Breaking – Canadian Politics Remains As Uninteresting As Ever
September 20, 2008, Matthew Good Given that I don’t have a television, and thank God for that, the only time that I get to watch Canadian television news is when I’m on the road and in a hotel room. That said; I have to be honest and admit that listening to any of the party leaders currently vying for the nation’s top office is akin to hearing the voices used to portray adults in Charlie Brown cartoons.
Elections in Canada mean one thing – promises that are sure to be forgotten unless they somehow involve those that have significantly contributed to campaigns. In between stump speeches given in which such promises are made, rather boring dirt is clinically looked for to give the public something to discuss while half cut at their local watering holes after work…
‘Did you hear about that guy the NDP canned because he’s a pot activist?’
‘No. But I did hear about that guy that made those jokes about that meat contamination thing and how Harper’s not going to sack him.’
‘No one can take a joke these days.’
‘Ya, I guess…wait, what party are we talking about?’
Don’t get me wrong, the leadership of this country is a very important issue. But before it can seriously be addressed as one, Canadians need leaders that they can actually believe in, and not simply because they happen to be the only options available at present.
I sound jaded. No argument there.
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
Great analogy to the Charlie Brown voices, I’m there with you on that one! Canadian politics have always felt odd to me. On one hand, I’m glad we don’t have all the pomp and flair of the drawn-out US election campaigns. I actually rather like the short Canadian campaigns - like ripping a band-aid off quickly and getting it over with. But on the other hand I sometimes wish our Canadian politics weren’t so boring. At least the current US election has got people involved and heading to the polls, interested in and caring about what goes on in their government. Our voter turnout still barely hovers over half.
[quote comment="65862"] Our voter turnout still barely hovers over half.[/quote]
Actually, voter turnout in Canada was 64.7% in 2006 [ http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/voter-turnout-canada ]. It’s in the US that voter turnout barely cracks 50%, although it was up to 57% in 2004.
I’m a little confused about the current situation in our politics. Harper passed a law a while back that set a fixed election date for next year I think. The only way to have an earlier election is if the Parliment voted non-confidence. Seeing as how the opposition didn’t indicate it no longer has confidence in the government of Canada by vote, and the writ has been dropped, doesn’t that mean the Conservatives delcared non-confidence on themselves?
I have a hard time following the convolutions of this current government.
While I agree that our party leaders are uninspiring, I actually couldn’t be more taken up with this campaign. I find it all fascinating– the various party strategies and manipulations, the (often amusing) media coverage, the stories that catch the public’s attention and those that fall by the wayside, the emergence of the Greens as a viable fifth party, and Sweater Steve himself– I am so completely intrigued by that man (not necessarily in a good way).
My mom keeps telling me it’s not as interesting as what’s happening in the States. She’s right; as far as controversy and drama and high stakes go, ours certainly can’t compare with the circus down south. But I’m kinda happy about that. As Margaret Wente wrote in a column about this very topic: “In Canada, the world will be okay no matter how we vote. In the U.S., Sarah Palin could wind up with her mitts on the nuclear codes.” (For anyone interested, it’s an amusing read, even if she over-simplifies things and overlooks our ACTUAL cultural divide, between the French and English: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080911.COWENT11/TPStory/
[quote comment="65871"]I’m a little confused about the current situation in our politics. Harper passed a law a while back that set a fixed election date for next year I think. The only way to have an earlier election is if the Parliment voted non-confidence. Seeing as how the opposition didn’t indicate it no longer has confidence in the government of Canada by vote, and the writ has been dropped, doesn’t that mean the Conservatives delcared non-confidence on themselves?
I have a hard time following the convolutions of this current government.[/quote]
Ah, yes, well, “minority government” loophole. Very clever.
Ironically, though, Harper says he couldn’t get anything done the way things were, he absolutely couldn’t govern any more, couldn’t work with the other parties, so on and so forth, so he was forced to call the election. Then, he goes ahead and says he believes he’ll get another minority government… so, essentially, status quo. Um. So tell me again how you plan on getting anything done in THAT case, if that very same situation was so unworkable before? (Not to mention that he complains and throws up his hands and says, “Well, we couldn’t get anything done!”… and now, on the campaign trail, proceeds to tell us how very much his government has accomplished. Can’t have it both ways, dude.)
[quote comment="65869"][quote comment="65862"] Our voter turnout still barely hovers over half.[/quote]
Actually, voter turnout in Canada was 64.7% in 2006 [ http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/voter-turnout-canada ]. It’s in the US that voter turnout barely cracks 50%, although it was up to 57% in 2004.[/quote]
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. I should have done my research like you! I am very interested to see if the US’s voter turnout is a lot higher in November. I have a feeling ours will be lower than usual since I’m sensing a lot of apathy towards the Canadian election from the people I’ve talked to.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that both countries’ voter turnouts are an embarrassment. I would love to see the stats up at around 90% someday. Pipe dream, I know. But hey, I can dream can’t I?
[quote comment="65871"]I’m a little confused about the current situation in our politics. Harper passed a law a while back that set a fixed election date for next year I think. The only way to have an earlier election is if the Parliment voted non-confidence. Seeing as how the opposition didn’t indicate it no longer has confidence in the government of Canada by vote, and the writ has been dropped, doesn’t that mean the Conservatives delcared non-confidence on themselves?
I have a hard time following the convolutions of this current government.[/quote]
I understand the confusion but it is something other than a non-confidence vote that ended this session of Parliament. The Prime Minister has the sole right to call an election when he/she sees fit. This isn’t in the Constitution but has been a part of political practice in Canada since the country’s inception (and in England before that). Harper didn’t actually pass it as law that the elections were on a fixed date and he still held the power, as the Prime Minister, to dictate election times.
[quote comment="65877"]
I understand the confusion but it is something other than a non-confidence vote that ended this session of Parliament. The Prime Minister has the sole right to call an election when he/she sees fit. This isn’t in the Constitution but has been a part of political practice in Canada since the country’s inception (and in England before that). Harper didn’t actually pass it as law that the elections were on a fixed date and he still held the power, as the Prime Minister, to dictate election times.[/quote]
Wasn’t the law intended to stop parties from benefiting from variable election dates?
It seems to me the only reason this election was called was to take one more shot at a Conservative majority before the US election. A Democratic President and Congress would probably change the political landscape in North America significantly, as Harper would not have his Conservative backstops south of the border to depend on.
This just seems so cynical to me, but then again so does almost everything the Conservatives have done since early 2006 (or even before that).
Nobody worries about our election because everyone worries about the US election. Why? Because whoever becomes president in “the most powerful nation in the world” will influence how our Prime Minister will act, whether it be Dion, Harper, or any of the other two running.
PS: My last few words there illustrate your point Matt!
[quote comment="65869"][quote comment="65862"] Our voter turnout still barely hovers over half.[/quote]
Actually, voter turnout in Canada was 64.7% in 2006 [ http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/voter-turnout-canada ]. It’s in the US that voter turnout barely cracks 50%, although it was up to 57% in 2004.[/quote]
Voting should be either compulsory or legally encouraged. In a good democracy the government is run on behalf of the (voting) electorate as a whole and there is no better way to do that than to involve everybody. Otherwise you have literally a limited parliamentary democracy not unlike what was in place well before the American revolution itself. Australia and Switzerland use such a system and many other European countries have high turnout that almost always tops 70 or 80% (in countries like France, Germany, UK, Spain).
You could not have government by the people where the people will not even choose so little as a (usually atypical of the people they represent) representative.
On top of that the electorates candidates run for are adjusted by population and usually some effort is made to make sure demographic gerrymandering doesn’t happen. This has always been the fundamental flaw in the US system under the Electoral College, but I can’t help but notice it is gradually happening here (particularly the Conservatives, although that could easily be coincidental or just clever campaigning). The method by which our representatives receive office is MUCH more important in the medium-long term than the people that actually hold office in the short term, and not once in ~50 years has an effort been made to correct the US Electoral College. Canada remains significantly better than the US in turnout but it’s methods of election are also slowly losing what credibility they once had.
It doesn’t seem like the mud slinging protocol ever changes in our elections. The Liberals attack the Conservatives, the Conservatives attack the Liberals, in the minority - the NDP kind of just float around, throwing mud every now again, but ultimately trying to create an agenda they can call their own. The Green Party until recently has won roughly 2% of voters…
Ever since I can remember it’s always been the Liberals vs. Conservatives, which leads me to the question, how do we, like Americans, expect change to happen when we keep voting the same people in and out of office over and over again…?? How can change happen?
Promises, promises!
Hopefully having the Green Party in the debates will make things more interesting.
The only way to increase voter turnout is to make people interested in the election. For that, we need a system that gives us a choice between normal people not rich white men.
Regardless as to a person’s view, it may be worth noting that PC, Liberals, Republicans, and Democrats have all had a great deal of involvement with the World Bank groups, Trilateral, and Bilderberg Groups/ meetings. This may or may not be inevitable regarding our “leadership”; however, most people aren’t even aware of them, or the fact that the President of the World Bank Groups is put there by the President of the USA (a question that people might want to consider, is “who’s the boss?”). A quick Wiki search on World Bank group and diligence in following citations will give a person some idea of what to search for in other places. Seeing the level of involvement one then has to find out what these groups ideals and long-term goals are. That may give us a better sense of who’s who. Some people may still find that they support the World Bank Groups but at very least people need to be aware. Kind of like the SPP, (support it, hate it, or ignore it) at very least inform yourself about it. Once you look into the views of the WBG’s members the origin of NAFTA and SPP are self-evident. Speaking of which, it is just my personal opinion, has anyone else considered that the current economic “crisis” could have been avoided and yet in the long term will manage to dump a heavy amount of cash back into the WBG’s? I’ve wondered if this whole thing is really a pay off to the WBG’s for their support with the global “development” and restructuring going on under the tutelage of the USA.
[quote comment="65891"]The only way to increase voter turnout is to make people interested in the election. For that, we need a system that gives us a choice between normal people not rich white men.[/quote]
I must respectfully disagree with you. The onus is on we the public to go out and vote. If we simply lay around and wait for “normal” people to run for office, decades will pass us by. As Ghandi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Although I agree with you: having the Green Party in the debates will make things more interesting.
I agree 100%. I am more apathetic about this election than I’ve ever been before. I almost wish I were in the U.S., at least then I could be somewhat inspired to vote.
We should get CBC columnist Heather Mallick who was blasted for her scaving remarks on Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin to bring up some interesting “dirt” on Harper, Dion, Layton and May. Stir things up a bit…
Somehow controversy always seems to make the elections more interesting although the end result will always be vanilla-flavored.
The only political leader I ever felt truly passionate about his role and is “country” was chain-smoker René Lévesque and I wasn’t even Separatist. But you had to love the passion…
American elections are “interesting” for all the wrong reasons. I for one am glad we don’t have the ridiculous side shows distracting us from the issues as in US politics and elections.
[quote comment="65890"]Hopefully having the Green Party in the debates will make things more interesting.[/quote]
Me too. Unlike Matt, I watch Canadian news everyday when I wake up in the morning, and the other day, I was able to listen in on a press confrance with Elizabeth May. I like her attitude - and the way she handled the few hecklers in the audience. She didnt’ yell…just totally shamed them into backing off.
If she brings up arts funding during the debate, I will vote Green.
As we all vent, I would really like to hear from everyone their ideas for Solutions to the problems they feel most affect themselves. I believe that the answers lie withing the people. Don’t we all feel our power rising as our new communication systems allow one voice to speak so loudly. If we, the average person ever had a chance to affect an election, it is now. Presently, the Voice is very diverse. I do not know if a common Will can materialize to make a difference. But the path is there.
Just one more thought. What happened to Individual Responsibility? People seem to talk a lot about it, but our society seems to demand less of it.
I was reading an article in the Toronto Star about how Canada doesn’t have heroes, but doesn’t seem to need them either. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it seems to sum up Canadian politics. To the public, not the politicians, whose pointless theatrics annoy most of the rest of us.
I don’t exactly envy the Americans, however. The potential downside to either presidency is more than a little frightening. Americans aren’t voting so much as playing Russian Roulette with two bullets. The future will be interesting, to say the least.
Although slightly unrelated, I will say that, unlike Canadians, Americans appear to be willing to have an honest discussion about their identity and their role in the world. It’s refreshing to see both of the candidates behave like gentlemen and acknowledge each other’s positives, rather than sinking to the type of smear campaign people have grown tired of. Canada’s got some catching up to do.
[quote comment="65926"]Me too. Unlike Matt, I watch Canadian news everyday when I wake up in the morning, and the other day, I was able to listen in on a press confrance with Elizabeth May. I like her attitude - and the way she handled the few hecklers in the audience. She didnt’ yell…just totally shamed them into backing off.
If she brings up arts funding during the debate, I will vote Green.[/quote]
Have you checked out the Green platform regarding the arts? Worth a look.
The Green Party platform is here:
http://greenparty.ca/en/platform