Electoral Predictions

Politicians love to say "The only poll that counts is the one on election day." especially when they are down in the polls leading up to that day.  Well, that day has arrived, and in a few hours we will either be crying in our beer, or raising our glasses deliriously in celebration.  Well, perhaps it will be a bit of both, as I expect there to be some unexpected results. (How's that for an oxymoron? Sort of like expecting the unexpected, or predicting the unpredictable.)

The polling tells us that the NDP have vaulted past the Liberals, closing within a few points of the Conservatives. These polls also suggest that a lot of these gains are in Quebec, where Bloc support has seriously eroded.  The NDP is also showing gains in other parts of the country.  The big question of course, will these polling results translate into seats in Parliament?

For what it's worth (and it probably ain't worth much;), I have pulled some numbers out of a hat, done some basic arithmetic, and come up with some predictions.  I have made no secret of how much I loathe the current government of Stephen Harper.  I have written Stephen, and protested out side of his house, to let him know how I feel.  However, I am only one voter, and, apparently, I am not representative of a plurality of voters in this country.  (There are a lot of us, but, sadly, I don't think, enough of us yet to turf this guy and the rest of his entourage.)

I don't think the Conservatives have been able to cobble together enough support to yet extract a majority government from the electorate.  I don't think I am basing this on hope, but on facts.  (I'll be the one crying in my beer in a few hours if I am wrong on this one.)  I do think though, that they will be re-elected with another minority, possibly with a few more seats.  I think they will lose most of their seats in Quebec, perhaps retaining, at most, half a dozen in that province, but probably only two or three. They will make up for these losses in Ontario, gaining a few from the Liberals.

The Bloc will lose out to the NDP big time in Quebec, if the polls are anywhere in the ballpark of being accurate.  Quebecers are much more progressive in their outlook, generally, than any other provincial electoral group.  The NDP gives them that federal progressive outlet.

The Liberals, sad to say, still haven't got over the debacle of the Martin/Chretien fight.  It was a barroom brawl that wrecked all the furniture and they still haven't yet rebuilt the place.  They seem to have lost any sight of what they stand for, other than, "vote for us, you always have!"

The NDP appear set to gain from this, as they pick up progressive support across the country from those who are appalled (as I am) by the current Harper lead conservative government.  They will gain in the Maritimes, big time in Quebec as mentioned, perhaps modestly in Ontario, and in BC.

Finally, I expect Elizabeth May to be the first Green Party member of Parliament.

So, (drum roll), the envelope please. Here are the predictions that fell out of my hat:

Conservatives - 147, NDP - 77, Liberals - 61, Bloc - 22, Greens - 1

My hopeful side would love to predict less seats for the Conservatives. My morose pragmatic side says don't let your heart get in the way of the facts. From where I sit, the Conservatives have been more successful at pedaling fear than the progressives of this country have been in promoting hope and positive vision for the future.

Am I close, or am I crazy?  I'll know in a few hours.

If the Conservatives Get a Majority

If the Stephen Harper Conservatives get a majority in Parliament, they will take actions that will fundamentally change Canada during their mandate.

Here is what I see happening:
Within One Year-

1. The gun registry will be gone.
2. Canada will have agreed to spend in excess of $30 Billion on the F35 fighter jet.
3. Spending billions on constructing new prisons will have begun.
4. Proposals will be made to privatize some, if not all of the new prisons.
5. A Conservative back bencher will introduce a private member's bill to restrict abortion.
6. Funding of the CBC will be significantly decreased with hints of future privatization.
7. They will begin the process of appointing Supreme Court Justices with a much more socially conservative legal approach.
8. Plans will be put forth to increase privatization of health care.
9. The government will announce plans to continue to reduce taxes as the best way to "stimulate growth" in the economy and reduce the deficit.

By the End of Their Mandate- 2015-16

1. The fighter jet purchase will have proven to be a monumental money pit.
2. There will be significant cost overruns on prison construction and operation.
3. A larger percentage of the population will be in jail as part of the Government's "tough on crime" approach to dealing with social issues.
4. The CBC will have largely been privatized.
5. The make up of the Supreme Court of Canada will be radically different with the appointment of several Chief Justices who have more socially conservative views.
6. Canada will have a structural deficit as it stripped away its tax base while simultaneously increasing spending on military hardware and prisons.
7. The gap between rich and poor will have increased significantly.
8. Canada will have an increasing number of "gated" communities as the wealthy seek to protect themselves from the poor.
9. The Conservative Party image will have been shattered by a number of scandals, most to do with influence pedaling.
10. Canada will be a nation divided between those that have, and those that do not. It will be a sad place.

Voter Disengagement

With Canada one week into an election campaign I have been quite struck by my total lack of interest in the political theatre that surrounds me.  I glance periodically at the headlines, grimace and shake my head at some of the inane posturing, then move on to something that has more substance.  I note that I just don't seem to care what ANY of the politicians have to say, including those that I may agree with.  Why is this?

Well, it all seems so predictable.  Everyone strategizes to win, appealing to what their handlers tell them their base is.  Our first past the post electoral system guarantees this behaviour on the part of our political parties.

The vast majority of the Federal electoral districts are considered "safe" seats for one party or another.  My riding of Ottawa-Vanier is one of them.  I will vote for the Green Party candidate Caroline Rioux.  However, the odds are better that I will win the lottery, (and I don't buy lottery tickets), than is the possibility of her winning this vote.  Other than giving two dollars to the Green Party of Canada, my vote will not affect the outcome. It is exactly the same for the NDP and Conservative voters in this riding, (although their odds of upsetting the incumbent may be slightly better).

This scenario is replicated across the country in every riding that might be deemed "safe" for one party or another.  Do those NDP, Green or Liberal voters in Calgary Centre really think their vote has anything other than symbolic meaning?  Do they really think that they could possibly unseat Stephen Harper in this election?  Oh yes, we will hear the cry that "every vote counts" and "you can't complain if you don't vote", etc. etc.  But, the truth is, more and more voters feel they are being treated like sheep as they are herded into various voting pens.  They don't see their vote making a difference.

I want every vote to count.  Every voter in every riding needs to know that their vote makes a difference.  Whether you are a lonely Conservative in Liberal red Ottawa-Vanier, a despondent dipper in Alberta, or a Green anywhere in the country you will be more encourage to participate in democracy if you have a sense that your vote will make a difference.  Sadly, that currently is not the experience of the majority of voters.

This election will be decided in those 40 to 50 "swing" ridings where the seat may change hands, that are not "safe" for one party or another.  Voters in these ridings will be showered with an inordinate amount of attention.  All kinds of promises will be made to appeal to these voters in the hopes of scoring the big win. As to the rest of the voters across the country?  More of them can see the manipulative game that is being played.  Yes, many of them are voting, but not necessarily at the ballot box.  Increasing numbers of them are voting with their feet, as they walk away from those ballot boxes, and they will continue to do so until they feel their vote counts.

Don't worry - I'll be voting, at a ballot box, but I certainly understand why increasing numbers of us don't bother anymore.

Open Letter to Stephen Harper - Why I Tune Out the Conservative Party of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Mr. Harper.

There are many policy reasons why I do not vote for your party. Traditionally I have voted Liberal, occasionally Conservative or NDP, but now vote Green, for reasons that are beyond the scope of my brief letter to you now.

First and foremost, though, I choose not even to consider the policies of the Conservative Party Of Canada because of the way you practice politics. To me you and your party epitomize the divisive nastiness that has evolved in the past twenty years or so in politics. The Conservatives have lead the way in bringing about this unfortunate change in Canada, emulating the practices of your Republican soul mates to the south. You seek to find wedge issues that divide us, rather than forward thinking visionary points of view that bring people together. You seek power at any cost, rather than consensus. You practice a regressive, "winner take all" type of politics that does a disservice to the majority of Canadians. (Please remember that a majority of Canadians did NOT vote for you in the last election.)

Rather than spend millions of dollars telling me what is wrong with Michael Ignatieff, why don't you mount an extensive campaign that will detail how your policies are better? Why don't you explain to me why I should vote for you, rather than why I should not vote for the other guy? Obviously these questions are rhetorical; I know why you do it. It is for short term electoral gain, as you attempt to score cheap points. It does nothing, however, to advance serious political debate in this country. You seek to exploit and promote the sound bite aspect of our society. It is a sign of desperation when the only way someone feels they can build themselves up is to pull down their opponent. How sad that you must exploit our sense of petty mean spiritedness in an attempt to win.

The only political parties that will receive my vote and support are those that practice listening and consensus building. These are qualities that I find to be seriously lacking in Canadian politics in general and especially in the Conservative Party of Canada. Your party represents to me the worst aspects of old style win at all cost politics. I know, all political parties at times are guilty of this, but you guys have mastered the art. What a sad legacy. It is for this reason that I also support election reform that will take us beyond First Past the Post elections so that every vote counts.

I realize that the chances of you reading this brief letter are slim to none. I don't expect you and your party to change your tactics. But, your office staff can put me in the column of Canadians who do NOT support you, your party, or your tactics. If you change your divisive tactics, I may consider your policies. Until then, I tune you out.

Respectfully,

--
Leonard Poole

Attack Ads - A Desperate Attempt to Solidify a Shrinking Base

Attack Ads as Schoolyard Tripe - Macleans.ca

Numerous editorials have commented on the negative ad campaign of the Conservative Party of Canada initiated a few days ago against Michael Ignatieff. None that I have read have viewed them favourably. This may be the best kind publicity the Liberals could hope for in these current economic times: free.

Many of us would like to think that such negativity would backfire, but often, it does not. Liberals and Conservatives alike have used such tactics at least since the 80's to varying degrees of success. This may explain why the Conservatives launched this most recent volley. "It worked before", may be their thinking.

This time may be different. Such a strategy is much more problematic when used from a position of weakness. Using such attacks when your support is slipping has the unfortunate side effect of shining a light on your desperation. Such a characteristic is not usually something we look for in a leader and likely repels more voters than it attracts.

This Shouldn't Be About Who Shouts the Loudest or Has the Biggest Advertising Budget

If Stephen Harper's blustery performance in the House yesterday is any indication, the Conservatives apparently want to boil the Coalition debate down to who can shout the loudest. He once again is showing his true colours. The sign 'I am a Consensus Building Democrat' is not one that would hang easily around Mr. Harper's neck without evoking laughter. It is one thing to hold firm to your beliefs. We all have that right in a democracy. But to bluster and berate as he has sunk to is not impressive.

Making derogatory comments that the coalition partners have made a 'deal with the devil' by aligning themselves with 'separatists', may play well to his core constituency, but whether he likes it or not, these 'separatists' were duly elected by more than 1.3 million Quebecers. Mr. Harper may disagree with their view regarding Quebec's future within Canada, as I do, but tossing insulting hand grenades at whomever you disagree with is not helpful and shows an unseemly amount of disrespect from the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Harper, show some respect for those who disagree with you. I urge you to call off the attack dogs. To those in the coalition, I urge you to not sink to Mr. Harper's level.

It's Too Bad...

That so many of the participants in this current Canadian political dilemma see it in an "us versus them" perspective.

We all are in this together. We all want the same thing. We want a safe and secure place to raise a family. We need to know that our parents are well looked after, and that our children are safe when they go to the park. That is what we all want.

We need to know that not only our family, but our friends and neighbours are properly fed and have adequate housing, and access to a good education.

We have so much to learn about sharing power, and listening to those who do not agree with us. Let's work on getting wth that program.

Responding to the Critics of the Coalition

I find it is interesting to listen to the unfolding debate regarding the current Canadian political situation. There is virtual universal condemnation of the heavy handed politically motivated "economic update statement" made by the the Conservatives last Thursday. There has been serious questioning of the judgment of Stephen Harper. Randall Denley of the Ottawa Citizen deemed it "one of the dumbest stunts in the history of Canadian politics". It is hard to imagine that if Harper had the power to wind the clock back a week that he wouldn't want to tweek that "economic update statement" just a bit. Looks like it is too late to put that genie back in the bottle. (Or, Jack back in the box.)

Now, however, there is serious criticism being leveled at those of the Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloq who have negotiated the terms of a proposed coalition government. Much of it, I don't necessarily disagree with. John Geiger, The Globe & Mail editorial board editor views Stephane Dion as

...a guy who could not control his own party, pretending that he can now control a government populated with his former political enemies in the NDP, propped up by separatists — the very people that Mr. Dion entered public life to defeat. Now he's going to give them legitimacy, he's going to also give them more power in Ottawa than they have ever enjoyed. More smart, yes. But this isn't smart. This is dumb.

He further opines that:

...if Mr. Dion becomes prime minister, he's only going to be there for a few months. And to accomplish that, he has had to enter a pact with union-beholden social democrats and separatists. Mr. Dion lacks the moral authority to form a government.

He characterizes the proposed coalition as

...inherently unstable. These three leaders have been at each others throats throughout their political lives. They have no common policies, only a common interest in attaining power through the back door. No matter what their agreement states, it seems highly doubtful that a Prime Minister Dion could keep this together for long, nor is there much hope that Mr. Dion could deliver the kind of leadership required during such uncertain times. That's the point: it's time for leadership in Ottawa, and since the incumbent prime minister and opposition leader are incapable of providing it, we need look elsewhere.

It is this final sentence that leads to the recommendation of the G&M that Harper resign. And the chances of that happening? I can see the headline now;

Harper Resigns! Leaderless Conservatives Beg Canadian Public For Time!

It is true that the Coalition proposes to install a lame duck leader as Prime Minister responsible for governing what may be a rickety coalition. Some have characterized it as akin to "herding cats." But, whether we like it or not, they represent a majority of the Members of Parliament that we elected less than two months ago. It is unfortunate for Stephen Harper and his supporters (which numbered just under 38% of the electorate in our recent election) that he is apparently about to lose the confidence of the House. He, and the rest of us will now have to deal with the consequences of his ill thought out "economic update statement" of last Thursday.

Ultimately, while we can argue ad nauseam about the viability of the proposed coalition and whether or not it would be the correct path for the country, there is no disputing the right of those making the proposal to do so under our current parliamentary system. If it goes ahead it will be a very difficult process. My hope is that if it does proceed, that those involved will truly start to behave like consensus builders who seek to find what unites us rather than hyper partisan politicians whose primary goal is to find what issues divide us so that they can exploit it for there own political gain.

The only alternative to the coalition proposal is more of the same from Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Does anyone honestly believe that they will ever evolve into a group that truly understands that for a minority parliament to work, it requires compromise and communication with your opposition? Can anyone foresee a time when they would would be able to regain the trust of the current opposition? I think this is why people such as Bob Rae are saying "There is no going back." The trust was broken, and the opposition is now intent on changing the face of parliament. Call it a power grab, call it partisan politics, isn't that the game the Conservatives have been playing all along? The real question is, will anything change if this new group comes to power? That will be the real test.

Reflecting the Will of the People

To suggest that only having a Conservative government in power somehow reflects the 'will of the people', as Stephen Harper would have us believe, is quite a stretch. The Conservatives, with support of less than 38% of those who chose to vote, were, as a result of the traditions of our parliamentary democracy, rightfully given the first opportunity to form a government. Such a government however, only remains in place so long as it has the confidence of the House.

When Stephen Harper points out that "Canadians didn't elect Stephane Dion to be Prime Minister of Canada", he is correct. However, Canadians didn't elect Stephen Harper either. We don't have a Presidential system in this country. We don't elect the Prime Minister, we elect Members of Parliament who in turn choose the leader of the country. Apparently, a majority of our MPs are choosing Stephane Dion.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are treading on very dangerous ground when they try to whip up sentiment that the proposed coalition is "an affront to the democratic will of Canadians". They may not like it, but they need to understand that this is how parliamentary democracy works. If this coalition does become the government, it will be far more reflective of the "will of the people" than the less than 38% of the electorate that the Conservatives represent.

Greg Sorbara Says It Well

An historic opportunity to put Canada ahead of partisanship

Here is an excerpt of Greg Sorbara's comments directed at the federal Liberals.

For the federal Liberal caucus members, they must come together and create something larger than each, something larger than three very talented colleagues among them – Michael Ignatieff, Dominic LeBlanc, and Bob Rae – who must set aside personal goals in the short run and assume a shared responsibility at this critical moment in concert with Mr. Dion. These four are thoughtful Canadians very capable of a sense of doing the right thing that we need so desperately at this moment.

The Liberal caucus must choose both a process and outcome worthy of the short term moment at hand, with concurrent concern for its future, and the nation's, in mind. They must opt for stability, integrity, humility and respected and respectful collective leadership.

Regarding a more permanent expression of leadership, my Federal cousins need to construct a process and plan, along with a historically composed Cabinet that must serve our nervous nation with calm and strategic intellect. Over the next number of months, their work must be free of distractions of a personal and political nature if a promising accord of fiscally prudent and progressive decisions are to be made and set in motion.

Another reasoned voiced from "the others". Yes, if all involved in contemplating the removal of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from office can heed the call to rise above partisanship and walk the talk of true leadership, this could work. The big fear is that no sooner will they form the government, but that the silly name calling and quest for power driven infighting will begin yet again. I can only hope that the likes of Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephane Dion and others who may be at the helm of this collaborative effort are really listening to what people like Greg Sorbara are saying. The last election result did provide them with the legitimacy to act as a coalition. Behaving as a coalition, however, requires quite a different skill set from behaving as a majority government. It requires ongoing compromise within as well as with those on the opposing bench.

Can those Liberals questing for power within the Party (are you listening Bob, Iggy and Dominic?) put asside their aspiration and understand that there are larger issues at stake? Can they park their egos somewhere?

Once Again, Denley Nails It

Now is the time to lead the country, not pick fights

As I've said before, I don't always agree with Denley, but he nails Harper to the wall on this one.

What in the world motivated Prime Minister Stephen Harper to bring his own government to the brink of defeat? Is he bored? Did he bet one of his colleagues that he could find a way to exhume Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and make him prime minister?

Harper's retraction of his pointlessly antagonistic plan to stop public financing of political parties puts an end to what will long be remembered as one of the dumbest stunts in the history of Canadian politics. Consider it. The guy wins an increased minority and everything is cruising along as he says the right things about the economy, until he comes up with virtually the only issue that could possibly unite the three opposition parties. Then, Harper dares his opponents to defeat his government over political party financing, something that matters not a whit to the average Canadian.

A Coalition!?!

Who would have thought it possible. A demoralized Liberal Party with a lame duck leader joining forces with the 'Dippers' to form our national government, kept in power by the Bloc. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I am part of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative Party in the last election. I therefore feel a certain sense of elation at this window of opportunity for the opposition to unite and form a coalition. The question on the minds of many is: Can they pull it off? Cobbling something together, in the short term, although it seemed unimaginable 72 hours ago, I believe will actually prove to be the easy part. It is becoming clear that the 'throwing for the head' approach of Mr. Harper has so incensed the opposition that they now are beginning to dream the impossible dream of replacing the Conservatives. The much bigger question is: Can they rise above the absurd and childish partisanship bickering so prevalent in Canadian politics and be honest with us as they propose a new path for our country? Can they actually start behaving like the consensus building leaders that we need?

Last night, just in time for the supper hour newscasts, Stephen Harper delayed by one week a confidence vote in his government. The headlines read Harper Buys Time.

I have no doubt that his intent is to provide time to demonize the opposition as a bunch of sore losers who want to pervert the results of the last election. (Perhaps he needs to be reminded that a majority of Canadians voted for his opposition in Parliament, yet his party, with about 38% support, gets to run the government.)

I urge the opposition to take this gift of time to properly consider their strategy. What are they going to tell Canadians about how they shall govern as a coalition?

What I am looking for (which sounds laughable even as I try to write this next phrase), is honesty from my politicians, regardless of political stripe. I want politicians to stop pandering to me with nauseating sound bites and start explaining why they think their proposals are correct for our country. (Note to Jack: I know you like to sit around the kitchen table, and that you are trying to build your NDP 'brand', but, really, enough is enough.)

If a coalition is to have any hope of succeeding it must be based on an honest appraisal of the Canadian political scene. A joint statement needs to come from those who propose to lead the coalition that speaks to the aspirations of as broad a base of the electorate as possible. Here are some elements that need to be addressed by the coalition partners:

1. Speak directly to the 38% of voting Canadians who chose the Conservatives and respect their choice.
   
2. Recognize the immensity of the task before them. Acknowledge that they are seeking to do something that has never been done before.
3. Provide concrete examples of what they intend to do with a timetable.
4. Explain how they shall resolve conflict within the coalition.
5. State clearly that they do not want to continually play political chicken with the everyday lives of Canadians. State their intention to rise above childish political oneupmanship and make a solid commitment to principled governance.
   

All of those involved need to take some water with their wine as they proceed. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives may lose their grip on power because they began to act as if they had a majority when in fact they had no such thing. The Liberals and the NDP need to understand this concept if their proposed coalition is to work. With less than 20% of Canadians voting for the NDP, Jack Layton should not reasonably expect to be Canada's next Finance Minister. He needs to remember that more than a third of voters picked the Conservatives, and their right wing approach to economics. A potential coalition needs to present Canadians with a workable plan for the next couple of years and then actually walk the talk on conciliatory consensus building.

I know that this is wishful thinking in the extreme. I realize it is a lot to ask of politicians whose strongest motivation is to seek power instead of building consensus.

As has been said many times, a week is a lifetime in politics. Our politicians have that amount of time to make a case for truly representative political action in this country. I urge the opposition parties to use this time wisely, and change the face of politics in Canada.

Lets see what this next 'lifetime in politics' brings us. It should be an interesting ride. The Conservatives will be out in full spin mode as the PM urges his MPs to "use every tool at your disposal." Will Canadians continue to buy what they are selling?

(Since writing the above, Scott Reid has said it much better than I in a blog posted at the Globe & Mail.)

I won't be a stock character in the play of life

I won't be a stock character in the play of life

I am developing a growing interest in the weekly Sunday column of Janice Kennedy in the Ottawa Citizen. I happened upon her article this past weekend titled A religious life, as Jesus knew, is a life of peace It speaks to a regularly heard theme; How does someone reconcile celebrating Christ, the Prince of Peace, during this holiest of times, while simultaneously calling for war in distant lands? She picks on the usual punching bag, George Bush, in this regard.

Digging a little deeper, I found her column I won't be a stock character in the play of life of the previous week to be equally interesting. There is a certain freshness and appeal about someone who, while making clear her liberal and feminist take on issues, also knows that perspective, when not acknowledged, can cloud how she sees others.

The world is not black and white, left and right, anti or pro. It is a mosaic. When engaging in discourse, whether in the broadest of spheres, or, one on one, it is so important to know where you are standing in the forest. Are those with whom you are speaking standing in the hot sun or are those trees offering shade? Maybe they like it hot, but, then again, maybe not. Perhaps that is why they are squirming, or, impatient.

I always need to remind myself to listen, really listen, to what the other person is saying. I need to listen intently not only to the words, but, more importantly, to the context of those words. They have a reason for saying what they do. If I develop an appreciation of the reason, the meaning of the words becomes much clearer. Part of communication is coming to an understanding of those reasons through open discourse. It is perhaps an overused quote since being popularized again by Al Gore, but, it is worth repeating:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it. ~Upton Sinclair

People are willing to risk communicating more openly when they feel respected. They usually are more receptive to allowing their ideas to be challenged when they feel safe as a person. Perhaps this is what has happened in the break down of communication that has been making news recently in the brittle discourse between the Federal Finance Minister and the Provincial Government of Ontario. They have stopped respecting each other, and subsequently, they have stopped listening. Each vainly attempts to score points, while they learn little if anything from each other.

I remember several years ago catching the last few minutes of a documentary being aired on TVO. A rich baritone voice was speaking about aspirations of people the world over, as a panoramic view of a variety of communities, rich and poor, third world and first world, unfolded.

"All anyone wants", the voice intoned, "when you look around you, is a safe place to raise their children, a place where they know that parents can age with dignity and grace. That is really all any of us really wants, wherever we are, whatever our station in life."

And isn't that so true? Once you strip away all of the extraneous trappings of life that our hyper-consumer driven society encourages us to seek, what we really want is a safe place to call home for our family. What we incessantly debate are the finer details of how to make it happen.

This is why, in the midst of all the discord we may see around us, it is so important that we find ways to discover what brings us together, as opposed to what separates us. Disagree with the ideas, but offer respect to those whom you disagree with.

Yes, I admit it, I think the ideas of the Harper Conservative government are heading us in the wrong direction. I think that they will reduce the opportunity for everyone to have a safe place to call home. I think they will increase disparity, not reduce it and their approach perpetuates the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor. In my view, they are too attached to the concept of ever expanding economic growth that as if by magic will allow all of this "wealth" to ultimately trickle down to those less fortunate.

Alternatively, I believe that we have reached our "Limits to Growth" on a planetary scale. Encouragement of over consumption has just about squeezed that trickling spigot shut. We are seeing this now as we witness climate change, environmental degradation and dwindling access to life-sustaining resources such as food, water and arable land.

Should I then, stop listening to them? Should I write them off as unhelpful participants in community dialog? As tempting as that can feel sometimes, (and so does pulling the covers over head in the morning when I hear the wind whistling outside), I ultimately view such an approach as counter productive. This is when I need to challenge myself to listen, while respectfully dissecting those ideas with which I do not agree.

I seek to understand how they arrived at their conclusions, while simultaneously sharing my perspective. I want us to find our common ground. The best way for me to do that is to be part of encouraging dialog. I also readily admit that I am often not up to the task. However, when we continue to shout at each other disrespectfully, nothing changes. We go to our chosen corners, pointing fingers at each other while we plan our next move to win the argument. In the meantime, the planet, the home we all seek to share, is lost.

The Obama effect

The Obama effect

This was an interesting article in the Good Friday edition of the Ottawa Citizen written by Susan Riley. She begins by talking about Barrack Obama's appeal not only to voters in the upcoming U.S. election, but how he strikes a chord with Canadians as well. She reflects on how many of us are drawn to his more conciliatory and collaborative approach to politics. Here is an excerpt:

From the sponsorship scandal to the Cadman affair, our own politics have been driven by distractions for years, with no end in sight. The economy is on auto-pilot, the dangers of climate change are ignored and the opportunities missed, nothing gets better for aboriginal Canadians, the health care system continues to stagger while this vibrant country is poorly-served by its menial-minded, risk-averse leaders.

That is why Obama's message is echoing north of the border. Is there an Obama here? Not yet. But the Green Party and its articulate leader, Elizabeth May, while still on the political margins, offer a glimpse, at least, of less destructively competitive, more positive, vision. It started with May and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's agreement not to run candidates against one another in the next election, an unorthodox, principle-based alliance aimed at advancing a green agenda. As the Greens become more threatening -- their surprising surge in Vancouver Quadra apparently came at the expense of Liberal votes -- the relationship may fray. For now, however, says May, "if Stéphane Dion can keep trying to be collaborative, I'll try too, even if we're in a system that discourages cooperation."

It is telling to contrast this approach with comments made earlier in the week by Bill Tieleman, who was communications director for NDP BC Premier Glen Clark back in 1996. He was discussing the by election results of March 17, 2008. Here is an excerpt from his blog titled NDP Needs Some Class!

The popular perception about the byelections is that the only real winner was the Green Party, appropriately enough for a St. Patrick Day's vote. The Greens increased their support considerably, more than doubling their vote in Vancouver Quadra, finishing in second place ahead of the NDP and Conservatives in Willowdale, and a very close third to the NDP in Toronto Centre.

That's all true. But it's not necessarily bad news for the NDP.

Crazy spin? Demented analysis of electoral politics? Not at all.

Because what both the federal byelections and the provincial poll clearly show is that the New Democratic Party can perform dramatically better -- if it does two simple things -- move sharply to the political left and embrace populist positions.

Tielemen then puts forward a strong argument for the NDP to focus on the "class" differences between those who vote for the NDP and those who vote for other parties. He takes issue with current NDP leader Carole James. He points out that she "has gone out of her way, for example, to speak to chambers of commerce and business organizations, telling them the NDP wants to work with business and is not a threat."

He then quotes James and what she told the Surrey Chamber of Commerce:

"As leader of the NDP I have worked hard to reach out and build bridges to BC's business community -- small, medium and large -- and to make the case that the traditional political divides in this province should no longer shape our relationship," James said. "As I have said many times, in today's economy New Democrats and business leaders share far more in common than ever before."

In Thieleman's view

...that's the wrong message. NDP voters want to see the party defend them against their bosses and the powerful business community, not work with them.

As much as the NDP often like to claim to be "grassroots" and collaborative in their approach, in this instance, they are falling into the trap of playing"winner take all" politics. Tieleman is clearly advocating this type of old style divide and conquer tactics that focus on "class versus class" struggles, as opposed to finding what brings us together in common interest. It is such a tired
argument, the existence of which should clearly be pointing us in the direction of electoral reform that moves us away from our current First Past the Post electoral system.

Tieleman is not making his "move sharply to the political left" argument based on policy, but because it is, in his judgment the way to "win". Let's find our "wedge" issue and sculpt out some votes, he seems to be suggesting, as opposed to presenting policy that is correct and sustainable for our constituency in the long term. He certainly wouldn't be getting my vote based on that appeal strategy.

Yes, elections are about winning. However, speaking as a Green, the desire to win should not get in the way of us behaving in a collaborative manner that seeks to focus on our shared interests, as opposed to constantly hammering at the differences of our positions. On this I shall always be advocating that we take the high road. If we practice divide and conquer politics, we are no better than those we criticize. We need to walk the talk on this, and all of our issues, and model the behaviour we want to see around us.

The Political Conundrum, or

How Do We Encourage Enough Voters to Think Long-Term?

If you are reading this, then you may share my concern for our over-dependence on non-renewable energy sources. You perhaps have begun to conclude that in the near to mid term (within twenty years), we are going to be confronted with rapidly escalating costs of energy. You may also share my concern of the economic and social implications such costs will impose on our society.

The more reading I do, the more consensus I find. It is not a matter of if, but when we shall be confronted with the consequences of worldwide Peak Oil Production. Even the most optimistic prognosticators, such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) see world oil production peaking within 20 to 25 years. Government agencies are beginning to recognize they need to confront this issue. Web pages such as The Energy Bulletin, The Dynamic Cities Project or The Post Carbon Institute (to name but three), are full of links to stories about various groups responding to the situation.

About a year ago I started to visualize various futuristic scenarios. I Knew that I needed to improve my skills to help me cope with the post carbon era. In short, I needed to change my lifestyle. I needed to behave as if there were a critical energy shortage, so I would be better equipped to cope when it does happen.

Over the past year I have paid more attention to shopping locally. I switched to my local green energy provider, Bullfrog Power. I gave up car ownership, and started to walk, cycle or take the bus. I attempted to organize my thoughts and communicate my concerns to my community through my personal website. Not only did I feel that I could breathe with a cleaner conscience, but I felt healthier!

However, this slower pace has also provided more time to watch the world speed by. While you and I may be getting it, I must admit to being somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those who don't. It is not just that Wal-Mart parking lots remain full, and gridlock continues to be the primary complaint of the masses. So often the electors in our various democracies are swayed by promises of short term gain. As I write, the Canadian Finance Minister is delivering an election style budget based on assumptions of continued economic "growth". He opens his speech by saying "Mr. Speaker, Canada is strong today, and we have a plan for an even better tomorrow!"

Sadly, elections are not won by telling voters the truth about what lies ahead. They are won by promises of more, forever. Many Canadians will be cheered when they hear their Finance Minister say:

Canada is great because Canadians made it great. The people who built this country worked hard to realize their vision. They set us on a bold course to greater hope and opportunity.

Only a small minority of the electorate understands the fact that our economy grew as it did over the past 100 years because of the abundance of cheap energy.

I would like to think that the small steps I am taking to change my lifestyle will help me cope with the changes that are coming. I am much more concerned, however, with how the rest of the world is going to respond. I am trying to figure out what I can do to appropriately sound the alarm. The tricky part, is the relatively short attention span of the electorate. The problem we are facing requires very long term solutions.

Some people have the patience and are prepared to accept a plan that asks them to sacrifice today for something that will show results in 2 or 3, maybe even ten years. Occasionally an astute politician can be that persuasive. But how do we convince a majority to accept less for the rest of their lives so future generations can survive? How do we develop an electorate that is that informed, and altruistic? How do we convince ever increasing numbers of people to stop listening to the constant rant of marketers who continually tell us to "zoom zoom" through life, and have it all?

I look forward to your answers.

Thoughts on Politics

In very broad terms, I have come to think of myself as “socially progressive” yet “fiscally conservative.” It is important from the outset to explain what I mean by these terms.

I expect my understanding of “socially progressive” fits the norm. I enjoy our pluralistic society. I seek inclusivity and don’t react well to divisive “us versus them” politics. I look for what brings us together, our common interests, not what keeps us apart. I celebrate individual uniqueness, while embracing all that we share in our various communities. I may bristle at times, however, when I find myself in the midst of too much “political correctness”. We need to know when to lighten up. I have never been a practicing Christian, but am not offended by the greeting of “Merry Christmas”. It is a greeting of good wishes and a well intended, pleasant social custom. Although usually I am not one to say it, I accept it in the spirit it is given.

My understanding of “fiscal conservatism” however, may differ from the mainstream. Most people seem to view it as spending the least amount of money, every year, and do whatever it takes to avoid a tax increase or any other expenditure. To me, it means spending the correct amount of money today, and every day, to ensure that in the long term we spend the least amount of money. I have made several presentations to Ottawa City Council on this theme.

It means long term cost effective planning. It means seeking the long term efficient ways of doing things. It means fully accounting for all of the costs. Unfortunately, we have done very little in our society to capture the environmental costs of what we do. That is a failure to think long term for which future generations will pay big time.

So, where does this put me politically? How have I voted? Much to the chagrin of many of my friends, I have usually voted for the Liberal Party here in Canada. Ever since the social conservatives took control of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have found them increasingly distasteful. Too often they focus on what separates us, instead of what brings us together.

The New Democrats on the other hand also rarely got my vote. I simply viewed them as too attached to big labour. I have found big labour to be more concerned with “jobs, jobs, jobs,” rather than the consequences those jobs. For example, in January, 2007 “the NDP Leader was taken to task this week in a letter from Buzz Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers union, who said Mr. Layton’s call for regulations that would require more environmentally friendly cars will kill jobs.”(Globe & Mail) Yes, the New Dems can generally be considered “socially progressive”, but often they want to spend money first and ask how we are going to pay for it later. (Ow! That should jab some of my friends.) Oh, I know they mean well, but, it often seems like too much old style thinking.

So, that left me with the Liberal Party as the place I usually parked my vote. That is, until the last federal election, when they had to be spanked severely. They had become way to used to being in power. They remained in office for those three consecutive majority terms not because Chretien was such a great leader, but because the opposition kept imploding before their eyes.

Therefore, in the winter election of 2006 I voted for the Green Party for the first time. This choice came out of my emerging environmental concerns. They began to appeal to me as a party of principal. A party that presented their platform not to seek power, but to convince the electorate of the value of their ideas. I expect this will change moving forward, but for now, they want other parties to incorporate their policies. They don’t seem as concerned with who enacts them as with the need for action.

I am convinced that the environmental file is one we cannot get wrong. At this time I believe the Green Party is the best place for me to learn and put energy into shaping public opinion. We are now witnessing all of the other parties painting themselves green in one way or another. However, they will compromise because they seek power.

The New Democrats will have to compromise their green principals to incorporate big labor who, amongst other things, wants to protect the automobile industry. To me, automobiles drive, literally and figuratively, much of the environmental problems we face. If everyone used public transport instead of individual automobiles, there would be no fighting for oil, no congestion. We would have more dense, livable cities.

The Conservatives and Liberals will both be seeking power and are driven by the need to keep the corporate world happy. They are very reluctant to express controversial ideas that would alienate big business. I happen to believe that we need to move toward a SteadyState economy, one that moves away from praying at the altar of growth. I expect it will be a long time before either of those parties embrace such a concept.