The Economist's Take on the Eve of the Election

The Economist published a piece  at the end of the week, providing its last-minute analysis of the Canadian election. The sub-title to the article sums it up: A last-minute surge for the left might end up benefiting the right. Noting that the Globe & Mail had captured popular sentiment in describing Harper as "nasty, brutish - and competent," The Economist goes on to explain how the surge of NDP support may split the progressive vote sufficiently to serve up the long-elusive majority to the Harper Conservatives. - CM.

Why Would Anyone Vote...Liberal?!

Last week I wrote a rather extreme article suggesting that no one should vote NDP in this election, on the view that if you were conservative you would vote Tory, and if you were progressive and concerned about a Tory government, you really should vote strategically for the Liberals. Voting NDP would split the progressive vote, and would likely ensure a Conservative government, possibly even a majority one at that. A week is a long time in politics, as the saying goes. Now the NDP have blown by the Liberals in several polls, and so many could mockingly ask why anyone would vote Liberal - the same strategic calculus I advanced in my piece last week would suggest that progressive voters not wanting a Conservative government ought to vote NDP given the current numbers.

Perhaps. On the purely strategic argument, this may be true enough. But even half-a-week is a long time in politics. And polls can be soft - remember Truman and Dewey? This is not entirely unrelated to the strategic voting considerations. Because one has to question whether the NDP is ready for government, and whether that question is going to increasingly dawn on voters as election day looms. Ultimately, that is the test - when I argued for strategic voting for the Liberals, it was on the premise that the Liberals could not only plausibly win an election, but that they could form a better government than the Conservatives. That premise does not hold true for the NDP. Jack Layton and his party may have served an important role in opposition, and might even preform wonderfully as the official opposition - but the party simply does not have the bench strength, or frankly a set of realistic policies in hand, to form a government. And that should be a fundamental consideration on voting day.

Sovereignty as an Election Issue

What every happened to concerns over Canadian sovereignty? In this post we turn to the Harper government's position on such policies as U.S.-Canadian integrated border security and integrated national defence initiatives, as a sovereignty issue that we ought to be talking about in this election campaign.

Remember the days when sovereignty was such an issue for Canadians? If it wasn't "Sovereignty Association" and the spectre of Quebec separatism, it was accusations of selling out our sovereignty in a North American free trade agreement. Trudeau famously spoke of Canada being the mouse in bed with the American elephant. We don't hear that much about sovereignty anymore, as though our fears had crept back into the shadows with the rising of the sun. But I want to suggest that sovereignty, in the context of our relationship with the United States, should be an issue in this election.

Irresponsible Government

There are few things as uninteresting as the story of the rise of responsible government in Canada in the 1800s and the subsequent confederation of the provinces into the Dominion of Canada. It was independence by subcommittee. It was what happens when your founding fathers are technocrats. But as dry and colourless the story is, the foundation that was put in place created one of the finest democracies in history. For almost a century and a half, Canada's government has been a testament to how the Westminster system, modified for local conditions, can mediate between the various forces and interests that shape and emerge from civil society.

At the root of that system was the notion of responsibility - institutional responsibility, ministerial responsibility and individual responsibility. Whether it is the vicissitudes of politics, the tactical realities of a minority government or the personal bent of the party leaders that notion of responsibility seems to be eroding.

Why Would Anyone Vote NDP?

So, why would anyone vote NDP? No, really. It is not a facetious question - it is a serious one. In the context of the current political structure, given the recent election history, and the options facing Canadians, I would like to suggest that it makes absolutely no sense to vote NDP.

Don't get me wrong - the NDP may have many attractive policy platforms and qualities. Back in the days when Canada had a fairly stable system of three political parties, the NDP long fulfilled an important role as a moderating influence, keeping the Liberals in particular from straying too far to the center-right. The NDP served as the conscience of the nation on many social and labour-related issues. It continues to have important things to say about many topics. And Jack Layton, even if he has been in the role far too long, is in many ways an attractive party leader. But none of that means that anyone should vote for the party in this election.

The More Things Stay The Same, The More They Stay The Same

Ah, the drama. As the window closes on this election, it is looking more and more likely that the House of Commons will reconstitute itself in almost the same shape and proportions that it had when the writ dropped. Stephen Harper's majority appears to be slipping from his grasp. Michale Ignatieff's chance at hitting 100 seats seems equally unlikely. And Jack Layton's post-debate bounce is almost certain to deflate. Anything can happen in an election, but time is collapsing quickly.

Whose responsible for this stasis? Is it the politicians? It's hard to blame them. They're certainly trying hard. A few more risks might help, I guess. But it's probably asking them too much to change. The voters? Maybe a little. But four million of them watched the debates. And they vote. Sometimes. In ever declining numbers.

No. It's the media. It's all the media 's fault. They suck. It is, as Jack Layton might say in a desperate attempt to sound hip and happening, a #fail of epic proportions.

They, most of them anyway,  fail in three main ways.

Three Weeks On

The Story of the Third Week: The Winner of the Debate

I’ve been watching debates since the Trudeau years. (Remember that time Joe Clark wore mismatched spats? What a scandal that was!) I always enjoy them. What’s not to like. Our democratically elected leaders desperately trying to frame themselves in the best light, occasional policy discussions, quips and one liners. I love that stuff.

This year’s had a lot going for it: a terrible set with hues that matched the tone of Jack Layton’s skin, occasionally rendering him invisible; Stephen Harper delivering the most leveled one-note performance since the last Matrix movie; Ignatieff connecting to regular joes by reminiscing about his days hanging out in prisons as a graduate student; Gilles Duceppe trying and failing to get laughs; the Scottish tones of the French debate. What more could you ask for? Priceless television.

Food Policy as an Election Issue

Food is back on the election agenda after decades in the back room. For good reason. More and more voters are realizing that the industrial food system that feeds us today is broken. These people are flocking to farmers' markets where sales are worth over $1 billion a year, according to a study by Farmers' Markets Canada. They are joining an increasing number of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) projects and are demanding more access to food that is produced sustainably by farmers in their regions. There is a saying in the local food movement that you vote with your fork. Now, the federal election offers citizens a chance to voice their opinions about food at the ballot box.

Unfortunately, the Harper-led Conservative party's stand on food and agriculture misses the mark. While the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Green Party offer (to varying degrees) their solutions to building Canadian food sovereignty and strengthening new local and sustainable food systems, the Conservatives are promising more of the status quo, more of the same structures that are responsible for the environmental, social and health problems that our food system causes today.

The Liberal Focus on Harper's Contempt for Democracy

“There he goes again with this word ‘bickering.’ This is a debate, Mr. Harper. This is a democracy...You keep talking about Parliament as if it’s this little debating society that’s a pesky interference in your rule of the country. It’s not.”

Michael Ignatieff, Leaders' debate, April 12, 2011.

Ignatieff kept returning to this theme of democracy in the debate. Even when asked about Canadian foreign policy, he returned to hammer the idea that Canada cannot advance its values abroad when democracy was being undermined at home. What was he on about, anyway? It is hard to pitch the importance of democracy the way you can tax cuts and raising the employment rates. But it is so much more important. Ignatieff is on to something crucial here, and it is vital that Canadians not miss it.

The issue is political accountability and the realization of deliberative democracy. Which simply means that government in a democracy is supposed to be accountable to the people, and decisions are supposed to made through a process in which the people are able to meaningfully participate. One of the great strengths of democracy rests on the twin ideas that decisions will be better, and will enjoy wider and more enduring support from the public, precisely because they are made through a process of debate and deliberation in which the people play a meaningful role. 

Not Knowing What the Left Hand is Doing

Let's say its 2008 all over again. And you are a dashing, personally popular, mustachioed leader of a much less popular party on the left wing of the political spectrum that perennially finishes third or fourth. Your policies are old, comfortable, familiar to 15% - 20% of the electorate.  The party on the right can only grow so much because of fears about its hidden agenda and its awkward leader. The party in the centre has broken with its long tradition of selecting electable leaders. Climate change is on everybody's lips, so much so that it is the main plank of both the party in the centre and a new party on the left, the Greens. So, faced with this opportunity what do you do?

If your answer was bury your head in the sand, than you just might be Jack Layton. And your short-sighted decision then, is looking like its really going to hurt you now, in 2011.

Jack Layton is a committed environmentalist. He hasn't owned a car since 1983. His house, a charming semi in downtown Toronto is environmentally sound, retrofitted to reduce its footprint. And one suspects that he, like most environmentalists, recognise that without a real tax on carbon it will be next to impossible to mount an efficient and cost-effective campaign against greenhouse gas emissions.