Why is it always a chore to get our government to do the right thing? Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street from Toronto to Tuktoyaktuk knows what the right thing is and what should be done but our elected officials don't?
From Letting the Auditor General see MP's expenses to the Afghan Detainee "scandal" how come these people are so damn obtuse?
Are these "issues" some sort of political version of a head-fake? While we are getting the run around on a simple matter of transparency what else is happening?
We need a new way of doing politics in this country, and fast.
Fire. Them. All.
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Canada's evolution to a two party state
Canada's political left should unite if they want electoral success.
The NDP may manage to split left leaning Liberals, but I think they are more likely to court and win over the Greens, as their actual philosophies are much more closely aligned. The Greens must be frustrated in both the total lack of electoral success and the antics of Liberal Senate wannabe Elizabeth May, so I think they will be receptive to overtures.
However, the big turning point will happen post 2014, when new seats are created in the House and it becomes possible for any party to win a majority without seats in Quebec. This will marginalize the BQ, and Quebec voters will abandon the BQ in droves to keep a “seat at the table” in Canada's Parliament. Since the NDP is a Social Democratic party and the BQ is a National Socialist party, the BQ voters will move to the NDP as the national party with the closest political philosophy.
Will everyone on the political Left want to join or merge with the NDP? of course not. Given that 51% of the Greens reject it, there are still 49% of Green voters on the table (and I think the 51% is the older, more libertarian “Greens” from the founding days). After all, not 100% of the Reformers or PC party moved over to the CPC when it was founded, and stranded remnants of the Greens, BQ and LPC will probably wash up on the beach between now and 2014 depending on how smart the NDP are and how fast they work should they decide to read this post and act on it! (Anyone want to forward this to Jack Layton? Heh).
The core philosophies or ideologies of the NDP will appeal more to the Greens and BQ than anyone else, and only the NDP has the critical mass of operatives, money and political experience to actually do this. Certainly if the Progressives want to finally gain political power, this combination makes the most sense, uniting similar groups into a single national party rather than several marginal and regional parties.
This also makes the choice very clear to all Canadians on election day, a clear decision between the Classical Liberal philosophies of the CPC (however much they honour them in the breach) and the Progressive philosophies of the new Socialist Alliance Party. The post 2014 landscape will be much clearer for all.
“Unite the Left” will certainly take a while, how long did it take to go from Reform vs PC to Alliance vs PC to merger?
The BQ have no real incentive to merge today, but their voter base will see the changes in the wind after 2014, that should start the process of an NDP/BQ merger, or an NDP takover as former BQ voters move to the NDP to keep a seat at the table.
The Greens will probably come to the NDP if asked nicely (i.e. offered some real incentives), and a large fraction of their voter base will follow since the NDP offers pretty much the same ideology. This is probably something the NDP will have to initiate and manage to completion, and yes, it is something of a wild card as to how and when this can happen. Left leaning Liberals might start flocking to the Socialist Alliance Party in a sort of reversal of the former NDP players shifting to the Liberals since they will follow political power, and a rapidly growing Socialist Party will certainly be an attractive force compared to the constant bickering and searches for a new “Dear Leader” that the Liberals have been reduced to. After all, who will have a better chance at getting the keys to the treasury?
Will this happen tomorrow? No, of course not. Many Liberals are clinging to the idea that the Young Dauphin will be their “Dear Leader” who takes them back to power (and the ones who don’t are probably gathering around the Bob Rae/Power Corp faction). This fight will take some time to play out. There are five years to go before seat reapportion becomes mandatory (and the Prime Minister can upset the entire timeline by bringing in legislation creating the new seats any time between now and 2014), which I see as the trigger. Jack Layton could start the process sooner by reaching out to the Greens, and maybe to disaffected left Liberals, but the big shift won’t come until Quebec voters see that it is really possible to have a Parliamentry majority without having seats in Quebec.
Two notes here:
1. The rush from the BQ might take place right after the 2014 period, or they might need to be “convinced” of their irrelevance in one post 2014 sitting of Parliament, but the Quebec voters will indeed move.
2. “National Socialist” in its correctly political meaning: this is a Socialist party which divides the spoils on the basis of “ethnicity” rather than “class”, “gender”, “victim hood” or other non racial group identifiers.
The NDP may manage to split left leaning Liberals, but I think they are more likely to court and win over the Greens, as their actual philosophies are much more closely aligned. The Greens must be frustrated in both the total lack of electoral success and the antics of Liberal Senate wannabe Elizabeth May, so I think they will be receptive to overtures.
However, the big turning point will happen post 2014, when new seats are created in the House and it becomes possible for any party to win a majority without seats in Quebec. This will marginalize the BQ, and Quebec voters will abandon the BQ in droves to keep a “seat at the table” in Canada's Parliament. Since the NDP is a Social Democratic party and the BQ is a National Socialist party, the BQ voters will move to the NDP as the national party with the closest political philosophy.
Will everyone on the political Left want to join or merge with the NDP? of course not. Given that 51% of the Greens reject it, there are still 49% of Green voters on the table (and I think the 51% is the older, more libertarian “Greens” from the founding days). After all, not 100% of the Reformers or PC party moved over to the CPC when it was founded, and stranded remnants of the Greens, BQ and LPC will probably wash up on the beach between now and 2014 depending on how smart the NDP are and how fast they work should they decide to read this post and act on it! (Anyone want to forward this to Jack Layton? Heh).
The core philosophies or ideologies of the NDP will appeal more to the Greens and BQ than anyone else, and only the NDP has the critical mass of operatives, money and political experience to actually do this. Certainly if the Progressives want to finally gain political power, this combination makes the most sense, uniting similar groups into a single national party rather than several marginal and regional parties.
This also makes the choice very clear to all Canadians on election day, a clear decision between the Classical Liberal philosophies of the CPC (however much they honour them in the breach) and the Progressive philosophies of the new Socialist Alliance Party. The post 2014 landscape will be much clearer for all.
“Unite the Left” will certainly take a while, how long did it take to go from Reform vs PC to Alliance vs PC to merger?
The BQ have no real incentive to merge today, but their voter base will see the changes in the wind after 2014, that should start the process of an NDP/BQ merger, or an NDP takover as former BQ voters move to the NDP to keep a seat at the table.
The Greens will probably come to the NDP if asked nicely (i.e. offered some real incentives), and a large fraction of their voter base will follow since the NDP offers pretty much the same ideology. This is probably something the NDP will have to initiate and manage to completion, and yes, it is something of a wild card as to how and when this can happen. Left leaning Liberals might start flocking to the Socialist Alliance Party in a sort of reversal of the former NDP players shifting to the Liberals since they will follow political power, and a rapidly growing Socialist Party will certainly be an attractive force compared to the constant bickering and searches for a new “Dear Leader” that the Liberals have been reduced to. After all, who will have a better chance at getting the keys to the treasury?
Will this happen tomorrow? No, of course not. Many Liberals are clinging to the idea that the Young Dauphin will be their “Dear Leader” who takes them back to power (and the ones who don’t are probably gathering around the Bob Rae/Power Corp faction). This fight will take some time to play out. There are five years to go before seat reapportion becomes mandatory (and the Prime Minister can upset the entire timeline by bringing in legislation creating the new seats any time between now and 2014), which I see as the trigger. Jack Layton could start the process sooner by reaching out to the Greens, and maybe to disaffected left Liberals, but the big shift won’t come until Quebec voters see that it is really possible to have a Parliamentry majority without having seats in Quebec.
Two notes here:
1. The rush from the BQ might take place right after the 2014 period, or they might need to be “convinced” of their irrelevance in one post 2014 sitting of Parliament, but the Quebec voters will indeed move.
2. “National Socialist” in its correctly political meaning: this is a Socialist party which divides the spoils on the basis of “ethnicity” rather than “class”, “gender”, “victim hood” or other non racial group identifiers.
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Spade a Spade
There has been quite some fervor about the NDP possibly changing its name in the upcoming convention. The word is that they may drop the word "New".
Well, I for one would like to see them all change their names to more accurately reflect their political and organizational beliefs.
The NDP would call itself the Marxist-Socialist Party of Canada
The Liberals would call themselves the Pragmatic Socialist Party of Canada
The Green Party would call itself the Anti-technology and Advancement Party of Canada
The Bloc Quebecois would call itself The Xenophobic Communist Party of Quebec
and the Conservative Party would call itself The Utilitarian Social Conservative Religious Alliance Party.
Oh, The Freedom Party, could call itself The Capitalist Party.
Well, I for one would like to see them all change their names to more accurately reflect their political and organizational beliefs.
The NDP would call itself the Marxist-Socialist Party of Canada
The Liberals would call themselves the Pragmatic Socialist Party of Canada
The Green Party would call itself the Anti-technology and Advancement Party of Canada
The Bloc Quebecois would call itself The Xenophobic Communist Party of Quebec
and the Conservative Party would call itself The Utilitarian Social Conservative Religious Alliance Party.
Oh, The Freedom Party, could call itself The Capitalist Party.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Canada's Pragmatic Politics: Standing For Nothing
Lawrence Martin spends this article praising the mushy middle of politics. The progressive, the pragmatic, the popular position.
Now while I'm not interested in praising the Conservatives for their pragmatism I will note that many political pundits in the last few years, since the fall of the Liberal hegemony in Canada have made much noise, type and hype out of lambasting that party for its lack of direction. They have resoundingly skewered the Liberal party for its whim-driven adherence to, well, nothing more substantial than the power they sought and the votes that would get them there... So, fast forward and suddenly this same course of progressive pragmatism is the course of action for the Conservatives?
Personally I could care less at this point. After a number of years of supporting the Conservatives I now realize that as far as the 4 main parties* in Canada are concerned the average voters choice is bad, worse, disastrous and irrelevant.
What I really want to get at is the notion that pragmatism in politics is somehow a good thing.
Pragmatism is defined as; "A way of approaching situations or solving problems that emphasizes practical applications and consequences." now on the surface that doesn't sound too bad, but the problem is that as it is applied in politics the practical applications and consequences part is lost and the definition more closely adheres to "A way of approaching political situations or solving social problems that emphasizes majority rule regardless of principal."
Gone is the idea that the solution must work or that it must be practical. Consequences are only considered, if at all, as something to be dealt with or "spun" at the next election.
But even if the actual definition was closely followed there is a major problem... Where are the beliefs, the ideals, the principles upon which decisions will be made?
When being in charge, as the leader of a nation you have to be able to enunciate that there are things in which you believe. The foundations of any society are the things that are accepted and believed by the individuals within it, for right or wrong for good or ill.
Obviously we've gotten away from anything so hide-bound as principals as far as politics are concerned in this country. It no longer seems to matter what a political party, or you as a politician believe, the important thing is how many people you can convince that you believe the same thing they do. That's pragmatism, and that is the thing which Mr. Martin extols in his article.
So the pragmatic virtue of the Conservative party is the ability of the party to say on the eve of the recession that they do not believe that bailouts are the solution only to pragmatically bail out any and all takers less than a month later!
The truth is pragmatism is little more than political newspeak for the sentence "We are going to lie to you."
What ever happened to ideas and ideals? Where did the principled politicians go? Why do so few people ask this question?
Who is John Galt?
* I do not include the Bloc because they can not and will not run candidates in any province other than Quebec
Now while I'm not interested in praising the Conservatives for their pragmatism I will note that many political pundits in the last few years, since the fall of the Liberal hegemony in Canada have made much noise, type and hype out of lambasting that party for its lack of direction. They have resoundingly skewered the Liberal party for its whim-driven adherence to, well, nothing more substantial than the power they sought and the votes that would get them there... So, fast forward and suddenly this same course of progressive pragmatism is the course of action for the Conservatives?
Personally I could care less at this point. After a number of years of supporting the Conservatives I now realize that as far as the 4 main parties* in Canada are concerned the average voters choice is bad, worse, disastrous and irrelevant.
What I really want to get at is the notion that pragmatism in politics is somehow a good thing.
Pragmatism is defined as; "A way of approaching situations or solving problems that emphasizes practical applications and consequences." now on the surface that doesn't sound too bad, but the problem is that as it is applied in politics the practical applications and consequences part is lost and the definition more closely adheres to "A way of approaching political situations or solving social problems that emphasizes majority rule regardless of principal."
Gone is the idea that the solution must work or that it must be practical. Consequences are only considered, if at all, as something to be dealt with or "spun" at the next election.
But even if the actual definition was closely followed there is a major problem... Where are the beliefs, the ideals, the principles upon which decisions will be made?
When being in charge, as the leader of a nation you have to be able to enunciate that there are things in which you believe. The foundations of any society are the things that are accepted and believed by the individuals within it, for right or wrong for good or ill.
Obviously we've gotten away from anything so hide-bound as principals as far as politics are concerned in this country. It no longer seems to matter what a political party, or you as a politician believe, the important thing is how many people you can convince that you believe the same thing they do. That's pragmatism, and that is the thing which Mr. Martin extols in his article.
So the pragmatic virtue of the Conservative party is the ability of the party to say on the eve of the recession that they do not believe that bailouts are the solution only to pragmatically bail out any and all takers less than a month later!
The truth is pragmatism is little more than political newspeak for the sentence "We are going to lie to you."
What ever happened to ideas and ideals? Where did the principled politicians go? Why do so few people ask this question?
Who is John Galt?
* I do not include the Bloc because they can not and will not run candidates in any province other than Quebec
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Why fund the Arts?
Watching the BRAVO! "election special on the arts", I was struck by an even greater sense of unreality than usual (and after sitting through a "Woman's Issues" all candidates debate, that is saying a lot...)
Two points in particular struck me:
1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.
2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.
If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?
Two points in particular struck me:
1. Artists claim that they have "freedom" with State funding but not with private funding. Why does producing art approved by bureaucrats provide more freedom than producing art approved by any other patron? Apparently these "Artists" have no knowledge of the history of "Socialist Realist" art.
2. The mantra of "investing in the arts because it is an $8 billion dollar a year industry is totally nonsensical. If an industry is as mature and as profitable as the Canadian "artistic" community claims, then they clearly have no need of further State funding, from ANY level of government.
If any Conservative party supporters are reading this, feel free to use these points. For that matter, if any Liberal, NDP or Green supporters are reading this, please enlighten me as to why artists who's works we never have heard of or who's names we don't know are entitled to our hard earned money?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Dion: "Next Election About the Environment"
Yeah.
Stick with what you know?
Except that the closest DeYawn ever got to doing anything about the environemnt was naming a pet.
And then there's this...
Hmmm, wouldn't this lead to the Libs going head to head with the Greens? A veritable battle of Titans! I can see it now, a political cage match between Dion and May. Like watching Pee Wee Herman mud wrestle Rosie O'Donnell for a bag of low fat, soy infused organic rice cakes.
Stick with what you know?
Except that the closest DeYawn ever got to doing anything about the environemnt was naming a pet.
And then there's this...
"At the next election, it's unavoidable that the environment, climate
change, the green revolution we need to make, will be at the core of the
campaign,"
Hmmm, wouldn't this lead to the Libs going head to head with the Greens? A veritable battle of Titans! I can see it now, a political cage match between Dion and May. Like watching Pee Wee Herman mud wrestle Rosie O'Donnell for a bag of low fat, soy infused organic rice cakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
