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 |