With advance polls now open, and election day itself looming around the corner, I am pleased at this time to announce my personal endorsement for the Liberal Party of Canada and, in particular, my local candidate, Kent Hehr.
There are a number of reasons that I feel the Liberal platform has my best interests at heart. Vitally important to this decision is my long-held belief that the role of government is to intervene in times of crisis, including - and this is the key point - times of economic strife. I have been impressed with the Liberal decision to NOT be overly concerned with balancing the budget; the rhetoric surrounding a national deficit has become fetishized with "balancing the books." It is refreshing to hear that a party accepts we have to spend money to implement promises, and moreover that the government can and should do so where the best interests of the country are concerned.
With that in mind, here are three key areas where the Liberal party has won my vote:
Dedicated Infrastructure Spending
The Liberal party's numbers on infrastructure spending are considerable: across the next 10 years, $20billion for Public Transit, $20billion in social infrastructure (low-cost housing, senior's residences, child care facilities, cultural/recreational facilities like gyms, parks, etc.), $20billion in green infrastructure (energy, flood mitigation, water treatment)(pg. 13 of the full platform) . These numbers are large because they MUST be large in order to make a difference. The Liberal party is the only leading choice willing to put in the required amounts and effort that would see any kind of meaningful effects in the areas outlined.
Logical Defence Spending
It is incredibly refreshing to finally hear a party support our Navy. Our arctic sovereignty is important, and it is a belief of mine that the only proper way to patrol and enforce that sovereignty is via a modern, well-equipped navy. We simply don't have the ability or resources to fly regular sorties with F-35 fighter jets over the northern frontier. The Liberal party plan to immediately scrap the F-35 boondoggle in favour of a lower-priced next-gen CF-18 just makes sense (pg. 70). The money saved can be wisely invested in a navy that can capably respond to situations on all of our shores.
What is especially encouraging about the Liberal plan for our defence budget is the emphasis on expert advice which has been ignored for far too long. Which leads me to my third point.
Reasoned, Open, Discussion
It might be a bit too far to say that our system of government is fundamentally broken; after all this election is still very much a horse race that at various times has been open to anyone. Still, it is almost universally recognized across the country that any system whereby a party can win a controlling interest in the House of Commons with roughly one-third of the country's support is deeply flawed. Therefore I am very pleased to support the Liberal party's promise to form a bipartisan, all-party committee that will look at EVERY form of possible change, including "ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting." (pg. 27).
Though Trudeau has personally voiced a preference for ranked ballots, what has impressed me about the Liberal Party's approach to reform is its measured tone. They have recognized the need for reform, and welcome the discussion from all parties to best address how to fix our ailing system. This tone has been echoed in other areas as well.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trudeau's leadership has been calm and reasonable. Maybe this deal would be good for Canada. Maybe it wouldn't. His suggestion that his government would have to wait to actually read the terms is a breath of fresh air in an environment of suspicion and hostility.
On his ideas for legalization of Marijuana, Trudeau again advocates calm, reasonable discussion. The "war on drugs" is a costly fool's errand, and hearing a leader espouse evidence-based research and a common sense approach to what really shouldn't be a hot-button issue is fantastic.
This tenor is felt in my local riding as well. Kent Hehr, the Liberal candidate for Calgary Centre, has a demonstrable record of working in the Alberta Legislature across party lines to get the job done. Through his and fellow Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman's efforts, GSAs were passed by a Tory government that really had no vested interest in seeing GSAs passed. Moreover, Hehr's tone in the debates has been one of offering change and conciliatory dynamics in the House of Commons. The other non-incumbent candidates have resorted too often to attacking incumbent Joan Crockatt's record. While that record is abysmal, Hehr is the only non-incumbent who then moves on to add and this is what I have to offer.
It is that key turning point that I feel has been upheld by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
Facing down juvenile attacks from both the Conservative and NDP parties, Trudeau has defied expectations and strived for the most levelled, thought-through conversation possible in a very volatile, lengthy election.
I could go on, but a wise man said brevity is the soul of wit and as this election has already stretched far past its best before date, I will close simply with this:
If you want balance, responsibility, and a government that listens?
Vote Liberal. Vote Trudeau. Vote Hehr.
 |
| Courtesy of The Liberal Party of Canada/Kent Hehr for Calgary Centre |
There are a number of reasons that I feel the Liberal platform has my best interests at heart. Vitally important to this decision is my long-held belief that the role of government is to intervene in times of crisis, including - and this is the key point - times of economic strife. I have been impressed with the Liberal decision to NOT be overly concerned with balancing the budget; the rhetoric surrounding a national deficit has become fetishized with "balancing the books." It is refreshing to hear that a party accepts we have to spend money to implement promises, and moreover that the government can and should do so where the best interests of the country are concerned.
With that in mind, here are three key areas where the Liberal party has won my vote:
Dedicated Infrastructure Spending
The Liberal party's numbers on infrastructure spending are considerable: across the next 10 years, $20billion for Public Transit, $20billion in social infrastructure (low-cost housing, senior's residences, child care facilities, cultural/recreational facilities like gyms, parks, etc.), $20billion in green infrastructure (energy, flood mitigation, water treatment)(pg. 13 of the full platform) . These numbers are large because they MUST be large in order to make a difference. The Liberal party is the only leading choice willing to put in the required amounts and effort that would see any kind of meaningful effects in the areas outlined.
Logical Defence Spending
It is incredibly refreshing to finally hear a party support our Navy. Our arctic sovereignty is important, and it is a belief of mine that the only proper way to patrol and enforce that sovereignty is via a modern, well-equipped navy. We simply don't have the ability or resources to fly regular sorties with F-35 fighter jets over the northern frontier. The Liberal party plan to immediately scrap the F-35 boondoggle in favour of a lower-priced next-gen CF-18 just makes sense (pg. 70). The money saved can be wisely invested in a navy that can capably respond to situations on all of our shores.
What is especially encouraging about the Liberal plan for our defence budget is the emphasis on expert advice which has been ignored for far too long. Which leads me to my third point.
Reasoned, Open, Discussion
It might be a bit too far to say that our system of government is fundamentally broken; after all this election is still very much a horse race that at various times has been open to anyone. Still, it is almost universally recognized across the country that any system whereby a party can win a controlling interest in the House of Commons with roughly one-third of the country's support is deeply flawed. Therefore I am very pleased to support the Liberal party's promise to form a bipartisan, all-party committee that will look at EVERY form of possible change, including "ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting." (pg. 27).
Though Trudeau has personally voiced a preference for ranked ballots, what has impressed me about the Liberal Party's approach to reform is its measured tone. They have recognized the need for reform, and welcome the discussion from all parties to best address how to fix our ailing system. This tone has been echoed in other areas as well.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trudeau's leadership has been calm and reasonable. Maybe this deal would be good for Canada. Maybe it wouldn't. His suggestion that his government would have to wait to actually read the terms is a breath of fresh air in an environment of suspicion and hostility.
On his ideas for legalization of Marijuana, Trudeau again advocates calm, reasonable discussion. The "war on drugs" is a costly fool's errand, and hearing a leader espouse evidence-based research and a common sense approach to what really shouldn't be a hot-button issue is fantastic.
This tenor is felt in my local riding as well. Kent Hehr, the Liberal candidate for Calgary Centre, has a demonstrable record of working in the Alberta Legislature across party lines to get the job done. Through his and fellow Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman's efforts, GSAs were passed by a Tory government that really had no vested interest in seeing GSAs passed. Moreover, Hehr's tone in the debates has been one of offering change and conciliatory dynamics in the House of Commons. The other non-incumbent candidates have resorted too often to attacking incumbent Joan Crockatt's record. While that record is abysmal, Hehr is the only non-incumbent who then moves on to add and this is what I have to offer.
It is that key turning point that I feel has been upheld by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
Facing down juvenile attacks from both the Conservative and NDP parties, Trudeau has defied expectations and strived for the most levelled, thought-through conversation possible in a very volatile, lengthy election.
I could go on, but a wise man said brevity is the soul of wit and as this election has already stretched far past its best before date, I will close simply with this:
If you want balance, responsibility, and a government that listens?
Vote Liberal. Vote Trudeau. Vote Hehr.
Last night the Inglewood Community Association hosted another all candidates debate for the riding of Calgary Centre, and something truly remarkable happened: everyone showed up. Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Thana Boonlert for the Greens, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, and yes, Joan Crockatt for the Conservatives. There was even an independent seeking signatures to be approved as a candidate for the riding.
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!
It's still a bit appalling to me that we're pleasantly surprised when politicians actually turn up for public forums to answer questions on their platforms. Still, I've already written an entire post largely dedicated to that topic, so instead I'm going to focus on the positive and just break down the debate's highlights.
The Nitty-Gritty
So to begin with, the format was a little bit...confusing. As I understood it, it went like this:
1. Candidates each had 2 minute introductions, in order of last name.
2. The Inglewood Community Association had pre-canvassed neighborhood residents for debate questions. They had selected 8 questions total. For each of these, a candidate would be randomly selected to answer.
3. The twist was, each candidate also had 2 yellow cards. With these cards, they could indicate their desire to respond to a question after the randomly selected candidate. Once a candidate "used up" their cards, they were done talking (unless randomly selected once more).
4. Following this initial Q&A, there was a short break. During the break, debate organizers collected questions from the audience and sorted through sixty-five (65!) of them to select four (4...).
5. Once again, candidates had yellow cards and could use them to jump in on someone else's question.
6. Finally, candidates each had 2 minute closing statements, in reverse order of last name.
There were some advantages to the card system. It forced candidates to think strategically about the questions they wanted to answer, and when. The order of questions was predetermined, but the randomization of responses meant you were never sure who would get what question when.
The problem with this, however, is that it meant we didn't necessarily hear everyone's thoughts on the issues. This was especially apparent in the final pre-made question, which went to Joan Crockatt, on ISIS recruitment. Other candidates were not able to respond, as they had used their cards, which meant Crockatt effectively had the floor on this issue unimpeded
I think that it was an interesting idea with a good aim, but could use a little fine-tuning.
 |
| Special thanks to Cameron Perrier (@CP_stylebook on Twitter) for snapping this picture of the debate questions! |
Winners and Losers
From the get-go, this was a debate between Liberal challenger Kent Hehr and Conservative incumbent Joan Crockatt. These two are the experienced politicians, the veteran debaters. They also came equipped with the largest groups of partisan supporters in the room; determined pockets of people that were easily identifiable by their applauding the slightest motion their candidate made.
Still though, I can safely say there were at least SOME undecided voters in the room (including myself) and I can safely say that they narrowly outnumbered each single partisan group (though not, by my reckoning, the sum total of all partisans).
So, who did it seem that these undecided voters were siding with?
Crockatt, I must say, gamely defended her government, and came equipped with a dazzling array of tax break programs and statistics. She was well-prepared, willing to take flack and boos on some subjects from left-leaning partisans, and spoke clearly and, by my count, had the fewest verbal stumbles. She also was riding well on the announcement from her government that the finances will be back in surplus this year.
I think the format also worked in her favour; as an incumbent, Crockatt is in the position of defending her government's record, and as any government that has ruled for a decade in Canada, that is never a fun place to be. The natural ebb and flow of approval for the ruling party is always tempered by time. But, with the format set up in the way it was, she could simply ignore those questions not well suited to her or her party's interests: C-51 oversight, environmental responsibility, and climate change.
Hehr would likely have welcomed the opportunity to attack Crockatt directly on these issues, but as it was, his statements on these points (excepting C-51, for obvious reasons) felt a little bit more like him putting forward his party's position rather than an opposition to the government.
The only point of direct conflict between the two main contenders, at least in the first half, came early on, on the point of seniors housing. Crockatt was first up on the question, and responded that the issue is technically a provincial issue (which is more or less accurate), and went on to espouse her government's record of tax breaks for seniors. Hehr challenged her by stating that her government's attempt to blame things on the provinces is symptomatic of an attempt to blame others and to argue with premiers rather than meet them. It was one of the only times we saw a direct challenge between the two in the first half.
The second half, however, became more interesting. As these questions came from the audience, they were especially partisan in their style. And they kicked things off with a doozy: a question on Transgender Rights.
The question went to Kent Hehr. As someone who was largely responsible for the creation of Gay-Straight Alliances in Alberta, this is an issue that is right up Hehr's alley. He proudly touted his voting record in the Alberta Legislature, then pivoted to slam Crockatt over voting against C-279 (an act to amend Human Rights Act in favour of Trans rights). The applause was deafening, by far the biggest reaction of the night.
Following Jillian Ratti's echoing of Hehr's work, Crockatt took out a yellow card to respond. She started off with a fatal mistake: saying that the trans issue is complex. The boos, while not as loud or sustained as the preceding applause for Hehr, spoke volumes. It is never wise, on any issue, to prevaricate about the bush. Her position was further damaged by her own attempt to deflect the voting record back onto Trudeau, pointing out that the Liberal leader also did not vote for the bill. There are only a couple of problems with this argument. 1) Trudeau was absent. Crockatt was present, and voted against C-279. To say these actions are equivalent is simply false. 2) Even if Trudeau HAD been present and voted against it, to say that "he is just as bad as me" is still an admission of fault.
Indeed, for this question and perhaps this question only, I have to give the debate to Hehr. Were it not for this major gaffe, it might have been an even fight, as Crockatt gave decent answers on the economics issues and flood mitigation (though if one listened carefully to the latter, there was a great deal of vagueness on specific measures compared to Hehr's promise of the Liberals' infrastructure spending. This didn't seem to resonate with the crowd though) - two chief concerns of the community of Inglewood. However, her position on C-279 and her recent problems with Pride Calgary still seem to hold in the memories of residents in Calgary Centre, and they were only exacerbated by one of her supporters (I'll come back to this momentarily).
While Hehr would be my overall winner, however, I have to give special attention to a dark horse first-timer of Thai ancestry. Thana Boonlert is young and inexperienced, but I have to say I was very, very impressed by how much he improved over his previous debate appearance in Britannia. He was personable, engaged, and more developed in his strategy. He positioned himself carefully as an alternative to the big hitters rather than a second banana. I still don't think he garnered much support in the room, but I applaud Boonlert's effort and I hope this election only marks the beginning of a potential political career.
Line of the Night
I know it'll seem like I'm spreading the love around equally, but I have to give my one-liner of the night to NDP candidate Jillian Ratti. Sincerely, I did not think she had this kind of quick wit in her. I had mentioned before that a Crockatt supporter in the audience hurt the incumbent's position on Trans rights. Let me paint you a picture.
Having just taken a hit from Hehr on C-279, Crockatt then had to endure a further rebuke from Ratti. But no sooner had Ratti opened her mouth, than a woman yelled out "very proud of you, Joan!"
To be clear, that's: very proud of you for limiting trans rights, standing up for traditional family, etc. etc., to read between the lines.
Over the ominous murmurs of the crowd, Jillian Ratti grinned broadly, and proclaimed: "My first heckler, I'm a real politician!"
That, deservedly, got the biggest laughs of the evening.
In Closing
Whatever your opinions on the candidates, this debate was fantastic. Turnout was BIG. It was standing room only in the Inglewood Community Hall. I ballparked the crowd at 200, but I'd be prepared to edge that up to 250. I don't know if there are further community debates planned, but I sincerely hope all the candidates continue to turn up to every conversation whenever possible. What this debate showed is that when there is a real conversation with real opposition, the public is interested.
Kudos to the Inglewood Community Association for hosting, and thank you to Avnish Mehta for taking on the challenging task of moderating.
Onwards to October 19th!
I attended a debate on Wednesday night. Well, I say "debate" but what occurred on the stage (or rather, in front of it, since it wasn't wheelchair accessible) at the B'nai Tikvah Temple in Calgary's neighbourhood of Britannia would be more accurately described as a series of tiny stump speeches. This could be viewed as a flaw in the format - there was no type of rebuttal system set up, merely a series of questions from both the Calgary Leadership Forum who organized the debate, and allotted time from the candidates to answer - but really the candidates themselves were very unwilling to challenge each other. Again, we could view this as a flaw in the candidates themselves - three were brand new to politics, and obviously very nervous to be there - but really there was very little that these candidates disagreed on (with the obvious exception of the Libertarian Candidate).
So what happened?
You may have already heard, but the Harper Government has issued marching orders to all of its candidates instructing them that they should avoid debates and the media for the duration of the campaign. These marching orders were issued literally the day before this particular debate was to take place. Until that point, the incumbent for the riding of Calgary Centre, Joan Crockatt, had in fact confirmed her attendance. Confirmed, it must be stressed, after being given three alternative dates to choose from. Yet at 4pm the previous day, the Calgary Leadership Forum was contacted by the Crockatt campaign team and informed that the incumbent would not be in attendance. The reason given? Her mother's 88th birthday celebration. In Lloydminster.
Far be it from me to be judgmental, but I would suggest that such an occasion could perhaps have been slightly anticipated and planned around accordingly.
Regardless, the remaining candidates - Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, Thana Boonlert from the Greens and William Hatch for the Libertarian Party - all showed up, taking valuable time out of their campaign schedules to talk about the issues facing our country. And, lest we forget, so too did about 100-150 constituents, taking time out of their personal lives to hear from the people who are vying for their votes, one of whom, ultimately, will also represent their voices in the house of commons. You can well imagine the dismay of those gathered that the incumbent did not deign to grace them with her presence.
For my own part, such dismay was only compounded when Kent Hehr, currently the favoured choice to unseat Joan Crockatt, also informed me he would not be attending any further debates that she did not attend.
You see, in Hehr's view, an evening such as the one that occurred on Wednesday could be better spent doorknocking and shaking hands with constituents on a one-on-one basis. Expanding on this position, the Liberal candidate suggested that debates were frequented by the same crowd time and time again (and in small numbers), while doorknocking would be reaching an audience that is not already onside to his platform (and in far greater numbers).
To be sure, I do believe there is something to this. The crowd at the B'nai Tikvah Temple was definitely friendly to centre-left ideas (or at least, if they were opposed, they did not take pains to vocalize it). I did recognize some people from previous campaign events I had attended. But many others I did not. Factually, I know that people were in attendance who had never been to a local debate (having invited some of them myself). And perhaps most damningly, I know my own mind and my mind is not yet made up. Would another debate such as the one I saw on Wednesday change it one way or another? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would I attend such another debate? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I realize that I may be in the minority in my indecision. A poll from Insights West suggests that as many as 92% of Conservative supporters will not change their minds before election day. That figure may well be one of the strongest indicators that debates, as Andrew MacDougall observed in the Toronto Star, are "a highly partisan experience where people pack the rooms."
Still I can't help feeling that if our elected officials - ostensibly, the people who lead us and guide the direction of our country - do not actually lead, then we can only expect the system to get worse and worse. Indeed, it seems as though the local candidates are merely taking a page out of the playbook of their leaders. Thomas Mulcair has made it clear he will not attend debates that Stephen Harper is not part of, and has already pulled out of one such conversation. With the frontrunner in the polls and the incumbent PM not in attendance, how many people will tune into a debate between Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May (and maybe, if we're truly blessed, Gilles Duceppe)?
I should be clear that Kent Hehr's stance did not, from our brief conversation, appear set in stone. For that matter, it remains unclear if any further debates would be forthcoming. There are numerous non-partisan organizations in the city that very likely would want to hear what the candidates have to say about the issues (Calgary Economic Development, perhaps?). Organizing a debate is a thankless chore, however, and when candidates fail to show it becomes that much harder to raise volunteers and generate interest. It is my sincere hope, however, that if a debate does seem to be forthcoming, that ALL candidates, including Mr. Hehr and Ms. Crockatt, will attend.
A long time ago, I wrote a short play about a funeral that nobody shows up to. The funeral workers, however, are compelled to place the floral arrangements, dress the body, and set up the open casket. They do this because it is a ritual to them, a habit. Yet without any attendees, their gestures may ultimately be devoid of all meaning. Certainly the deceased man is not able to appreciate the work they are doing.
So in an election where none of the candidates show up, what exactly are we all doing? We can dress up the corpse of our country's democracy all we like, and run through the motions, but if the people running for office are ignoring the whole ritual, what meaning does our own participation in the election process have?
There's an old adage that repeating a process and expecting a different result amounts to insanity, but I put it to you: having a conversation with nobody present is the true definition of crazy.
So what happened?
You may have already heard, but the Harper Government has issued marching orders to all of its candidates instructing them that they should avoid debates and the media for the duration of the campaign. These marching orders were issued literally the day before this particular debate was to take place. Until that point, the incumbent for the riding of Calgary Centre, Joan Crockatt, had in fact confirmed her attendance. Confirmed, it must be stressed, after being given three alternative dates to choose from. Yet at 4pm the previous day, the Calgary Leadership Forum was contacted by the Crockatt campaign team and informed that the incumbent would not be in attendance. The reason given? Her mother's 88th birthday celebration. In Lloydminster.
Far be it from me to be judgmental, but I would suggest that such an occasion could perhaps have been slightly anticipated and planned around accordingly.
 |
| GordonMcDowell via Compfight cc |
Regardless, the remaining candidates - Kent Hehr for the Liberals, Jillian Ratti for the NDP, Thana Boonlert from the Greens and William Hatch for the Libertarian Party - all showed up, taking valuable time out of their campaign schedules to talk about the issues facing our country. And, lest we forget, so too did about 100-150 constituents, taking time out of their personal lives to hear from the people who are vying for their votes, one of whom, ultimately, will also represent their voices in the house of commons. You can well imagine the dismay of those gathered that the incumbent did not deign to grace them with her presence.
For my own part, such dismay was only compounded when Kent Hehr, currently the favoured choice to unseat Joan Crockatt, also informed me he would not be attending any further debates that she did not attend.
You see, in Hehr's view, an evening such as the one that occurred on Wednesday could be better spent doorknocking and shaking hands with constituents on a one-on-one basis. Expanding on this position, the Liberal candidate suggested that debates were frequented by the same crowd time and time again (and in small numbers), while doorknocking would be reaching an audience that is not already onside to his platform (and in far greater numbers).
To be sure, I do believe there is something to this. The crowd at the B'nai Tikvah Temple was definitely friendly to centre-left ideas (or at least, if they were opposed, they did not take pains to vocalize it). I did recognize some people from previous campaign events I had attended. But many others I did not. Factually, I know that people were in attendance who had never been to a local debate (having invited some of them myself). And perhaps most damningly, I know my own mind and my mind is not yet made up. Would another debate such as the one I saw on Wednesday change it one way or another? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would I attend such another debate? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I realize that I may be in the minority in my indecision. A poll from Insights West suggests that as many as 92% of Conservative supporters will not change their minds before election day. That figure may well be one of the strongest indicators that debates, as Andrew MacDougall observed in the Toronto Star, are "a highly partisan experience where people pack the rooms."
Still I can't help feeling that if our elected officials - ostensibly, the people who lead us and guide the direction of our country - do not actually lead, then we can only expect the system to get worse and worse. Indeed, it seems as though the local candidates are merely taking a page out of the playbook of their leaders. Thomas Mulcair has made it clear he will not attend debates that Stephen Harper is not part of, and has already pulled out of one such conversation. With the frontrunner in the polls and the incumbent PM not in attendance, how many people will tune into a debate between Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May (and maybe, if we're truly blessed, Gilles Duceppe)?
I should be clear that Kent Hehr's stance did not, from our brief conversation, appear set in stone. For that matter, it remains unclear if any further debates would be forthcoming. There are numerous non-partisan organizations in the city that very likely would want to hear what the candidates have to say about the issues (Calgary Economic Development, perhaps?). Organizing a debate is a thankless chore, however, and when candidates fail to show it becomes that much harder to raise volunteers and generate interest. It is my sincere hope, however, that if a debate does seem to be forthcoming, that ALL candidates, including Mr. Hehr and Ms. Crockatt, will attend.
A long time ago, I wrote a short play about a funeral that nobody shows up to. The funeral workers, however, are compelled to place the floral arrangements, dress the body, and set up the open casket. They do this because it is a ritual to them, a habit. Yet without any attendees, their gestures may ultimately be devoid of all meaning. Certainly the deceased man is not able to appreciate the work they are doing.
So in an election where none of the candidates show up, what exactly are we all doing? We can dress up the corpse of our country's democracy all we like, and run through the motions, but if the people running for office are ignoring the whole ritual, what meaning does our own participation in the election process have?
There's an old adage that repeating a process and expecting a different result amounts to insanity, but I put it to you: having a conversation with nobody present is the true definition of crazy.
 |
| Fire At Will [Photography] via Compfight cc |
"So they paid the expenses, not the taxpayers? I really don't get the fuss."
That's a comment on At Issue's Youtube video, "Nigel Wright's Testimony." Now, you're probably thinking: "A Youtube comment? REALLY?" And you'd be right. Typically speaking, Youtube comments rank up there with with a full-frontal lobotomy in terms of advancing the collective intellect of the internet. In this case, though, I think this comment illustrates the point I'd like to make today.
Doubtless you've at least heard of Mike Duffy and the Senate Expense Scandal. You might not necessarily be keeping up with it, but the name knocks about in the vernacular of our political discourse like a bb in a tin can, unavoidable and annoying.
You may have even heard that this is ostensibly a Big Deal, with nice big capital letters, and the timing of the Duffy Trial (again, with nice big capital letters) could be potentially devastating to the Harper re-election campaign.
Here's why I think that's very, very, unlikely.
For starters, you'll notice that I've taken great pains to acknowledge the fact that most Canadians don't thoroughly understand the entire Senate Expense Scandal issue, let alone the specifics of the Mike Duffy trial. And it IS Mike Duffy's trial, not, as some might think, a trial of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's Office, or even the Prime Minister himself. To be sure, all of these parties are involved, and the political and personal fallout for each could be (but probably won't be) disastrous. Let's assume, however, that a sizeable group do understand the mechanics of what exactly is alleged to have happened. Which is, essentially:
1. Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau (appointed by Harper) and Mac Harb (appointed by Jean Chrétien), in 2012 claimed travel and living expenses to their offices for which they were not eligible, according to senate guidelines for spending.
2. Following an audit, Duffy, Wallin and Harb all repaid ineligible expenses.
3. Harb retired in 2013, while Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau were all suspended from the Senate without pay.
4. Currently, Harb, Brazeau and Duffy are all facing charges related to expenses they were ineligible for. Harb faces one count of breach of trust and one count of fraud. Brazeau faces the same charges. Harb's court date has been pushed back in light of the length of the Duffy trial. Brazeau's has been slated for March 29, 2016 (he is currently on trial for unrelated sex assault charges).
5. Mike Duffy's trial is currently ongoing. He faces 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. The key difference here is the bribery charge. It is alleged that Duffy accepted, in essence, a "bribe" from the Prime Minister's Office. This bribe took the shape of a $90,000 cheque issued to Duffy, the purpose of which was to repay the outstanding expenses and ostensibly to spare the Conservative Party of Canada the embarrassment of having a senator in the caucus that could not (or would not) repay the money.
6. As things stand now, the argument that the Duffy defence team is mounting is that the PMO pressured Duffy into accepting the cheque, which would likely mean Duffy is off the hook on the charge of bribery. Herein lies the argument which, theoretically, should damn the Harper Conservatives.
7. And now, more on why I think that doesn't matter.
Were you able to follow all of that? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure I'm missing some of the more nuanced parts of how this all works, but I still consider myself reasonably well-informed when it comes to politics. And it's STILL confusing as hell. Try explaining this to somebody on their way into a voting booth and you'll just end up stepping all over your feet.
But more than that, I just don't think this is going to shake diehard Tory voters loose, for a few reasons.
Firstly, there is the amount of money. In the grand scheme of things, $90k pales in comparison to the federal budget. If the thrust of the argument is to be that taxpayer money was abused by the Senate, the figure must encompass all of the Senate's expenses, totaling in the millions. None of that is going to come out through this trial, and honestly even if it did it still doesn't match up against the money that was spent on, for example, the government's Economic Action Plan advertisements (in excess of $100-million). From this perspective, the trial is not likely to affect voting intentions whatsoever.
Secondly, there is the question of if the Conservative Party of Canada repaying the money counts as "taxpayer money being wasted." This goes to the core of that Youtube comment I posted earlier. Strictly speaking, the Conservative Party of Canada's money is raised for the purposes of campaigning and promoting party interests. It is raised through private donation, not through taxation, and it can be spent however the party feels is appropriate. As such, there is no actual cost to the taxpayer when the party spends funds from its own coffers. However, the morality of spending that money on a government official's expense account is, to say the least, questionable.
Which leads my to my third and most important point. Even if the Canadian public accepts that this is, indeed, a situation of corruption and bribery, the Tory diehard voter doesn't care. No, really. The number one election issue, according to the polls, is the economy. Corruption doesn't even rate high enough to show up in most cases. The closest we come is a concern of government overreach, as in the case of Bill C-51, but allegations of bribery don't even register in the minds of voters.
Why is this?
Partly it may well be that voters of every stripe have come to accept that our government always comes with a level of corruption. The Sponsorship Scandal, Premier Redford's own expense troubles, and the Ontario Power Plant Scandal all still linger in the memories of voters nationwide. Coupled with this cynicism, however, is a belief that as long as the government is doing one thing right, than all manner of sins can be forgiven. So just what IS the Harper government doing right for their faithful voters?
For an answer to that question, one need look no farther than the Rob Ford phenomenon. Taxes, taxes, taxes, went the drumbeat of Toronto's former mayor. I will keep your taxes low. Never mind that the money wasn't there to be given out, what mattered was that it was a simple, straightforward message that struck a chord with the basest impulse of voters: I get to keep my hard-earned money. It's the same way with the Harper Conservatives. In recent days, the party has come out with new platform planks aimed at echoing the message that your money is yours to spend: greater RRSP contributions, a cheque in the mail for having children, etc. etc. etc.
Vote buying, cries the opposition. Promises with no plan. Shameful pandering. Maybe so. Unfortunately, it also works. Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, scandal or no scandal, because the Tory message of "money in your pocket" WORKS. I sincerely think that anything short of the Prime Minister going to jail will not affect Tory diehard voting intentions, and I'm not even sure that would do the trick (I'd make an especially callous observation here about the hypocrisy of Vic Toews, he of the famous "with us or the child pornographers" line, and how he knocked up his babysitter, but...well, I guess I just did make that observation).
So what's the takeaway from all this? Is this trial all for nothing? No, of course not. If you believe that justice matters, then this trial matters. But where the election is concerned? Opposition parties and voters hoping that this will be the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Harper Conservatives are sadly mistaken. My suggestion to them is that they are better off focusing on establishing their own message and ensuring that they become the natural progressive option to unite around. Anything less, unfortunately, will be beaten back to the drumbeat of "taxes, taxes, taxes."
No, the title of this post does not refer to an eating contest under the infamous Golden Arches. Nor does it refer to a pair of oversized (and overpriced) computers playing a deep game of chess.
No, I'm talking about the Maclean's Debate between four of Canada's federal political leaders: Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May, Thomas Mulcair, and Stephen Harper.
This is the first debate in #elxn42 , and could potentially end up being one of the most interesting, for the simple fact that this is the only debate that Elizabeth May had been confirmed for (or invited to, for that matter). Let's dive right into it.
Pure Perception
The most notably uncomfortable person throughout this entire debate was unquestionably Thomas Mulcair. Coming off stiff and robotic for the majority of the conversation, Mulcair spoke in a low, odd, cadence, with a sing-song quality to it that seemed more suited for a scolding teacher than for a leader of the country. There just didn't seem to be much to like from the NDP leader tonight, certainly little of the fire or prosecutorial edge that we've seen before in Question Period.
Of note was Stephen Harper's change in tack from the 2011 Leader Debates. At that time, Harper's approach seemed largely to ignore his opponents, rarely making eye contact, focussing on the camera, and maintaining a rather aloof attitude. Here, he seemed more combative, actually turning to address his opponents, addressing them by slightly derogatory terms ("the other guys," "Tom," "Justin"), and giving his tone a bit more of an edge. I'm not sure it paid off, but I don't think the Prime Minister came off badly hurt either.
Gaffes
While I don't think there were any huge errors in this debate (and nor should there have been, this early in the campaign), there were two significant moments where Stephen Harper perhaps overplayed his position. Check out this exchange:
The question of whether Canada is in the middle of / headed for a recession has been a topic circulating the newsstands for a while now, and while most Canadians don't entirely know what a recession means, they certainly know it's not a good thing for their jobs. While a minor moment, it's something that people seized on, as Maclean's post-debate analysis showed that a top trending question was if Canada is in a recession or not. While the Prime Minister never explicitly uses the word "recession" himself, it's a reminder of how much of this election is pinned on his government's economic record.
The second error that Harper made came during a lively exchange on the senate. Watch here as Elizabeth May kicks things off:
Look, we all know that governments appoint senators. We also all know that senators typically will do what the government wants them to do. But it's a pretty big deal that the Prime Minister would so casually admit that he "asked them to support the party's position," especially at a time when the Senate is currently the target of a great deal of dissatisfaction among Canadian voters. That he seems relatively unconcerned with this definitely does not read well, and Thomas Mulcair is there to pounce on it. Notice how the Prime Minister changes tack slightly after Mulcair's monologue: "Let's be very clear, we simply asked senators to stick to their principles." You know, Tory principles.
Finally, I have to say that while not an outright gaffe, Thomas Mulcair's flubbing of his closing statement certainly didn't work in his favour. To goof on what should be the easiest, puffiest piece in any debate made Mulcair look unprofessional at a point where he really shouldn't, and while it probably won't cost him dearly in the long run, he'll have to work on his entire bearing in the future.
Winners and Losers
Ultimately, the three big contenders for Canada's next Prime Minister didn't really win or lose big. Aside from this being the first of what will undoubtedly be a long series of debates, none of the men really inspired, and none of them really crashed. The good news for them, of course, is that this means the campaign teams will each have time to try to refine their candidate's style and demeanour, see what issues piqued the interest of the public, monitor the readouts from social media, and update their tactics accordingly.
That's the men. What about the woman?
I have to say, Elizabeth May came out swinging in this debate and she definitely looked strong. Maclean's Magazine's post-debate analysis showed her name trending highest in the online conversation, with major spikes when she spoke out on Senate Reform, and during her Closing Statement. From the get-go, it was apparent that the Green Leader had more skin in the game, knowing that this might be her only chance to put her face and opinions in front of a large audience. She also took pains to position her party and herself as relevant, mentioning early on that this election has a very strong possibility of ending with a minority parliament that the Greens could hold a great deal more power in. And, in her closing remarks, May pointed out a host of issues that were ignored: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Social Policy, Medicare, and much more.
Ultimately, the real victory for May here could be convincing other debate hosts that her presence is welcomed by a large demographic, and we may not have seen the last of the Green Leader on the debate stage.
So, we could perhaps call Elizabeth May the "winner" of tonight's debate. What about a loser?
That title must be given to the Conservative Party of Canada, who, in their zealous rush to declare PM Harper the "winner" of tonight's debate, forgot what spellcheck is:
Shine on, you crazy diamonds.
That's all for now, folks! I'll be posting on Monday for some of the big stories we've heard this week on the campaign trail.
No, I'm talking about the Maclean's Debate between four of Canada's federal political leaders: Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May, Thomas Mulcair, and Stephen Harper.
This is the first debate in #elxn42 , and could potentially end up being one of the most interesting, for the simple fact that this is the only debate that Elizabeth May had been confirmed for (or invited to, for that matter). Let's dive right into it.
Pure Perception
The most notably uncomfortable person throughout this entire debate was unquestionably Thomas Mulcair. Coming off stiff and robotic for the majority of the conversation, Mulcair spoke in a low, odd, cadence, with a sing-song quality to it that seemed more suited for a scolding teacher than for a leader of the country. There just didn't seem to be much to like from the NDP leader tonight, certainly little of the fire or prosecutorial edge that we've seen before in Question Period.
Of note was Stephen Harper's change in tack from the 2011 Leader Debates. At that time, Harper's approach seemed largely to ignore his opponents, rarely making eye contact, focussing on the camera, and maintaining a rather aloof attitude. Here, he seemed more combative, actually turning to address his opponents, addressing them by slightly derogatory terms ("the other guys," "Tom," "Justin"), and giving his tone a bit more of an edge. I'm not sure it paid off, but I don't think the Prime Minister came off badly hurt either.
Gaffes
While I don't think there were any huge errors in this debate (and nor should there have been, this early in the campaign), there were two significant moments where Stephen Harper perhaps overplayed his position. Check out this exchange:
The question of whether Canada is in the middle of / headed for a recession has been a topic circulating the newsstands for a while now, and while most Canadians don't entirely know what a recession means, they certainly know it's not a good thing for their jobs. While a minor moment, it's something that people seized on, as Maclean's post-debate analysis showed that a top trending question was if Canada is in a recession or not. While the Prime Minister never explicitly uses the word "recession" himself, it's a reminder of how much of this election is pinned on his government's economic record.
The second error that Harper made came during a lively exchange on the senate. Watch here as Elizabeth May kicks things off:
Look, we all know that governments appoint senators. We also all know that senators typically will do what the government wants them to do. But it's a pretty big deal that the Prime Minister would so casually admit that he "asked them to support the party's position," especially at a time when the Senate is currently the target of a great deal of dissatisfaction among Canadian voters. That he seems relatively unconcerned with this definitely does not read well, and Thomas Mulcair is there to pounce on it. Notice how the Prime Minister changes tack slightly after Mulcair's monologue: "Let's be very clear, we simply asked senators to stick to their principles." You know, Tory principles.
Finally, I have to say that while not an outright gaffe, Thomas Mulcair's flubbing of his closing statement certainly didn't work in his favour. To goof on what should be the easiest, puffiest piece in any debate made Mulcair look unprofessional at a point where he really shouldn't, and while it probably won't cost him dearly in the long run, he'll have to work on his entire bearing in the future.
Winners and Losers
Ultimately, the three big contenders for Canada's next Prime Minister didn't really win or lose big. Aside from this being the first of what will undoubtedly be a long series of debates, none of the men really inspired, and none of them really crashed. The good news for them, of course, is that this means the campaign teams will each have time to try to refine their candidate's style and demeanour, see what issues piqued the interest of the public, monitor the readouts from social media, and update their tactics accordingly.
That's the men. What about the woman?
Ultimately, the real victory for May here could be convincing other debate hosts that her presence is welcomed by a large demographic, and we may not have seen the last of the Green Leader on the debate stage.
So, we could perhaps call Elizabeth May the "winner" of tonight's debate. What about a loser?
That title must be given to the Conservative Party of Canada, who, in their zealous rush to declare PM Harper the "winner" of tonight's debate, forgot what spellcheck is:
That's all for now, folks! I'll be posting on Monday for some of the big stories we've heard this week on the campaign trail.
Batten down the hatches! Hide the fine china! Alert the minutemen! And for God's sakes, somebody get Lloyd Robertson on the phone, I don't care how old he is; we need that soothing silver fox now more than ever.
But enough whinging and griping about dates, let's be real here for a second and talk about what's coming down the pipe here. No, not with the election, with me and this blog, that's what's important. Well, over the next 11 weeks, you can expect me to be keeping up with things, dusting off the cobwebs of this long-forgotten corner of the internet to give you my take on the latest debates, campaign messages, polls, and all the gaffes that are fit to print (and boy I bet there's going to be some peaches).
Yes it's election time in Canada, though unless you've been recovering from a brain injury that sent you on a mission of self-discovery through the interior of Kazakhstan in search of your own identity, you've probably noticed that this country's been in election mode for years now, and going strongly with every passing day. You can thank our current government's amendment to the Canada Elections Act for that, which declared every third Monday in October the shittiest goddamn holiday in our country's history.
Yes, a fixed election has just been declared, the first (and possibly last) of which is to be held October 19, 2015. This is a date that has been anticipated for so long that reporters are tweeting that children have been literally brainwashed by campaign attack ads which have been running for months. Now don't get me wrong, believe it or not I think this was a mad science experiment worth seeing to its conclusion. We've had governments drop writs like bombshells on opposition parties several times, in an attempt to sneak an election in while people are still wondering what the hell the Rhino Party actually is (I'm looking at you, Prentice! How's that premature resignation treating you?). A fixed election is supposed to level the playing field. Of course, having now lived through one, I think most Canadians will subject themselves to an airport colonoscopy before they have to suffer another one of these cookers.
 |
| Hey, if it's gonna happen, make it happen with the best, right? bionicteaching via Compfight cc |
By "my take" I naturally mean my opinion, and you can expect that to slant to my own opinions on the direction in policy I think the country should take. That said, I can promise you that I consider myself non-partisan in that I do not adhere to any specific political spectrum. For example, I support a strong Canadian navy - a typically "right of centre" idea - while also supporting higher corporate taxes - a typically "left of centre" idea. I am also open to new ideas, but I will question them with the hope of getting an answer that goes beyond ideology, such as the notion of a mandatory minimum wage.
I also consider myself non-partisan because at varying points in my life I have voted for every major party: the Tories, the Liberals, the NDP, even the Greens. I carry no membership card, I have never donated money. I flirted with volunteering for my local Liberal candidate, Kent Hehr, but left after only a few meetings, realizing very quickly that I preferred to remain on the outside as an observer and an independent, unbiased voter. Also I was pretty busy.
In addition to my own posts I'm going to keep a page of links to some important info pages: polls, vote compasses, elections Canada riding information, etc. Nothing with an editorial bent to it (go ahead and insert your own derisive sneer about polls and editorial bent here). You'll be able to find this page in one of the slides on the homepage at thecanerdian.ca. This should be up on Friday, August 7th. I'm just putting together a list of links now. I'm also going to try to alert people to major events, primarily debates, but if any noteworthy speaking engagements crop up I'll try to hone in on those too.
The last thing I'm gonna say is this. If you've never read my blog before (FOR SHAME) you could be forgiven for thinking, based on the way I've phrased a lot of this, that I am in fact a reporter with credentials and a press pass and an audience and friends and all that jazz. I am not. I have very strong opinions, and sometimes people like to read them. That's it. I get my information the same places everybody else does: from newspapers, from twitter, from seeing the candidates and leaders speak in public. I am just another Canadian, who is nerdy. I am the CaNerdian.
If I have one thing that I think I'm proud of, it's that I like to get people engaged in what might otherwise on the surface seem like a dull, pointless process. Well, I've voted in every election I've ever been eligible for, and let me tell you this: out of all of them, this might well be the most exciting and unpredictable we've had in my lifetime. If the polls are to be believed (and with people running aggregates at faster speeds than they've ever done), the three major parties are still very much all in the race, and there's a huge chunk of undecided voters out there ripe for the picking. So listen up, because your vote matters, and I'm going to do my damndest to remind you of that ever day from here through October 19th.
Let's do this.
The last thing I'm gonna say is this. If you've never read my blog before (FOR SHAME) you could be forgiven for thinking, based on the way I've phrased a lot of this, that I am in fact a reporter with credentials and a press pass and an audience and friends and all that jazz. I am not. I have very strong opinions, and sometimes people like to read them. That's it. I get my information the same places everybody else does: from newspapers, from twitter, from seeing the candidates and leaders speak in public. I am just another Canadian, who is nerdy. I am the CaNerdian.
If I have one thing that I think I'm proud of, it's that I like to get people engaged in what might otherwise on the surface seem like a dull, pointless process. Well, I've voted in every election I've ever been eligible for, and let me tell you this: out of all of them, this might well be the most exciting and unpredictable we've had in my lifetime. If the polls are to be believed (and with people running aggregates at faster speeds than they've ever done), the three major parties are still very much all in the race, and there's a huge chunk of undecided voters out there ripe for the picking. So listen up, because your vote matters, and I'm going to do my damndest to remind you of that ever day from here through October 19th.
Let's do this.
 |
| marke1996 via Compfight cc |
Today is my birthday, and there is one thing you can all do for me that would make me the happiest clam in the ocean.
Vote.
Today, advance polls are open 9AM-8PM in Alberta's provincial election, ahead of the final election day on Tuesday, May 5th (9AM-8PM as well).
For those of you who are concerned with watching the Flames play their hockey game at home, now is a good time to get this out of the way so you're not rushing around on Tuesday.
Voting is one of the most important things you should do whenever the opportunity presents itself. I barely update my blog these days, but I will do so to try to answer some of the questions you might have about why voting is important, and also to respond to some common objections I hear about the voting process.
What effect does the government have on my life anyway?
In point form, some quick things that our provincial government controls:
- your education
- your health care
- how much you pay in taxes
- your driver's license
- your liquor and tobacco prices/accessibility
- your ability to find a job
In other words, the government has a huge effect on your life. I can guarantee you that the government has a daily effect on the things you buy, the services you use, and the job you go to. Are you going to take control of your life, or let someone else dictate it for you?
How does my vote matter?
You vote for a person to represent your interests, and your community's interests, to the rest of the province. You ensure that your complaints are being heard when you cast a vote for the person you think will listen to you and respect you.
In the last byelection, the PC candidate in Calgary West won over his WRP rival by less than 300 votes. That might sound like a lot, but let me ask you this: how many Facebook friends do you have? How many twitter followers? Is it pretty close to 300? Maybe more? Maybe a lot more?
Every vote matters because you and the people in your life matter. When you encourage yourself and the people around you to vote, you can change an entire election.
OK, but my candidate's party is never going to win anyway!
So? What matters is if you think your candidate is going to represent your interests. The ruling party may have voting power in the Legislature, but every MLA has an opportunity at one point or another to address their concerns to the government.
If you need more proof of how public pressure and a few MLAs in opposition can make a difference, look no further than when the government passed leglislation on GSAs. The government, strictly speaking, did not HAVE to do that. But they did it because a handful of minority MLAs, mainly Liberals, stood up and made their voices heard. They galvanized the public and made sure the government heard the public too.
They didn't have to win the election. They just had to listen to the people they represent.
But I don't like any of the parties!
There are NINE PARTIES running in this election. To be fair, not all of them are running candidates in every riding, but three are, and they represent a broad spectrum of opinions between them: The PCs, the NDP, and the WRP.
The issues are complicated, yes, and you may not find someone who agrees with you on every little thing. But you should absolutely exhaust every option, try to find compromise, and cast your vote for the person who BEST represents your interests.
If, ultimately, you still feel that none of the candidates in your riding represent your interests, for whatever reason, you should still vote. And spoil your ballot.
Spoiled ballots are counted and tallied just as every vote for a candidate is. If a significant portion of voters were to spoil their ballots in a riding, that would send a message that you feel your interests are not being represented fairly. The winning candidate would be wise to address this demographic, because they will need their support if they expect to continue governing.
Now, a couple of common complaints I hear about the voting process:
What if I don't have a piece of ID?
If you are on the list of Electors, either from the last time you voted or the last time you filed your taxes, you do not need ID to vote.
If you are not on the list of Electors, you still do not need ID. You can substitute two pieces of approved material from the list at this link. These include things like Bank/Credit Card statements, personal cheques, correspondence issued by a school/university/college (great for young students with no driver's licenses), and much, much more.
But voting takes too long! I don't have the time
From your arrival time at the station, voting literally takes a matter of minutes, even if you are not on the list of Electors. In the Calgary area alone, there are at minimum 6 voting stations per riding. The smallest riding, Highwood, has 6 polling stations for approximately 2,000 people. That is roughly 333 people spread across 5 days of voting, for 67 people per day. The stations are open 9AM-8PM, or 11 hours. That's 6 people per hour. Even if we assume normal peak periods from work days, etc., you are NOT going to see huge lineups at the polling stations. Voting DOES NOT TAKE LONG.
If your work day extends over the election day, your employer is required to give you three consecutive hours of time to vote. As the polls are open 9AM-8PM, this means that if you either start your day at noon (thus giving you a window of 9AM-12PM), or end your day at 5PM (thus giving you a window of 5PM-8PM), you are not entitled to this time off.
If, however, your work extends over these hours in any way that does not give you three CONSECUTIVE HOURS, your employer must grant you the time in some way to allow you to vote.
Further answers to frequently asked questions may be found here, on Election Alberta's website.
The polls suggest this will be one of the closest elections in Alberta's history, and could change the shape of our province for years to come. Only your vote decide the course we take.
Vote for the Progressive Conservative Party. Jim Prentice's budget may be a hard pill to swallow, but they're making the right, responsible choices while protecting our industry, small businesses and heritage.
Vote for the Wildrose Party. They are the only party determined to hold the line on taxes, and will cut the areas that the other parties refuse to touch. They promise to find places to trim while keeping your services intact.
Vote for the New Democratic Party. It's high time we ditched the flat tax rate and started taxing those who can afford it. We deserve better services, and we have to find money to pay for them.
Vote for the Liberal Party. You agree that mandatory vaccination would be one way to send a message that you don't support anti-vaxxers. And the universal daycare/kindergarten system would be great for your kids.
Vote for the Green Party. Everyone else is ignoring the environment. Only the Green Party is committed to having our province meet carbon emissions targets and diversifying our energy industry.
Vote for the Alberta Party. They've been campaigning as a voice of moderate progressives, and want to stop subsidizing private schools at the cost of the public school system. At the same time, they want to protect small businesses by cutting taxes. They're a good midpoint between the hard lines.
The action you take in a voting booth, a process that literally lasts minutes, can have an impact that lasts a lifetime. So if you won't do it for my birthday wish, do it for yourself.
Vote.
Vote.
Today, advance polls are open 9AM-8PM in Alberta's provincial election, ahead of the final election day on Tuesday, May 5th (9AM-8PM as well).
For those of you who are concerned with watching the Flames play their hockey game at home, now is a good time to get this out of the way so you're not rushing around on Tuesday.
Voting is one of the most important things you should do whenever the opportunity presents itself. I barely update my blog these days, but I will do so to try to answer some of the questions you might have about why voting is important, and also to respond to some common objections I hear about the voting process.
What effect does the government have on my life anyway?
In point form, some quick things that our provincial government controls:
- your education
- your health care
- how much you pay in taxes
- your driver's license
- your liquor and tobacco prices/accessibility
- your ability to find a job
In other words, the government has a huge effect on your life. I can guarantee you that the government has a daily effect on the things you buy, the services you use, and the job you go to. Are you going to take control of your life, or let someone else dictate it for you?
How does my vote matter?
You vote for a person to represent your interests, and your community's interests, to the rest of the province. You ensure that your complaints are being heard when you cast a vote for the person you think will listen to you and respect you.
In the last byelection, the PC candidate in Calgary West won over his WRP rival by less than 300 votes. That might sound like a lot, but let me ask you this: how many Facebook friends do you have? How many twitter followers? Is it pretty close to 300? Maybe more? Maybe a lot more?
Every vote matters because you and the people in your life matter. When you encourage yourself and the people around you to vote, you can change an entire election.
OK, but my candidate's party is never going to win anyway!
So? What matters is if you think your candidate is going to represent your interests. The ruling party may have voting power in the Legislature, but every MLA has an opportunity at one point or another to address their concerns to the government.
If you need more proof of how public pressure and a few MLAs in opposition can make a difference, look no further than when the government passed leglislation on GSAs. The government, strictly speaking, did not HAVE to do that. But they did it because a handful of minority MLAs, mainly Liberals, stood up and made their voices heard. They galvanized the public and made sure the government heard the public too.
They didn't have to win the election. They just had to listen to the people they represent.
But I don't like any of the parties!
There are NINE PARTIES running in this election. To be fair, not all of them are running candidates in every riding, but three are, and they represent a broad spectrum of opinions between them: The PCs, the NDP, and the WRP.
The issues are complicated, yes, and you may not find someone who agrees with you on every little thing. But you should absolutely exhaust every option, try to find compromise, and cast your vote for the person who BEST represents your interests.
If, ultimately, you still feel that none of the candidates in your riding represent your interests, for whatever reason, you should still vote. And spoil your ballot.
Spoiled ballots are counted and tallied just as every vote for a candidate is. If a significant portion of voters were to spoil their ballots in a riding, that would send a message that you feel your interests are not being represented fairly. The winning candidate would be wise to address this demographic, because they will need their support if they expect to continue governing.
Now, a couple of common complaints I hear about the voting process:
What if I don't have a piece of ID?
If you are on the list of Electors, either from the last time you voted or the last time you filed your taxes, you do not need ID to vote.
If you are not on the list of Electors, you still do not need ID. You can substitute two pieces of approved material from the list at this link. These include things like Bank/Credit Card statements, personal cheques, correspondence issued by a school/university/college (great for young students with no driver's licenses), and much, much more.
But voting takes too long! I don't have the time
From your arrival time at the station, voting literally takes a matter of minutes, even if you are not on the list of Electors. In the Calgary area alone, there are at minimum 6 voting stations per riding. The smallest riding, Highwood, has 6 polling stations for approximately 2,000 people. That is roughly 333 people spread across 5 days of voting, for 67 people per day. The stations are open 9AM-8PM, or 11 hours. That's 6 people per hour. Even if we assume normal peak periods from work days, etc., you are NOT going to see huge lineups at the polling stations. Voting DOES NOT TAKE LONG.
If your work day extends over the election day, your employer is required to give you three consecutive hours of time to vote. As the polls are open 9AM-8PM, this means that if you either start your day at noon (thus giving you a window of 9AM-12PM), or end your day at 5PM (thus giving you a window of 5PM-8PM), you are not entitled to this time off.
If, however, your work extends over these hours in any way that does not give you three CONSECUTIVE HOURS, your employer must grant you the time in some way to allow you to vote.
Further answers to frequently asked questions may be found here, on Election Alberta's website.
The polls suggest this will be one of the closest elections in Alberta's history, and could change the shape of our province for years to come. Only your vote decide the course we take.
Vote for the Progressive Conservative Party. Jim Prentice's budget may be a hard pill to swallow, but they're making the right, responsible choices while protecting our industry, small businesses and heritage.
Vote for the Wildrose Party. They are the only party determined to hold the line on taxes, and will cut the areas that the other parties refuse to touch. They promise to find places to trim while keeping your services intact.
Vote for the New Democratic Party. It's high time we ditched the flat tax rate and started taxing those who can afford it. We deserve better services, and we have to find money to pay for them.
Vote for the Liberal Party. You agree that mandatory vaccination would be one way to send a message that you don't support anti-vaxxers. And the universal daycare/kindergarten system would be great for your kids.
Vote for the Green Party. Everyone else is ignoring the environment. Only the Green Party is committed to having our province meet carbon emissions targets and diversifying our energy industry.
Vote for the Alberta Party. They've been campaigning as a voice of moderate progressives, and want to stop subsidizing private schools at the cost of the public school system. At the same time, they want to protect small businesses by cutting taxes. They're a good midpoint between the hard lines.
The action you take in a voting booth, a process that literally lasts minutes, can have an impact that lasts a lifetime. So if you won't do it for my birthday wish, do it for yourself.
Vote.
Dating is hard, you guys.
Oh, I know that these days it's supposedly never been easier to meet people, though if we're being completely honest it would be far more accurate to say that it's never been easier to creep the every-loving-hell out of people from their body measurements to their social security numbers. Online dating has changed everything, folks. Nowadays, you're almost best served to send a robot out to consult with other robots to find the perfect match, chirping in their binary tongue that "MY CLIENT DOES NOT LIKE ORANGES" or "MY CLIENT HAS A NET ANNUAL INCOME OF >$30K." I like to picture them performing their "IF/THEN"criteria in a giant maze, bouncing off each other and the walls that various sites have thrown up arbitrarily like adorable little robot mice, scrambling for that final piece of cheese.
If I sound bitter, I'm actually not. It's my own fault, you see. I send my own robot into the maze with what may be the most difficult programming there is: "MY CLIENT DOES NOT WANT CHILDREN."
In the world of dating, this may be the atom bomb of all bombs to be dropped before, during, or after a date. It ranks up there with "I am a huge fan of the collected fiction works of Ayn Rand" or "My dick actually twitched a little to 2 girls 1 cup." (for the sake of your own sanity, DO NOT GOOGLE THIS IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS) When I drop this bomb, I have received a colourful variety of reactions, and none of them have been good.
Only in recent days have I realized that I could chart them the same way one charts the Five Stages of Grief. Which, in retrospect, makes perfect sense. Who wouldn't grieve the Schrödinger's loss of my might be/might not child? Obviously (*OBVIOUSLY*) they all must be mourning the sharp cutoff of my tremendously vital DNA.
So...
1. Denial
"Oh, come on, of course you want kids."
I'm not sure what people expect to happen when they say this to me. Do they expect me to slap my forehead in surprise, stammering in shock and awe: "My God, you're right! I DO want kids! Phew, I must've had a weird blackout there or something, good thing you came along and set me straight." Or maybe they think I'm making some kind of joke? But...what would the punchline be? "HA! Yep, you got me! Everyone wants kids! Anything to the contrary is such obviously bizarre deviant behaviour that it could and should be greeted with immediate and insulting disbelief!"
2. Anger
"That's the most selfish thing I've ever heard."
Wow. You'd be amazed how often people say this to me when I tell them no, I'd prefer that my freak seed remain inside my loins and not be inflicted on a hapless world. SELFISH. Forget never donating money or time, forget telling homeless people to get a job and a shave and to contribute to the society that they are so clearly leeching off while they peel scabs of just-healed rat-bites from their bodies, THIS...THIS IS UNFORGIVABLY SELFISH. NOT WANTING TO HAVE A CHILD. YOU HEARTLESS FESTERING GOB OF TOAD MUCUS.
3. Bargaining
"Oh come on, give it a few years and you'll want one."
This seems like a rather bizarre investigative leap to make. How could they possibly know this? Do they have a direct channel to the ethersphere? A gypsy owes them a favour for saving their life in the Falklands? Are they GOD? I'm asking sincerely here, because if they know this one fact with absolute clairvoyant certainty, then perhaps they could also tell me how to play the stock market accordingly, because oil just ain't cutting it for me these days (come on you precious black gold I know you've got at least 50 years left in you!).
4. Depression
"That's sad."
It is, isn't it? I mean...Jack and Rose came from two different worlds, and despite the odds (and the incredibly, incredibly brief span of time they knew each other) they came together onboard a ship and they formed a bond of love that truly spanned the test of time only to have it snatched cruelly away by mountains of ice and- oh. We're talking about something else, aren't we?
5. Acceptance
"..."
Hm? Oh, we haven't reached this yet. Darn.
Well that was a bit of a downer at the end, wasn't it? I hate to end on that kind of note...hmm...hey, you know what? It's Friday. And you know what Friday means?
Oh, I know that these days it's supposedly never been easier to meet people, though if we're being completely honest it would be far more accurate to say that it's never been easier to creep the every-loving-hell out of people from their body measurements to their social security numbers. Online dating has changed everything, folks. Nowadays, you're almost best served to send a robot out to consult with other robots to find the perfect match, chirping in their binary tongue that "MY CLIENT DOES NOT LIKE ORANGES" or "MY CLIENT HAS A NET ANNUAL INCOME OF >$30K." I like to picture them performing their "IF/THEN"criteria in a giant maze, bouncing off each other and the walls that various sites have thrown up arbitrarily like adorable little robot mice, scrambling for that final piece of cheese.
 |
| b_seven_e via Compfight cc |
"MY CLIENT LIKES PINA COLADAS AND GETTING CAUGHT IN THE R-"
"ACCESS DENIED. JOKE HAS NOT BEEN FUNNY FOR YEARS."
"ACCESS DENIED. JOKE HAS NOT BEEN FUNNY FOR YEARS."
If I sound bitter, I'm actually not. It's my own fault, you see. I send my own robot into the maze with what may be the most difficult programming there is: "MY CLIENT DOES NOT WANT CHILDREN."
In the world of dating, this may be the atom bomb of all bombs to be dropped before, during, or after a date. It ranks up there with "I am a huge fan of the collected fiction works of Ayn Rand" or "My dick actually twitched a little to 2 girls 1 cup." (for the sake of your own sanity, DO NOT GOOGLE THIS IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT IS) When I drop this bomb, I have received a colourful variety of reactions, and none of them have been good.
Only in recent days have I realized that I could chart them the same way one charts the Five Stages of Grief. Which, in retrospect, makes perfect sense. Who wouldn't grieve the Schrödinger's loss of my might be/might not child? Obviously (*OBVIOUSLY*) they all must be mourning the sharp cutoff of my tremendously vital DNA.
 |
| theoriginalbman via Compfight cc |
So...
1. Denial
"Oh, come on, of course you want kids."
I'm not sure what people expect to happen when they say this to me. Do they expect me to slap my forehead in surprise, stammering in shock and awe: "My God, you're right! I DO want kids! Phew, I must've had a weird blackout there or something, good thing you came along and set me straight." Or maybe they think I'm making some kind of joke? But...what would the punchline be? "HA! Yep, you got me! Everyone wants kids! Anything to the contrary is such obviously bizarre deviant behaviour that it could and should be greeted with immediate and insulting disbelief!"
2. Anger
"That's the most selfish thing I've ever heard."
Wow. You'd be amazed how often people say this to me when I tell them no, I'd prefer that my freak seed remain inside my loins and not be inflicted on a hapless world. SELFISH. Forget never donating money or time, forget telling homeless people to get a job and a shave and to contribute to the society that they are so clearly leeching off while they peel scabs of just-healed rat-bites from their bodies, THIS...THIS IS UNFORGIVABLY SELFISH. NOT WANTING TO HAVE A CHILD. YOU HEARTLESS FESTERING GOB OF TOAD MUCUS.
3. Bargaining
"Oh come on, give it a few years and you'll want one."
This seems like a rather bizarre investigative leap to make. How could they possibly know this? Do they have a direct channel to the ethersphere? A gypsy owes them a favour for saving their life in the Falklands? Are they GOD? I'm asking sincerely here, because if they know this one fact with absolute clairvoyant certainty, then perhaps they could also tell me how to play the stock market accordingly, because oil just ain't cutting it for me these days (come on you precious black gold I know you've got at least 50 years left in you!).
4. Depression
"That's sad."
It is, isn't it? I mean...Jack and Rose came from two different worlds, and despite the odds (and the incredibly, incredibly brief span of time they knew each other) they came together onboard a ship and they formed a bond of love that truly spanned the test of time only to have it snatched cruelly away by mountains of ice and- oh. We're talking about something else, aren't we?
5. Acceptance
"..."
Hm? Oh, we haven't reached this yet. Darn.
Well that was a bit of a downer at the end, wasn't it? I hate to end on that kind of note...hmm...hey, you know what? It's Friday. And you know what Friday means?