Politics: Changing Files

Member of Parliament Gerard Kennedy spoke at a local community meeting at St. Pius X Catholic School in Toronto, Ontario on 16-September-2010

TORONTO, ONTARIO - While I'm far from a political junkie (I almost never figure out the mystery voice on The House and I don't watch Power and Politics), I do pay reasonable attention to Federal politics in Canada, or so I thought. Then, I went to a meeting held by my local Member of Parliament (MP) tonight and found out that his portfolio had changed.

For the bulk of the last two years since his election, Parkdale-High Park MP Gerard Kennedy has been the Official Opposition Critic for Infrastructure, Cities and Communities. In other words, he was the member of the "shadow cabinet" within the Liberal Party charged with holding the Minister of Infrastructure, Cities and Communities from the ruling Conservative Party accountable. Indeed, Kennedy has been rather visible in this role, frequently appearing in the media to criticize the government's management of stimulus funds, for example.

Not anymore. As of last Tuesday (7-September), Kennedy is now the Official Opposition Critic for the Environment. With all the talent and experience in the Liberal Party on the environment, this might seem an odd pick. However, Kennedy did earn a lot of acclaim for the "Carbon Challenge" he organized in the riding when he was still a candidate, and the riding seemed to respond to the Liberal "Green Shift" policy by electing him, about the only riding in the whole country to so readily embrace that environmental policy.

A pointed question came from the audience tonight about how Stéphane Dion, architect of the "Green Shift" and then-party leader, felt about Kennedy getting the environment portfolio. After mentioning that Dion had already called him, Kennedy pointed out "Those who remember Liberal Party history may recall that I had something to do with Mr. Dion becoming party leader." That ended the discussion. [Kennedy endorsed Dion when he dropped out of the leadership race in 2006, giving Dion momentum that eventually led to his becoming leader.]

Another audience member asked how the transition between portfolios works in the shadow government. Kennedy stated that it tends to be much more flexible than in the government, as there is information to be transferred (instead of bureaucratic briefings to attend). He expects to provide assistance to new Infrastructure Critic John McCallum on several initiatives, which as he pointed out still have overlap with his new portfolio.

"The way I view it, the environment isn't really a ministry," Kennedy said, "It's a philosophy that should underlie your whole government." He told his constituents that they should expect to see the influence of sustainability across the policies of the Opposition, as that was now part of his job.

That is, it is his job until Michael Ignatieff appoints him to some other post while I'm not paying attention.

Margin Notes: Santa, Politics, Truth as a Drug

Near the peak of a snow shower, the Zellers Sled Float came down Bloor Street during the Santa Claus Parade in Toronto on 16-November-2008

TORONTO, ONTARIO - There was a certain appropriateness that a reasonably heavy snow shower passed through town during today's Santa Claus Parade, the unofficial start of the holiday season in the Greater Toronto Area. It was certainly preferable to the cold rain that blanketed the GTA yesterday. There will be much more about the Santa Claus Parade and the beginning of the holiday season on this blog tomorrow.

* * * * * *

The other event I attended today was a reception for the volunteers of the losing Peggy Nash campaign in the Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park. In stark contrast to Sarah Palin and even Michelle Obama, who have gotten publicity for their fashion statements in recent weeks, both Nash and Member of Provincial Parliament Cheri DiNovo spoke about shopping at Value Village during the event. How refreshing is that?

* * * * * *

I claim this blog to be forward-looking, so how about looking ahead to the 2016 congressional campaign? It seems that a Caroline Gleich, no known relation, has mused about running for Congress in Utah, but not until 2016. In the first message of her 2016 congressional campaign, Gleich complains about two hypocritical Republican senators and speaks out against California's Proposition 8--views that certainly match those often seen on this blog. There's good skiing in Canada, Caroline, how about moving up here and running for the leadership of the Liberal Party?

* * * * * *


A large Michael Ignatieff campaign sign was noted on the Kingsway in Toronto on 24-September-2008

Lest that seem like carpet-bagging, recall that this was a major charge leveled at Michael Ignatieff in the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign after he spent 30 years outside of Canada. Now, after winning two elections to federal parliament from the Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding just across the Humber River from this computer and proving a forceful member of the body, Ignatieff believes that people trust him and most pundits believe he is the front-runner. So far, he has only two opponents, Bob Rae, another Toronto Member of Parliament who was the other front-runner with Ignatieff in the last contest, and Dominic LeBlanc, a New Brunswick Member of Parliament. The race earned publicity today when Rae refused to participate in an internal party debate in Toronto since the media was not invited. LeBlanc may have been the winner of this round, telling a group of reporters that both Rae and Ignatieff needed to grow up.

* * * * * *

One thing the Liberals could do to increase their chances of electoral success would be to utilize on-line resources the way the Barack Obama campaign did in the United States. Continuing the use of the Internet, CNET News reported this week that Obama's weekly radio address will also appear on YouTube.

* * * * * *

The internet is used for activism by all kinds of groups, including nudists. Despite growing up in one of its suburbs, I was not aware until this week that Seattle has no law against nudity in public parks. Indecent exposure is banned, but generic nudity is not, and hence the World Naked Bike Ride is presently legal. In an entire hour devoted to the subject on KUOW's The Conversation on Thursday, perhaps the most revealing moment was when an organizer noted that the event takes place in the summer months--"for most of the rest of the year, it's not so pleasant to ride naked."

* * * * * *

Chemical and Engineering News Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who has become controversial for writing against climate change skeptics and the Bush administration for not listening to scientists, spoke out again recently. In a 20-October-2008 editorial, Baum noted that it seemed that the only reason Robert Gallo had not shared this year's Nobel Prize for Medicine was that he is a "brash, extremely self-confident American." Anyone who didn't think Nobel Prizes had become politicized wasn't paying attention when Al Gore shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Baum calls for criticism of the Nobel Prize Committees--I think this is old news. The prizes come from a fundamentally Swedish point of view, and sometimes that is political. It's their right to operate that way, and I don't see it changing. If you want to win a Nobel Prize, it behooves you to share a world view with the Swedes. If you don't like it, start your own prize.

* * * * * *

Philosophy can come from anywhere, but I was surprised to hear it on CBC Radio One's show on medicine, White Coat, Black Art, this week. Dr. Philip Hebert, author of "Doing Right" told host Dr. Brian Goldman that "truth is to be dispensed like any other drug." Does this mean George W. Bush was avoiding the truth since he might become addicted?

Politics: When I Knew It Was Lost

TORONTO, ONTARIO - From the earliest returns last night, it was clear that one of the few Liberal pickups in all of Canada was occurring in my home riding of Parkdale-High Park. Gerard Kennedy, longtime Member of Provincial Parliament from the riding, defeated incumbent New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Peggy Nash convincingly, 43% to 36%; it was not close, and ElectionPrediction.org got it entirely wrong, calling it for Nash. While some were surprised at this result, I didn't need to wait for the official count. By mid-afternoon, it becoming obvious that Kennedy would win the election.

Last week, there had actually been a rumor that the Liberals had pulled their campaign forces out of the riding. I have no idea where that rumor came from and never saw any evidence of it--by the end of the week, the Liberals were placing new signs all over the place before the holiday weekend, and apparently a DVD of Kennedy's message was distributed to registered voters on Saturday, but not being a citizen I was not treated to the technological campaigning.

Another rumor that was apparently mostly untrue was that many long-standing Liberal activists from the riding were not organizing for Kennedy, effectively sitting out of the contest. It is true that a number, though certainly not all, of the people canvassing the riding for Kennedy--and serving as scrutineers on Election Day--were from outside the riding.

In contrast, the Peggy Nash campaign was about as grass-roots as a well-organized campaign with a chance to win will ever be. I never met a Nash volunteer that did not live or work in the riding. While her role in opposing Stephen Harper's Conservatives in parliament was certainly recognized and appreciated by her supporters, their tendency was to talk about her local presence first.

The campaigns in some sense reflected this difference. Nash emphasized her accomplishments within the riding, things like keeping the Rennie Rink open and helping to save the Revue Cinema. Kennedy, despite a strong local record during his time with the Food Bank and as MPP, tended to emphasize the importance of stopping Stephen Harper and "preventing [him] from doing to Canada what Mike Harris did to Ontario." Local emphasis came second.

Tactically, the campaigns also diverged. Nash ran a classic, identify-your-supporters-and-make-sure-they-get-to-the-polls campaign. All of the emphasis on Election Day for the NDP was in making certain that their known supporters made it to the polls. The Liberals certainly did the same, but in addition to that, there was a tremendous outreach to undecided voters with campaign materials (the DVD being just an exceptional example) that swamped NDP efforts to do the same. The Liberals appeared to have more money to spend in the riding (it will be interesting to see in the ultimate filings how big the gap actually was), and they weren't afraid to spend it, mostly in the closing days of the campaign when people were actually making their decision.

So how did I, as a volunteer for the Nash campaign, know it was over? After spending the morning knocking on the doors of known Nash supporters in one of the 193 polls that make up the riding, I was resting outside the polling place, waiting for the latest update on which voters had actually arrived to vote. A taxi drove up, and a younger woman assisted an elderly woman to the polls. The NDP would have been prepared to do the same thing for its supporters, but what really struck me was that the Liberal volunteer assisting the woman was someone I hadn't seen before that morning and indeed would not see the rest of the day. The Liberals were clearly leveraging their entire party-wide organization, despite the rumors to the contrary. Whereas the NDP was well-organized and had people assigned to each poll, the Liberals had that, plus a substantial number of floating volunteers. The Liberal juggernaut had been released, and there really wasn't going to be any stopping it.

I kept working, and was substantially successful in my assigned task of getting about sixty Nash supporters to the polls, but I was not surprised to wake up this morning and find that Gerard Kennedy had 20,715 votes to Peggy Nash's 17,330 in a turnout that was rather anemic at 66%, but still better than the national figure of 59%.

One thing that Kennedy and the Liberals should be absolutely complimented on in this campaign is that it was clean. Unlike the last provincial contest, in which NDP candidate Cheri DiNovo was smeared by the provincial Liberals, Kennedy did not personally slam Nash. He simply argued his good points against Nash's, touted the Liberals above the NDP, leveraged his party's campaigning strengths, and won the election.

On CBC Radio One this morning, there was a report that the "Big, Red, Liberal Machine" had rolled through Toronto. Indeed, it did, and it rolled right over Peggy Nash.

Margin Notes: Goldilocks, Empathy, and Cavities

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the aftermath of this week's presidential debate in the United States, Republican strategist Dan Schnur noted on NPR's On Point that this has become a "Goldilocks" election--John McCain is "too hot" and seems angry, and Barack Obama is "too cold" and doesn't appear to have enough emotions. Unfortunately, with only two major parties, there is nobody that is "just right."

* * * * * *

After taking a lot of heat for referring to Obama as "that one" during the debate and leaving quickly afterward, John McCain deserves a lot of credit for telling his supporters that they do not need to fear Barack Obama. It is too bad that Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have gotten that memo.

* * * * * *

While the Democrats have been trying to tie John McCain to the Bush administration, a website called BushHarper.com shows the similarities between the Bush administration and the Harper government in Canada. The site has been advertised on-line for some time, and I have noticed it much more widely advertised in Toronto in the past few days, including on the subway. What really surprised me is that the site and the advertising are being funded by the Liberals. It would seem to me that in Toronto, especially, their main task is not convincing people to oppose Harper, but convincing people that they represent a better opposition than the NDP. BushHarper.com may end up helping the NDP in the ridings around me as much as it helps the Liberals.

* * * * * *

Normally, Canadians are very astute at perceiving symbolism in political campaigns, so I found it rather shocking that the Liberal party actually had Stéphane Dion visit a room with advanced life support equipment at an Ottawa hospital. After so many stories about their party being on life support in British Columbia, what in the world were they thinking?

* * * * * *

If the "At Issue" panelists on CBC Television's The National are correct that the mood in the electorate favors candidates displaying empathy, it really is hard to predict how voters will move in the final days of the campaign. None of the five major leaders have been great at displaying empathy in the past week--they've been sticking to their strategies. Interestingly, the same thing is happening in the United States--neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has a message that is resonating broadly about the economy, though Obama as the nominee of the party out of power in the White House gains from such a stand-off by default. Where is Bill Clinton to feel your pain when you need it?

* * * * * *

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson doesn't know where Bill Clinton is, either. Appearing on KUOW's The Conversation on Friday, Richardson noted that despite his endorsing Barack Obama, he speaks regularly with Senator Hillary Clinton and has hosted two fundraisers to help reduce her campaign debt. However, he hasn't spoken with Bill Clinton. "President Clinton is still upset, I'm sure."

* * * * * *

In the 14-July-2008 issue of Chemical and Engineering News that I have just gotten around to reading, correspondent Rachel Petkewich describes a future in which it will be possible to grow (if slowly) the crystals that make up apatite, a substance essential to both the inner dentin and surface enamel in teeth. When these efforts bear fruit, that means many dental fillings will no longer be required. Undoubtedly, many of us hope that research advances as quickly as possible.

Politics: Liberal Horses

TORONTO, ONTARIO - In the 30-September-2008 episode of the CBC Television satire show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", comedian Geri Hall made fun of an apparent demographic focus by the Conservatives on single women by "chasing after" Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. I doubt Harper was harmed or helped by the encounter; he looked modestly stiff (this is Stephen Harper, after all) and upon prodding did play along with the joke by speaking in a robotic voice. On the other hand, I suspect Dion might have been helped somewhat by the piece, in which he donned sunglasses and a leather jacket and stated "Hasta la vista, Stephen." While his earnestness certainly wasn't hidden, he seemed to be enjoying the whole thing--indeed, having fun with it--a lot more than Harper, counter to the professor stereotype with which he has been saddled. Once more, the thought went through my mind--why won't the Liberals rally behind this man?

Ever since the December 2006 Liberal Party convention at which he unexpectedly was elected party leader over favorites Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, Dion has had trouble unifying the party. Despite placing his rivals in prominent positions within the party, there have been persistent stories of Rae and Ignatieff supporters undermining his leadership. The Conservatives capitalized on his perceived weak position and his relative difficulty with the English language with an advertising campaign that has left the image of a shrugging, ineffective Dion burned in the public mind. On any call-in talk show talking about the Federal election, there will be at least one caller saying, "Dion just isn't a leader."

The image seems to stand in contrast to the Dion that has appeared publicly during the campaign. During both the French and English language debates, Dion made strong debating points, threw significant accusations at Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, and seemed little like his professorial image. In most polls, he "won" the French debate. His opinions tend to be quite forward-looking, yet are not devoid of immediate political concerns--comments on my previous post on electoral reform revealed that Dion has actually supported an intellectually superior system, but seems to be talking about a lesser reform for political reasons. In interviews across the country, he has demonstrated a deep grasp of issues, whether one agreed with his opinions or not--and presumably, almost all Liberals do agree.

Recently, I asked my barber to explain to why Dion had such trouble getting respect. "I'll tell you what's wrong with Dion," he said. "There were two stallions running for election, and a bunch of ponies. The stallions were so focused on each other, that they didn't notice the ponies getting together and electing a pony. Dion is that pony; he is not a stallion."

It would be one thing for the Liberals to abandon Dion if a clear successor "stallion" was waiting in the wings. Some may feel otherwise, but I don't see one. Rae, who had finished second in the original ballot in the 2006 convention, has the burden of his record as NDP Premier of Ontario in the 1990's. One of the first things I learned about upon moving to the province was "Rae Days," an austerity measure in which public employees were given ten unpaid days off per year. To this day, Rae is ridiculed for that and other actions as premier. With a worst-case scenario in this election in which the Liberals may have few seats outside of Ontario, having a party leader with fundamental issues growing a coalition in the party's remaining stronghold could conceivably be a near death-knell for the Federal party that many delegates would likely try to avoid.

Current Deputy Leader and leader on the first-round ballot in 2006, Michael Ignatieff may not have any such political baggage, but he may not even be re-elected to parliament. In his Etobicoke—Lakeshore riding, just across the Humber River from my residence, Conservative Patrick Boyer is making an issue of the fact that Ignatieff lives in Yorkville instead of the riding and by my observation is winning the lawn sign game.

Fourth-place finisher Gerard Kennedy, currently running as the Liberal candidate in my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, is far from guaranteed to win election himself as he has taken on popular NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. Even if he does pull out a victory, he faces the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have undermined Dion, as he is ideologically similar to Dion, with only the added advantages of native English speaking and a lack of political baggage in Quebec. Similarly, any other candidate will face the same Rae and Ignatieff forces that have so weakened Dion.

So, in my opinion, there is no clear "stallion" out there to take over. And, in the absence of such a figure, I don't understand why any Liberal would want Dion to falter. Then again, I'm not a Liberal, and maybe that's why I don't understand.

Politics: Rank Order Voting

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Last Sunday on CBC Radio One's "Cross Country Checkup", Liberal leader Stéphane Dion made a case for the Rank-Order Voting System [about 35 minutes into the program]. While noting that it was his personal view and not an official position of the Liberal party, Dion's stated support of the "Rank-Order System" (also known as "Instant Run-Off Voting") meant that the system may have a future in Canadian politics, as at least three parties (the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens) have had one or more of their leaders speak favorably about the system.

Most agree that Canada's electoral system needs some reform. The "First-Past-the-Post" system means that in most ridings, with three or more major parties running, the elected Member of Parliament gets less than 50% of the vote, winning a seat with just a plurality of the vote. In some sense, more than half of the voters feel that their wishes are ignored. At the national scale, the picture looks even worse. Despite polling at 10% or higher across the country, it is entirely possible that the Green Party will not have a single seat and hence no voice in parliament, as that 10% is approximately evenly distributed across the country, meaning they are nowhere near a plurality in most ridings.

One way to solve this problem would be a "Proportional Representation" system, used in other parliamentary systems including the European Parliament and most of the individual countries of northern Europe, that would have the parties put up national or provincial lists of candidates, divide the number of seats based on the national votes, and then the list from each party is seated down to the number of seats that they gained. Personally, I have few issues with such a system, but as a pragmatic observer, I don't see how it would ever be implemented in Canada with opposition from the major parties and a tradition of strong identification of representatives with their local riding (though the latter would be addressed by a German-style mixed member proportional system, which would likely be the proposal in Canada and is favored by the NDP).

Dion has now stated his support for another system that would represent a significant improvement, "Rank Order Voting". Voters would rank the candidates in their order of preference. If no candidate achieved a majority on the basis of each voter's first choice, then the candidate who received the fewest votes would be eliminated, and the second choice of that candidate's voters would then receive that candidate's votes. That process would be repeated, down to two candidates if necessary, until one candidate did have a majority of votes.

To contrive an example based on current national polls in Canada, assume that 100,000 votes are counted in a riding. The Conservative receives 35,000 votes, the Liberal receives 25,000 votes, the NDP candidate receives 18,000 votes, the Bloc Quebecois candidate receives 12,000 votes, and the Green Party candidate receives 10,000 votes. In the existing system, the Conservative wins the election with just 35% of the vote and gets the seat.

In an instant run-off system, 50,0001 votes would be required to win the election. No candidate received that in our example, so the candidate with the fewest number of votes, the Green candidate, is eliminated, and the second choices of the people that voted for the Green would then be considered. We don't know those preferences--that's a problem with the polls--so let's guess that 4,000 chose the Conservative as a second choice, 3,000 chose the Liberal, 2,000 chose the NDP, and 1,000 chose the Bloc. The totals then become: Conservative, 39,000; Liberal, 28,000; NDP, 20,000; Bloc, 13,000. It doesn't appear that much had changed. But, still no candidate has gotten a majority, so the last-place candidate (the Bloc candidate) is eliminated, and the second choices of those voters are considered (the third choice in the case of the 1,000 voters that had originally preferred the Green).

Perhaps that results in 6,000 more Conservative votes, 5,000 more NDP votes, and 2,000 more Liberal votes. That places the Conservatives with 45,000 votes, the Liberals with 30,000 votes, and the NDP with 25,000 votes. Still, no candidate has a majority, so another candidate (in this case the NDP candidate) is dropped. The next choice on each NDP voter's list is considered; let's say that's 21,000 votes for the Liberals and 4,000 for the Conservatives. In that scenario, the Liberals win with 51,000 votes.

Most readers will probably object that in this specific example, it is not likely that the NDP vote would go so strongly for the Liberals and that the Conservatives would likely win anyway. Perhaps, but if that were the case, at least it would be known that Conservatives were really preferred by the voters over the Liberals in a two-way race, which is what it would have become.

Furthermore, that's where the other point raised by Dion about the "rank order system" comes into play. It's less about changing the result of the election than it is about changing the style of the election. If the second and third choice (and in this example, even the fourth choice) of voters matters, then candidates will seek to show how they share values and policies with other parties to attract a higher ranking from voters that prefer rivals. Playing to the broader electorate becomes more important than playing to smaller interest groups for all candidates. The smaller parties (read: the NDP and the Greens) would be more likely to have their interests addressed by the larger parties.

This centrist tendency would seem to favor centrist parties (read, Dion's Liberals), and indeed the 2008 NDP platform calls instead for a mixed-member proportional system. Yet, it strikes me that the NDP will out-poll the Liberals in many ridings in the 2008, meaning that the Liberal candidate would be eliminated before the NDP candidate in an instant run-off system. I have a hard timing believing that the NDP would actually vote against a "Rank Order," "Instant Run-Off" proposal if it came to vote in parliament.

In fact, voters would likely feel more free to vote for the NDP or the Greens or other smaller parties if the argument often made by the Liberals that voters needed to vote Liberal "to stop the Conservatives" was taken away. Conceivably, Liberals might suddenly become a second or third choice to many voters, instead of their singular choice.

It would seem that parties representing a majority of Canadians seem to view the system favorably, and that's why I feel that the "Rank Order System" may be the best chance at immediate electoral reform in Canada.

Politics: The Real Threat To Conservatives

TORONTO, ONTARIO - The current flare-up over the Leadership Debates in Canada is revealing that the real threat to the Conservatives in this election is the Green Party, not the Liberals.

I have found the behavior of the party leaders after the decision yesterday by the consortium of networks to exclude Green Party leader Elizabeth May from the Leadership Debates quite revealing. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative Party, cited the deal between May and Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to not run opposing candidates in their ridings, claiming May was actually the Liberal candidate in her riding of Central Nova. He went so far as to predict that May would endorse the Liberals before the election is held.

The concept of a party leader with 306 candidates running nationwide abandoning them to endorse another party is absurd, as May quickly pointed out. If the pool of voters that might vote for the Liberals and the Greens was really the same set of people, one would think that Harper would want to encourage the comparatively-small Greens to take votes away from the Liberals and make the task of creating a Conservative plurality easier. Since he isn't doing that, there must be some other motivation.

Could it be that Harper is actually worried about the Greens taking away votes from Conservatives? The only party leader that publicly called for May's participation in the debates, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, doesn't seem concerned. The Green Party's historic emphasis on the environment shouldn't appear especially attractive to a Liberal, as Dion has proposed the Green Shift carbon taxing scheme that moves in the same direction as desired by the Green Party, one of the reasons that Harper cited in claiming they were really the same party. Yet, why would a Liberal-leaning voter jump ship to the Greens on the basis of the environmental policies when the Liberals have a similar policy and would seem to be in a better position to actually be elected and implement the policy?

Similarly, a NDP-leaning voter would seem to have little reason to shift to the Greens. The NDP has a different perspective on the way to address climate change, calling for a cap-and-trade arrangement on carbon emissions instead of a carbon tax, but leader Jack Layton often speaks about prioritizing the environment and indeed spent most of Monday critizing the environmental condition of the province of Alberta. But, again, even if a NDP-leaning voter strongly preferred a carbon tax to cap-and-trade, why would that voter defect to the Greens and not the Liberals? Layton's opposition to having May in the debates seems to be much more likely rooted in keeping protest votes that are not environmentally motivated from going to the Greens, a position that is nearly indefensible for a party that itself often begs for attention.

Even the Bloc Quebecois speaks out enough on environmental issues, favoring the Kyoto Protocol and taxing non-renewable resources even if they favor the Hibernia project such that the idea of a voter abandoning the BQ over environmental issues seems absurd.

Yet, if one were a Conservative-leaning voter that had environmental concerns, there would be a reason to defect to the Greens. While Stephen Harper claims that the environment and the economy are at odds, Elizabeth May rejects that thesis and professes that sustainable economics and sustainable environmental policies go hand-in-hand. She has increasingly emphasized sustainable economics, including in a recent interview with CBC's "The Current". This provides a reason for Conservatives to consider the Greens--they can maintain their fiscal responsibility and not claim that it's impossible to do and keep the economy going. Furthermore, one look at the European economy seems to imply that May's vision might actually be achievable.

I have yet to personally meet a former Liberal or NDP supporter that has switched to the Greens. On the other hand, I know several former Conservatives, particularly former Progressive Conservatives, that are looking closely at the Greens or have started to look at them. I suspect that's the real reason Harper opposes and Dion supports Elizabeth May's inclusion in the Leadership debates.

The public reaction to the exclusion of Elizabeth May from the debates has been substantially negative. It should be. The real standard for inclusion in the debates should be electing a member of parliament from that party (by which indeed the Greens would not qualify on the basis of Blair Wilson's change of affiliation) OR by running candidates in at least (say) 90% of the ridings across the country (by which the party does qualify). If a party is organized enough to be running candidates across the entire nation, it has a voice that deserves to be heard at the Leadership debates. To my knowledge, this standard would only add the Greens to the present debates, not any of the other Federally-registered parties that at most have fielded a handful of candidates across the country, usually in regional or urban clusters.

If the policies of Conservatives, Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are defensible, then they should be able to promote them in a debate, whether Elizabeth May is there promoting the Green Party or not. Harper, Layton, and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe should be ashamed for causing her to be excluded from the national forum.

Politics: Canadian Election Expectations

TORONTO, ONTARIO - This post may read to some as advocacy of the NDP or the Greens, but I believe that misses the point. What I'm really talking about is rejecting expectations--usually set by rival parties--and actually looking at what a party may do in the future. Fundamentally, elections are supposed to be about the future, are they not?

Nothing frustrates me more than to hear someone say "the NDP will never form a government" or "the Greens will never form a government." The odds might be quite long, and perhaps there are good reasons to not want them to form a government, but dismissing the possibility of any party running candidates all across Canada taking power is not healthy thinking, in my opinion.

In a general election, every seat in the House of Commons is up for grabs. If a party is running candidates in each riding, they conceivably can form a government. Believing that they cannot just makes it more likely that they won't--and results in defeatist, US-style politics.

Canada doesn't suffer from nearly the incumbent inertia experienced in the United States. Canadians actually "throw the bums out" when desired, and there should be pride in this ability and tradition--and a recognition that this means anything can happen.

If the NDP didn't believe this, could they have recruited Thomas Mulcair to win in Outremont?

I am not saying that the history of a party does not matter. I hold my suspicions of the Liberals and the Conservatives based on their past governments (I'd cite other parties, but they haven't formed governments lately) just like everyone else. If you believe Stephen Harper lied egregiously in this past minority government, that Stéphane Dion broke a promise by proposing a carbon tax, that Jack Layton hasn't shown adequate leadership in parliament, or that Elizabeth May engaged in back-room dealing the the Liberals, then those might be good reasons not to vote for their parties. The past performance of individuals does matter, and the people that they bring with them does matter.

But, I don't understand why many Liberals didn't give Stéphane Dion a chance. Sure, he had some baggage, especially in Quebec. Yet, I listened to the candidate speeches during the 2006 Liberal Party convention, and I found that Dion--and, indeed, most of the Liberal candidates--articulated a cohesive, electable vision. Just the same, since he won that leadership race all we hear are complaints about him being too professorial, too weak, unable to win, and so on. The pre-conceived notions of Dion have dominated the media. Almost nobody has seemed to care about what he could do moving forward.

Yet, I look at the actual record and don't see the evidence. Many fault me for being too tolerant of pragmatic practicing of Machiavellian politics, but did it really make sense for Dion to show "strength" by bringing down the Conservatives in 2007 when the appetite for an election was even lower than it is now? Is an energy policy not all that different than what Al Gore wanted to propose in the early Clinton administration really too "professorial"?

Lest this seem like a defense of the left-wing parties, Stephen Harper has clearly been a victim of perception and expectations in the past. Who believed that he could govern the country from a minority position for more than two years? Even within the Conservative party, there seemed to be skepticism of his ability to be viewed as a leader. Now, every poll seems to show him regarded as the strongest leader. If all voters believed the nay-saying, would Harper have gotten the chance he has received to prove these expectations wrong?

Elections need to be about the future, not the past. I advocate throwing away the common perceptions and expectations, taking a careful look at what the candidates (and by that, I mean in a riding as well as at the party leadership level) are saying, evaluating their ability to deliver what they promise in the future, and then making a decision. It might not be the same decision made based on what "everyone" is saying.

If each Canadian actually did that, there might be a lot of expectations proved false and perceptions changed in Canada. Furthermore, I'm not so certain the beneficiaries would be the NDP and the Greens--it might well be the Liberals or even the Conservatives. After all, having expectations would be contrary to this post.