Liberal Leadership

I'm not sure whether I am happy or not about Stephane Dion stepping down, perhaps as early as this week. He is an intelligent politician, he looks at facts and statistics before supporting new policy proposals. Many other MPs simply vote along party lines or according to their political ideologies.

One reason that many European decmocracies are so successful is that parties spend a lot of time examining the science behind policy proposals. They crunch the numbers, they take polls, they interview the experts. In Canada, whatever the Conservative party feels is a good idea, must be a good idea, and it's put to a vote in the House, without any public consultation or examination of facts. Just exactly how did Harper think that his last budget would pass with all the crankpot ideas in that scrap of legislation?

Dion is an academic. An intellectual. He would have been great in a European democracy. Sadly, Canada, with its majoritarian (38% forms a government!?), first-past-the-post system, politicians with an "I'll do what I want" attitude are successful; intellectuals and academics like Mr. Dion are simply punted to the side.

Enter Michael Ignatieff. The Liberal version of Mr. Harper. A man who feels that he can do as he pleases. We are going to see a polarized Parliament. Ignatieff is going to carve out an ideology for the Liberal Party and thus make it unappealing to Canadian voters. There is a small chance he will adopt the "Third-Way" model, which is what Britain's Labour Party has done so well over the past two decades. But I'm worried that, due to his competitive nature, he will seek to differentiate both himself and the Liberal Party from Mr. Harper and the Tories. In doing so, he will alienate Third-Way voters, and force people to become either Liberals or Conservatives. I tell you right now, the majority, when faced with such a polarized decision, will choose the latter over the former. That is to say, that more people will come to identify themselves with the Tories rather than the Liberals. The Liberal Party would drop to 50 seats in such an event (as there will no doubt be another election within 2 years), the NDP would stay the same, the Bloc would gain a few, but the Conservatives would have their majority.

Right now, as "useless" as Dion might seem to the party, he is able to see past his own desires - he has been described by MANY as having little to no self-ambition. He is able to envision a coalition, something that the pompous Ignatieff cannot accept, or refuses to, on grounds that the Liberal Party is not a small, fledgling party but rather is a party with more than a century of tradition, a party that can be a national contender. Yeah right Ignatieff. The Liberals will not regain the popularity they enjoyed during Chretien's rule for at least 10 more years (at which point they'll achieve a smashing majority). But now is not the time.

Rather, until voters forget about the sponsorship scandal and until the Conservatives plunge our country into greater economic disaster, Canadians will continue to buy into Harper's cavalier, "get 'er done" mentality. For he speaks for the average, working-class Joe. At least that's what they think. He speaks for joe public on one hand and accepts huge payouts from Canadian and American big business with the other. But it's going to take 10 more years to see change in that department.

So we have a 10 year wait Iggy. Please don't play "politics" or the Liberal Party will be destroyed. Canadians don't want to see "politics" right now. This coalition ianitiative is the best thing the Liberal Party has going for it, as their unpopularity is cancelled out by the small but steady popularity of the Bloc and the NDP. You need to hold on to them!!! Not the other way around. Stick with the parties and keep the high horse in the barn. Please, for the sake of our country, and the Liberal Party of Canada.

English Leader's Debate 2008

Just finished watching the debate. Must say in this election I am definitely non-partisan. But I will still vote. Just not quite sure for whom. We can vote for a candidate, a party, or a "best chance to beat ___" option.

I don't live in Quebec anymore, but if I did I might consider voting for the Bloc. I find Duceppe to be engaging and charismatic. However, he is a through and through Quebecer and seems not only to disregard other Canadians, but many facts as well. One point he made tonight, that quebec had lowered its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.6 percent from 96(?) - 2001. In that same time, Alberta increased theirs by 36 % and Saskatchewan by 63 %. Now I have lived in both Saskatchewan and Alberta for the greater part of my life and feel a strong attachment to those two provinces. Duceppe finished his point by saying Quebec should be finanically "rewarded" for this decrease in GG emissions, while AB and SK should be punished. He forgets that between 1971 and 2001 220 billion dollars! left the province of Alberta in the form of transfer payments. Guess what? In that same period of time, that same amount of money just happened to enter Quebec (in the form of transfer payments) to subsidize its manufacturing sector so that Quebecers could have jobs and see economic growth in their province. (source: CBC radio show, 2006)

I crunched the numbers on my own and every year, Quebec receives 20 billion dollars in federal transfer payments. That money comes from the "have" provinces like AB, and SK, those same GG spouting provinces that deserve to be punished financially. The industries creating GG emissions in those provinces generate a lot of wealth for Quebecers and other Canadians. No. Our GG emissions cuts should be calculated nationally!

Moving on to Elizabeth May. She had an excellent showing. She knows her facts. She reads reports. She listens to Canadians. However, her French needs some work. And as well, the Green Party supports tougher sentences for young offenders - something I DO NOT approve of. As Dion pointed out, under new Conservative proposals, a 14 year old could get life in prison! We need to get to the root of the problem.

Dion made a good showing. He plays the polite professor. Sounds a lot like Schwarzenegger actually.

Layton. VERY drippy! Talks about the "loved ones" and the "kitchen table" way too much. He smooths over his wrinkles very well. Bulges rather. For example attending the Shouldice(?) private clinic. He claims to support the public system. For "heaven's sakes" Jack.
Contention number 2. "Our country needs to improve the living conditions of its Aboriginal peoples." As Dion pointed out, he voted AGAINST the Kelowna Accord. While not a cure-all, it was a push for Aboriginal self-government in the Kelowna area whereby they would have greater control over their affairs. In the hopes that they would take better care of their people that the federal gov't has.

Finally Harper. A very good debater. Knows "when to jab, and when to parry", as Keith Boag said. More importantly, (I actually box so these metaphors do not go without merit), he knows how to move away. He did not throw any knockout punches, nor was he overly aggressive. Anyone watching would have been impressed by this seemingly down to earth "family man in a sweater".

One enormous point of contention I have was that he gave absolutely no numbers. He cited the Conservative government's investments into such and such an initiative without ever divulging whether it was 1 dollar or 1 million dollars of investments. The other four leaders used statistics and numbers and it makes an impression on the voter.

That's it for tonight. Advance polls open tomorrow.