The Orange and the Green

When provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath announced this summer that her party wanted to reduce the HST on gasoline, I must say I raised an eyebrow. After all, the NDP is supposed to be (among many other things) an environmentally friendly party, and conventional environmental wisdom states that high gas taxes are an effective way to reduce consumption.

Now, it's one thing to argue against that premise, and certainly many have done just that. But to completely ignore the environmental implications of cutting an energy consumption tax and just drop it straight into the 'saving taxpayers money' file seems a little... well, un-NDPlike.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

NoProrogue in TO

Some are saying 10,000. The police estimated 7,000. I heard one Conservative pundit swear that there were only 47 protesters, three lost tourists and a hot dog vendor, but I'm pretty sure he was actually in the lineup for 'Fiddler on the Roof' tickets.

Outliers aside, it was a HUGE rally.

I took the GO bus in from Milton with my friend and fellow municipal candidate Carey DePass, and we met up with Deb Gillis once we arrived in Toronto. We had hoped to meet up with a few other Halton friends at Dundas Square, but one look at the crowd and we knew we'd never find them.

And yet, within 15 minutes I managed to find fellow bloggers Jeff, Mark and JimBobby standing right behind me. It's those blogger pheremones - we're just naturally drawn to each other.

The most striking thing about this rally was that it wasn't your usual crowd. Most other protests these days seem to be largely populated by special interest groups out promoting their own agenda. But here, almost every single sign and banner was directed straight at Stephen Harper and prorogation. I saw a few banners for one union off in the corner, and a solitary Truther stood vigil beside the march route. But by and large these people were exactly what they appeared to be: ordinary Canadians, young and old, urbanites and 905ers, all compelled to speak out against a threat to their democracy.

One thing I did find annoying was the NDP signs. This was supposed to be a non-partisan event, and yet there were several people handing out bright orange signs with anti-Harper slogans and a very visible NDP logo on the bottom.

Not cool.

I overheard several compaints about this, and a few people even folded up or covered the bottoms of their signs to hide the logo. And I'm happy to report, there was not a single Liberal Party name or logo to be seen anywhere - except on the Deb Gillis button on my purse.

I'll have video for you later tonight.

It's a Win, Win, Win Situation!

With everyone on pins and needles over what's going to happen in Parliament this week, I am feeling surprisingly calm and content. Maybe it's that I'm old enough to know that this too shall pass, or maybe it's because my glass-half-full mind is seeing the up side to just about any potential scenario:

1) The government falls and there's an election. The Liberals win. The Liberals WIN!

2) The government falls and there's an election. The Liberals lose. Ignatieff resigns as leader, and we get to actually elect a new one. One I like better. Go Gerard!

3) The government survives, propped up by the NDP. The NDP loses it's last shred of credibility. And we will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh...

I Am Jack's Sense of Moral Absolutism

Repeated ad nauseum at Jack Layton's presser today:

“We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill: It's a coalition between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff,” said the NDP leader, who dismissed the Liberal amendment as “a fig leaf.”

“Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP.”

And this is why I don't vote NDP anymore. Seriously. Just stop talking, Jack.

Duceppe at least had a coherent - and far more entertaining - criticism of the proposed Liberal amendment:

Today, Mr. Duceppe ridiculed the Liberal proposition, saying the timeline ensures the Conservatives will remain in power until at least the next budget. Mr. Duceppe predicted Mr. Ignatieff will respond to a report in June by saying Canadians want an election during summer like “a hole in the head,” mocking a recent line from the Liberal leader. Mr. Duceppe predicted the Liberals will use the same line again in December to argue there's no appetite for an election over Christmas.

And I agree.

Instead, the Liberals should be insisting on the amendments I suggested yesterday (removing the E.I. wait time and removing the requirement for matching provincial and municipal funds for infrastructure spending). And in fact, a lot of people thought that they were preparing to do just that.

So why didn't they? It's just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ignatieff proposed just such a thing to Layton last night and was told in no uncertain terms that the NDP would not support anything short of a defeat of the government. Without their support, and given that the Conservatives would resist strongly even minor changes to the wording of their budget, such amendments could never pass. So we are left with a lukewarm and toothless amendment that gives the appearance of accountability but really changes nothing.

Thanks, Jack.

Thoughts on Bob, the NDP, and Big Labour

There was a marvellous op-ed in the Star yesterday that reminded me a) why I like Bob Rae, and b) why I don't vote NDP so much any more.

Go. Read. I'll wait.

One of the earliest votes I ever cast was for Bob Rae (my very first was for John Sewell, I'm proud to say). I did it partly to piss off my very conservative dad, but mostly because I believed, and still believe, in most of the policies and ideals espoused by the New Democratic Party of Canada.

The sticking point for me, and especially after Bob Rae's rather rocky stewardship of Ontario, has been the implementation of those ideals.

As reported in Rae Days, columnist Thomas Walkom's informative book, one of Rae's closest advisers, David Reville, said they had "the passion and the theory. But we didn't have any fu**ing idea how to make things work."

Rae tried to implement the ideas he'd presented during the campaign but the recession was ravaging the economy. He wasn't the only one who misjudged the severity of that recession; hundreds of once healthy companies and skilled entrepreneurs went broke.

That's the first part of Rae's legacy, but he revealed his true political stature once he realized his policies were outdated and decided to do something about it.

That's why I like Bob. He isn't married to ideology, and he learns from his mistakes.

But then there's this:

Union boss Bob White called a meeting with all the NDP premiers to give them their marching orders on how to cope with the economic crisis. As Rae recalls in his book From Protest to Power, White suggested the provinces keep spending; if they couldn't pay their debts, they could declare bankruptcy "like the Reichmanns." Roy Romanow, the then premier of Saskatchewan, led the charge against White along with Rae. "After that exchange," Rae writes, "there was nothing more to be said."

And that's another sticking point for me.

I support the labour movement on general principles. Workers' rights, fair wages, all that. In practice... well, I have heard too many tales from too many friends and family who are union members to have many illusions about the benefits of most modern unions.

One fundamental question for me is this: at what point do the interests of the Big Labour unions coincide with those of the corporations that employ their members?

One example in my own neighbourhood is Loblaws. Some time in the mid-nineties, Loblaws decided that they were facing an imminent threat from Wal-Mart, which had been opening grocery sections in many of their stores in the U.S. Assuming that it was only a matter of time before Canadian Wal-Marts followed suit, they pressured their main labour union - the UFCW - to accept some pretty draconian measures in order to ensure that their employers could remain 'competitive'.

The result was union employees working for barely above minimum wage, and the near total elimination of full time positions in favour of even lower paid part-time jobs with no security and no benefits for three years.

But of course they still have to cough up their union dues. And their boss is still in business.

I look at that and think about the Canadian Auto Workers Union and wonder: at what point do the short term interests of their union members, linked as they are with the fate of the big auto makers, begin to conflict with the interests of... well, the planet? And what about the oil workers' unions? Or coal miners' unions? Or... ?

To me, this is the fundamental problem with the relationship between the NDP and labour. A union's responsibility is to look after the best interests of its members, however they interpret those interests. As it should be. But the responsibility of a political party or, potentially, a government, is to look after the interests of all of its constituents.

So, what happens when there is a conflict? What happens when what is good for the environment isn't so good for Ford and GM's car sales? What happens when what is good for the majority of Canadians is maybe not so good for, say, the workers in the Alberta oil sands, or the forestry industry?

This concerns me, and I think it is question that both the NDP and the Liberals would do well to ask of themselves, their party and their leaders.

Who do you serve?

Number Crunching 2: Where Did All the Liberal Voters Go?

The inter-party dynamics took on a rather different tenor during the recent election. Instead of the usual 'blue vs. red and let the weirdos take the dregs' approach, the NDP and even the Green Party were finally recognized as a force to be reckoned with. At least by the Liberals - the Conservatives, of course, paid them no mind as they recognized that all of their new votes were going to be coming from the Liberals, thus regarding the other parties (except the Bloc) as beneath their notice.

The Liberals, on the other hand, had the rare good sense to recognize the NDP and the Greens as a significant potential drain on their votes. But instead of simply agreeing with them on principle while arguing that Liberals are better and more experienced at the application, they chose to go on the attack, making party level pleas for strategic voting and practically calling Jack Layton a dirty commie.

They actually seemed surprised by the results.

I mentioned earlier that the Liberal Party is hemorrhaging to the left. Most election post-mortems have noted this, but have been focusing on the seat counts and the percentage shifts, which don't really tell the whole picture because they are skewed by the vagaries of our FPTP system and the size of the smaller parties. I've found the raw numbers of voters to be far more telling. Here's the evidence:

- Compared with 2006, the only party which showed a net increase in votes was... the Green Party. To the tune of about a quarter million votes. Independents and miscellaneous fringe parties also showed an increase.

- If you adjust for the drastic decrease in voter turnout this year, you would get the following net losses and increases:

Conservative: +198,011
Liberal: -597,097
NDP: +95,191
Green: +342,907
Bloc: -76,648
Other: +21,612

In other words, only about a third of the Liberals' lost votes went to the Conservatives. The other two thirds went to the Greens and the NDP. This is in stark contrast to the previous election, where almost all of the Liberal losses benefited the Conservatives.

- In Quebec, the big losers were the Bloc and the Conservatives, who each lost the adjusted equivalent of over 100,000 votes. Many of those were picked up by the Liberals - many more by the NDP.

These numbers tend to verify the impression I got listening and talking to people during this election. Right-leaning Liberals were drifting to the Conservatives, or just choosing not to vote, because they felt that Dion was a weak leader. However, there don't appear to have been a lot of them this time, and I believe the Conservatives are approaching their ceiling in terms of numbers of voters.

But left-leaning Liberals, as well as NDP and Green supporters who might have otherwise voted strategically, told me that they could not bring themselves to vote Liberal because they did not consider the Liberals to be a truly progressive party. In fact, they didn't see much difference between the Liberals and Conservatives at all - an impression left by Chretien and Martin's centrist, corporate-friendly fiscal policies, as well as the embarrassing record of abstentions during the last Parliament.

The decision the Liberal Party needs to make right now is if they're ok with that.

If they are - if they want to continue presenting themselves as a kinder, friendlier version of the Conservatives who know how to balance the books and keep the Bay Street boys happy - then by all means, they should go with someone like McKenna, or Manley, or even Ignatieff. They might even win a few of those Red Tories back with a more palatable leader making their case.

However, leaving aside for the moment my philosophical revulsion for that sort of approach, I honestly don't think that anything can be gained by it. Fiscal prudence might appeal to pensioners and corporate donors, but it's hardly the way to generate voter enthusiasm or grassroots donations, and that's what the Liberals desperately need right now.

Going by the numbers and not just the seats, the message is clear: the Conservatives have stalled, and the moderate left is on the ascendancy. The only question is, will the Liberals stop pandering to the corporations and money men whose influence and vote-buying powers are no longer what they once were? Or will they wake up and start paying more than lip service to what the majority of Canadians clearly want - sound fiscal and social policies that actually put people and the planet first?

The answer will determine their survival as a political force in this country.

Conservatives to Target NDP, Greens

I'm not at all sure what to make of this:

Tories change campaign target to aim at NDP, Greens

OTTAWA - The Conservatives said Sunday they are refocusing their primary aim on the NDP and the Green Party, citing them as a bigger threat to their reelection than the Liberals.

The Tories explained their dramatic shift in strategy, coming as the second week of the federal election begins, as being due to NDP Leader Jack Layton's rising popularity over that of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's main target last week.

But the Conservatives also said that the NDP and Green Party are making significant inroads, not only in British Columbia and parts of the Prairies but in northern and southwestern Ontario.

I'm trying to think of any way in which this would actually benefit the Conservatives. After all, of all the NDP supporters I know, I can't think of one of them who wouldn't rather gnaw of their own leg than vote for Stephen Harper. If they suddenly became disenchanted with Jack Layton (and some of them have), they might vote Green or Liberal, but never, ever Conservative.

The only thing I can think of is if some of the hardcore union types would consider the Conservatives a viable alternative. I don't know. Perhaps some of you Blogging Dippers can enlighten me. I've probably been a little sheltered in my GTA cocoon, but most of the NDP supporters I know are more latte than lunch bucket.

BTW, I've mentioned this before but I should probably say it again. I have no problem with the NDP. I used to vote NDP on a regular basis, and would happily do so again. I have some problems with Jack Layton, but if it even came down to a choice between him and Harper, I'd pick Layton in a heartbeat. So if things ever got to the point where the NDP became the official opposition and voting for them became our best chance of getting rid of Harper, then... well...

Happily, I don't think we're there yet. But things sure are getting interesting.

I Am Jack's Indignant Capitulation

“I have only one condition for this debate, that the Prime Minister is there, because I want to debate the issues with him. I don't want to be debating the debate forever.” - Jack Layton

“Let the record show we were on the side of the angels" - Liberal Senator Jim Munson

Indeed.

And the Candidate is...

For well over a year now, the citizens of Halton Region have been waiting with bated breath to find out who would be squaring off against Garth Turner as the Conservative candidate in what seems to be a now imminent federal election.

Would it be ex-Reformer Rick Malboeuf? Or maybe Charles McVety devotee D'Arcy Keene? Or perhaps some new, fresh face would emerge from the ranks? Whoever it turned out to be, he or she would most certainly be elected by an open, democratic process by the local Conservative Party membership. Right?

Meh... not so much.

Halton riding has a consistent and active membership of around 550 and a significant amount of money in the bank. It has always had a healthy riding association ­ active in many community events and experienced at winning elections. There have been at least three very well-qualified members who have announced their intention to seek the candidacy for the same two years. All the requirements for holding a candidate selection process have been in place. It is axiomatic that the longer a candidate has to work the riding the more likely he/she is to have a positive influence on the outcome of an election.

However, PoliOps has decided to appoint Lisa Raitt as the Tory candidate in Halton...

It is likely that the fuss raised by the newspapers and blogs about the nefarious treatment of the Mississauga East-Cooksville membership caused PoliOps a little temporary concern (see Mississauga South) and sometime in February/March 2008 they told Lisa Raitt she'd have to campaign for the candidacy (like Major Ted Opitz). She flatly refused. She gave the bogus excuse that her position in a government agency didn't allow her to campaign for a political position. This is not true. More likely she was concerned about the optics among Toronto city councillors and/or she simply didn't want to lower herself, or exert herself, to engage in a contest for a position she had previously been assured was hers and that she still wanted to have.

So PoliOps made a tactical shift. The membership in Halton will not be allowed to choose their own candidate. Whenever the writ is dropped for the next federal election, the cover of the call to arms will be used to sneak in Lisa Raitt as the official Party Representative.

Oh yes. This is going to be WAY fun.

.....

As an aside, while I was digging through Garth Turner's blog archives looking for info on his former nomination rivals, I ran across this gem of a quote from the days shortly before he was unceremoniously booted from his own party:

Political parties are shaped by the people who form them. Policies emerge, evolve, mature or disappear. Leaders come and go. Nobody expects new members to throw off their old ideas or principles when they join - the party only hopes supporters will be just that, supportive.

Parties adopt and reflect the people in them, rather than the other way around. Modern Canadian political parties are not mental or moral straightjackets which squeeze out personal belief or questioning analysis.

Given the somewhat upsetting discussions I've been having recently with some of my NDP brethren in the blogosphere over my support of the Liberal Party, I found that to be appropriate and surprisingly heartening.

Well said, sir.

The Green Shift: Rational Discourse

With so many people, bloggers and otherwise, either defending the Liberals' 'Green Shift' plan uncritically or dismissing it out of hand - with their positions almost always based on party affiliation - I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to read the following from Devin Johnston:

Stéphane Dion has asked Canadians to engage in an honest discussion of his "Green Shift" carbon tax proposal. I thank the Liberal leader for his maturity in engaging in an open policy discussion of a matter of critical importance to the country, unlike the Conservative government which has adopted the strategy of inaction and denial on the climate change issue, while using immature and dishonest rhetoric rather than substantive policy analysis in opposing Dion's proposal. While I ultimately conclude for reasons to follow that the proposal as it currently stands is bad policy, the potential exists for the Liberals and NDP to come together to create broader-ranging, multifaceted plan that makes better policy sense. I encourage both parties to seriously examine this "third option" instead of allowing their differences to prevent substantial action from being taken (as was the case on the Afghanistan file.)

He goes on to provide some of the most intelligent and thoughtful analysis I've read so far on this issue, discussing the pros and cons of not only the Liberal plan but the NDP plan as well, and making some concrete suggestions as to how the best elements of both might be combined.

Before proceeding to some of the pros and cons in general terms, though, it should be pointed out that there is nothing incompatible about these policy options. A hybrid system in which there is a hard cap and emissions under that cap are taxed is possible. Moreover, neither one of these options is viable in and of itself. Any basis policy framework aimed at reducing carbon emissions must also be supplemented by additional measures such as investments in green technology and low-interest loans for home retrofitting (just to give two examples.) Moreover, both increase the cost of goods and thereby distribute the burdens addressing climate change on to individuals, leaving lower income persons particularly at risk. Therefore, climate change policies must include provisions that soften the blow to the working poor, who are often not in a position to adapt to a less carbon-intensive lifestyle.

It goes on, with even most of the commenters making rational, productive contributions to the discussion. Read and learn.

This is how the grownups do it, folks.