are smiling" duet feel almost benign by contrast. Then at least the spell had some warmth. Now, it seems, we are well and truly under some spell, but the eyes mesmerizing us are just plain cold. Let's hope we can snap out of it before it's too late.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Confidence of the House
Much has been made of the idea of a coalition--with Stephen Harper trying to inflict fear into our hearts at the thought of one, despite evidence that he negotiated with the Bloq and NDP in 2004 to put one together against the Liberals back then. But never mind that. Stephen has denied it, and Stephen would not lie. Stephen says a coalition would be bad, and we should believe him.
After all, getting back in with a minority would be a real headache for the man. In our system of democracy, if he wins the most seats, he would be allowed first crack at leading the government. But he can only do this WITH THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE. Unlike in the States, where voters choose their president, we do not vote for a prime minister, though the ludicrous and insulting attack ads, "A vote for the Liberals is vote for Ignatieff," create the false idea that we do. It serves Harper's purpose for us to think we're voting directly for him, but we are not. He may behave as though all power resides in him--and this thought should certainly scare us more than it seems to--but according to our constitution, it does not. The House of Commons, the house of all of us together, rules the day.
What Harper is really worried about is that the House will NOT give him their confidence should he be returned with a minority. We are going to the polls because the House of Commons does not have confidence in the Harper government. I do not have confidence in it either, so I am glad the House does not.
So what are we to do if Harper wins the most seats but not a majority? Have another election? Clearly not realistic. What then are the alternatives? Would the Harper-appointed Governor General ask Ignatieff to form a government instead, and would that party be able to gain and keep the confidence of the house? Should Ignatieff consider a coalition with a division of executive powers despite having said he wouldn't? Or simply go it on his own?
Either option seems a whole lot more plausible than that Harper could stand up in the House again with a minority, and he knows it. Knows it and is afraid. That's what this election is really about.
And ultimately, everything comes down to the manner in which our democracy has been shaped and formed into a constitution that is played out in our institutions of governance. May our democratic ship of state hold firm in this storm.
After all, getting back in with a minority would be a real headache for the man. In our system of democracy, if he wins the most seats, he would be allowed first crack at leading the government. But he can only do this WITH THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE. Unlike in the States, where voters choose their president, we do not vote for a prime minister, though the ludicrous and insulting attack ads, "A vote for the Liberals is vote for Ignatieff," create the false idea that we do. It serves Harper's purpose for us to think we're voting directly for him, but we are not. He may behave as though all power resides in him--and this thought should certainly scare us more than it seems to--but according to our constitution, it does not. The House of Commons, the house of all of us together, rules the day.
What Harper is really worried about is that the House will NOT give him their confidence should he be returned with a minority. We are going to the polls because the House of Commons does not have confidence in the Harper government. I do not have confidence in it either, so I am glad the House does not.
So what are we to do if Harper wins the most seats but not a majority? Have another election? Clearly not realistic. What then are the alternatives? Would the Harper-appointed Governor General ask Ignatieff to form a government instead, and would that party be able to gain and keep the confidence of the house? Should Ignatieff consider a coalition with a division of executive powers despite having said he wouldn't? Or simply go it on his own?
Either option seems a whole lot more plausible than that Harper could stand up in the House again with a minority, and he knows it. Knows it and is afraid. That's what this election is really about.
And ultimately, everything comes down to the manner in which our democracy has been shaped and formed into a constitution that is played out in our institutions of governance. May our democratic ship of state hold firm in this storm.
Monday, 11 April 2011
The "Sorries"
"Anon" comments on a recent blog: "Please! Let's not refer to the current Canadian Progressive Conservative Party as Tories! I prefer to call them Sorries, or Fake Tories. Tories were historically populist fiscal conservatives which have very little to do with the dressed-up Reform social conservatives that have taken over the party.
Once upon a time a social democrat like me would actually find Tory positions tenable. The current platform and policies of this party are completely foreign to the Tories of old.
Referring to the current party as Tories just gives them a legitimacy to fiscal conservatives of old that they simply have not earned." ( BoingBoing)
Well said, Anon. The 'we're-the-fiscally-responsible-ones' just doesn't wash coming from a party that started with a $13 billion a year surplus to the budget when it assumed power in 2006 and has now racked up a $17 billion deficit. Where have its much-vaunted tax cuts brought us? To $56 billion in the hole, that's where, the greatest debt our country has ever had, a debt load that our children and grandchildren will have to shoulder well into the future.
This party is not about putting us on a solid economic footing; it's about remaking the country in its own image, a strictly controlled, rigidly enforced ideal of hierarchy and homogeneity. And we'll all be the sorry ones if we don't do something about it now, in this election of 2011.
Well said, Anon. The 'we're-the-fiscally-responsible-ones' just doesn't wash coming from a party that started with a $13 billion a year surplus to the budget when it assumed power in 2006 and has now racked up a $17 billion deficit. Where have its much-vaunted tax cuts brought us? To $56 billion in the hole, that's where, the greatest debt our country has ever had, a debt load that our children and grandchildren will have to shoulder well into the future.
This party is not about putting us on a solid economic footing; it's about remaking the country in its own image, a strictly controlled, rigidly enforced ideal of hierarchy and homogeneity. And we'll all be the sorry ones if we don't do something about it now, in this election of 2011.
They did what?!
I hardly know what to say anymore. The temerity defies description. Deliberately misquoting the Auditor General? Did Stockwell Day resign because he at least has some scruples? (CBC Sheila Fraser).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)