It's Time To Blow Up The Party System

I have never been a political partisan.  That isn't to say I don't have political beliefs, or positions.  But I simply don't buy into the broad idea of being a member of a political party.  My own politics are fairly complex, and I don't wish to find myself in the position of having to conform with some "party policy" or another on the basis of creating the appearance of unity.  

However, over the last decade or so, I have observed a disturbing change in the nature of our political parties in Canada. They have become businesses - businesses that sell access to power.  Perhaps most disturbingly, they do so on the backs of what is largely a volunteer workforce.  While a small number of people are employed by these parties, the vast majority of the work of fundraising (cash flow) is really done by the active volunteer base.  Meanwhile, the proposition to the voter is "if our party gets into power, we can give you what you want".  

This is true of all parties - everybody is jockeying for a position of influence somewhere.  However, it has also created a more disturbing industry of groups that are attempting to control the parties themselves.  Don't get me wrong, factions in a party are a normal social consequence of putting a group of people together to accomplish a common goal.  I'm talking about organizations like Campaign Life who have spent decades organizing their base in a bid to assert covert control over the Conservative Party. 

But there's more to this whole picture. 

Stealing Democracy Part XII: More Revelations On Quebec, and Bill C-23

As more incidents of voter suppression in Quebec come to the surface, the picture starts to become a little more clear.  Yesterday, we learned about a Green Party candidate who has been denied registration as a voter.

The issue comes down to the interpretation of "domiciled":

The debate over who can and can’t vote in Quebec stems from different interpretations of the domicile rule, which requires all electors to have been domiciled in Quebec for six months. 

Stéphane Beaulac, a professor in the faculty of law at the Université de Montréal, explains the domicile rule is based on intention. 

“The difference between residing somewhere and being domicile somewhere is that to be domicile, you need to be a resident, but have the intention of making it the centre of your life, of where you live.” 

Beaulac said that a person can have more than one residence, but only one domicile. He said it’s up to Quebec revision officers to make that distinction.

Stealing Democracy Part XI: Quebec As A Model For C-23

What kind of fuckery is this?

I had heard the Quebec had made some changes to the requirements for registering as a voter.  I had no idea that it was the inspiration for C-23's voter id requirements which I have analyzed in depth already.

She, again asked me what documentation I had, and I again began to list it out when she told me that my documentation did not seem to be adequate. I pulled out the voter's manual that had been mailed to me by the organization for which she worked and pointed out that it said I merely needed two identity papers to register, and that I had the birth certificate and drivers license which were given as examples. 

She pointed to the Can You Vote section where the conditions for voting were listed. She said that I did not meet the third condition, "domiciled in Quebec for at least the past six months" and that my documents did nothing to prove that. I insisted that I had gone online to find out the additional documentation I'd need and had come prepared with bank statements and letters from businesses and elected representatives. She rejected that such information had been put out by her organization.

I cannot believe how arbitrary this sounds.  Basically the woman at the voter registration office is arbitrarily deciding that perfectly legitimate documentation is somehow inadequate.

This is nothing less than deliberately throwing obstacles in the way of someone participating in our electoral system.  It is as much a violation of the basic tenets of democracy in this nation as the voter id and giving control over the voting stations to partisan employees is in Bill C-23.

Electoral reform needs to make easier for more people to engage in our electoral process, not shut more people out.  Marois' electoral reforms in Quebec do not do that, and neither will Bill C-23.

Don Cherry: A Study Of What's Wrong With Political Discourse In Canada

So, "right wing" politics in Canada took another turn towards the shrieking insanity of the so-called "Tea Party" in the US this week. When Don Cherry gave a speech at Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's inauguration/swearing in/whatever you call it, he said the following:

In a rambling speech meant to introduce the new mayor, Cherry touched on media articles that have criticized him in the past "because I go to church" and "because I honour the troops."

The former NHL coach, now a commentator, told Ford that was the type of criticism he will face as mayor.

"This is what you'll be facing, Rob, with these left-wing pinkos. They scrape the bottom of the barrel."

In closing, Cherry said Ford would be "the greatest mayor that this city has seen — and put that in your pipes, you left-wing kooks."

It seemed at least some of Cherry's remarks were directed at members of council — those who have been critical of the new mayor.

Along with recent comments in Michael Coren's column, we get a very clear picture of what's really wrong with political discourse in Canada:

Also, why the New York Times, among others, refused to print the climategate leaks as they were “gathered illegally,” but so relished printing the WikiLeaks information.

The answer, of course, is as apparent as a liberal’s hypocrisy. The climategate e-mails showed some of the zealots behind the global warming industry to be dishonest and malicious, and so discredited the left.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the supposed "conservatives" on Canada's political right have dragged discourse about how Canada should be governed, and where we are to go as a nation in the next few years into the mud pits of name calling and jingoism.

The discussion is no longer about policy and direction, it's about invective and who can cut down their opponent with the most vicious one-liners. Accusations of hypocrisy are common; discussions of facts and evidence have been replaced by not just spin, but blame dodging and name calling.

Don Cherry is not a problem in his own right - he is merely a symptom. The problems are far more fundamental than he is ever likely to attempt to understand.

Harper The UnAccountable

It's not like it's a secret - Stephen Harper's secrecy and heavy handedness makes him by far the most overbearing Prime Minister that Canada has had. (at least in this writer's memory)

To date, he has prorogued parliament twice, called a snap election once - all in a bid to continue clinging to power.

Rumours flying around Parliament Hill suggest that another prorogation is in the works - until after the Olympics - which would conveniently let the Afghanistan prisoner issue go quiet, and give the government more time to dispose of potentially embarrassing documents by declaring them "matters of national security".

“I can't imagine what reason they would have to prorogue the House,” she said, “especially when it's the Conservatives who make such a big deal of their legislation and their crime agenda and things being held up.”

Bills that have not received Royal Assent die when Parliament is prorogued. That means legislation, including the consumer protection act that the Conservatives have urged the Senate to pass without amendments, would have to be reintroduced in the new session.

Yes, therein lies the rub. The Con$ keep disrupting parliament, and then they turn around and whine that they can't get their legislation through. I think that tells us a lot about what they would do if they weren't limited by their minority status in the House of Commons - and it isn't good for Canada.

[Update]
Just consider what the HarperCon$ are doing in Copenhagen, especially in response to this little gem, which simply proves that they are going to continue to play denialist, and allow one of the biggest contributors in Canada to run unchecked.

After the business in Afghanistan, and now this, it's hard to see how Harper's actions on the world stage are in any way "in Canada's national interest".
[/Update]

Harper Attempts To Politicize The Civil Service

If you haven't heard about this, it's because it's another one of Dear Leader's lovely little partisan games - the kind of shenanigan that Harper doesn't want us to know about.

The Accelerated Economist Training Program invites highly educated people to develop careers in the federal public service, starting at a senior level.
...
But this year, for the first time, candidates need to provide more than a list of qualifications and good marks. They also must to write 1,000 words on the federal government's last budget, promoted widely as the Economic Action Plan.

This is so blatantly political it's ridiculous. I'd put pretty good money down on a wager that says this little turd of a question came down from the political side of things in Ottawa.

No doubt, Harper would dearly love to put a bunch of Reformatories into convenient ranks of the bureaucracy so that the Con$ could undermine another government.

If this question was really about evaluating someone's analytical abilities, there are a hundred other essay questions that could be asked, none of which imply to the candidate that they need to toadie to the fantasies of the current government.

Oh ... That's Gotta Sting

It's a tough life for Stephen Harper. Not only is he quickly descending to depths of unpopularity not plumbed since Mulroney's era, but Mulroney himself left office with the dubious honor of being Canada's most unpopular Prime Minister.

It seems that someone in Ignatieff's office clued into the idea that Mulroney might be a wedge to divide the Conservatives:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff offered unexpected praise for Brian Mulroney Monday and criticized Stephen Harper for failing to show the veteran Tory due respect – comments calculated to exploit unprecedented public bickering in Conservative government ranks over the former prime minister.

Tory MPs and senators have been quarrelling this past week over how the Harper government is treating Mr. Mulroney as a public inquiry begins probing his dealings with businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

Actually, this is fairly decent tactics. Mulroney is spectre in most voter's minds, and his image is what will scare people - especially in Ontario. The comments also play against the Conservatives in Quebec, where Mulroney is still held in high regard by many.

“A lot of Canadians have a lot of respect for Mr. Mulroney's strengths, and you have to show some respect. It's simple. And I believe that Mr. Harper is lacking respect towards Mr. Mulroney,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters in Calgary.

It has been no secret that the HarperCon$ have been trying desperately to distance themselves from Mulroney, and in doing so have been dividing their own ranks on parliament hill rapidly. Harper's tactics play well in Alberta - but in Alberta, it's possible to get a bale of hay elected as long it has a Conservative nomination.

Gearing Up For An Election, Steve?

So, I see that the HarperCon$ have decided to start combining issues ... in this case by re-introducing their legislation to kill the gun registry, but in the Senate this time.

Realistically, the last two attempts to pass this legislation failed in the House of Commons because the HarperCon$ either allowed it to fail by taking no steps to bring any of the opposition onside - mostly so they could whine and bellyache about how "dysfunctional" parliament was.

This latest maneuver is little more than an attempt to get the Conservative "base" in Alberta wound up over two issues at the same time. They'll find it particularly easy to whine about how the evil senate gets in the way of government legislation, and because there is little chance that this legislation will ever get to the House of Commons before parliament is dissolved next, it means that the Con$ can whine further about how "undemocratic" that is. Ignoring, of course, the fact that the legislation has about as much chance of passing in the House of Commons as it did the previous two times.

While this maneuver will play well in Alberta, I'm less convinced that it will make that much difference elsewhere in the country. Frankly, given some of the horrendous legislation the HarperCon$ have proposed, I'm glad that the Senate has been able to put the brakes on some of it.

He Just Had To Poke Someone In The Eye

I was waiting for confirmation of this, but one of the clauses in the budget reduced transfer payments to Newfoundland/Labrador.

You had to know that Harper was going to find an outlet for his instinctive urge to kick somebody around. Since he learned that kicking the opposition too hard was going to get him dethroned, he's decided to start exacting retribution from provinces whose premiers are "difficult" for him to deal with.

He's already written off Quebec entirely - mostly with some really stupid comments about arts funding in Quebec. So, now he's set his sights on Danny Williams. Make no mistake about it, this is another of Harper's politics of retribution maneuvers. Danny Williams has made it clear that he thinks Harper is bad for Newfoundland, and now Harper - in his zeal to make "political points" - is about to prove to Newfoundlanders just how bad he is for them. Talk about self fulfilling prophecy.

As for Ignatieff, he's got an interesting challenge ahead. If he's smart, Ignatieff will do nothing substantive to the Newfoundland MPs who are planning to vote against the budget. He might censure them in caucus or something relatively minor like that, but that's as far as he should take it.

By doing so, he will signal a couple of things that are important. First, he will demonstrate that he can respect the reasons for this difference of opinion; second, he will also show Canadians that he is not a vindictive autocrat - something which will distinguish him from his counterpart currently residing at 24 Sussex.

Don't Plan on a Spring Election

Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing a spring election, if this is correct ... nor will we see a coalition taking the reins in Ottawa.

Mr. Ignatieff has said the Liberals would support a “modest” temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what “modest” means.

The Prime Minister, who met with Mr. Ignatieff on Monday, appeared to include the Liberals in his definition of an emerging compromise on the budget, which is needed to keep his minority government alive.

Unless, of course, Harper can't resist another "poke in the eye" partisan maneuver when Parliament reconvenes - in which case, I fully expect the opposition to take him down.

[Update: 7:52]:
I suspect that this is more posturing - although it is interesting to note that Ignatieff is not parroting the line that Layton and Duceppe have been using today.

While I suspect the coalition could be revived fairly quickly if need be, I don't think that's where this situation is likely headed.
[/Update]

More Penny-a-Point Partisanship Games

Brought to you from the oh-so 'open, accountable' government of PMSH - Electing Bloc MP may have cost town $2-million subsidy ... because in Stephen Harper's Canada, everything is an opportunity for a partisan maneuver.

Radio-Canada quotes sources from the office of Tory MP Christian Paradis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Quebec lieutenant, as saying the Conservative candidate Claude Durand would have had a better chance of netting the subsidy than the current Bloc MP Paule Brunelle.

Radio-Canada reported that a spokesperson for Mr. Paradis confirmed the federal government wouldn't be granting the subsidy.

How unsurprising - don't vote for Harper, well, his brown-shirts will make sure that for the duration of his government that your region suffers - greatly. (Of course, this is no surprise coming from Alberta - if you aren't on the Con$ party membership rolls, good luck getting your MP to even answer a letter)

On a campaign stop in Trois-Rivieres during the elections, Mr. Harper told Le Nouvelliste that the grant money had already been allocated and that he “was looking forward to working with a Conservative MP.”

Ah - I see Harper's word only extends as far as his party's reach. Vote against him, and you shall be punished.