Tag Archives: Stephan Dion

Coalition Calamity?

Well, yes, it was inevitable that I might have an opinion on the proposed coalition of the opposition parties in an overthrow of Canada’s minority government.

Minority governments always walk a tightrope. Stephen Harper tried to set the stage for the best time to hold our election. But that’s not unusual. Politicians and all people really try to work things to their advantage. But it didn’t work quite the way the Conservatives hoped. Yet again, another minority government.

This is not a good time for anyone moving into a position of government. Obama has his work cut out for him, picking up George Bush’s mess and the plummeting economy. But it’s the same here. Economy has moved to the forefront and Harper, with a minority government has a had lot. Yet, he has come across already as totalitarian and keeping such a tight leash on his MPs that they’re often crippled in making their decisions.

Then the new budget came, the tightening of the belt and the Conservatives seem to have made a fatal mistake. Many donations by companies to political parties have been severely limited. It makes sense because these factors could unfairly influence (bribe) a party in power to consider their wishes. When the Conservatives said they would cut public funding to the parties, it seemed the last straw. Here are the pertinent bits about funding from the Elections Canada website: http://www.elections.ca/content

The legislation was rooted in the belief that the primary source for contributions to political parties and candidates should be individuals giving relatively small amounts, as opposed to larger donations. The new regulations, therefore, stipulated that each elector could contribute up to a total of $5,000 a year to the electoral district associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a registered political party, while donations to these entities from corporations and trade unions were limited to $1,000. Furthermore, while individuals could contribute directly to the registered party, corporations and unions could not. To police the new rules, the act also stipulated that candidates and parties should disclose contribution information within a set period of time after an election, and leadership contestants should do so during and after a leadership contest.

As a counterbalance to the new contribution limits, however, Bill C-24 also introduced significant ongoing public financing for political parties. These provisions entitled any party receiving a minimum percentage of the popular vote in a general election to an annual public allowance proportional to its share of votes. The concept was not new – both the Barbeau Committee in 1966 and the Lortie Commission in 1992 acknowledged that funding for political parties through direct public subsidies was a good idea. Bill C-24 introduced annual allowances, recognizing that parties should be compensated for the loss of their customary funding stream from large corporate and union donations – and that the political party is arguably the focal point of a vibrant and viable democratic system.

Oops, the parties really didn’t like that. But there was some fast backtracking by the Conservatives and they said they would not lower public funding. But since the Liberals and NDP have tossed in their lot, they’re now steaming ahead saying there wasn’t a good economic package. And we’re off to the races.

Now the Bloc has thrown in with the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition government. But compare the Bloc to Judas or any other turncoat. They’re in it for themselves, not for the good of Canada. It’s the one biggest flaw in the coalition package. I think there should be a bill against allowing a party to run that has no federal or countrywide interests because the Bloc doesn’t care about any province but Quebec and they’re happy to use everything to their own advantage. Splitting up Canada doesn’t bother them because they think it will make Quebec stronger, not seeing the big shark that waits south of the border to gobble up the pieces of a dismembered nation.

They can be trusted to support a coalition as long as it serves them. Harper and the Conservatives are now taking out ads saying the other parties are conniving, stealing the leadership of the country, undermining our democracy. Though these moves are far from common, there is room in our constitution for such a coalition. I’m willing to see what happens. After all, Italy has had to function this way quite a few times. What I’m not for is public tax dollars going to any campaign for or against the coalition. The ads coming out that I couldn’t care less about better not be using public money but then if the parties are publicly funded, I guess it is, one way or the other.

The one thing all the political parties know is that if we went to another election we would make two records, The most federal elections in the shortest number of years, and the lowest voter turnout in Canada’s history. I for one don’t want to see more campaigning. I’m sick of it and campaigning for/against the coalition is not going to endear me to any party.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, history, life, news, people, politics

Election Aftermath: A Rose by Any Other Name

I was caught up in the super insidious PSW OnlineGames Trojan Horse and worm. It’s taken several different software programs to remove the cursed bugs. Microsoft has done two priority updates to counteract this problem. So, due to the virus and not the shock of the election, I missed a day.

Canada spent $290 million on our third federal election in same years, to come out with a bit more of the same old same old: minority Conservative government with Liberals, NDP and the Bloc making up the opposition. And no surprise, we hit an all-time low on voter turnout: 59%. The lemmings in Alberta did pretty much as they have doen for ever, as did Quebec. Here are just a few of reasons that voters aren’t bothering to vote:

  • We’ll vote and it will just be the same.
  • We’ll vote but no one listens to us anyways.
  • Politicians make all sorts of promises and never keep them (in fact Harper wanted a mandatory election date and then went against his own rule)
  • Politicians don’t talk to us or have our concerns in mind. (I heard this from several people in their 20s–do politicians talk at the universities at all?)
  • All they do is call each other names and then get involved in scandals.
  • I make my opinion known by not voting.
  • We need proportional representation.
  • I can’t support anyone 100%.
  • Our leaders lack charisma.

Looking at this last point I have to say that Obama has inspired a nation and I bet the voting will be higher in the US than it has been in recent elections. I didn’t hear Elizabeth May of the Green party speak so I don’t know if she has the inspiration and charisma needed. Just listening without watching, I’d have to say that Steven Harper came across the strongest and most confident. Stephan Dione may have been stronger in French than English but he certainly didn’t have that charisma. Jack Layton would like to have it but all of the speeches I heard for any party were just not inspiring. Maybe that’s because they were always jabbing at each other and it’s hard to raise a nation’s love and will if all you do is harp. Charisma, great oration, may not mean you have the best platform or way of governing but it might involve more people.

The people who voice their discontent by not voting, to me, defeat the purpose. There will still be a government, there will still be things you dislike but if you vote, you can possibly get the lesser of two evils. If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain about the government because you had no say whatsoever in their formation. Just think, if 41% more people had vote (100% then) it could definitely have swayed the outcome.

Besides that, there was the new voter registration requirements. After reading over my card I discovered the notice the third time. The whole card, in maroon and white  doesn’t really set off this notice. A friend of mine went to vote and didn’t have her card because her husband had taken it. Well, it turns out that it was a waste printing such cards as most people didnt’ need them to vote. My friend was told that they don’t go by names but by addresses. So, in fact, one person in the household might have been able to vote for more than one person.

Of course my friend has never actually changed her driver’s licence to reflect her correct address (the house next door) so they wouldn’t take her name and her address because they didn’t match. So, she went home and got the requisite bills with the right address and got back a half hour before the polls closed and the line-up was out the door so she didn’t vote. Her fault but there are many instances of people who had similar experiences: the person who lives in a small island community where everyone knows each other but the people working can’t vouch for the person and the others were of a different polling station but in the same building. Another friend has a PO box for a mailing address but lives in a condo. She didn’t even try to vote. It didn’t particularly help the turnout for voting.

The Conservatives won because they were the only right-wing party with several left-wing parties. If you add up all the votes for the Liberals, NDP and Greens you’ll see that the Conservatives do not represent the majority of those who voted. Yet they’ll govern us all. But then again the whole country’s government can still be decided by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The system is being seen as so broken that fewer people believe that they matter in the scheme of things, especially if they don’t live in central Canada. Maybe it’s time for a big change in politics, in attitude and in the voting system.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture, history, life, news, politics, security