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.

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.

Mission Creep in Libya and Tory Decision-Making

The Harper government skipped any vote in Parliament on decision to commit Canadian Forces to the military intervention in Libya. It was said that the other parties supported the decision, and in any event, who wouldn't support a U.N. sanctioned humanitarian intervention aimed at preventing the massacre of civilians? It was, after all, justified on the basis of the new international principle, the Responsibility to Protect, which Canada played a large role in developing.

Now, however, the pressure is mounting on NATO allies to rachet up the air strikes, and to target the military hardware of the Qaddafi forces in an effort to break the stalemate developing in Libya. Foreign Minister Lawrnece Cannon is leaving the campaign trail to attend a couple of major meetings to discuss the way forward. France and the U.K. in particular are calling for NATO forces to strike Qaddafi miligary targets for the purpose of aiding the rebels and breaking the deadlock. Even the U.S. has suggested that Qaddafi's departure is a pre-condition to any peace agreement.

Law and Order vs. The Rule of Law

In a Globe & Mail op-ed piece today the argument is made that the Harper government is right in its quest for harsher sentencing guidelines and other tough-on-crime measures. In particular, the piece seems to suggest that the Conservative government is correct in reigning in recalcitrant and misguided courts, which are apparently in the habit of "erring on the side of criminals."

First, the author of the op-ed himself acknowledges that most experts in the field view as misguided the mandatory sentencing and other tough-on-crimes measures that are being advanced by the Conservatives. We agree.

Second, however, we would suggest that far more significant as an issue in this election is the question of the extent to which this government has exhibited a respect for the rule of law. Harsher criminal law measures may gain some popularity by pandering to the politics of fear, but government action that erodes and undermines the the rule of law is conduct that eats away at the very foundation of a democracy.

What do we mean exactly by the rule of law, and what actions has the government taken that could be argued to be inimical to the rule of law? We will be addressing those questions in a series of posts over the course of this campaign. So stay tuned! - CM.

A Modern Mackenzie King.

It is hard to argue against the suggestion that Stephen Harper deserves his majority. Despite the inherent limitations of a minority government, he has deftly managed not only to remain in power but also to deliver basically sound economic and social management of the country. After a six-year audition, should we not give him the job? Has he not earned it?

While the results are not yet in, of course, it would appear that there are still serious reservations about giving Harper the keys to the kingdom. Despite all his time in power and his tactical brilliance in remaining in power, even among his supporters he generates a certain ambivalence. For much of the rest of the populace, he remains a divisive figure and a spectre of far right ideology. 

But is that a fair assessment of his politics? Just how right wing is Harper? And what, if any, role does his ideological platform have in either maintaining his power or preventing him from acquiring the stability of a majority?

Politicizing Military Operations

It was reported Tuesday that the federal government has ordered military and diplomatic officials operating in Afghanistan to cease speaking to the media for the duration of the election campaign.  Presumably the Conservative Party is concerned that something may be said or some information may be disclosed that will either distract from the party's campaign messaging, or at worst attract criticism at a crucial time in the election. While at first blush this may not seem all that extraordinary, we at The Writ would suggest that this is both significant and entirely inappropriate.

It is improper because the military, and other officers of the Crown engaged in the business of furthering the national interest abroad, ought not to be co-opted by the governing party for the purpose of furthering its political agenda. There has to be a clear line separating the political operations of a party involved in an election, and the actions of the professional members of executive branch of government.