On a beaucoup parlé de la campagne libérale, de ses ratés et de son chef mais si la lecture des sondages est exacte, le grand perdant de cette élection devrait être le chef conservateur Stephen Harper.

Comprenons-nous bien : la performance de l’actuel premier ministre, quoique très ordinaire depuis le débat des chefs, n’est pas catastrophique. Dans la moyenne pour être exact. Mais ce n’est pas là-dessus qu’il sera jugé.

Les conservateurs, comme la majorité des mouvements de droite, veulent des résultats. Les coupures aux subventions dans le domaine culturel et dans le développement économique des régions sont des exemples bien réels de cette idéologie politique. Si le retour sur l’investissement n’est pas bon, on coupe ou on remodèle le programme. La logique peut tenir.

Stephen Harper a décidé d’utiliser un des échappatoires de sa propre loi sur les élections à date fixe pour se lancer dans une campagne électorale qui n’avait pour but que d’aller chercher les sièges manquants à une majorité conservatrice. L’opportunisme politique avec un grand O, quoique le seul reproche qu’on puisse lui faire est d’avoir voilé sciemment l’esprit de la loi qu’il a mis en place.

Le résultat net, en date d’aujourd’hui, est que le Parti conservateur a fragilisé sa place à la Chambre des Communes. Après avoir créé de toutes pièces le personnage de Stéphane Dion, il a laissé les autres partis redéfinir son image. Il les a même aidés, par exemple avec sa position face à la situation économique mondiale. On ne se donne pas de chances lorsqu’on dit aux Canadiens d’investir dans la Bourse, alors que ceux-ci ne cherchent qu’à se faire rassurer. Pas plus qu’en présentant une plate-forme électorale (qui, malgré certains bons côtés, avait plutôt l’air d’un plan B fabriqué à la va-vite)… après le vote par anticipation.

Que feront les militants conservateurs après l’élection? Attendons les résultats, mais Stephen Harper devra répondre de ses actes. Si le résultat net de l’élection est le retour à la case départ, c’est que le premier ministre aura échoué son plus gros test politique.

Depuis hier DemocraticSPACE prévoit sept Bloquistes sur 7 pour le “nord du Québec”. Surprenant. Même Lebel de Roberval, le dernier qui semblait solide, prend le bord.

J’ai pas l’impression que Jean-Pierre Blackburn ne va pouvoir s’en remettre lui non-plus, même avec sa promesse de 1 000 jobs et plus dans une prison futur à Larouche, même avec un beau gymnase tout neuf et tout aussi futur pour le Cégep de Jonquière, annoncé en grande pompe, hier en mettant de côté les “partenaires” péquistes et syndicales. Chantale est encore à une majorité absolue de plus de 50%, bien au delà de la marge d’erreur.

Trop de tout au local, je crois. Et pas assez de ce qui compte au nationale! On dirait que c’est la campagne fédérale du Parti Conservateur, qui les avaient porté au pouvoir il y a deux ans et qui est en train de les renvoyer à la maison. Que d’erreurs du point de vue du Saguenay et du Québec. C’est ce que les analystes disent dans la région depuis quelques jours. Entendu à la piscine du Cégep par un non spécialiste en science politique:”ça me fait de la peine pour monsieur Blackburn que je respecte, mais son chef ne l’a vraiment pas”.

Chris Warkentin, the incumbent MP for Peace River, was never the local Conservative party’s first pick for MP, even if he was former MP Charlie Penson’s pick.  At least, as I’ve mentioned before, his nomination raised enough ire within the party that in the last election, Grande Prairie town councillor Bill Given took him on as an independent, in large part because he didn’t get a chance to try for the nomination himself.  Given’s Conservative support helped him come in second in the last election, Warkentin’s closest competition by far with around 9800 votes.  Of course, compared to Warkentin’s almost 28,000 votes it wasn’t a close race whatsover.  (Incidentally, this election Given says he’s voting Green, an interesting choice since the Greens received only 2% of the vote last time, and have a very small, if dedicated, core group running their campaign.  Green candidate Jennifer Villebrun, however, has done well at forums and is both well-spoken and upbeat, and will likely get a boost from the popularity of leader Elizabeth May.) But what will happen to all of those disaffected and largely Conservative voters who voted for Given?  That’s 9800 voters who already broke with a long tradition of voting Conservative in the Peace River riding once in the past.  Will they mark their “x” by Warkentin’s name now, despite their dissatisfaction with him, out of party loyalty?  Or will they seek another alternative in this election?  Perhaps like Given, those voters will turn to the Greens, with their fiscal conservatism.  Or might they even turn to the NDP, third place after Given in the last election?

There are some other factors to consider too.  The nuclear issue continues to polarize the riding.  In Valleyview, a Conservative bastion where in my experience to be progressive was almost to be spit upon in the past, audience members at the recent forum stood up and called out to Warkentin to “take a stand, take a stand” on the proposed nuclear power plant, frustrated with his continued waffling (Warkentin has stead-fastedly refused to take a position on nuclear, saying either that it’s a provincial issue or that he has no personal opinion, and carefully saying nothing about his party’s support for nuclear energy in general).  If Warkentin said he supported nuclear, there are any number of people who would agree.  There are also those who would refuse to vote for him as a result.  But trying to straddle the fence doesn’t seems to be earning Warkentin any points, if the Valleyview forum was any indication.

 Another factor is Warkentin’s group of core supporters at the Peace River Bible Institute in Sexsmith.  They were out in force at the 2006 election forum in Grande Prairie, having travelled out together in several identical white vans to ask questions of candidates like why the government allowed nudity in art.  Yet they were conspiciously absent at the most Grande Prairie forum in this election (while nuclear protestors were there and asking questions).  It could be that the Bible College crowd doesn’t feel Warkentin needs any more extra help, now that he’s an incumbent and sure to win. Or could it be that they are upset with Warkentin for not doing more on their key issues, abortion and gay marriage? After all, it has been tough lately for Warkentin to walk this line as well.  His religious beliefs clearly include a personal opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and if you press him personally, as I did after the Peace River forum, he will admit to having personal views to that effect.  But he hasn’t said so flat out while campaigning, and his religious supporters expect him to do actually something about it.

 It’s not that Warkentin hasn’t tried.  He has raised the issues in the House of Commons, memorably trying to focus on the alleged damage gay marriage does to children (his cries of “what about the children” were subsequently dubbed “the Lovejoy factor” by the Upper Canadian blog), and supporting a crime bill, C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Act), that might have reopened the abortion debate by giving special status to the life of an unborn child as a victim.  Which seems like a good point to note that Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada today for his role in making abortion legal in Canada, an award Warkentin also opposed.

 But Warkentin was dealt a blow when the Conservative Justice Minister dropped C-484 in August, right before the election.  The cynical, or the realistic, might say that the Harper government was afraid of being called anti-abortion during the election, a dangerous political position when polls consistently show Canadians remain supportive of legal abortion.  Warkentin was one of the few MPs who vowed to carry forward the bill despite his own government’s refusal to support it.  But with Harper and his spokesperson continuing to say another Conservative government will not support private members bills on abortion, does Warkentin really have a chance?  And will his statements in the House be enough for his religious supporters, or are they becoming frustrated with what, to them, may seem like a lot of talk and very little action, and a lack of support from Harper?

 There is one last change in the riding since the last election, and that is the introduction of candidates for two parties that have never had a presence before, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the Libertarians.  The votes they will draw will likely be small, but there is no question Peace River residents have more choice than ever before on their ballots.

 All of this may add up to a more interesting election result than expected, or it may amount to nothing more than a little more mild grumbling as people obediently mark their “x” for the Conservatives as they always have.  Fortunately, we’re only one long weekend away from finding out.

After the Liberals were defeated in the federal election of January 2006, there was a sense of renewal in the air. Both Liberals, who had grown tired of the old ways after thirteen years in government under Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin, and non-Liberals saw a golden opportunity in defeat to give the party a new sense of direction and purpose, to transform it into a party that would reflect small-l liberal values and be well-positioned as one of the main parties in 21st-century Canada.

In those heady days the Liberal Party attracted a considerable number of people who had never been members of the party, or even voted for it, before. I was one of them. In Alberta, building a new movement or political party from scratch is in our blood. The Reform Party, for example, was a product of this passion so typical of Albertans. For me, therefore, it was a great opportunity to be part of a process that would breathe new life into an old and stale party that had long forgotten its roots.

Albertans are often erroneously labelled as conservatives when, in fact, they are small-l liberals in the traditional sense: protecting people’s freedoms and ensuring that every individual can unfold his or her full potential, while keeping government and its reach to a reasonable level and cracking down on those whose excesses of freedom, such as criminal activity, make it impossible for others to enjoy their freedoms. In that sense, and in that sense only, I am a liberal. As far as I am concerned, a party that uses the word “liberal” in its name must live up to those principles.
(more…)

This afternoon I received an email from the local Conservative campaign. It brought up several interesting points which I’d like to address here.

 

On Campaign Literature:

The Weston Campaign email mocked the on-the-ground organization of the Liberal, Green and NDP candidates. Of specific note, there was the suggestion that no literature has been mailed out by any of the major parties. It’s an interesting point, and I was planning on writing something about it anyway. While I don’t know what date, specifically, the note was written, my experience is significantly different than the one expressed by the Weston Campaign email.

 

While I haven not, to date, received any NDP literature, I don’t recall ever receiving any NDP literature in this riding – very much a non-issue (and I don’t know that if I were the Conservatives I’d necessarily be gloating about this– the more strong campaigns around to split the vote, the better).

 

The Liberals have managed to provide literature in a mail out in my neighbourhood. While aesthetically reasonable on the outside, it’s poorly designed, bland and amateurish inside and on the back – I find this a bit shocking as it looks to be a simple template, how do you screw up a template?. In short, it looks as though it was thrown together at the last second (which undoubtedly it was given the late nomination of the candidate). Because the Liberals got in the game late, they had to choose a template (again assuming) for the flyers loaded with information on the platform, history and the candidate which, really, makes the brochure daunting for anyone looking for quick hits about the candidate or party. However, at least they got something out before advanced polling unlike some parties (see above, below). Quick note: it says a lot that I’m complaining about a party giving me too much info, doesn’t it.

 

Blair Wilson’s campaign/office has provided my area of the riding with several mail outs – one a slick looking effort, which was very accessible. Clear, plain language combined with a simple premise – though a little light on party platform…and really, if you were going to highlight anything, would it be your proposed raising of the GST? Nonetheless, easily the best literature I’ve received during the campaign. We also received a riding update after the writ dropped (though published before Blair joined the Greens) which was timed very well.

 

On to the Conservative Campaign, from whom I have yet to receive any literature from whatsoever. Well, that’s not exactly true. I have received information from their North Vancouver candidate (quite the publication I might add) and 20 percenters 2-3 times a week from Lee Richardson’s office. All that comes to mind is that before casting stones at the ineptitude of your opponents, perhaps one ought to consider making sure that they are aware of the boundaries of one’s own riding…I suppose it’s still possible that I’ll receive some information (perhaps waiting for the platform to be released) before voting day. However, none of this is particularly useful for those of us that have already voted. Bravo.

 

On Vandalism:

Beyond the normal mischief associated with vandalizing campaign signs, the Conservatives have charged that there has “been politically targeted” vandalism against them in West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast – STSC. It’s quite obvious that the same is true of the Liberals in both that riding and North Vancouver as well – I’m sure that the Greens and NDP have also had some similar experience. I particularly find such action distasteful when involving signs on private property and hope that those who enjoy defacing signs at least respect private property and the right of citizens to express their choice for MP.

 

I bring this up mostly because of the news coming out of Toronto regarding vandalism to the homes of Liberal supporters. Let’s hope that the silliness here doesn’t progress to anything beyond throwing a sign in a bush (and that the box cutters that have been cutting up Liberal and Conservative signs are put away for the remainder of the campaign).

 

One final note. Things seem to be tightening up, ever so slightly on the ground in both North Shore ridings– it almost (ALMOST) feels like there’s a fight a-brewin’ in West Van-Sunshine Coast-STSC and perhaps Don Bell’s campaign has found some strength and traction. We’ll see, I suspect that a Liberal charge is likely too little too late, assuming they can even maintain the trickle of momentum they have managed the last few days.

The Conservative candidate David Anderson in Cypress Hills – Grasslands scuttled an All Candidates forum in Assiniboia, SK after he refused to attend. That’s according to Duane Filson’s campaign office. The Chamber of Commerce in that town had planned to hold a forum during the election, but decided not to have one after only the Conservatives decided to boycott. Anderson also was the one candidate of the four invited to an agricultural forum in Swift Current to not show up during the campaign.

Anderson has not avoided all chances to speak with the public as he was this past week on CKRM 620AM radio with Amber Jones of the Greens, Nettie Wiebe of the NDP, and a Liberal candidate (whose name escapes my memory) discussing strictly agricultural issues. Anderson was not debating against the other parties nominees from Cypress Hills – Grasslands riding in that radio program.

Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

Vous retrouverez ici les répliques les plus marquantes qui ont été échangées par les principaux chefs de partis lors du débat en français.

Note : Malgré un effort certes louable de sa part, Mme May n’est pas présente ici en raison de la qualité déplorable de son français. C’est regrettable pour le Parti Vert et ses sympathisants, mais il y a des limites à vouloir être équitable ou, pour employer une expression populaire, à vouloir « accommoder raisonnablement. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Dion

À M. Duceppe : « Quand est venu le moment de reconnaître la nation québécoise, le bureau de M. Harper m’a consulté et nous avons fait cela de manière à montrer que l’on peut aussi faire partie de la nation canadienne; ce qui est un problème pour M. Duceppe. »

À M. Harper (à propos des mesures environnementales qu’il propose) : « Je pense qu’on perd notre temps à discuter du faux plan de M. Harper. Il n’y a pas un seul expert qui a dit que c’était un plan sérieux. »

À M. Layton (qui dit vouloir rapatrier les troupes d’Afghanistan dès maintenant) : « On a pris un engagement. Nos alliés comptent sur nous (…) C’est une responsabilité qu’on a, comme quand on a pris nos responsabilités pour Kyoto, c’est la même chose. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Duceppe

À M. Dion : « Nous avons proposé des projets, par exemple que le français soit la langue de travail dans les banques, les ports, les aéroports, les télécommunications. Le NPD nous a appuyés, mais pas les libéraux qui pourtant reconnaissent que la loi 101 est une grande loi canadienne. »

À M. Harper : « Tout ce que vous avez trouvé à faire ce sont des politiques qui enrichissent les pétrolières. Semble-t-il qu’aux dernières nouvelles, elles n’ont pas de misère à terminer leurs fins de mois. »

À M. Layton (qui l’accuse de vouloir privatiser la santé) : « Moi je veux que ce soit un système de santé publique, mais c’est au Québec de décider en tout temps. Je pense que les Québécois sont capables de prendre eux-mêmes leurs décisions et ils n’ont pas besoin du reste du Canada pour venir leur dire quoi faire. »

La réplique la plus marquante de M. Harper

À M. Dion : « Vous proposez d’augmenter les taxes avec votre nouvelle taxe sur le carbone. C’est une politique qui va détruire l’économie. »

(more…)

Columnist Jeffrey Simpson is so predictable. There is a guy who professes himself a non-voter (“pundits don’t vote”), yet he never hides his true Liberal colours – and they shine in bright and overly partisan shades.

He recently wrote yet another anti-NDP column, which was so disrespectful of NDP leader Jack Layton that it caught the attention of the Progressive Economics Forum.

My comment to the Forum was this:

There used to be a time when I believed in that dichotomy of right v. left. But then I realized there is really only right v. wrong, or reasonable/commonsensical v. unreasonable/foolish. Tony Blair, for example, put it in similar terms when he addressed a Calgary audience last year (and yours truly was fortunate enough to be included in that number). Simpson may still think in these old terms, e.g., when he suggests that the NDP move to the centre.

Well, here’s the way I see it, comparing current Liberals and NDP:

The NDP has an infinitely more reasonable/commonsensical/practical, etc. platform than the Liberals. What is more, the NDP has a leader who knows what people want and need and who knows how to connect with people — something the Liberals can only dream of.

In other news — this arrived in my inbox earlier this evening:

I would like to invite you to join our Debate Night in Calgary at the Pinoy Village Restaurant & Lounge this Thursday, October 2,  Candidates, volunteers, and staff will be watching the English Debates starting at 6:30pm to 9pm. This promises to be a relaxing evening to socialize with fellow NDPers and cheer on Jack as he takes on Stephen Harper.

Looking for volunteers to join me in organizing a media event on the NDP’s plan to ensure a head start for kids by investing in a Canada wide Child Care and Early learning plan, develop a Children’s Nutrition initiative to support and expand provincial and local programs that provide healthy meals to school children, as well as phase in a new child benefit system for families.

Volunteers are needed to help with identifying a location for the media event, identify people willing to speak in support of the NDP’s plan, as well as identify families willing to join us in support of the plan. Your help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated and make this event a great sucess.
Please join our Facebook group to show your support to end child poverty once and for all by voting for a new direction with Jack Layton as Prime Minister.

You can join our group Calgary New Democrat Supporters to end Child Poverty in Canada
www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27231914356

Here’s the proper address of the restaurant: 3132-26 St. NE

So far, the only exciting thing in this election has been the distinct possibility that Jack Layton could be the next leader of the Official Opposition – it would add a new and different flavour to the House of Commons, for sure.

Other than that, though, the election campaign has been dragging on and on, turning on gaffes and wild accusations that have absolutely nothing to do with what voters are concerned about.

So, we saw a puffin drop its excrement on a political leader’s shoulder. Big deal.

Some candidates have had to resign over controversial statements, conduct or blog posts in the past. Big deal.

Now one of the oldest lies is being peddled yet again – no one cares, because everyone knows it’s not even close to the truth. Big deal.

Here’s a newsflash: the election will not fundamentally improve the situation of Canada. The best we can hope for is to slog along as we have for the last two and a half years – and essentially any stretch of time before that.

These guys will continue as before, tossing chump change at us and making us believe they’re giving us actual tax cuts.

These nutters are about to embark on an extensive and far-reaching social(ist) experiment. They tell us it’ll work. What if it doesn’t work? Will they just say, “Oops, we’re so sorry. Won’t happen again. Promise.”?

These clowns here want to run the same experiment, just a slightly improved one from the previous one.

This little party is partying like never before and telling us that we should all gather around the kitchen table.

All the while, one last holdout clinging to the past has not realized yet that the next sovereignty movement will emerge from the West. Difference between the old and the new? The latter will prevail one day.

So, are you prepared to take a look at this poll? Are you sitting down? Hold on to your chair, mouse, keyboard and monitor, because what this poll is about to reveal to you is going to blow you away (very much like getting caught in the slipstream of the TARDIS, I should say):

Sixty-three per cent of respondents said they view the Liberal party as dishonest; 80 per cent as stale; 63 per cent as phoney; 67 per cent as risky; and 66 per cent as “out of touch with Canadians like you.”

The Conservative party didn’t fare much better: 55 per cent viewed the party as dishonest; 63 per cent as stale; 56 per cent as phoney; and 58 per cent as risky.

[...] Meanwhile, the feeling toward the NDP was mostly positive with the large majority of respondents viewing it as fair, honest, compassionate and genuine. However, those surveyed said the NDP was risky.

It was the Green party that received the best rating. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents found them fresh; 74 per cent as fair, 75 per cent as honest; 77 per cent as compassionate; and 65 per cent as genuine.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

One of the big disappointments of the campaign, given all the controversies over the past year, is the lack of discussion by the parties about our democratic freedoms slipping away. I am speaking of course about Canada’s so-called human rights commissions and their attempt to censor ordinary Canadians.

This isn’t just about Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and Maclean’s Magazine. From small pub owners with heart conditions spending tens of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their business for enforcing a ban on marijuana smoking, to Christian pastors being silenced from the pulpit, to doctors being investigated for declining to operate when they lack the medical background to do so safely, Canada’s human rights commissions have created a culture of fear and distrust among ordinary Canadians

Canadians should be concerned with stripping away of our freedoms and civil liberties, which are the foundation of every vibrant democracy. With the federal election underway, I can think of no better time to discuss government censorship and Canada’s human rights commissions. It is time for our politicians to show leadership and insure the rights of every Canadian are respected.

Which is why Kathy Shaidle and I have today released a book on Canada’s human rights commissions, entitled Tyranny of Nice. Mark Steyn has kindly written the introduction. You can find out more about the book by visiting TyrannyOfNice.com.

The polls suggest the current electoral system favors the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc at the expense of the NDP and Greens. Some argue this discourages people from voting, and propose proportional representation (PR) as the solution. Perhaps it is part of a solution. But a real issue which is never discussed is lack of representation by population (Rep by Pop), which causes some votes to be worth more than others.

If anyone should be discouraged it is residents of Ontario, Alberta and BC. These have 1 MP for every 120,000 in population. All the other provinces are over-represented, from the extreme case of PEI which negotiated a great deal at Confederation (4 MPs for a population of 140,000) to Quebec (1 MP per 103,000). So at this election, the 4 Maritime provinces will elect 32 MPs as BC elects 36, even though BC has double the population. This isn’t fair.

 Electoral reform, combining Rep by Pop with some form of PR (say 1 for every 2% of the vote, or 50) will solve part of the voter turnout issue by making sure every vote matters equally. The greater responsibility falls on politicians. Get voters engaged by proposing and debating ideas instead of launching personal/negative attacks or bickering. Voters are disenchanted with politicians. If the politicians change the way they behave, maybe voters will as well.

Accompagné par Gilles Duceppe à l’Université de Montréal, Pauline Marois a prononçé que le Bloc est utile parce qu’il poursuit le même but que le PQ : la souveraineté du Québec. Est-ce le point important dans la présente élection fédérale ? Je suis plus intéressé à savoir le plan l’économique du Bloc et ce qu’il propose de faire pour appuyer notre système de santé. Le NPD et les Conservateurs offrent des options très différentes. En termes pratiques, qu’est-ce que le Bloc nous offre ?

In a way if you look at this election you can see how things come full circle. I often like to talk about the issue with the Liberal from the point of view of their previous Leadership race being a microcosm of what is wrong with the party.

In the leadership race The Liberal party largely made it known that this was going to be the Leadership convention in which the Liberal Party changed. They would elect a new Leadership which was not a product of the old crony isms and patronages.
With this in mind the top candidates were Michael Ignatieff – an outsider to Canadian Politics, Bob Rae – an outsider to Federal politics by many reckonings, and in a distant third Stephen Dion – someone who has held high positions in the Liberal government and Party.

The time comes around and the the various run-ons are done,

-Martha Hall Findlay endorses Stéphan Dion after being Last on the First Ballot
-Ken Dryden Endorses Stéphane Dion after being elimanted on the second ballot
-Gerrard Kennedy endorses Stephen Dion after being eliminated on the 3rd Ballot.

So basically the Liberal Party claims that they are going to change the way things done, and then instead elects Stéphan Dion in a series of back room deals. You know why Dion is such a poor leader? Because he wasn’t chosen based on his merit, he was chosen because of the friends he had.

It proves two things about the Liberal party, which has been proven by their refusal to take down the government, because the polls did not suit them. First the Liberal party is very good at spinning things, but in the end it is all spin and they will continue to previous ways of doing things. Secondly, the Liberal Party stands for absolutely zero principles, other than gaining power.

Someone might ask me, why do I chose to identify myself as a Liberal? Well because I dislike the conservative stance against the rule of law, minority rights, and social responsibility. On the other side I dislike that the NDP really just stands for a number of special interest groups, questionable economics, and basic elitism. Also I like to vote for a party that has a chance of winning.
I used to think the Liberals stood for a balance, for someone like me who often likes moderate views of things. Some call it Blue Liberalism others Red Tory, call it what you want I don’t feel that any party really represents me.

So why even vote?

Michael Byers, (NDP Candidate – Vancouver Center), very passionately told an audience today the tar sands should be shut down. It is not the official position of the NDP, who want a moratorium on the pace of the tar sands development, pending studies on the environment.

However, there are many voices in this country, sending distress signals using the internet, that want the tar sands development to stop, yes stop, now, because it has become “the dirtiest oil on the planet”.

If one pauses before thinking the thought “that no matter what the cost, the world needs oil and Canada needs to be richer in the world”, then maybe it is possible to think about the kind of planet this will be if we ruin it for our children and theirs.

Surely if humans survived on this planet in previous centuries and millenia without such a huge dependence on oil, we can figure out a way to do it again before it is too late…

continuing in the theme of trying to figure out who i should spend my vote on this election i sat down and spoke to Andrew Lang, the local Liberal candidate here in toronto-danforth.

i wanted to know why he was running, Jack’s lead seems pretty much insurmountable, but if anyone has a chance (and, let’s be honest… it’s a very small chance) it is the liberal candidate. i’m no historian but i’m pretty sure the Liberals managed to hold this riding for a good long while prior to Jack re-winning it for the NDP, but still, the NDP took this riding by more than 7000 votes last time.

Andrew was straightforward when i asked him about his chances, sincerely hoping that Jack continued to think he has this riding in the bag as it lets him continue to wage political guerrilla warfare (my words, not his) against Jack. in Andrew’s view Jack and the NDP have taken local matters in toronto-danforth for granted, aren’t impressing local voters with their showboating on the campaign trail (is eliminating ATM fees the best thing we can find to talk about during an election?), and above all… torontonians are scared silly of another Harper government. regardless of the outcome, Andrew is convinced that the local race will be close, much closer than Jack or the NDP anticipates.

i’ve never really considered actually voting liberal, i’m usually a little too left wing for that, but Stéphane Dion does seem to be more of the type of person i’d like to see as prime minister, a fact that Andrew was quick to sense in our talk and emphasize. he argues that Dion is the only real leader in this race, whereas Harper and Layton are one man shows, that Dion is sensible and progressive with respect to social policy, and that the Liberals have a track record of a strong economy. it is all pretty much what you’d expect, but i did get the sense that Andrew was sincere in his argument for Stéphane. i even believed that he was sincere when he said Stéphane is a strong leader, despite reports to the contrary.

(more…)

How did culture become the issue in the election? The feds spend $45 million every ninety minutes and that’s what the media is focused on? Why are Harper and Dion even talking about this? Come on!

With the US experiencing a debt hangover, when are we going to hear about the biggest risk to our prosperity: the federal debt of $460 Billion.

It is likely that interest rates will rise as credit markets tighten further and inflation increases. A 2% rise in rates will cause debt servicing to rise $9 Billion, or to $38 Billion, eliminating the surplus. Everyone is on the spending bandwagon, I want to hear what the plan is to repay the debt?

Diana Cabott (Lib) began campaigning on the Liberal party platform, she received rather predictable replies from Tish Lakes (NDP) and Ron Cannan (Con Incumbent). Not too many surprises about what everyone had to say, both the Conservative and NDP positions went after the carbon angle, while Cabott happily pushed away on economic issues. Another day another sound bite.  With all of the angry retired income trust holders/voters in this retirement haven, speculation abounds on whether Cabott could come close to knocking off the Conservative Cannon.  I was a little surprised to see that Cabott never found a way to allude to income trusts but instead got reported on emphasizing the Libs not running a deficit, an important point here in the Valley, but not the one I would have necessarily expected as her closing point.

 Read the whole thing <a href=”http://“>here

Cynic here didn’t think it would happen. The letter exceeded the Letter-to-the-Editor word limit. Times three. But my letter to the local paper made it anyway.

Originally titled Competition It Isn’t, here it is under the headline “Electoral systems needs change to promote democracy.”