Liz May: The Ridiculously Serious Contender

As an update to today’s news that the Green Party has, um, purchased its first MP in the House of Commons, the Star is now asking if May will be in the debate, and quotes Mother Nature as saying,

“If they decide not to allow me in the debates, what they’re really doing is telling voters `don’t take that party seriously.’ It’s inherently antidemocratic and the signal it sends to the voters is powerful…

Just for the record, this is the same Green Party whose August 29th edition of it’s official site includes an article titled: Harper as Canada’s Nero: Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Harper fiddles while the Arctic melts, while the leader herself got in trouble last year for comparing our Prime Minister to the infamous German National Socialist Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Is this the language that we expect from a serious national leader, or from someone who wants to represent all Canadians? In light of how extreme the Greens have been in attacking their opponents, maybe it’s not the best idea for Liz May to remind Canadians that she’s being serious!

Eloquent Update: From CTV on Wilson’s crossing:

May said the move shouldn’t be characterized as opportunistic, “however, it is a hell of an opportunity.”

We can only hope she’s sound as articulate during the debate, if she makes it!

The Greens Just Found A MP…Now Can They Actually Elect One?

Political posturing, but very clever on the part of Liz May! That is the best way to describe Blair Wilson (Ind->Green, West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast)’s decision to join the Green Party as it’s first Canadian elected representative on the long-weekend before an all-but-confirmed election call! I say that Wilson is an elected representative, but let’s make no bones about this one: the Greens have clearly still been unable to elect anyone to a position much higher than City dog-catcher (a handful of apolitical city councilors have declared their Green preference).

The move is equally brilliant on the part of Green leader May, since it allows her to beef up her case for getting into the expected leaders’ debate that will take place in about a month’s time if the election rumours come to full fruition. She will likely argue that a lone MP, Deborah Grey, was able to propel her close friend and leader, Preston Manning, into the 1993 election debate which allowed their Reform Party to become tied with the Bloc for the second-largest caucus prize after that election. Greens will also trump up the claims that they have consistently polled around where the federal MP was before Jack Layton came on the scene, and that they are on par, if not above the third place Bloc Quebecois in the weekly polls we’re exposed to. If I were May, I would have done no different in courting Wilson — her persistence in turning to every disgruntled Independent this session, from Garth Turner, to Bill Casey, and now Blair Wilson, has finally paid off!

However, before we all run off to give May her much-coveted TV time, we need to put this in historical context, which will ultimately stave off the Green advance onto the small screen. First, when it comes to the Reform example, we have to remember that Deborah Grey wasn’t just elected, but was elected under the Reform banner in a 1989 by-election. Additionally, the party elected a Senator that then-PM Brian Mulroney appointed to the Senate and they were definately going to make an impact on the outcome of the election (this last qualification is the one that the media cites when determining which parties get into the debate). If the Greens want to argue for their place in the debate, they should ignore Reform and turn to the Bloc instead: the Bloc also was allowed into the TV debates in 1993 for the first time, but they also had never elected anyone, including the dog catcher! The Bloc had two MPs, including a former cabinet minister who served in that role during the preceding Parliament. On a more realistic note, many Canadian’s outside of Quebec express dismay that the Bloc is still allowed into the English debates since all of its candidates run in Canada’s exclusively French province. To give credit where due though, at least the Bloc is able to elect a sizable caucus each time, and continue to demonstrate that they play a significant (if not destructive) role in the course of our country. May cannot honestly argue the same. Finally, we should look at one more party to put this all into context. From the dawn of TV debates, right up to 1980, a third party had consistently elected MPs in the general elections of that era, made an impact on the elections and Parliaments they participated in (including one instance where they killed the career of a Prime Minister) and yet, they never were invited into the televised debates. The party, of course, was the Social Credit Party and while they saw consistently declining support since their heydays in the 960s, they made an impact on the Canadian landscape right up to last time they were elected: Joe Clark’s minority Parliament of 1979-80.

So, in context, the Greens still have a long way to go before they can argue that they have a right to be on the screen when Canadians tune in to decide who they’ll be voting for this fall. Incidentally, the move by Wilson might just give Foreign Affairs Minister and fellow turncoat David Emerson (Con, Vancouver Kingsway) an opportunity to claim a seat in this upcoming election after all. Wilson’s riding was being floated around already as a place where Emerson could run and have a chance of not being forcefully returned to the private sector; if he and the current incumbent were both party floppers, it might soften the backlash he is likely to receive after his infamous team-trading a week after the last election. Still, if the Conservatives want to play it safe, Wilson’s decision today will almost certainly allow the Tories to retake the west Vancouver riding if they just run someone who is uncontroversial; the Liberals, barely able to win last time, will be too focused on defeating the newly-empowered Green machine in order to take the Tories on directly. As for the Greens, they will likely lose Wilson as quickly as they gained him — but as for the larger goal of actually electing a Green to Ottawa, he will serve as a potent boost in the arm!

Update:Mike (see comments) notes that the Socreds did get into the 1968 debate (an interesting affair in it’s own right, given that it showed Tommy Douglas do a pretty passionate piece against allowing homosexual marriage). However, it would still be hard for the Greens to argue that having a seat in Parliament, even if the seat was gained in an election under a Green banner, automatically entitles you to be in the debate as the Socreds didn’t get this privilege in other elections. Before we tackle that ball of wax though, let’s see them get a Green elected!

Calling all Political Scholars: Can the Liberal Party go Bankrupt?

And secondly, what happens if they do?

From what I understand, the LPC is deep in debt.  If an election is called, they will get a bit of cash from Elections Canada, but if they want to even come close to standing up to what the CPC can spend, they will have to run up more debt.  Given that they are in no position to fundraise or improve their optics, it is concievable that they could go bankrupt.  What would happen?

Would they be forced to dissolve their party?

Could they just re-form under another name?

Would their MPs be considered independents?

Would the parliament have to be dissolved so that all those ridings represented by a Liberal could have elections?

Just wondering.

Reported Crime Versus Unreported Crime

More stupid stats from BC:

Crime in BC hits 30 year low

At least they kind of realize this may be misleading:

But these numbers don’t necessarily mean less crime is being committed in the province or that police are cracking down more effectively.

What it means is more crime is going unreported.  Someone got into my car the other night.  We came out in the morning and found the door to the car open and the glove box open.  Admittedly the door was not locked in the first place, but the car was parked in our driveway and it was our car.  It’s a crime regardless.  But we didn’t report it.  Why?  Because we knew the cops wouldn’t do a thing.  In many other instances I personally have encountered, the police no longer go to what they call “minor” break-ins.  No checking for fingerprints, no searching for evidence.  Unless you actually see the guy running away or catch him in the act, they ain’t coming.

How many crimes are occurring that people just don’t bother to report to the cops because the value of the goods is less than their insurance anyway, so they’ll just have to pay for it out of pocket?  It’s just a bunch of hassle to report crimes that don’t get followed up or help to deal with your loss.

All I know is growing up, my family was not subject to nearly as many crimes as they are now.  In the past ten years I personally have been the victim of theft 5 times.  In the twenty years prior to that I had been the victim twice.  Is it because I have more stuff to steal?   I don’t think so.  I am thinking of my whole house – in other words, my parents’ and brother and sister’s stuff too.

Is this anyone else’s experience?  I’d like to see statistics from surveying people as to the frequency of the average person being a victim of a crime, reported or unreported.  Is that trending up or down?  Let’s compare official “crime rates” to official victim of crime rates.  What is the rate of reported crime per capita versus the number of victims of crime per capita?

British Columbia: Still Doesn’t Know What “Change” Means

The latest polls in BC on provincial politics are for the first time in years, showing the NDP ahead of the Liberals.  The Vancouver Sun says this means British Columbians want change:

The survey, which comes on the heels of an internal NDP survey conducted in July showing a neck-and-neck race between parties, also reflects a strong public appetite for change, with 58 per cent of respondents saying it’s time for a new political party to be in power.

I am sorry.  Letting the NDP back into power is not change.  It is recession.  In both senses: economically and historically.  Change would be letting the Greens or one of the fragmented pieces of the provincial conservatives in.  Not returning the NDP to power.

For New Democrats, the numbers were heralded as a sign the party and its leader, Carole James, are on the right path ahead of the May election.

If that is the case, this citizen of BC has been completely unaware that the NDP have articulated anything like a “path” heading into the election next year.

In fact, the only position I have heard the NDP take on anything in the last year has been their “Axe the Gas Tax” campaign, a blatantly populist appeal that has less than zero to do with their own base than it has to do with stirring up the Liberal base to mobilize against Campbell.

The fact is the NDP are only mad that they weren’t the ones who got to implement the Carbon Tax, which is very appealing to green voters and socialist voters alike.

So what is their position on anything?  Well, they don’t like… the Liberals.  And wish we wouldn’t vote for them.

Yeah, there’s a winning position.

But for some reason the writer of the piece insists on framing the NDP as having a position:

“The NDP message may be resonating, but it’s not going to be enough to propel her into government unless she can change the minds of those who haven’t decided,” he said.

Again, what message?  That bureaucrats don’t deserve a pay raise?  Is that what the NDP are campaigning on?  That 76% of British Columbians are jealous that some government workers got a pay raise?

I hate to say the words “Liberal” and “effective government” in the same sentence, but compared to the glory years under the NDP, they really have been.

I don’t recall the last labour dispute we had – I know there have been some, but not nearly as many as under the NDP, who the unions knew would cave into every single one of their demands sooner or later.

Business is booming.  The oil sector is doing great and the mining sector is actually becoming part of the economy in the province again – once the lifeblood of this mountainous resource-rich region, it had been driven to the brink of extinction under the NDP.  The Forest industry is struggling, but largely because of the real estate market collapsing in the USA, BC’s single biggest lumber buyer.

Things are getting done: bridges, underpasses, transit, highways… things that had been utterly neglected from lack of political will under the NDP are actually being accomplished.  Yes, some of that impetus came from the Olympics coming, but a lot didn’t.  Have you driven the Kicking Horse Pass lately?  Amazing.

Yeah I think the carbon tax is a joke, and there are other positions they have taken that I have not been in favour of, but overall, they haven’t been too bad and certainly a vast improvement over the NDP.

translation: “Please! No federal election!”

Stephane Dion’s statements yesterday sound like he is afraid of an election call or at least before the up-coming by-election. If the Liberals (or any of the opposition parties) wanted an election, they would say so.

The opposition parties understand the threat. If they stymie legislation, they will get an election. I would suggest that the Conservatives just continue to govern.

Plot to assassinate Obama in Denver foiled

A plot to assassinate Obama in Denver has been foiled by police:

One of the suspects told police they were “going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a … rifle … sighted at 750 yards,” Denver television station CDS4 is reporting. Police have told the television station that one of the suspects “was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative.”

Canada To Taliban

What would be a good response to this?

The Taliban issued a dire warning to Canada Sunday that if it does not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, insurgents would continue to target all Canadians in the country…

I think Peter MacKay didn’t do a bad job, but I would have worded it like this:

Thank you for the warning.  In return I would like to express similar sentiments.  To wit, if the Taliban do not cease and desist all agitation to once again take up government in Afghanistan, Canada will continue to target all Taliban members in the country.

This warning is a case in point for the value and purpose of the Canadian presence in Afghanistan.  If anything, this stiffens my resolve for Canada’s work there both militarily and in terms of aid.  The Taliban must end.

Organ recipients need a market more than a registry

People waiting for an organ transplant need more than a national organ registry — they need an organ market. If you want to increase the supply of organs made available for transplants, you have to provide a direct incentive. I think the best incentive is financial. In other words, pay people to provide an organ. If the payment was high enough, you would see a lot more people making an effort to transfer their organs after they die.

Providing incentives will undoubtedly lead to accusations of encouraging organ theft or harvesting that we hear about in other parts of the world. With the almighty power of the state at hand, there are ways of designing incentives to mitigate against abuse. For one, the incentives can be offered only to the family of the deceased.

Alternatively, the incentives do not have to be financial. A national advertizing agency could publicly praise organ donors in a direct personal manner. Everybody likes recognition when they do a good deed.

CIDA limits liability towards aid workers

The Canadian International Development Agency is on the right track on one thing:

CIDA has strengthened that language, adding a sentence that explicitly protects Canada against “claims or demands.” Some aid groups believe the government wants to improve its chances of suing NGOs to recover the cost of lawsuits and kidnapping ransoms.
—SNIP—
“As a humanitarian organization, our view is that if the government is sponsoring and encouraging an NGO to respond to a crisis, wherever it may be, that the government and the NGO jointly share responsibility,” said Stephen Cornish, policy adviser for Care Canada.

I realize that my perspective may seem cold and heartless given the timing of recent news but sorry, no can do. Aid workers who want to take the risk of working in dangerous places should negotiate the terms of their protection into their salaries and before they take the job — not after they get into trouble. The Canadian tax-payer should not be held at ransom and treated like a default rescue operation.

I have a lot of beefs with CIDA and the whole foreign aid industry. The statement: “CIDA, which oversees Canada’s development assistance to Afghanistan, issues grants to NGOs and other organizations that distribute aid on the ground.” makes my blood boil. Either it is poor journalism or the by-product of cultured deceit. How can an organization claim to be non-governmental when it gets grants and protection from the government? The next time I hear the term “NGO” as a label, I am going to politely ask them if I am paying them.

Next Page »