If You Take Quebec Out Of The Mix...

It is a phrase I am hearing Conservative pundits,using more and more, most recently on Power and Politics a few minutes ago (Joan Crocker insists that without Quebec, Canadians were evenly split on Iraq). It is an inane stance, since Quebec is a part of Canada and so there is no leaving Quebec out of the equation. This is a dangerous trend and it makes Conservatives seem sympathetic to the separatists, who also want to take Quebecers out of the Canadian conversation.

Recommend this Post

Note To Jeff Simpson III

Jeff, may I call you Jeff? I have written you so much, I feel I know you. Jeff, you kinda flew off the rails, in this morning's offering.

Set the following criteria. Leaders whose parties get at least 15 per cent of the popular vote and/or whose parties have 50 seats (roughly 15 per cent) in the House of Commons can participate in the nationally televised debate in English in the main network.

Then, let there be one-hour interviews, or something of this sort, with the leaders of the other parties on prime-time programs on the specialty channels.

The same criteria could be used in French. Leaders whose parties commanded 15 per cent of the vote (in Quebec) can participate in debates on the main channels; interviews would be reserved for the others.

Of course, some people who support marginal parties will scream, claiming equality, equality, equality. But what's fair about allowing a party with no seats, or 10 per cent of the popular vote, to receive the same exposure to viewers/voters as parties with more than 100 seats, or 150 seats, and almost 40 per cent of the vote?

What you wrote seems reasonable, until someone reads it. What you are proposing to do is give a leader of a party with 33-37% support, 100% access to the media while giving a leader of a party with 10 to 14%, 0% access. What you are proposing is essentially overlaying the crazy distortions of our electoral system to the debates. Such a distortion is extremely undemocratic, because it presents the views of the party with 37% of the vote as the view of the majority. Whereas, the actual vote count shows this is simply not true. At the same time, your formula pretends that the views of 10 to 14% of the population do not exist at all. It is bad enough that our electoral system distorts the reality of the country. To overlay that distortion on the debates is unthinkable. Go back to the drawing board, Jeff. This proposal is a non-starter.

Recommend this Post

Note To Jeff Simpson II

It is nice to see Mr. Simpson doing some thinking. It's funny though, that his own habits of mind prevent him from seeing the solution to his problem, that is right before his eyes.

Mr. Simpson, our political culture, consisting of the big parties always jockeying for the kill, is based on our retarded electoral system. The big parties know they can get "majority" governments even though they command only a minority of the vote in the country. There is no reason to cooperate if they think they can win a "majority", even if they can't command majority support in the population. Instead, they look for "vote splits" and "strategic voting" and any number of other stupid strategies to get them to the promised land of absolute power without having to cooperate with anyone. If you really want to change the political culture in this country, then back electoral reform (I see you making a nod in its direction, keep it up). If you make it impossible for one party to rule with a majority without either commanding a majority of the vote, or by building coalitions with other parties, then the parties will learn to cooperate. Unless you remove the possibility of majority control with minority support, you will never change our political culture. Glad to be of help.

Recommend this Post

Note To Jeff Simpson

All of our governments are minority governments, even the "majorities". I realize our pundits like the trains to run on time and a "majority" makes it easier for governments to ram through spending and tax cuts (or maybe the privatization of health care, eh Mr. Simpson?), but please, spare me the "no more minority governments" crap. What you are asking for is a minority government with enough seats to ignore the opposition. What you are asking for is four years of minority rule with majority power. Why should we be thrilled by that prospect?

Recommend this Post

Read Jeff Simpson Today

If you want to see, in one column, the distilled version of the received truth of our nation's pundits. For the record:

A) The coalition was a stupid idea.
B) Iggy is too smart for such a stupid idea.
C) If he votes with the government, we will give him cover fire, because it distances him from Dion and we really didn't like that guy.
D) We don't like Jack Layton. He should get cancer and die. Power loving commie bastard.
E) We don't like Harper either, but better a psychotic conservative than a socialist any day.
F) The Liberals are afraid of an election.
G) The budget will pass after the Liberals complain and shake their fists at it. We will describe it as a win for the nation.
H) It's all meaningless anyway since everyone knows Canadians are stupid and greedy and will forgive a government anything, as long as they are bribed well enough.

You're welcome.

Recommend this Post

Let Me Lay It Out For You

The NDP will not vote for the budget because they have concluded (rightly) that Stephen Harper is a lying sack of human excrement. Harper will promise to cure bad breath in this upcoming budget. He will claim to have found the formula for turning lead into gold. He will, in short, say anything to save his own job. To those (and there are many, both in the MSM and in the comments sections of our newspapers) who suggest that is irresponsible to reject something out of hand without seeing it first, I would ask you what value is there in listening to the proposals of a serial liar? How much stock can anyone put into anything Harper says? The issue here is not economics, it is trust. Harper has lost it and the NDP is not willing to be consciously fooled in order to stave off the "horror" of a potential election or (if you read the corporate press) the prospect of a government that includes the NDP. In my opinion, it is much more "responsible" to call out a liar than to be fooled willingly, for fear of being ridiculed by a press that is in the bag for the status quo. Good on the NDP and shame on the cowards of our punditariat.

Recommend this Post

Thus Sayeth The Pundit

Dan Leger in the Halifax Chronicle wrote today:

We all have to take some individual responsibility. Don’t like politicians? Go vote. Got a better idea about running the country? Let’s hear it. Know better than the business and media leaders? Then show up at last to help fix it yourself.

In a first past the post system, voting (unless you live in a swing riding)is a waste of time. Yes, we had a better idea, it was called electoral reform. Your friends at the Toronto Star (as well as many, many other of our media betters) moved heaven and earth to crush it. So pardon me if I am cynical about the system.

Recommend this Post

Shorter Jeffrey Simpson

I wish everyone in the NDP was as great as Douglas and Broadbent. Well duh. It always amazes me how the pundit class in this country has internalized the idea that to rule means to rule cynically and anyone who questions this "truth" is just "sanctimonious". No wonder we have the politics we have.

Recommend this Post

Don't Talk Principles To Me, The Game Is On

The pundit party of Canada has a problem. The media is confused by the NDP's attitude toward and election. They just can't understand why a party with no hope of forming a government and not great poll numbers would want an election. I watched Newman's show this week and two exchanges illustrate this narrative being played out.

The first was on Wednesday, in this conversation between Newman and Peggy Nash (start at 17:45). Nash explains that the NDP is not overly anxious for an election but is voting in the House according to party principles and if that brings an election, so be it. Newman sweeps by this assertion pretty quickly, but at least he sort of acknowledges it.

Fine thinks I, that pretty much clear clears that up, but on Friday, on the round table discussion, comes this display of group think at its finest (start at 46:21). Not once did you hear them discussing Nash's stated reason for the NDP voting the way they are (in fact, Newman begins the segment by completely misrepresenting what Nash actually said). Gone was Nash's argument for principled voting and with it missing, the media talking heads fell back on the "Why are the NDP acting so strangely?" narrative.

The pundits in this country have their minds made up about what politics are supposed to be. It is a sporting event where the players are constantly jockeying for advantage and the polls act as the final arbiters of the team standings. That is the dominant narrative of our political chatting class. Any counter narrative, like the one Nash tried to introduce, hasn't a hope of penetrating the psychic armor brandished by our media betters. What a sad state of affairs.

Recommend this Post

We Have Always Been At War With East Asia Watch

In which Tory-friendly columnists now say that dictatorial rule by the Prime Minister is okie dokie (as long as the "quality" of government doesn't suffer), even though that contradicts what the Tories (in their various iterations) themselves were saying for the past 13 years.

Here is one small example of past Tory complaints, from Mr. Jay Hill, who is now I believe, a minor player in the court of His Psychotic Majesty (from just a couple of years ago):

I would argue that the concentration of power in the Office of the Prime Minister, which is at the root of much of our democratic deficit, has grown not lessened under this Prime Minister's watch.

The multitudes of government powers that ultimately rest with the Prime Minister are staggering. The exclusive monopoly over the central powers of government have even led the current Prime Minister himself, in his address to law students at Osgoode Hall in the fall of 2002, to state that the essence of power in Ottawa was “who you know in the PMO”.

This leads me to the recent appointment of the Prime Minister's friend Glen Murray to chair the round table on the environment and economy. Despite a rejection from the environment committee and the House, Glen Murray continues in office. The opinion of the House is of no consequence. It is “who you know in the PMO”.

His recent choices to fill the vacancies in the Senate were a slap in the face to the people of Alberta who elected their senators. The opinion of the people of Alberta is obviously not important to the Liberal Party. Again, it was “who you know in the PMO”.

“Who you know in the PMO” has to go.

I guess that last sentence is no longer operative in this newish government.

And here is one from Mr. Stockwell Day warning of the toxic nature of too much power concentrated in the hands of one man:

Mr. Speaker, the power consolidated in the Prime Minister's Office would be a dream for anyone who wants total power. The Prime Minister can and does appoint the Governor General who is also the commander in chief of the armed forces, all lieutenant governors, senators, Supreme Court judges, Federal Court judges, the cabinet, key positions on regulatory agencies and the heads of major boards and commissions. That is a dream for anyone who is seeking power.

Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, it is no surprise that judgment is corrupted when one has that much power. I am not even putting a moral tinge to it, just judgment itself.

To put my question in context, I attended the Summit of the Americas with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There were emerging democracies throughout Central and South America and there are those who have been dictators who would like to cling to power. They see Canada as having a system where one person has a huge amount of power and also does not put out information on billions of dollars being spent. It is a deterrent to emerging democracies. It is an incentive for those who want to consolidate power all in one office. Here is the clincher. One person raised the issue at the Summit of the Americas of the corruption in Canada. That was a very embarrassing moment for me.

Has the member considered or has he heard at committee if the Liberals have considered the effect of maintaining this air of secrecy, maintaining this level of power? Have the Liberals considered the effect not just on Canada's reputation, but on emerging democracies and those who would try to consolidate power? Have they thought about that?

I'll bet Mr. Day doesn't ask these questions out loud, anymore.

Recommend this Post

Alert The Media

I actually agree with Ian Urquhart. The only laugh out loud moment in the piece came at the end, when Ian suddenly realizes the federal Liberals might just screw Ontario, too. By the way, I will have to look into how Jack and friends will vote on this issue.

Update: I don't know how I missed this but Coyne wrote a spot on piece about this, the other day.

Recommend this Post

An Emerging Pattern

I am noticing a pattern among the Star's attacks on MMP. They have given up entirely defending the merits of FPTP. They must realize how indefensible such a position is. I mean how can one defend a system that is an undemocratic anachronism unsuited to multiparty democracy? It isn't easy and so they have stopped trying.

Look out for today's highlight. Richard Gwyn calls women an "identity group". Behold the Star, Canada's "progressive" newspaper.

Update: One last thing. Gwyn does bring up some other systemic problems now extant in Canadian politics. They are worthy issues, but completely irrelevant to the debate over the electoral system. They are red herrings designed to confuse the issue. People who bring them up need to explain how maintaining the status quo in our electoral system will promote reform in other areas of our political system.

Recommend this Post

MSM Pundits Need A Vacation Too

Greg Weston spouts this pearl of conventional wisdom today:

Jack Layton and the New Democrats seem to be drifting aimlessly, opposed to everything and champions of nothing, gaining votes nowhere they roam.

Do the pundits in Ottawa even pay attention to party positions on issues anymore? It doesn't seem like it. The NDP has spent the last several months trying to champion the environment, for example (there are other issues they are pushing too, but the environment is the most high profile) and yet the pundits in Ottawa still cling to the "official" stories they tell each other, all day long. It isn't just the politicians who need to re-evaluate their attitudes during the summer. The pundits need to think more carefully about their orthodoxies at the cottage this summer, too.

Recommend this Post