Phendrana Drifts

I am so sick of listening to politicians and watching politics. I know I am not the first person to utter those words but for me it is quite a bit of a epiphany. After all, I have worked in a political job of some sort since the day I graduated from university and I have been a partisan political volunteer and donor for almost as long. I left the partisan political world last year and I must say I couldn't be happier about that. I miss a lot of people and energy, but getting rid of that negativity and kool-aid drinking atmosphere is certainly for the best.

I expand far more on why I left and what I hope is the future in the most recent episode of the Unknown Studio - a project of Scott Bourgeois and Adam Rozenhart that I wholeheartedly endorse - along with my friend Dave Cournoyer. Give it a listen!

In his most recent blog Adam expands a bit more on a topic we discussed in the podcast, about how we lack statespeople in our public life. He asks why that is - and to some extent I think I know the answer - partisan politics suck. I am on the eve of listening to another politician, in this case Premier Ed Stelmach, talk about his vision for our province and I can't help but approach it with a growing sense of cyncism and aversion. Still, I'm going to watch. And hope to see a glimmer of statesmanship that Adam, Dave, Scott and an entire generation of our society thinks is missing from public life. Anyone want to take a bet that my cyncism is more on the mark than my hope?

Labels: alberta politics, federal politics

I was truly upset and disappointed to see the above video. Apparently a pseudo-satire on Fox News in the United States, Red Eye decided to take aim at Canada, specifically the operational end of our commitment in Afghanistan. A commitment that over 100 Canadian soldiers have paid for with their lives and was started in direct response to an attack by terrorists on American soil. Fox News should apologize to Canadians.

Labels: american politics, defence, federal politics

First, the only thing worse than Prime Minister Harper breaking his word and the spirit of his word and appointing a bunch of senators today would be the psuedo-Prime Minister Ignatieff doing the same thing, so to some degree I guess this is just the best of two bad choices. And I have nothing against the individuals themselves, but I would have still rather have had the Prime Minister choose to keep his word and dare Iggy not to appoint a bunch of Liberal hacks.

Labels: federal politics

I have a lot of thoughts. My brain, normally much more laid-back, is a-buzz. The Canadian government is facing imminent collapse and rather than facing the electorate, it seems likely another government will take the reins in the form of Dr. Dion and 24 cabinet ministers, six of which will come from the NDP. Now, given how the last five days have unfolded I don't think anyone can say what will happen in the next six.

My first thought, and the overwhelming one, is disappointment. There is enough blame to go around to all participants and the participants as a whole.

My second thought is directed towards the (current) opposition. Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay said yesterday that even if the Conservatives put forward an stimulus package now, it would have no credibility and the opposition would reject it - a statement that leads me to believe the Liberal and NDP caucuses spent more time talking about how to gain power than deal with the economy. I believe that the Collapse of Global Capitalism is merely an excuse for the actions of the opposition, and I have been searching for a mere hint that I am wrong. So if it is just an excuse, why now? And again, adding to my cynicsm, I think the reason is because if the opposition had done this last spring it would have triggered an election rather than a coalition government. Indeed, I think it is being done now because the window of credibly going to the Governor General to deny a dissolution of parliament and choose a coalition government is only a few weeks, and that is coming to a close. I believe this is a naked power grab and the economic crisis is just window dressing. If it weren't, I believe compromise is possible.

My third thought speaks to why compromise isn't possible. When it comes to crass and cynical political moves, Mr. Harper is pretty good at pointing them out because he has been the author of some pretty good ones. Killing public funding for parties under the guise of economic measures is only the last in a long line of partisan political moves done by the Prime Minister. You reap what you sow, and while I am surprised at how well the opposition have maneuvered in the last six days I am not surprised that they took the first (and really any) opportunity to stick it to the Prime Minister.

My final thought for this post is how far off the actions of all the political parties is from what they promised and what Canadians expected in the last election. A coalition government was not only not pitched to Canadians, it was explicitly rejected by the Liberals. I believe that had Dr. Dion suggested a Liberal/NDP government that would rely heavily on the Bloc for any and all confidence matters then Canadians would have punished him severely and awarded Mr. Harper with a majority. I certainly do not disagree that what the opposition is doing is legal - not only is it legal but I believe that if we are in that nascent environment when a minority parliament is sorting out who is Prime Minister and who is not, then this is legitimate. I do worry that we have passed that time (I would have thought the Throne Speech was the moment to pull that pin) but I shall allow the Governor General - and her suddenly busy team of lawyers and advisors - to make that call.

If the Collapse of Global Capitalism is a immenent and mortal threat to the Canadian economy then I do think a coalition government is not just an acceptable option for the 40th Canadian Parliament, but maybe the right one. However, the one that I think would make more sense would have been a Conservative-Liberal coalition, but I think I recognize that such a suggestion is made impossible by the partisan politics that I worry is killing our democracy.

Labels: federal politics

In declaring the Conservative government's move to kill public funding to political parties "brilliant" (see below) I've obviously erred. I'm now shocked the Conservatives are backtracking on virtually all policy made in the past week and are still facing the end of their term in a week. I wasn't shocked on Friday morning, but now I'm dumbfounded.

Labels: federal politics

Many bloggers along with the mainstream media are discussing the Conservative Party of Canada's move to withdraw public funding to political parties - here is a sample from the blogs I regularly read:

daveberta: two comments on jim flaherty's "economic update."
Enlightened Savage: Harper to Opposition: Go Fund Yourselves! and Dion Had Better Blink
under the hood: It feels wrong, but I almost want to move to America�
Stephen Taylor: Flaherty to end campaign welfare
CalgaryGrit: If you want to play chess, let's play! and In a slightly ironic twist...
Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying: I don't even know where to begin

At first when I learned about the ploy I was not surprised, but I did think people were blowing it out of proportion - I didn't think it was likely for the government to fall or even for it to go forward - I thought the Conservatives would be content with the Liberals simply taking the heat and burning the political capital to put it back. Then I learned it would be a part of Flaherty's economic update, making it a confidence motion. And while I still don't think the Governor General has as much flexibility as some, it does raise some very interesting possibilities - although I still think either the Liberals will cave, the Conservatives will cave or an inevitable election will occur - even if my rusty constitutional law is way off and Ms. Jean has the power to ask Dr. Dion or Mr. Layton to form a government, that government can only last as long as M. Duceppe can stomach it. As leader of the official opposition, Mr. Harper will have all the tools at his disposal to kill the new government within a month, and on an issue of his choosing while framing the election all about the selfish Liberals playing politics over a couple of million dollars for the Liberals while Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. All the same, some observations:

1. The Tories were exceedingly successful in making the public funding of parties the message - and framing the opposition of the update only about this issue. The economic update is likely the most important business in front of the House before the spring budget - unless a bailout or other economic measure comes up - and the reasons for opposing it are likely wide and varied. Our response to the Collapse of Global Capitalism (that's what I call it until the mainsteam media think of something better) is perhaps the most important issue that has faced our government since deciding not to go to Iraq - that is an issue much bigger than $30 million of public funding to parties. Yet, the only thing mainstream media can seem to talk about is how the Liberals are opposing the update because they will die if they don't get your tax dollars. Brilliant.

2. The Liberals still look weak - why aren't they saying we don't want your money? I mean, I know they need it and what not, but money can be raised, fundraising schemes can be implemented, loans can be taken out, and yes, bankruptcy can be considered. But there is a certain air of Oliver Twist in the spin on their commentary. Show people you are ready to govern by saying Canadians will lose their jobs and pensions if this economic update stands as the federal government reaction to the Collapse of Global Capitalism. Tell the public that public funding of parties is a part of a much larger issue of democratic reform, but since democratic reform isn't the top priorities of either the Liberals or Canadians, you aren't really thinking about it right now. Also, read and re-read CalgaryGrit's post on fundraising in response - go out and ask for money. Keep asking for money. Don't just ask for the max from well-off donors, go out and ask for $10 from everyone who might donate.

3. While I think the economic impacts of yesterday's update are infinitely more important than the political, money makes elections possible, and the rules governing how parties and their campaigns are funded are an important part of studying a democracy. I don't necessarily think it is a mistake to withdraw public funding of political parties, but I think it is important to realize that when we introduced public funding it was done at the same time as capping donations from individuals, unions and corporations. By not simply rolling back the clock to 2000, we're changing the democratic system wrapped in an economic debate. And that is a little unfair.

4. I'm really not shocked - the Conservatives are going for the throat of the Liberals. That was really the point of the last election, and it is the entire point of doing this. And it will take a strategist better than I to get the Liberals out of this very serious strategic bind.

Labels: federal politics

For reasons that are kind of complicated and personal, I may have decided who to vote for, but explaining it here would kind of defeat the purpose of this blog series, if that makes sense. However, I would love to add I saw a sign for the Pants Party on a public thoroughfare yesterday - anyone know that is?

Labels: federal election, federal politics

After reading and listening and analyzing, I have compiled a list of 25 election issues that have been raised in a serious fashion this election, or immediately preceding it. There was no scientific or even methodical approach to getting these, so I am 100% certain I missed one or two important ones. Of course, there are those topics that encompass, well, everything - so I suspect my butt is covered should someone say "Hey you forgot insert issue here."

Abortion
Accountability
Afghanistan
Arctic Sovereignty
Canada - US relations
Child care
Climate change
Consumer rights
Crime
Culture
Defence
Democratic reform
Digital copyright issues
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
First Nations, M�tis and Inuit issues
Gay marriage
Health care
Immigration
Inflation
Leadership
Marijuana
National unity
Taxes

Alright - what issues can I simply remove because they are unlikely to affect my vote? Abortion and gay marriage are easy ones as no major party or leader is advocating change, however if any party advocates a change from the status quo I guarantee the issue not only goes back on the list, it may become a top five issue. 23 is still an unwieldy number. What can I combine into broad categories? Afghanistan, Arctic sovereignty, Canada-US relations and defence can all be lumped into one right-wing bread and butter category - let's call it national defence and foreign affairs. We can also lump consumer rights, economy, inflation and taxes into a single economy category (although that is a lot of important stuff). Climate change and the environment is a pretty safe bet to combine too - we'll toss energy there too in an environment and energy issues category. So is crime and marijuana. At risk of all sorts of ire, I'll combine First Nations and national unity into a single category. So what does that leave us with?

Accountability
Child care
Crime
Culture
Democratic reform
Digital copyright issues
Economy
Education
Environment and energy issues
Health care
Immigration
Leadership
National defence and foreign affairs
National unity and First Nations issues

Well that's more manageable. And while I do have an opinion on all of these let's remove the ones that likely won't influence my vote. For example, accountability - unless a candidate or party leader says something to the exact opposite of what I believe, I likely will not let "accountability" factor into my vote. So with that, I'll remove accountability, child care (I know, but my kids are older, and while I have opinions, it isn't likely going to shift my vote), national unity and leadership (of course my opinion of the leaders factors into stuff, but not as much as most people).

So my final list of ten issues are:

Crime
Culture
Democratic reform
Digital copyright issues
Economy
Education
Environment and energy issues
Health care
Immigration
National defence and foreign affairs

Labels: federal election, federal politics

Hey - I took the quiz before - LINK. I have become slightly more right-wing in five years.

Labels: federal election, federal politics

I love putting things in categories, ranking them, even filing them. So while many people say they despise the political spectrum and say things like the right-left politics are passe I still embrace it. But I also do believe that it is one-dimensional, and do tend to expand it into the second dimension of libertarian-authoritarian. So, thanks to the Political Compass Organization I am able to post where I sit on the two axes:

I actually feel pretty good about that - a bit more left than I would have guessed, but it feels like the right amount of libertarian vs. authoritarian. Now it would seem as easy as putting the Canadian political parties on the grid and finding the closest political party to my place. Fortunately the Political Compass Organization has plotted the Canadian political parties in 2005 on the grid. They have also plotted a few other countries' political personalities and parties. Let's compare:

Ok, I disagree with a lot of the placement. I even thought about not posting this, but then if I arbitrarily placed the political parties where I thought they should go then I wouldn't really be using this as a tool but more of a Rorschach ink blot test. So I left the parties where the Political Compass Organization put them. That said, I have three strong objections:

The NDP believe in more state involvement than the Canadian Conservatives or Liberals. I think making the NDP the hero of Canadian libertarians is incorrect. If I were making the grid, I would place them well north of the Liberals and Conservatives.

The British National Party is an extreme right wing party, not left. I don't know how they placed the almost fascist BNP, but left? Weird.

There is little to no evidence that the Canadian Conservatives are more "authoritarian" than the Canadian Liberals. While I would like to think that the CPC is more libertarian than the Liberals, I would concede there is a debate there over how strong a role the Conservatives see for the federal government in Canadian society. But substantially more than the Liberals? Demonstrably more than the NDP? I don't think so. I know the Liberals think that Stephen Harper is an authoritarian Prime Minister, but I think the compass isn't meant to measure whether you have regular press briefings but more focused on what the government does in your life on a daily basis.

Side thought, Obama is to the right of the Canadian Conservatives according to the Political Compass Organization. So is Gordon Brown's Labour party in the UK. Also, in fairness, I can't guarantee the Political Compass Organization ever meant for multiple countries to be correlated in this fashion, so I should put that caveat out.

Now it would seem that regardless of my thoughts on placing the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, my vote should be clear. Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe. Except I don't think so. Sigh, back to the drawing board.

Labels: federal election, federal politics

A Member of Parliament? Check. Over 600,000 votes in the last Federal Election? Check. 26% / 9,864 in the London North Centre by-election? Check. Polling at 10% which would translate to 1.5 million votes? Check. Approval of other parties' leaders to be in the debate? Hey, why is that a criteria?

To my dismay (no pun intended) Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, is not to be included in the leaders' debates despite meeting and exceeding the criteria that had previously applied. And why? Apparently it is because Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton don't want her there. That's just stupid. Bah.

Labels: federal election, federal politics

I enter this federal election in a unique place for myself - I'm unattached and actually need to be convinced to vote for someone. Being a an active participant in the political process for 10 years usually I'm volunteering and convincing others to vote one way or another, but I had decided this summer to take a sojourn away from politics. So I've decided to chronicle my own personal decision on whom to vote for here on my blog, partly in an effort to provide structure and impetus to blog, partly just to make sure I give this the proper thought. Today's section will be an outline of the context and where I already am at, who I am, where my riding is, and how I make decisions like this.

1. Who I Am: It takes about one minute to sift through this blog to discover I'm somewhat right of the Canadian centre and have voted Conservative in every federal election since I've turned 18 - Progressive Conservative in 1997 and 2000; Conservative Party of Canada in 2004 and 2006. That said, I'm open. Later posts will chronicle what issues I care about the most and the positions of the parties and candidates I agree with most, but to provide the overview on most political ideological surveys I come out fairly fiscally conservative (bordering on libertarian) and very socially progressive - however given how I've voted and participated politically it might be safe to say the fiscal position tends to trump my social values. Then again, this might be the election that shifts.

2. Where I Vote: I live in the riding of Edmonton-Spruce Grove, which has been represented by the Honourable Rona Ambrose for the entirety of its existence since the boundary redistribution before the 2004 election. The nominated candidates (to date) are:

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Conservative) - www.ronaambrose.com
Chris Austin (Liberal) - convoluted liberal link
Barb Phillips (NDP) - www.ndp.ca/page/321

So far, neither the Bloc Quebecois or the Green Party have nominated a candidate in Edmonton-Spruce Grove, and I'm too lazy to look up the fringe parties.

5. The National Campaign and Me: It doesn't take a political scientist (although if it did, fortunately one of my two degrees covers that off) to know that in Canada party discipline is almost extreme, so it matters what the national campaign does almost more than the local campaign, given that as a rule my MP will obey the will of the national caucus over local concerns. I don't mean to denigrate the role of the MP but anyone who says they vote for the person over the party is missing the majority of the picture.

This does affect the decision in multiple ways, and well beyond simply which party's platform I agree most with. It begs questions like "Do I want my MP to sit in the government caucus or an opposition caucus?" and "Which leader do I want representing my vote in a minority or majority parliament?" Given Canada's party finance system I also grant the party with my vote funding and status (although a single vote is a very tiny amount) - which I'm happy to say makes voting for parties that are unlikely to win my riding still palatable. Which is a big deal in my case since the Conservatives are very likely to win, although I hope Minister Ambrose isn't counting her chickens before they hatch.

4. Timeline and Limitations: I have until the morning of October 14 to figure this out, and there are some limits on what the decision can be. First, I'm voting. Even if I decide I hate all the choices, I'm not skipping out on my right and responsibility. I've only ever spoiled a ballot in the Alberta Senate election (and have each time I've been asked to vote in that) and I doubt I will be willing to do that this time around.

Much of this series will be dicatated by the national and local campaigns - their issues and media cycles - but in an effort to provide some structure, here is an outline of what the series will certainly cover during the 36 day election campaign:

Week 1: Establishing the issues that mean the most to me
Week 2: Evaluation of MP and national party performance since 2004
Week 3: Evaluating the party leaders, Edmonton-Spruce Grove profile
Week 4: Evaluating party platforms
Week 5: Decision-making

Labels: federal election, federal politics

I'm oddly drawn to the Liberal Green Shift policy. I blogged about it previously and on the eve of a possible federal election St�phane Dion has announced some additional ~~vote-buying strategies~~ policy changes to the policy.

The Liberals have announced $900 million in funds to help and re-announcing $1.7 billion (over four years, $600 million annually by year four) for a capital cost allowance for green investment. Curiously of the $900 million in new funds is stated to be a part of the original plan. "As part of the Liberal green shift plan, $400 million over four years will be allocated for Emissions Reduction Credits. The credits will be delivered as refundable tax credits, meaning that farmers and forestry companies will get credits for emissions reduction regardless of income." I'm worried I missing something as in the original plan the words "Emissions Reduction Credits" don't appear together once. The closest thing I can find is the Green Rural Credit, but that is a substantially larger planned program than $400 million ($749 in year four alone).

Just as interesting is the $500 million in additional spending. It ends the claim that the Green Shift is neutral, as it will now at least cost $500 million in the bottom line and the last I looked $500 million is not just a lot of money, but is also coming from a decreasing surplus (even deficit, depending on how the government finances go).

Still, I'm happy the Liberals are releasing policy. And I'm looking forward to seeing other parties' platforms and policy as the campaign rolls out. Read the Green Shift here, and look at yesterday's news release here.

Labels: climate change, environment, federal politics

If the Globe and Mail is correct, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson will not be running in the next federal election scheduled for October 2009 but will actually be held next month. And I think that is too bad, as by all accounts he did a fantastic job in both the Harper and Martin cabinet and our government will inevitably miss his experience, regardless if it is a Harper or Dion government. Of course, he likely is better known for crossing the floor than for his work in solving the softwood lumber trade dispute and cleaning up after Maxime Bernier.

I like crossing the floor - of course it shouldn't happen too often but I think it adds a healthy dose of excitement to politics and offers the smallest hint of independence from a party's leadership to an individual politician. I cheered when Solberg, Strahl, Grey and et al. formed the Democratic Representative Caucus, liked when Belinda crossed the floor and even secretly thought it was neat how Garth Turner, Walid Khan and Blair Wilson have turned their poorly dealt hands from their parties into fortunes in others. Admittedly I was happy for the genuinely great guy but sad for the Conservatives when Scott Brison left to become a Liberal cabinet minister in 2004.

Many don't like the idea of switching parties - in our party dominated system it seems disingenuous and so often opportunistic. And I would agree if it happened so often that every day was dominated by a floor-crosser, but when looking at the list of those MPs who have switched the past decade it seems that the majority of circumstances were in the country's best interest as well as the MP's, and I hope it is a possibility that doesn't die.

So thanks for the hard work Minister Emerson, and I wish you the best.

Labels: federal politics

Before I dissect the Liberal policy announcement today I would like to first say kudos to the opposition for actually introducing genuine, honest-to-blog policy. It is well-costed out, it presents its values front and centre and it does not resort to using vague promises of cost-savings from other departments or something otherwise disingenuous to tell people how to pay for it. It is a large carbon tax that will in turn pay for a income tax cut and a serious of other income-supplement programs. Good on them.

However, it is not a simple tax shift. And while I remain a fan of consumption taxes over income taxes, Dion and the Liberals miss a piece of basic math. An income tax cut plus new programs in exchange for a new tax is not a simple shift. Of the $15 billion policy, only $6.7 billion is an income tax cut and $3.3 billion is a corporate tax cut (and actually $500 million of that is lost revenue because the Liberals must be assuming that corporations will produce less profit and therefore pay less taxes). Of the remainder, $4.5 billion is new social spending. Given that the income tax cuts are weighted heavily to the lower end of the income scale as is the majority of the "Benefits for Working Families and Canadians" this new policy in fact is not a tax shift, but a state transfer of wealth from corporations and wealthy Canadians to poorer Canadians. Who will pay for this policy? It isn't polluters - it is the rich. Not that I have a problem with that - I mean I have strong opinions on economics and faith in the free market - but let's not gloss over the fact that is a tax and spend program, not a neutral policy meant to discourage polluting.

On the topic of discouraging polluting (which I'm not 100% convinced it will do), the policy doesn't seem to plan on success. $15.3 billion of revenue at $40 per tonne - what if there are less tonnes? I mean, that's fantastic and wonderful but how are we going to pay for all those cool new tax cuts and Liberal spending promises? I'm just saying...

Like the majority of the critics I think the price increases we are going to see will be far deeper and will be compounded by the fact that the things that will increase most in price as a result of the "green shift": fuel, energy, consumer goods, FOOD are all things whose price is escalating from other global pressures. The price of imported food is about to go through the roof and in a country where the diesel to transport that food will have an additional $0.07 a litre charge on the fuel that drives it to Safeway it is going to be even worse. I also can't imagine this is making the 2,000 laid off workers from Air Canada or the soon-to-be-former employees of GM in Oshawa feel any better about their plight, knowing that hundreds if not thousands more will be joining them.

I really want to like this policy more. I want to reward a political party - particularly one that does not have access to the vast bureaucracy of economists, policy analyists, lawyers and engineers that the government has - for a policy that honestly will probably see me better off and tries to tackle the problem of climate change. But Dion needs to do better to win the election. This policy is difficult politics that is going to need one heck of a salesperson and communicator to get Canadians on-side. As of yet, Dion has not proven to be that kind of guy.

Labels: climate change, federal politics

If it weren't for the fact that the bill is very much alive, I'd suggest I was beating a dead horse by talking about the the copyright amendment act under consideration by the House of Commons. After all, a quick internet search will yield dozens of blogs, newspaper editorials and other commentary on the subject (even a comic book). But the horse is not dead. At least not yet.

When I listened to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner talk about the upcoming changes, I admit my first thought was positive - having downloaded music I seemed to be moving from nebulous waters of legality and ethics into being a copyright violator in $500 (or not, should I choose to follow the letter of the law should the act make it to proclamation). As it turned out, the devil was in the details, and the details transfer a lot of power into corporate hands - specifically foreign corporate hands.

A balanced look - certainly not perfect to either consumers or copyright holders, but perhaps a considered compromise - is shattered when you read that the copyright holder can override the rights afforded by the act by putting in "technological measures" or "digital locks." Once that is done, no copying at all is permitted, under threat of a $20,000 per instance. Whether or not a copyrighted work gets a digital lock or not is completely at the discretion of the copyright holder, and all of the rights that the new act supposedly bestowes on consumers is taken away in a blink of an eye and the compromise is gone in favour of the rights overwhelmingly held by giant multinational entertainment corporations.

And ultimately to what end - will Canada experience a cultural revolution of artists producing without fear of losing revenues to downloading? I doubt it - not that we can't have a renaissance of Canadian culture, but that it has been supressed for the past decade by piracy. Artists have at best mixed opinions on piracy and are increasingly looking at alternative models for getting their works out into the community and getting paid to do so. In the end, the rabid desire to protect copyrighted materials and zealously sue those who steal music and other works is not from artists but corporate labels and studios who see the loss of millions of dollars of their money, money which I believe was a result of overinflated CD prices in the 1990s and DVD prices today.

The rhetorical question at the heart of the amendment should be "What is the point?" Why are we passing this act? If it isn't to encourage and protect artistic works - which in all likelihood will be largely unaffected, then what? I hope the answer isn't just conforming to international expectations or pandering to the US.

Reform is needed - the law is outdated and we need a better balance. Just I'm not convinced Bill C-61 is it.

Labels: copyright, federal politics, net neutrality

Keeping the government alive from day to day sounds like the job of a minister's chief of staff. Or a senior staffer in the PMO. A job for the leader of the official opposition? Apparently. As Stephane Dion said "We'll find a way to not defeat the government" - well awesome I guess. Nothing says leadership like that. I wonder if 10 conservatives don't show up, will Dion whip the 10 Liberals to vote for the budget? With 126 Conservatives in House, 94 Liberals and 83 from other parties, that would mean if no conservatives showed up 84 Liberals would vote in favour of the budget, ensuring its passage? Of course they will show up - they're proud of the budget and should be. Except for possibly axing Millennium. You could have kept that.

Labels: federal politics

The heat is getting to me. Not just because I'm ill, but also because I lack proper air conditioning. Although we fortunately do have an air conditioner, but it requires a new approach to handle its water leaking problem properly.

We are now hip deep in the summer and I note with interest that it is the first summer in awhile that seems relatively free of political heat. Not that there is nothing of note - the always interesting federal scene continues, but we are all fortunately now used to the idea of Prime Minister Harper (who is still doing quite well when you think about it) and the imminent collapse of the government no longer seems quite as real as it did in Harper's first year and a half. I'm not trying to jinx anything, but I note that in April he will surpass Paul Martin's tenure as Prime Minister (two years and four days shy of two months).

Here at home, well, I'm glad its summer. After a few miscues and a drastic change in the political climate here in Alberta the Stelmach government is hitting a few home runs and hopefully take the summer to get back in touch with Albertans and move forward with a fresh agenda in the fall. And hey, I think the change is good - I'm glad the media is being more challenging but the opposition still has a way to go to capture that title of "Government-in-waiting." Expanding and enforcing the smoking ban, bringing the ATA back to the table to talk about the UFL and the largely unreported intelligent use of the unbudgeted surplus all spring to mind.

Still, compared to the last few years where I would say the summer represented a season of discontent in politics, I'm glad to have a rest.

Labels: alberta politics, federal politics

Today Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Liberal Party leader St�phane Dion announced their deal not to run a candidate in either person's riding, making Peter MacKay more vulnerable in his Central Nova riding. But the thing that got me was Dion's quote that this was putting "progress ahead of partisanship." Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a purely (and crass) partisan play, producing the ability to unseat a very important and high-level cabinet minister and make the Liberals seem both more cooperative and environmentally friendly (both of which are ranking high on voters minds these days). Why Peter MacKay? Because not running a Liberal in Calgary Southwest does little to damage MP Stephen Harper. MacKay was simply next on the Liberal list of "man, who do I wish we could defeat..."

Now, I don't think the move is as short-sighted on Dion's part as those Liberals who are saying "Not running a candidate in MacKay's riding is truly the stupidest thing that a group of people who wrote the book on stupid things have done yet. Dion still thinks he's at the convention brokering deals. He better realize elections are one ballot.� It does accomplish many partisan goals, and I think Dion is slightly more electable today than he was yesterday, reeling from Belinda's announcement. But it is an extremely short-term gain that puts Dion in a corner of possibly never running a candidate against May - if she's capable and amazing enough today, I have trouble imagining Dion getting out of doing it in the future. Also, I would hate to be a member of the Central Nova Liberal Riding Association - at least Newmarket-Aurora got to have a Liberal MP in Belinda, even if she was a candidate for the Conservative Party leadership just a year earlier.

I wonder how the Greens feel about this - I imagine they are ecstatic at coming even closer to electing an MP - but they will almost forever be aligned with the Liberals, something which many Canadians, even Joe Comuzzi are eager to be doing the opposite of.

If Dion were really serious about ensuring May win, giving up a safe Liberal Toronto seat would at least not smack so obviously of partisanship.

Labels: federal politics

I can't get over how much this winter has gotten in my head, which I deduce from how much of a sun worshipper I intend to be this spring and summer. The snow here in Edmonton is almost gone (although there are flurries in the forecast for tomorrow). Patience, soon it will be gorgeous.

Speaking of spring, one of the four seasons there might be a federal election, I'm not banking on it for the spring. I think the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper is going to hold off, and I think the Bloc is scared of an election. Especially of Gilles jumps to be the leader of the PQ. But I've been wrong before.

Labels: federal politics, inane

Green Party leader Elizabeth May, who if she picked her place right could be the first Green MP (and a few other star candidates in good location could mean a caucus) has decided on Central Nova, up against the Hon. Peter MacKay. I think it is a mistake. Not the Peter MacKay part, I think the Green leader taking on and either beating or coming close to a senior cabinet minister is a good idea. The bad idea comes where it is a location with half the Green support as the national average. Finding an Ontario or BC Minister would have been a much better idea. Even entering Fortress Alberta would have been more sane in my mind.

Budget Day! Possibly writ dropping day (but the official Duncan projection is not)! And I hear the Parkland teachers' strike might be ending!

Labels: federal politics

A year and a bit after former Chr�tien chief of staff Jean Pelletier was fired as President of Via Rail (twice no less) by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, he is apparently going to go back to work. That's got to be awkward. "So, did I miss anything?" Yeah, a little M. Pelletier. And admittedly, I had the thought that the string of revenge against Paul Martin by Jean Chr�tien continues - which I'm not complaining about.

I feel bad about not blogging of late, so some thoughts:

Ed Stelmach's Throne Speech: Solid and balanced, but I've always been holding my breath for the budget.
Federal election: No idea. Maybe. Maybe not.
The Ryan Smyth trade (I live in Edmonton, so I hear about this a lot): Good hockey management decision, but look at the last seven losses - Kevin Lowe seems to have gutted the Oilers spirit. But for three first rounders...
Work: There is too much of it. There should be less.
Electronic footprints online (how much you learn about me by Googling me, Facebooking me, reading my blog, etc.): There might be too much of it. I don't know if there should be less, but I'm worried about mine - Google certainly returns a fair enough of it.

Labels: federal politics, hockey, misc

I just got back from breakfast with Premier Ed Stelmach, and boy am I pumped. Premier Stelmach spoke about many things, including dealing with growth, innovation and making all-party and public legislative committees, but he also spent a good deal of time talking about a subject that is increasingly meaning a lot to me, the environment.

And he hit upon something that leads me to the conclusion that Alberta and Canada's right-of-centre parties are the ones for the task of improving our environment. Taking action on climate change and other core environmental issues is going to take two things, individual choice and personal responsibility. Making a real difference is going to take more than the state shutting down the economy and using the heavy hand of legislation to force behaviour change. Why? Because it is not industry alone, or even industry principally who is wreaking havoc, it is you and me. And what is needed to make us change our behaviour is leadership rather the application of brute power.

Embracing the conservation and proper stewardship of our environment is a natural fit for any small-c conservative party. When I think of environmental leaders I think of Brian Mulroney here in Canada or Theodore Roosevelt and (*gasp*) Richard Nixon in the United States. Getting there for them did not require any drastic departure from their conservative roots, but embracing the values that led them to office that were at their core conservative values - protecting the environment as a place where families shared their experiences and where children could be children and where food could be grown and cultivated.

Back to my breakfast with Premier Stelmach, who expressed similar notions of the importance of the environment, but emphasized there would be no easy solution.

The reality is that the government will not do this for us. They can't. Look at the Government of Alberta - who uses green power where ever possible and have made their operations as environmentally-friendly as possible. And while industry and the energy sector will certainly have an important role to play, I know the heaviest lifting will be done by individuals. Some of us will stop driving to work everyday (or never start, like me). Some of us will supplement our power usage with solar power. Some of us will become vegetarian because it is has such a lower impact on the land (but not me, as I really love meat - but I'm far more vegetarian now than ever before). Pitching former-Vice President Al Gore's site, climatecrisis.org, you can find dozens of ideas on just reducing your carbon emissions.

The point is not everyone is going to be forced to do all of those things, because that isn't going to work - but we all have to do something. We will all have to change how we live in some way. And we are going to need leadership from our leaders, not heavy handed legislation for just one industry (or all industry, exempting individuals). Who best to do this? Well, obviously I think Ed Stelmach is the choice, and I hope Stephen Harper does the same with his plan on climate change to the House of Commons.

Labels: alberta politics, environment, federal politics

I was reading with interest the great column by Doug Saunders in today's Globe and Mail, A World of Maher Arars, which looked at the unfolding political situation in Italy where right-of-centre, normally pro-American and anti-terrorist politicians are working to bring down Romano Prodi's left government over pro-American policies like involvement in Afghanistan and allowing American bases on Italian soil to continue and expand. I won't steal the column's thunder and reiterate points that Saunders makes much better than I could, but it did remind me of another headline I saw this week (the Edmonton Sun... shudder) which had Prime Minister Harper's quote that Arctic sovereignty should be one of the lasting legacies of his government - link to the story. Promoting our sovereignty over the Arctic is perhaps the policy move that would most piss off the United States who rely upon being allowed to slink under our Arctic waters in submarines for their nuclear strategy.

Now, I've always been one who has said that Harper's conservativism has far more in common with the right of centre movement in Australia and New Zealand than anything in the United States, but it is becoming increasingly vogue for right of centre politicians in Canada and Europe to at the very least distance themselves from the United States and George W. Bush. I am certain that electoral gains has a lot to do with it, in Canada it is simply good politics to tastefully bash the USA. But I think there is ultimately more to it.

Another interesting fault line to watch is the conservatives in the United Kingdom (where I would very comfortably vote Conservative). Environmentalist, pro-American but certainly not blindly so, and looking to good conservative policies (as well as an increased look at improving the quality of life, something which should not be owned solely by the left of any political landscape). David Cameron's view of the United States may go even further than "We must be steadfast not slavish in how we approach the special relationship... Questioning the approach of the US administration, trying to learn the lessons of the past five years, does not make you anti-American."

As the American primaries heat up, and the expressions of post-Bush Republican policy start coming out, I would not be shocked to see even more rejections and even attacks by other conservatives outside of the US on what might come out by McCain, Giuliani and others.

Labels: federal politics

It is admittedly old news, but I was pretty shocked that Dion brought up the sponsorship scandal again, shocked enough I wanted to blog about it but didn't find the time until a Saturday morning. Marc-Yvan C�t� was the guy who accepted $120,000 of my money (well, likely not - it was in 1997 and I was a first year university student, so I likely hadn't started paying much in taxes, but you get my point) and distributed it to Liberal campaign workers in Qu�bec. The only thing I can think of asking Dion is why? And why now? Even if C�t� is innocent (which he may be to a degree, all the same if I were picking up brown paper envelopes stuffed with cash in restaurants, my spidey-senses would tell me that something amiss might be going on) why muse about this now? Is C�t� that great of a political workhorse that the damage caused by bringing up the scandal again is mitigated by the sheer awesomeness of his skills? The partisan in me hopes Dion keeps doing things like this, but I'm not that partisan - I hope Dion buries the sponsorship scandal and ensures the Liberals finish paying back my money.

Labels: federal politics

On the Conservative government's first birthday Prime Minister Stephen Harper made Liberal Senate Leader Dan Hays a member of the Privy Councillor. I must confess I don't fully get it, but it does mean Senator Hays will be the Honourable Dan Hays, P.C. at the next Stampede breakfast (and provided I'm not on vacation this time around, hopefully I'll be there at his famous breakfast in Calgary).

If Stephen is watching (or any other future Prime Minister) I would like to state that I too would like very much to be a privy councillor. I am not picky like some that I get a Ministry or anything, just I like the idea of being honourable in title in addition to my actions, and adding P.C. at the end of my name.

Labels: federal politics

It has long been known that the marriage of convenience between the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper and the Hon. Peter MacKay is tempestuous at best - not that it hasn't worked out for them of course. Harper is now the Prime Minister and MacKay is a prominent minister who has a better shot at being Prime Minister than he did when he was leader of the fifth party in the house.

Today MacKay came out and announced that the government was not about to include natural resource revenues in equalization calculations. He said "That's completely false. There's always rumours and particularly pre-budget discussions and a flurry of activity around what may or may not come." The rumours to the contrary were very strong but it is entirely possible that either the government never planned to go down that road or was planning on it but backed off thanks to opposition in Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In any case, come the federal budget, we will see if MacKay is right or is so far removed from the centre of government and the PMO that he wasn't even told, let alone consulted, on breaking an election promise.

Labels: federal politics

Twitter Updates