For Pete's sake, I don't think I've ever been more embarrassed in my life.
For the past two weeks, grown adults who are supposed to be educated, civilized representatives of the Canadian people have made shmucks of themselves in a time of crisis when Canada need leaders, not shmucks.
The election was over, the specter of the economy looming ever larger, and Stephen Harper promised leadership in a time of crisis. And what does he do? In his promised fiscal update when the house resumed in November, the Conservatives and their finance minister Jim Flaherty delivered little in the economic department except for the sale of goverment assets amounting to $2.3 billion dollars. So we lose billions in public property, and we get a projected surplus of $100 million dollars. Now, I don't really know what the property included or what was significant about it, but I could have lived with the update if it had stopped there.
Instead, the Harper government chose to make a relatively minor cut to the public funding of political parties, saying something along the lines of the importance of political parties setting an example to the country in belt tightening. The facts here amounted to a saving of a paltry $22 million dollars by eliminating this subsidy to parties, with the Conservatives taking the biggest hit. This is because as the law stands now, for each vote a party gets in an election, provided it surpasses the minimum amount (which escapes me now), the party also gets $1.95. $1.95 per vote. Now, Harper says that this has never been a popular policy, presumably because political parties shouldn't have to rely on public funding, they should be able to stand on their own.
However what people fail to realize is that this subsidy makes each person's vote count for more. The policy encourages voting for the party you like, instead of the party you think is most likely to win, because even if your party isn't elected, if they get enough of the vote, they get funding that they can use to finance their next campaign. By making people's votes count for less, Harper is weakening the democratic process. And to throw this kind of measure in during an economic crisis makes it seem irresponsible and just plain uncalled for.
Not only is Harper weakening my vote, but he is also attacking other parties with the end to this subsidy. It's not common knowledge that current Conservative financing from donations is at an all-time high, whereas the fundraising machines of other parties have stalled. The Liberal party in particular is hurting, and other parties such as the Bloc Quebecois depend on the public subsidy for financial support. So percentage wise, this is going to chop into the Liberals, Bloc, and especially the Green Party far more than it will the Conservatives. In other words, saying that the Conservatives will be hurting the most after this is not the whole truth.
As I alluded to before, if you don't have money, you can't campaign nearly as effectively. Now, I could personally care less if the seperatist party collapsed, but this tactic to make it happen is underhanded. It's opportunistic and ethically ambiguous. Attacking the opposition parties when he should be working with them (that's what you do in a minority parliament) to fix the economy is a bad decision not only ethically, but tactically too, seeing as he has paid dearly for his actions with an uproar of the opposition parties.
Enough about the $1.95 per vote subsidy. In his update, Harper also cut back the rights for public servants to strike for 3 years. Now I'm not exactly sure who this group includes, but this policy seems like it has even less to do with the economy, and shows a distrust of the Canadian people by the Conservative party. Until there is a clear need to remove the right for public employees to strike, it doesn't make sense to take that right away. If Harper doesn't trust public servants to keep working at their jobs at a time when they are worried about losing those jobs, then there is something seriously wrong with him and his party. The policy seems redundant and showing a lack of faith in the Canadian people.
Finally, he has apparently attacked women's rights. I've skimmed through the economic and fiscal update that the Conservatives released for the details of exactly how women's rights are attacked, but because it was written by the government, it wasn't easy to find. Here's the link in case you have more free time than I do: http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/Ec/ectoc-eng.html
Now I don't know how serious it is, but if it was mentioned as part of the reason that the whole nine yards were bad, it must have been in some way significant, otherwise there wouldn't have been a fuss in the first place.
To sum up, Harper made some bad tactical errors in his economic and fiscal update that have come back quickly to bite him, targeting opposition parties, women's rights and worker's rights in a way that is uncalled for in a minority parliament when he should be working with others, not making enemies out of them. The opposition parties also slam him for not including an economic stimulus package in his mini budget, but it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that needs to be given a little bit more thought before it's put through, so I'm with the government on that count. But all in all, I'm disappointed and embarrassed that my government should choose to be so opportunistic in attack when they should be compromising to work with others in a time of crisis.
The opposition parties have made a bad situation worse. They're all guilty of perpetuating this mess we have now and freezing up the whole process of trying to fix the economic crisis by putting their own interests for power ahead of the interests of those that they were elected to represent. The opposition parties had so many other options for action when Flaherty delievered the update. They couldn't let it pass for reasons that I've made clear, but they didn't have simply up and walk away from the table singing hymns of a coalition government that would bring the conservatives to their knees. They should have pointed out the flaws, voted against it, and demand a renegotiation with an all-party committee that would work together to create a working fiscal update that would create economic stability instead of promoting political chaos.
The whole move towards a coalition by the opposition is nothing but a power trip, and at great cost. I don't know if Dion just wants a chance to become PM, or if Layton wants a chance to sit in cabinet, or if Duceppe wants to finally get Québec to separate from the rest of Canada, but I can find no reason in my mind that a Liberal-NDP government would be any better for Canada than the current conservative one. The country just spent $300 million dollars on an election, and it's too early to put the country into political crisis again.
These are grown adults who are supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the country. They have all the power here, and they need to use it wisely to serve the interests of this country, not to delay action on a crisis that could tear the country apart. Instead, they have chosen to arbitrarily decide that now is the time to take power.
And at what cost? The contingency of this alliance that give the Bloc Québecois the balance of power is a scary prospect. If the Liberal-NDP coalition is forced to implement bills and policies that further the sepratist goal, then we could be facing another referendum on Québec separation within the next two years. Essentially the opposition parties have put in charge of the whole country a party that wants to break it up. Bad move. I don't want to lose Québec. I have French heritage. I love the culture and art and language that contributes Canadian identity. I do not want to see La Belle province separate from Canada, not now, not ever.
In short, the opposition parties struck back far too hard at the faulty Conservative economic update. They abandoned attempts at negotiation, resorting instead to an underhanded power grab, all at the possible, yet extreme cost of losing Québec for good.
The result of this back and forth partisan war between the parties? Government has been taken hostage for another month and a half, and Canada will see no more leadership on the current fiscal crisis until parliament resumes in late January. I expect more of my leaders than petty bickering. The blame is on both sides. Harper may have started it, but Dion, Duceppe, and Layton have made it worse. These politicians should be champions of the people, examples for the rest of us to follow and look up to. Not names that should make us all hang our heads in shame.
The only thing that this chain of events has served to do is weaken my faith in politicians. They have given into that stereotype that all people elected to office are crooks. Their crime? Negligence of their country.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Minority Rights for Acid Rain! (Among other subjugated forms of precipiation)
It's been so long since I've mused over cyberspace. I've heard that people write on their blogs and then tell people to read them because they have some sort of need for attention. I disagree. I don't need attention. I just like being recognized for what I do. And having people like me. That's not attention, is it?
Sometimes I feel sorry for precipitation that isn't snow. Other than snow, no other forms of stuff that falls from the sky gets the same kind of admiration and respect, with a possible exception to rain and sunshine. I mean, snow seems to have this kind of magical quality that people have been brainwashed with that makes them look out the window when it starts to sprinkle down from the heavens and ice the world in it's "wonderfulness", scream to every person in the house that it's snowing, waking them up at what is usually an obscenely early hour, and then going outside in their pyjamas to roll around in this frostbite inducing substance against their better reasoning!
No other piece of precipitation has this power over minds! Rain can be nice at times, like when you hear it on the roof as you're going to sleep, but it doesn't cause kids to wake up in the morning and jump on mom and dad's bed saying, "Looklookmommydaddy! Rainrainitsraining!" and then proceed to go outside, catch hypothermia from wearing no boots while splashing in freezeing puddles and have to stay home watching reruns of Seinfield for the rest of the week. Which isn't that bad, considering that I haven't seen many episodes of Seinfield, but for many people that could be terrible. But no, rain isn't this evil. A typical reaction to rain is, "....unngh." or, "Hm", or, "Why didn't I remember my umberella!", or, "Shoot, now I have to drag in the furniture off of the deck!". No magic, no brainwashing, just rational, reasoned reactions. (And yes, I realize that rational and reasonable mean the same things)
Think about all the other kinds of things that come from the sky! Why don't they have any kind of brainwashing powers! There should be equal brainwashing power rights for all races of precipitation. Sunshine has been lobbying heavily with some success to gain more power over people over the last few years, and as a result it has become cool to go outside to suntan, but the rising costs of skin cancer have retaliated with a campaign against UV rays, while those people who have gotten cancer as a result of too much sun launched the extremely popular global warming doctrine to villainize the yellow giant that we circle.
Acid rain went through a particularly tough time a couple decades ago, with environmentalists segregating it from regular rain, calling it dangerous and harmful. This was obviously simply a case of hatred that stemmed from ignorance, as acid rain doesn't really have destructive properties, it's simply different from regular rain.
And if you think about snow, it's really not all that great, it kills grass and prevents the growing of any other plants. It has to be shovelled out of the way constantly, and it suffocates people in their homes while their children go beserk with their requests to go outside and build snowmen out of it. It blocks traffic, shuts down cities, and makes Canada unattractive as a tourist destination, except for those loonies who like skiing at Whistler!
I say that snow be exposed for what it really is, and that the other stuff that comes from the sky receive the same kind of crazy, brain-washed reaction from small children. Because while snow kills green things, rain gives them water, sun helps them make sugar, and acid rain turns them into compost and fertilizer.
So the next time you see acid rain falling outside, yell, scream, and run outside with your arms wide and your mouth open to receive the another kind of magic from the sky. The magic of that tingling feeling in your mouth, throat, and stomach that comes with granting a subjugated minority group of precipitation equal rights.
Sometimes I feel sorry for precipitation that isn't snow. Other than snow, no other forms of stuff that falls from the sky gets the same kind of admiration and respect, with a possible exception to rain and sunshine. I mean, snow seems to have this kind of magical quality that people have been brainwashed with that makes them look out the window when it starts to sprinkle down from the heavens and ice the world in it's "wonderfulness", scream to every person in the house that it's snowing, waking them up at what is usually an obscenely early hour, and then going outside in their pyjamas to roll around in this frostbite inducing substance against their better reasoning!
No other piece of precipitation has this power over minds! Rain can be nice at times, like when you hear it on the roof as you're going to sleep, but it doesn't cause kids to wake up in the morning and jump on mom and dad's bed saying, "Looklookmommydaddy! Rainrainitsraining!" and then proceed to go outside, catch hypothermia from wearing no boots while splashing in freezeing puddles and have to stay home watching reruns of Seinfield for the rest of the week. Which isn't that bad, considering that I haven't seen many episodes of Seinfield, but for many people that could be terrible. But no, rain isn't this evil. A typical reaction to rain is, "....unngh." or, "Hm", or, "Why didn't I remember my umberella!", or, "Shoot, now I have to drag in the furniture off of the deck!". No magic, no brainwashing, just rational, reasoned reactions. (And yes, I realize that rational and reasonable mean the same things)
Think about all the other kinds of things that come from the sky! Why don't they have any kind of brainwashing powers! There should be equal brainwashing power rights for all races of precipitation. Sunshine has been lobbying heavily with some success to gain more power over people over the last few years, and as a result it has become cool to go outside to suntan, but the rising costs of skin cancer have retaliated with a campaign against UV rays, while those people who have gotten cancer as a result of too much sun launched the extremely popular global warming doctrine to villainize the yellow giant that we circle.
Acid rain went through a particularly tough time a couple decades ago, with environmentalists segregating it from regular rain, calling it dangerous and harmful. This was obviously simply a case of hatred that stemmed from ignorance, as acid rain doesn't really have destructive properties, it's simply different from regular rain.
And if you think about snow, it's really not all that great, it kills grass and prevents the growing of any other plants. It has to be shovelled out of the way constantly, and it suffocates people in their homes while their children go beserk with their requests to go outside and build snowmen out of it. It blocks traffic, shuts down cities, and makes Canada unattractive as a tourist destination, except for those loonies who like skiing at Whistler!
I say that snow be exposed for what it really is, and that the other stuff that comes from the sky receive the same kind of crazy, brain-washed reaction from small children. Because while snow kills green things, rain gives them water, sun helps them make sugar, and acid rain turns them into compost and fertilizer.
So the next time you see acid rain falling outside, yell, scream, and run outside with your arms wide and your mouth open to receive the another kind of magic from the sky. The magic of that tingling feeling in your mouth, throat, and stomach that comes with granting a subjugated minority group of precipitation equal rights.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Canada Votes 2008
Or rather, 59% of eligible voters (13.59 million) in Canada vote for the other 32 million of us. We really have to work on that.
On October 14th, 2008, Canadians decided on another minority, Conservative government, but not necessarily in that order.
The end result was 143 seats for the Conservatives, 76 for the Liberals, 50 for the Bloc Quebecois, 37 for the NDP, 2 Independents and no Green Part seats.
Not quite the majority that Stephen Harper craved, but more seats than he had before anyways. Why didn't he get the majority? Well, it's been said that Harper's campaign had only two weaknesses that kept the majority out of his grasp; failure to capture more seats in Quebec, and the stunning success of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' Anything But Conservative campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why was Harper unable to win seats in these two regions? For Newfoundland the answer seems obvious; the charisma of Premiers Williams and his influence on the decisions of voters on election day cannot be by any means underestimated. But in Québec, why did Harper's once strong numbers fall through?
The answer can be found in the examination of the policies pursued by the Prime Minister and how they were reacted to by la belle province. As anyone who lived through the referendum of 1995 knows, the Québecois are almost paranoid about protecting their language, rituals, and culture. The cuts to the arts in Québec of $45 million (a relatively pitiful amount by the standards of the federal budget) and bill C-10, which cut funding to films that were contrary to public policy, were highlighted by Bloc leader Gilles Ducceppe as a knife plunging towards Québec's heart. Because the sole purpose of the Bloc is to protect french culture; by separating if possible or a the very least keeping an eagle eye on the federalist parties; voters who may have chosen Conservative were persuaded to vote for the sepratists instead. This was in addition to the proposal by the Conservatives to allow youth aged 14 to be charged as adults for violent crimes, which was again highlighted by Ducceppe as an attempt to slice away the foundations of Québec.
The Liberal campaign was; in a word, disastrous. Leader Stephané Dion's choice of campaigning on the idea of a tax shift was risky at best, and although sound in reasoning failed to be explained to the public by Monsieur Dion. The tally of 76 seats is shocking, seeing as the Liberals are the naturally dominant party in the country, having recorded seats in recent elections in every province. The weakness of the leader and his inability to explain his platform resulted in the siphoning off of the red vote to the Conservatives and the NDP wherever swing ridings could be found, with a particular change noticeable in Ontario and British Columbia. The one plus to the Liberal campaign was the election of Justin Trudeau, son of the late Pierre of the same surname. With Dion stepping down as soon as Monday, party heavyweights such as Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are sure to compete for the top red job, bringing new leadership and fresh ideas into a tired, struggling brand of politics.
Indeed it seems difficult to understand why the Liberals could possibly lose a campaign. Under Chretien, they handled the economy masterfully and eliminated an annual budget deficit of $43 billion, replacing it with surpluses that paid down our national debt and increased the amount of money that Canadians kept in their pockets. Dion himself was the dynamic author of the Clarity Act in 2001, having been appointed to cabinet by Chretien following the 1995 referendum to keep Canada unified. It was Chretien who gave a stirring address immediately following 9/11 to bolster morale and join the war on terror, and it was also Chretien who boldly stood up to be counted in defying the will of the United States in declaring war on Iraq.
Under the next Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Gomery's uncovering of the corruption of the long-lived Liberal regime caused massive damage to the party's credibility in Québec, which was pounced on by the new leader of a bigger, better Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper. But when Harper was elected in 2006, he trimmed surpluses and spent more than any progressive Canadian government had ever before, so it is difficult to see why the Conservatives, who screwed the economy over in the 1980's and were working towards it again in the beginning of this millennium, were seen in this election as the better managers of our economy.
Again, it falls back on Dion and his failure to, for lack of a better and more cliché phrase, 'sell himself". Thus, the Liberals are reduced in seats nearly everywhere, The NDP increase seat count, and the only thing that prevents a Conservative majority is the agile politicking of Gilles Ducceppe and Danny Williams; who cashed in on Harper's insensitive image.
Enough griping about the Liberals. Lord only knows that they're getting plenty of that from...well, just about everyone.
Let's talk a little bit about the minor parties. I've already discussed Ducceppe's brilliant performance, but let's talk about the implications of it. Although this may be dampened by the economic downturn, the resurgence of the Bloc as a political force allows them the freedom to redefine their brand, and get back to their roots. Yes, I mean separatism. I will watch over the next decade or so with interest to see if the Québecois nation ruffles it's feathers again, or permanently morphs into a group that represents the interests of Québeckers as it has in the past few sittings of parliament. The future of the party is in question, but under Ducceppe faces a brighter future.
Then there's the NDP. Jack Layton is certainly the most dynamic leader, and perhaps the most radical of all the federal parties. His spending proposals smacked of classic socialism and the ideals of equalization, and he was able to sell himself far more effectively than any of the other leaders, essentially single-handedly strengthening a brand that has a far smaller traditional base than either of the other major national parties. Although cliché at times and too good at rhetoric at others, Layton is the best orator (in English at least), and most likely champion of the Canadian working class. He still faces the disadvantage of the crowded 'left-wing' of Canadian politics, and isn't nearly as dynamic or inspiring as we might like him to be.
Of course we can't forget Elizabeth May and the Green Party. With the best showing in history, the Green Party captured thousands more votes in a few ridings than it had in the party's entire history. One of those ridings happened to be the one that Elizabeth May was running in, where she garnered an astounding 12, 620 votes from the riding of Central Nova. Unfortunately, her chief rival Peter McKay, former leader of the Progressive Conservatives and popular minister of defense, got 18, 239, beating her by about 50 %. However, she did score a seat in the leader's debates in which she performed surprisingly well, and she managed to put forward her policies and topics in such a way that they stayed relevant throughout the campaign, particularly the issue of proportional representation, which was mentioned in CBC's coverage of election night several times.
Now you might be asking, what does this minority parliament mean for me, my family, and the economy?
Firstly, it means that when Harper summons the legislature, Canada will suffer terrible damage from the current economic downturn if the elected parties cannot work together to keep the ark that it our country afloat. It also means that any economic policies that are passed are more likely to represent the interests of a greater slice of the Canadian pie, because of the fact that any policy passed by this government must have the support of at least one other party. In my view, this is a very good thing, as it forces co-operation, discussion, and ultimately better governance. Slower governance maybe, but I would rather have a well thought out plan for the economy than a hastily constructed notion that I hope will work to save us from Bay Street.
Just before I close, I'd like to return to the idea that I expressed at the beginning of this post; the fact that Canada's 32 million people are being represented by 59 % of the people who can vote, about 13.5 million. Not only that, but the government, the Conservatives, received 36 % of that vote, about 4.3 million votes. That means that approximately one in every eight people decide how the rest of us are governed.
A little scary, isn't it? Now, seeing as membership in the political community of Canada is fairly mandatory, there's nothing one can really do about being ruled by the structure that's in place. But by voting, we can bring about a change in structure. If the Canadian people decide that they want proportional representation, they will elect a party that promises that in it's platform.
The only problem with this is that the society in which we live is pretty good, and no one sees any reason to change what we have. We're comfortable in buying the latest technology that the market has to offer, working in corporations for money so we can buy material goods, watching our favorite T.V. show on Wednesday nights (actually mine is on Tuesday - Rick Mercer is brilliant), and believing everything that the news tells us. We aren't being harmed, life is good, so why change it?
We just don't care. We see no reason why we should.
What's the solution? Ironically, our free market system might be creating one for us; crisis. If things do get bad and they need to be changed, then we'll conveniently remember our democratic right and exercise it promptly.
But until then?
Like Stephen Harper said: God Bless Canada.
On October 14th, 2008, Canadians decided on another minority, Conservative government, but not necessarily in that order.
The end result was 143 seats for the Conservatives, 76 for the Liberals, 50 for the Bloc Quebecois, 37 for the NDP, 2 Independents and no Green Part seats.
Not quite the majority that Stephen Harper craved, but more seats than he had before anyways. Why didn't he get the majority? Well, it's been said that Harper's campaign had only two weaknesses that kept the majority out of his grasp; failure to capture more seats in Quebec, and the stunning success of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' Anything But Conservative campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why was Harper unable to win seats in these two regions? For Newfoundland the answer seems obvious; the charisma of Premiers Williams and his influence on the decisions of voters on election day cannot be by any means underestimated. But in Québec, why did Harper's once strong numbers fall through?
The answer can be found in the examination of the policies pursued by the Prime Minister and how they were reacted to by la belle province. As anyone who lived through the referendum of 1995 knows, the Québecois are almost paranoid about protecting their language, rituals, and culture. The cuts to the arts in Québec of $45 million (a relatively pitiful amount by the standards of the federal budget) and bill C-10, which cut funding to films that were contrary to public policy, were highlighted by Bloc leader Gilles Ducceppe as a knife plunging towards Québec's heart. Because the sole purpose of the Bloc is to protect french culture; by separating if possible or a the very least keeping an eagle eye on the federalist parties; voters who may have chosen Conservative were persuaded to vote for the sepratists instead. This was in addition to the proposal by the Conservatives to allow youth aged 14 to be charged as adults for violent crimes, which was again highlighted by Ducceppe as an attempt to slice away the foundations of Québec.
The Liberal campaign was; in a word, disastrous. Leader Stephané Dion's choice of campaigning on the idea of a tax shift was risky at best, and although sound in reasoning failed to be explained to the public by Monsieur Dion. The tally of 76 seats is shocking, seeing as the Liberals are the naturally dominant party in the country, having recorded seats in recent elections in every province. The weakness of the leader and his inability to explain his platform resulted in the siphoning off of the red vote to the Conservatives and the NDP wherever swing ridings could be found, with a particular change noticeable in Ontario and British Columbia. The one plus to the Liberal campaign was the election of Justin Trudeau, son of the late Pierre of the same surname. With Dion stepping down as soon as Monday, party heavyweights such as Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are sure to compete for the top red job, bringing new leadership and fresh ideas into a tired, struggling brand of politics.
Indeed it seems difficult to understand why the Liberals could possibly lose a campaign. Under Chretien, they handled the economy masterfully and eliminated an annual budget deficit of $43 billion, replacing it with surpluses that paid down our national debt and increased the amount of money that Canadians kept in their pockets. Dion himself was the dynamic author of the Clarity Act in 2001, having been appointed to cabinet by Chretien following the 1995 referendum to keep Canada unified. It was Chretien who gave a stirring address immediately following 9/11 to bolster morale and join the war on terror, and it was also Chretien who boldly stood up to be counted in defying the will of the United States in declaring war on Iraq.
Under the next Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Gomery's uncovering of the corruption of the long-lived Liberal regime caused massive damage to the party's credibility in Québec, which was pounced on by the new leader of a bigger, better Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper. But when Harper was elected in 2006, he trimmed surpluses and spent more than any progressive Canadian government had ever before, so it is difficult to see why the Conservatives, who screwed the economy over in the 1980's and were working towards it again in the beginning of this millennium, were seen in this election as the better managers of our economy.
Again, it falls back on Dion and his failure to, for lack of a better and more cliché phrase, 'sell himself". Thus, the Liberals are reduced in seats nearly everywhere, The NDP increase seat count, and the only thing that prevents a Conservative majority is the agile politicking of Gilles Ducceppe and Danny Williams; who cashed in on Harper's insensitive image.
Enough griping about the Liberals. Lord only knows that they're getting plenty of that from...well, just about everyone.
Let's talk a little bit about the minor parties. I've already discussed Ducceppe's brilliant performance, but let's talk about the implications of it. Although this may be dampened by the economic downturn, the resurgence of the Bloc as a political force allows them the freedom to redefine their brand, and get back to their roots. Yes, I mean separatism. I will watch over the next decade or so with interest to see if the Québecois nation ruffles it's feathers again, or permanently morphs into a group that represents the interests of Québeckers as it has in the past few sittings of parliament. The future of the party is in question, but under Ducceppe faces a brighter future.
Then there's the NDP. Jack Layton is certainly the most dynamic leader, and perhaps the most radical of all the federal parties. His spending proposals smacked of classic socialism and the ideals of equalization, and he was able to sell himself far more effectively than any of the other leaders, essentially single-handedly strengthening a brand that has a far smaller traditional base than either of the other major national parties. Although cliché at times and too good at rhetoric at others, Layton is the best orator (in English at least), and most likely champion of the Canadian working class. He still faces the disadvantage of the crowded 'left-wing' of Canadian politics, and isn't nearly as dynamic or inspiring as we might like him to be.
Of course we can't forget Elizabeth May and the Green Party. With the best showing in history, the Green Party captured thousands more votes in a few ridings than it had in the party's entire history. One of those ridings happened to be the one that Elizabeth May was running in, where she garnered an astounding 12, 620 votes from the riding of Central Nova. Unfortunately, her chief rival Peter McKay, former leader of the Progressive Conservatives and popular minister of defense, got 18, 239, beating her by about 50 %. However, she did score a seat in the leader's debates in which she performed surprisingly well, and she managed to put forward her policies and topics in such a way that they stayed relevant throughout the campaign, particularly the issue of proportional representation, which was mentioned in CBC's coverage of election night several times.
Now you might be asking, what does this minority parliament mean for me, my family, and the economy?
Firstly, it means that when Harper summons the legislature, Canada will suffer terrible damage from the current economic downturn if the elected parties cannot work together to keep the ark that it our country afloat. It also means that any economic policies that are passed are more likely to represent the interests of a greater slice of the Canadian pie, because of the fact that any policy passed by this government must have the support of at least one other party. In my view, this is a very good thing, as it forces co-operation, discussion, and ultimately better governance. Slower governance maybe, but I would rather have a well thought out plan for the economy than a hastily constructed notion that I hope will work to save us from Bay Street.
Just before I close, I'd like to return to the idea that I expressed at the beginning of this post; the fact that Canada's 32 million people are being represented by 59 % of the people who can vote, about 13.5 million. Not only that, but the government, the Conservatives, received 36 % of that vote, about 4.3 million votes. That means that approximately one in every eight people decide how the rest of us are governed.
A little scary, isn't it? Now, seeing as membership in the political community of Canada is fairly mandatory, there's nothing one can really do about being ruled by the structure that's in place. But by voting, we can bring about a change in structure. If the Canadian people decide that they want proportional representation, they will elect a party that promises that in it's platform.
The only problem with this is that the society in which we live is pretty good, and no one sees any reason to change what we have. We're comfortable in buying the latest technology that the market has to offer, working in corporations for money so we can buy material goods, watching our favorite T.V. show on Wednesday nights (actually mine is on Tuesday - Rick Mercer is brilliant), and believing everything that the news tells us. We aren't being harmed, life is good, so why change it?
We just don't care. We see no reason why we should.
What's the solution? Ironically, our free market system might be creating one for us; crisis. If things do get bad and they need to be changed, then we'll conveniently remember our democratic right and exercise it promptly.
But until then?
Like Stephen Harper said: God Bless Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
