Of food, technology, movies, music, and travel—or whatever else strikes my fancy
Follow-up to Almost too stupid to believe, from this weekend’s Globe and Mail:
Nobody expected the little people to win. Yet this week in the hinterland north of Toronto, a ragtag alliance of farmers, natives and knitting grannies saved an aquifer with the purest water on earth. Joe Friesen explains how the subjects of Tiny Township defeated the King of Simcoe politics and all but killed the dump.
From 2025, here’s a current link with more information: A Story to be Told: The Story of Site 41.
So some months ago, a blue-chip corporate advisory panel recommend the following tax policies to the Ontario government:
At the time, all were dismissed by Dwight Duncan, Liberal Finance Minister. And I thought of posting on it at the time, that it was sort of unfortunate they were ignoring that advice.
Now that the situation has changed, I guess I owe some kudos. Especially as I see all the commentary and poll numbers about the sales tax harmonization as a “tax grab”. This isn’t going to be popular.
Now it isn’t, from what I can tell, actually a tax increase for the government overall, as it’s being combined with lower corporate and personal taxes.
But the government is not going to get any credit for that. People will notice paying the PST on things they didn’t have to before, and they won’t notice that their pay cheque (if they still get one) is now a little bigger (unless it isn’t for other reasons).
So, it was kind of a brave move.
Don’t want to overstate that—they do have the comfort of fairly weak opposition parties at the moment, and they were able to defuse criticism by keeping the PST off hot-button items like books, tampons, and diapers. And of course, all those cheques most will be getting that first year.
Still. Going from 0 to 2 out 3 ain’t bad. (Got that song in your head now?)
So CTV News today was presenting a story about a protectionist “Buy American” bill that the US Congress has suddenly passed. And some MP (not sure the party) suggested that Canada should pass its own “Buy Canada”, to which I found myself replying, “Protectionism doesn’t really help stimulate the economy” only to find Stockwell Day, on TV, saying virtually the same thing, at the same time.
Dah!
Anyway. I can’t seem to bring myself into a lather over this budget and the projected deficit. It does seem a rather large deficit, but then again, there is an awful lot of opinion out there that stimulus is needed and deficits must be tolerated. Those opinions could be wrong, but I sure don’t have the knowledge to dispute it.
But greatly amused this morning when maverick CBC economics reporter Michael Helinka (not in favor of deficit spending, by the way) expressed pure amazement that host Matt Galloway actually believed that Conservative governments try to avoid deficits. “That is simply not true. Republicans, Conservatives—they do not balance budgets. Liberals and Democrats do. Conservative governments have that reputation, but it’s simply not borne out by the facts.”
Yes, I know, I’ve said it before, but it’s hard to let go of: Stimulus package or no, we would have been in deficit anyway, because the Conservatives frittered away the surplus with stupidly timed tax cuts and silly one-time expenditures. That’s what Conservatives do.
So I don’t know what it means that I agreed with Stockwell Day.
And, I suppose it doesn’t speak well of me that I also agree with faux Michael Ignatieff in this clip from 22 Minutes. But why don’t Canadians spend some time educating themselves about how the Parliamentary system in this country works? (Not to mention which parties are best at managing economies.) That way Conservatives could stop so easily manipulating their ignorance.
A few odds and sods here…
Someone asked if I was if I was OK with Michel Ignatieff being “installed” as Liberal leader. And I have to say, yes, I’m just fine with it, thanks. I don’t have that much fondness for the guy—took a real dislike to him during the last Liberal leadership convention—but whatever.
At least the Liberals did what I suggested by rapidly dismissing M. Dion and accelerating their leadership process. By contrast, the Conservatives never listen to my advice. So big props for that.
And frankly, now, or in May, what’s the difference? He was going to be the next leader anyway. I like Bob Rae better, but the man has serious baggage from leading Ontario during a recession. I can just imagine the Conservative attack ads on that theme.
With limited options and time, the Liberals took the best available course. Just hope this coronation works out better for them than the Turner / Martin ones.
So, I’m OK with Iggy, but I’m not the least bit OK with Izzie. Stevens. Grey’s Anatomy?
Even if you don’t watch the show, you may have heard about its recent, most gallactically stupid plot line ever, wherein Izzie first has visions of (that was OK), then starts having sex with, her dead fiancee! No! Not OK! This isn’t Buffy! Dead is dead in this series.
Then I realized I never really liked Izzie anyway (apparently she was a great character in season 1, but since I’ve been watching this series, she’s been awful), so I could just fast-forward all of her scenes, then just enjoy the rest of the show.
That worked OK for one episode, but then I ran into problem 2: Melissa George. Introduced about the same time as the dead fiancee, she plays this super-annoying old friend of Meredith’s, now an intern at Seattle Grace. Fast-forwarding her as well proved a lot trickier, especially since she started flirting with Callie, whom I really like.
But wait… Why is Callie flirting with another girl? After doing a pretty good job of contrasting Hahn, who was just realizing she was a lesbian, and Callie, who wasn’t—but was just really taken with Hahn, this turn of events is nonsensical. (Melissa George, you are no Jessica Hahn.)
So Izzie, Melissa, Callie, and Alex (too many scenes with Izzie) are out, and now I’m little troubled about this strange new relationship between McSteamy and “little Grey”. Much more of this stuff, and there won’t be anything left worth fast-forwarding to.
As for more worthy television….
One more thing I liked more on the Canadian dance series: Each of the four finalist got a profile and moment in the spotlight before the results were announced. Despite the really excessive blah blah that resulted, it was much better than what happens to the runner-up on the US series—they are unceremoniously shunted aside while the winner is showered with confetti. Always makes me feel bad for them.
(And congratulations, Nico. A deserving winner.)
As for our less deserving “winner”, Mr. Harper…
I can’t seem to bring myself to get that outraged about the new Conservative Senate appointments. P-M’s are allowed to appoint Senators. So he previously said he’d rather reform the House than appoint them. Small potatoes, really. I’m much more concerned about them stalling on Climate Change talks and underestimating the degree to which Canada is at risk from sub-prime mortgages.
I will say it is unfortunate the P-M is still busying himself with political games instead of dealing with real problems like those. But it’s unfortunately not surprising.
D’oh Canada! Survey reveals Canadians barely understand their political system [This was a valid link at the time…]
Well, it’s disappointing. Truly, the GG’s precedents for this were thin on the ground, so this decision was as valid as the other, but it’s still disappointing. It amounts to a reprieve for the Conservatives. Now they can wander off and cobble together a budget that takes all the best ideas from the coalition and present it and have the other parties look silly for voting against it.
Of course, it’s good if this actually reins the Conservatives in. But it’s unfortunate that it means we’ll likely continue to have a Prime Minister whose character is so clearly deficient, so far from what the country needs at this time.
And also, can we afford to have no federal action for two full months? Not exactly the best time for them to be off on vacation on our dime.
Well, it’s certainly engaging many Canadians in a way I’ve rarely seen before. Thousands of comments on news articles, pages full of letters to the editor… There’s very far from being a consensus of opinion on this. And more thoughtful commentary than I would have expected.
“It’s a coup, it’s undemocratic, it’s a power grab, we didn’t vote for a coalition…”
Realizing my impatience with it will not make this opinion go away (especially with the Conservatives running ads on this theme), we elected a Parliament. The way we always do. We do not elect Prime Ministers. The elected members of Parliament can organize themselves in whatever combination they wish to form effective government. Coalitions, while rare in Canada, are perfect valid and completely in line with our democratic system.
“We need to have another election first.”
I actually can’t believe some people are of this opinion. Shall we just convert every vote in the House to an election then? For heaven’s sake! We just had a freakin’ election. We can’t afford the time, expense, and sheer aggravation only to likely end up with pretty much the same thing.
These are the people we elected. Let them find a way to govern for a little while, one way or another.
“I don’t want Dion as Prime Minister”
Yeah. Much as we don’t literally vote for Prime Ministers, I still think Canadians clearly expressed that they didn’t want Mr. Dion to be P-M. Hence his resignation from the leadership post the next day. Realizing they didn’t have a lot of time, I still wish the Liberals had gone with another interim leader for this coalition. (I wish Mr. Dion had recognized that could be in the best interest of the country as well.)
And regardless of what happens next, the Liberals seriously need to think about electing a new leader sooner than May. That’s too far away. Frankly—and even though I don’t particularly like Ignatief—I still think any of the three Liberal contenders would be a better bet than anything else on offer from the other parties (Duceppe’s separatism and May’s lack of a seat in the House rather hobbling these otherwise decent options).
And speaking of Duceppe…
“I don’t like that the coalition includes separatists”
The Bloc are annoying fact of Parliamentary life, but the math says the only way to bring the Conservatives down is to get Bloc support. And if it weren’t for the Bloc, the Conservatives would have their majority, and the other parties would have lost their financial capacity to fight them in future elections.
So while sympathetic with that point, me, I can live with them being involved. (Just like Stephen Harper could back when he was in opposition.) They wouldn’t actually sit in government; they’d just agree not to bring it down for 18 months. Seems an acceptable compromise.
This crisis is Stephen Harper’s doing. Period. He has not taken responsibility for that, and he has not shown one iota of remorse for it.
Now that the Conservatives have blinked, it’s more complicated.
They’ve dropped the funding cut to political parties. And also the ban on the right to strike. And, they pledge to bring forward a budget, with stimulus package, earlier, in January.
And yet the coalition agreement was signed, with Dion as Prime Minister, members of the NDP in cabinet, and the Bloc agreeing to support it for at least a year.
Politically, I don’t know how wise this is. The unpopular leader, the deal with separatists, leaving the party with the single most seats out in the cold—it’s just going to make a lot of people really angry.
On the other hand… It really is cooperation, isn’t it? And isn’t that exactly what a lot of people say they want? Three parties agreeing to work together for the good of Canada. Of course, their motives are nowhere near pure. But, it’s still a little refreshing.
And, I kind of like some the policy statements I’ve heard from the coalition side so far. Dropping the NDP demand to cancel corporate tax cuts (thank goodness). A stimulus package sooner. A blue chip economic advisory committee. Possibly restoring arts funding. Elizabeth May, Senator.
On the other hand (I clearly need more hands), it’s really hard to have great confidence in this group. The Liberals are still in a fair amount of disarray, and the NDP campaigned on a completely unrealistic platform. One hopes the NDP would learn from actually governing, but Canada isn’t in the best position right now for them to practice on. And Dion, despite some definite virtues, has not exactly shown himself to be a great leader.
I guess there isn’t any way for us to get Barack Obama as leader without actually joining the US? No? Well, OK then…
In this article I just found [link no longer valid!], Andrew Steele lays out Harper’s options.
“May you live in interesting times.” Really is a curse, eh?
Well, that didn’t take long.
I actually cannot believe that Parliament has just opened, and Stephen Harper already has me in a blind rage.
Step 1: Economic statement focus
Earlier in the week, I heard that the government’s economic statement was to focus on preserving a small surplus, plus some initial cuts.
I thought that was a very strange approach in a time when most economists, including conservative (small “c”) ones, seemed to be saying that spending and stimulus were the most important priorities at this time.
Still, I was only mildly irritated at this point. Sure, it suggested the Conservatives were bad economic managers. But I already knew that, and there is some comfort in being right. Plus, I still have a job, for the time being at least, and it’s Christmas. So why fuss about politics now?
Step 2: Cutting federal funding for political parties
This, I was not happy about, even before all kerfuffle arose.
Bully for the Conservatives that they’re so great at fund-raising they don’t need any help from the taxpayer. That’s what happens your party is the one that attracts most of the rich people.
But parties who attract more lower-income people who can’t afford to donate (NDP, Greens), or are currently in some disarray (hello, Liberals), still have the right to exist. No, more than the right; they must exist, or we don’t have a democracy. We have a Conservative dictatorship.
Step 3: The opposition rises
That is some hubris that caused Harper to think the other parties would actually vote for their own demise.
Now, it may well be politically wise for the other parties to say it’s the economic statement itself, and not the cutting of federal funding to political parties, that is the tipping point. I’ll come back to that.
But my opinion is that the party funding alone is enough reason to defeat this bill.
If the Conservatives don’t want their share of that funding, they can give theirs back and dare the other parties to do the same (knowing that they won’t). That way the Conservatives can get on their high horse, where they like to be, without kneecapping their opposition.
But party funding probably is a dicey thing to defeat a government on, so the opposition is instead focusing on the content of the economic statement. And frankly, there is plenty to be against there, too.
But even at this point, I wasn’t quite in a blind rage. I was really kind of excited that the opposition was showing some teeth, and acting cooperative, and refusing to roll over for the bully at the helm. Until…
Step 4: Harper claims a coalition government is undemocratic
While we have been working on the economy, the opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it.
Stephen Harper
Overturn the results? No consent of voters? Makes me crazy ever time I read or hear it.
Mr. Harper, the majority of Canadians voted against you and your party.
The majority of Canadians voted for four center-left parties who agree on a number of major issues.
Three of these parties won seats. Two are discussing forming a coalition government, with the backing of the third.
This could be the closest Canada has ever had to the makeup of the government reflecting their actual votes.
Step 5: ?
Who knows how this plays out. But if the Conservatives don’t change their statement, they deserve to go down over it. And that better not lead to an election!
In the midst of a global economic slowdown that may plunge Canada into a deep recession and threaten the livelihood of many Canadians, it would helpful if there were some adults in Ottawa. … While there is certainly a crisis, there is no semblance of crisis leadership here, and therefore no chance for national cohesion. The responsibility for that lies squarely on the shoulders of Stephen Harper.
— Globe and Mail editorial, How to compound an economic crisis
Martin Luther King dreamed of the day when men would be judged “by the content of their character.” By that benchmark, Stephen Harper has proved himself to be a nasty little man.
— Peter Blaikie, letter to the Editor, Muzzling the opposition
The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper’s strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together.
He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad.
— Jeffrey Simpson, Economist with a tin heart, politician with a tin ear
Whatever the debatable merits of distancing parties from taxpayers, this isn’t the time or way to change payments peripheral to dangers facing Canadians. It won’t save a single job, meaningfully reduce the ruling party’s runaway spending, or somehow make the democratic exercise cost free.
— James Travers, Harper has needlessly provoked this crisis
Woke up in a panic
Like somebody fired a gun
I wish I could be dreaming
But the nightmare’s just begun
Ever do that? Wake up from a dead sleep in full panic mode, heart pounding, mind racing?
It’s happened to me a few times in the past couple weeks, and it’s quite unpleasant. I do not recommend it. And as sleep deprivation accumulates, the brain gets less and less effective. For the first time, I feel I have just a tiny understanding of what parents of babies and young children go through.
Don’t know why I feel so bad
Is it the weather, or am I going mad?
Don’t know why I feel this way
I don’t know whether I’m coming or I’m going
Can’t cover up, ’cause it’s obviously showing
Normally, I’m a fairly calm person, not given to emotional outbursts. So the number of times I’ve heard “You’re stressing me out!” in the past few weeks must be some sort of record.
I didn’t actually know, before, that stress was catching.
“Nice to know you’re human, too,” I also heard. Well that’s over-rated, I say.
Standing on an island
In the middle of the road
Traffic either side of me
Now which way do I go?
I should have stayed at home
I should have never come outside
Now I wish I’d never tried
To cross to the other side
So what’s been bothering me? Well, I’m not going to say. It’s personal, and it’s nothing dire—no cancer, no house burned down. It’s just stuff, that’s led to a lot more introspection than I’m used to, which is clearly bad for me. Frankly, I’m getting quite sick of myself.
Lyin’ awake in a cold, cold sweat
The Kinks: State of Confusion
Am I overdrawn, am I going into debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get
No escape from this state of confusion I’m in
And anyway, it’s gone beyond anything real, and I actually am panicking about going in debt, even though I have no real reason to do so, upcoming trip to Europe or no. And hearing all this bad economic news—not helpful! I’m like a walking Dow Jones average, overreacting to every new bit of information.
I thought, maybe a news break would help, then noticed how much news permeates my life. I wake up to CBC news (business news at 6:45), get up and get the paper (hard to get to the Arts section without passing by Business news with all its downward red arrows), cook dinner to CTV News 1: Your News first! (Business report at 6:30 pm).
So anyway, that’s why I haven’t been writing about politics much. But I suppose I should say something about the federal election results.
Given how bad the Liberal campaign was, it’s fortunate Conservatives managed to lose the majority on their own, scaring the Quebecois with thoughts of arts cuts and 14-year-olds in jail. But they did get a stronger minority, one that will take two parties to bring them down. Stéphane Dion didn’t dither in doing the right thing and stepping down, though this means the Liberals will again be spending all their money on getting a new leader, and not on winning power. There’s been lots of talk of uniting the Left. I’d love to see it, but won’t hold my breath.
Most disappointing for me had to be the local results, losing two excellent Liberal MPs: Andrew Telegdi (by 43 votes!) and Karen Redman. Redman lost to yet another “holy roller”—a social conservative, against gay marriage, pro-life, etc. So the whole region is now “served” by undistinguished Conservative members who will be as muzzled in office as they were running for it.
At least south of border, knock wood and all that, election results are looking to be much more promising. In fact, I was listening to Mr. Obama read from his own Audacity of Hope book today. It was very relaxing. He’s so smart, so well spoken.
It did, indeed, provide me some escape from the state of confusion I’m in.
Now, I don’t think animal welfare should be the top issue in this campaign, but Canada’s penalties for animal abuse crimes are a little archaic, don’t you think? And the public gets regularly outraged when an appalling act of cruelty against an animal gets met with a slap on the wrist, as that’s all the law allows for.
So, I guess there is one area where I think we could get a little tougher on crime.
Anyway, WSPA sent a survey to all five major parties to ask for their stand, their platform, on animal welfare issues.
But without even looking up the results, can you guess? Can you guess which one party refused to answer any of the questions?
You got it. The Conservatives aren’t even willing to make a statement against kitten abuse.
Where’s the platform—under the sweater?
Jack Layton to Stephen Harper
Generally, I have to say, I hate voting strategically. However stupid it is in our “first past the post” system (and I still haven’t quite forgiven Ontarians for voting against changing it), I prefer to vote for something than against something else.
That said, I’m must admit to being relieved, this election, that the party I really do want to vote for also happens to be the party with by far the best odds of defeating the Conservatives in this riding.
But I come to this topic from an email I received from the environmental group, Just Earth.
What’s an environmentalist to do in the federal election? Even for card-carrying Greens, it is complicated. The party worst on the environment in general, and climate change in particular, is the Conservative party. All four others are better, although they differ on particulars. The Liberals have the excellent Green Shift plan, which the New Democrats reject, but the NDP is better on clean energy.
Strategic voting will be the option for many. A website has been launched that will help voters make a rational choice (www.voteforenvironment.ca). A riding by riding breakdown identifies races where the Conservatives won by a small margin, and are therefore vulnerable, and ridings where they are a close second and a threat. Some 60 ridings will make the difference, argues this (somewhat incognito) website.
With split votes, this would be the result: Conservative 147 seats, Liberal 76, NDP 34, Green 0, Bloc 49, independent 2.
If we “vote smart,” this would be the result: Conservative 97, Liberal 109, NDP 46, Green 1, Bloc 53, independent 2.
Not easy, though. Imagine being a federalist in Quebec faced with the “strategic” choice of with voting Bloc or getting another Conservative elected!
Also interesting was a report from the Sierra Club, which compares and grades the party’s environmental platforms as follows:
I must say, their assessment of the differences between Green, Liberal, and NDP on this front were smaller than I thought.
(Remember when votes used to get split on the right side of the political spectrum, too? I really miss those days.)
Cultureguru's Weblog 