Phendrana Drifts

Like many I am not happy with what went down in Toronto over the weekend, and I can’t seem to stop thinking about it. My disappointment is at so many levels and so many different people. While I thought about the order, I wouldn’t read too much into it – there is enough blame that I’m not sure we have to portion it out, just know that lots of Canadians are disappointed in you.

To the protesters who destroyed property, threatened people, and committed dozens of crimes this weekend – I am upset that you perverted an event for your own ends, ends that society doesn’t support and employing tactics that hurt dozens of people and businesses, big and small. You provided the justification for the security and your provocations invited a police response that was not otherwise needed. Your actions are not just illegal, they are not wanted and I condemn the acts.

To the police, if you can’t do your job without violating an individual’s Charter rights, we have a problem. I don’t want to pretend that I understand the legal intricacies of your job this weekend, and I recognize that situation in downtown Toronto could have escalated to a point where it could have spiraled out of control, but when I watch the video above I can’t help but think that you’ve gone too far. It’s offensive. It’s more than unfortunate. And I believe based on what I’ve read and heard that it was unnecessary, as were many of the 900 arrests you made over the weekend.

To the officials who closed the sanctioned protest point at Queen’s Park – citizens need to have a place to voice their dissent. It’s a basic human right. I recognize that safety concerns mean that the point cannot be right in front of the convention centre, but if so you need to provide an alternate space. Dispersing that group then placed hundreds in the difficult place of deciding whether or not to exercise their rights somewhere else – somewhere that threatens the security of the conference you’re protecting.

To the people who organized alternative conferences to the G20 – perhaps you are the least to blame – but be more active in providing an alternative dialogue to the closed system of the G20. Make it real, make it accessible, and make it clear that you condemn rather than condone the destruction of your city.

To the assembled heads of states and heads of governments of the G20 – maybe this roving conference idea isn’t working the way you want – you are giving the impression of disenfranchisement while creating logistical nightmares. I don’t know what the solution is, but there are those who said if you had it in Toronto in January there would have been fewer problems. If you had held it in northern Ontario in the winter there would be even less. As well, on the content of what you do – ensure you are paying attention to what your citizens are saying. Your agenda is not universally shared, and while I applaud your efforts to protect our monetary system and the economic recovery it needs to be defended not through truncheons but through rhetoric and leadership.

Finally, to the mainstream media and social media covering the conference – a lot actually happened in the discussions, discussions that you should have reported on. The stories on the protests and near riots are important, but the lawlessness of Toronto on Saturday pales in comparison to a good Montreal Stanley Cup riot. The next morning La Presse’s headline was still that Montreal won the cup. Your attachment to the images of the protests fed the violence and ignored the issues. And you did so salaciously. It took me ages to find out what the more violent protesters were in fact protesting against – and I had to find out on the kind of sites that cause CSIS to put a note on my file, rather than reading any story from the Globe or the Star.

What a terrible weekend. A black mark for the City of Toronto.

Like most political hacks in Canada, I read with interest the rumours, apparently well-sourced and highly placed, that the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party are discussing what a merger would look like between their two parties. The original CBC story is here, and since that time Bob Rae has come out to provide some official denials. And even within the original story heavyweights like David Herle speak against it, as well as a fairly clear quote from Michael Ignatieff – but denials aside, I saw Peter McKay make similar denials about mergers that were equally if not more clear and he still has a job, so I wouldn’t put too much in the public denials. That doesn’t mean I think a merger will happen, because I don’t.

If it were to happen though what would it look like? And what would change in Canadian politics?

If the two parties merged for the transparently obvious reason of winning the next election and kicking out Stephen Harper from Sussex Drive I think it would go along way to taking Canada down the path to a two-party system. I would even hazard a guess that it may lead us to a formalized two party system like the United States has. I’m not necessarily opposed to a de facto two-party state, but leaving the power to reform the electoral system in the hands of only the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States hasn’t necessarily served that country well. Here in Canada, while I remain a fan of the electoral finance changes, my main knock against them is how hard it will be to effectively start a new party. In order to get public money for your party you need votes. In order to gain votes, you need the ads and organization money can buy. In order to get public money… you get the picture. In a world with only two parties plus the Bloc the system will serve to entrench itself possibly to the point that we will never see a new party develop.

I also worry that the system will become more bitter, more partisan and more the things we hate about politics. I must confess, when the idea of a merger on the right was proposed I didn’t see that shift coming. Since 2003 the level of rhetoric and partisanship has steadily increased within the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada – well beyond the barbs thrown during the time of the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservatives. They knew who the enemy was and knew what would work to gain power. The Liberal Democrats would be no different – never really working with the Conservatives to govern, never letting up in painting the Conservatives like demons.

In my mind the best thing about the CPC merger was the end of the one party plus system of governance, where only the Liberals had a competitive shot at forming government. It increased the options for Canadian governance, making elections matter more. The proposed merger does the opposite, decreasing the possibilities for Canadian governance and entrenching that choice.

The merger makes any form of coalition government impossible (Between who? The Bloc and one of the two main parties?) and it reduces the flexibility of Parliament.

I hope the two parties think carefully about the path they are going down. Coalitions, especially when done with greater legitimacy and foresight than the attempt two years ago, offer an opportunity of interest and compromise that I dread will be lost in the new two party system. And not just coalitions, but parliamentary cooperation and the diversity of interactions between civil society and political parties.

As I was wrong about exactly the kind of political situation that developed from the right-wing merger I may be wrong about the consequences of this one. But I don’t see it leading Canadians to the centre, rather to two polarized extremes.

I found this article in the Globe and Mail rather interesting, Canada the teacher as U.K. prepares for budget blitzkrieg, and I thought it was interesting that the accomplishments the British are pointing to are in fact from our period of Liberal governance rather than the present Conservative minority government.

And it made me think about Jean Chrétien’s legacy, and who will ultimately own that legacy. With what appears to be the final demise of Brian Mulroney’s reputation the legacy of Chrétien appears to be the only thing left of value from the past. And the article made me wonder if it was sufficiently up for grabs that the Conservatives could try and claim it.

Not directly of course. But certainly the Liberals, starting with Martin’s disastrous time at the helm, have introduced a fair amount of distance from their former leader. And ultimately know that as much as Chrétien was operating with his own values and political instincts, the drive to the centre and putting strong economic policy (re: right-wing) at the heart of Canadian politics was as much Chrétien’s pragmatism as it was Manning’s Reform party nipping on the heels.

In any case, the time of Chrétien appears to be the last time many were proud of our federal scene and simply attributing it to majority governments and stability doesn’t sufficiently explain it away. I would imagine that if the Liberals don’t take advantage in a meaningful way of their strong economic past then the Conservatives will continue to bully them around in the polls, especially on those questions of “Who do you trust most to manage Canada’s economy?”

I was truly upset and disappointed to see the above video. Apparently a pseudo-satire on Fox News in the United States, Red Eye decided to take aim at Canada, specifically the operational end of our commitment in Afghanistan. A commitment that over 100 Canadian soldiers have paid for with their lives and was started in direct response to an attack by terrorists on American soil. Fox News should apologize to Canadians.

First, the only thing worse than Prime Minister Harper breaking his word and the spirit of his word and appointing a bunch of senators today would be the psuedo-Prime Minister Ignatieff doing the same thing, so to some degree I guess this is just the best of two bad choices. And I have nothing against the individuals themselves, but I would have still rather have had the Prime Minister choose to keep his word and dare Iggy not to appoint a bunch of Liberal hacks.

I have a lot of thoughts. My brain, normally much more laid-back, is a-buzz. The Canadian government is facing imminent collapse and rather than facing the electorate, it seems likely another government will take the reins in the form of Dr. Dion and 24 cabinet ministers, six of which will come from the NDP. Now, given how the last five days have unfolded I don’t think anyone can say what will happen in the next six.

My first thought, and the overwhelming one, is disappointment. There is enough blame to go around to all participants and the participants as a whole.

My second thought is directed towards the (current) opposition. Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay said yesterday that even if the Conservatives put forward an stimulus package now, it would have no credibility and the opposition would reject it – a statement that leads me to believe the Liberal and NDP caucuses spent more time talking about how to gain power than deal with the economy. I believe that the Collapse of Global Capitalism is merely an excuse for the actions of the opposition, and I have been searching for a mere hint that I am wrong. So if it is just an excuse, why now? And again, adding to my cynicsm, I think the reason is because if the opposition had done this last spring it would have triggered an election rather than a coalition government. Indeed, I think it is being done now because the window of credibly going to the Governor General to deny a dissolution of parliament and choose a coalition government is only a few weeks, and that is coming to a close. I believe this is a naked power grab and the economic crisis is just window dressing. If it weren’t, I believe compromise is possible.

My third thought speaks to why compromise isn’t possible. When it comes to crass and cynical political moves, Mr. Harper is pretty good at pointing them out because he has been the author of some pretty good ones. Killing public funding for parties under the guise of economic measures is only the last in a long line of partisan political moves done by the Prime Minister. You reap what you sow, and while I am surprised at how well the opposition have maneuvered in the last six days I am not surprised that they took the first (and really any) opportunity to stick it to the Prime Minister.

My final thought for this post is how far off the actions of all the political parties is from what they promised and what Canadians expected in the last election. A coalition government was not only not pitched to Canadians, it was explicitly rejected by the Liberals. I believe that had Dr. Dion suggested a Liberal/NDP government that would rely heavily on the Bloc for any and all confidence matters then Canadians would have punished him severely and awarded Mr. Harper with a majority. I certainly do not disagree that what the opposition is doing is legal – not only is it legal but I believe that if we are in that nascent environment when a minority parliament is sorting out who is Prime Minister and who is not, then this is legitimate. I do worry that we have passed that time (I would have thought the Throne Speech was the moment to pull that pin) but I shall allow the Governor General – and her suddenly busy team of lawyers and advisors – to make that call.

If the Collapse of Global Capitalism is a immenent and mortal threat to the Canadian economy then I do think a coalition government is not just an acceptable option for the 40th Canadian Parliament, but maybe the right one. However, the one that I think would make more sense would have been a Conservative-Liberal coalition, but I think I recognize that such a suggestion is made impossible by the partisan politics that I worry is killing our democracy.

In declaring the Conservative government’s move to kill public funding to political parties “brilliant” (see below) I’ve obviously erred. I’m now shocked the Conservatives are backtracking on virtually all policy made in the past week and are still facing the end of their term in a week. I wasn’t shocked on Friday morning, but now I’m dumbfounded.

Many bloggers along with the mainstream media are discussing the Conservative Party of Canada’s move to withdraw public funding to political parties – here is a sample from the blogs I regularly read:

daveberta: two comments on jim flaherty’s “economic update.”
Enlightened Savage: Harper to Opposition: Go Fund Yourselves! and Dion Had Better Blink
under the hood: It feels wrong, but I almost want to move to America…
Stephen Taylor: Flaherty to end campaign welfare
CalgaryGrit: If you want to play chess, let’s play! and In a slightly ironic twist…
Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying: I don’t even know where to begin

At first when I learned about the ploy I was not surprised, but I did think people were blowing it out of proportion – I didn’t think it was likely for the government to fall or even for it to go forward – I thought the Conservatives would be content with the Liberals simply taking the heat and burning the political capital to put it back. Then I learned it would be a part of Flaherty’s economic update, making it a confidence motion. And while I still don’t think the Governor General has as much flexibility as some, it does raise some very interesting possibilities – although I still think either the Liberals will cave, the Conservatives will cave or an inevitable election will occur – even if my rusty constitutional law is way off and Ms. Jean has the power to ask Dr. Dion or Mr. Layton to form a government, that government can only last as long as M. Duceppe can stomach it. As leader of the official opposition, Mr. Harper will have all the tools at his disposal to kill the new government within a month, and on an issue of his choosing while framing the election all about the selfish Liberals playing politics over a couple of million dollars for the Liberals while Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. All the same, some observations:

1. The Tories were exceedingly successful in making the public funding of parties the message – and framing the opposition of the update only about this issue. The economic update is likely the most important business in front of the House before the spring budget – unless a bailout or other economic measure comes up – and the reasons for opposing it are likely wide and varied. Our response to the Collapse of Global Capitalism (that’s what I call it until the mainsteam media think of something better) is perhaps the most important issue that has faced our government since deciding not to go to Iraq – that is an issue much bigger than $30 million of public funding to parties. Yet, the only thing mainstream media can seem to talk about is how the Liberals are opposing the update because they will die if they don’t get your tax dollars. Brilliant.

2. The Liberals still look weak – why aren’t they saying we don’t want your money? I mean, I know they need it and what not, but money can be raised, fundraising schemes can be implemented, loans can be taken out, and yes, bankruptcy can be considered. But there is a certain air of Oliver Twist in the spin on their commentary. Show people you are ready to govern by saying Canadians will lose their jobs and pensions if this economic update stands as the federal government reaction to the Collapse of Global Capitalism. Tell the public that public funding of parties is a part of a much larger issue of democratic reform, but since democratic reform isn’t the top priorities of either the Liberals or Canadians, you aren’t really thinking about it right now. Also, read and re-read CalgaryGrit’s post on fundraising in response – go out and ask for money. Keep asking for money. Don’t just ask for the max from well-off donors, go out and ask for $10 from everyone who might donate.

3. While I think the economic impacts of yesterday’s update are infinitely more important than the political, money makes elections possible, and the rules governing how parties and their campaigns are funded are an important part of studying a democracy. I don’t necessarily think it is a mistake to withdraw public funding of political parties, but I think it is important to realize that when we introduced public funding it was done at the same time as capping donations from individuals, unions and corporations. By not simply rolling back the clock to 2000, we’re changing the democratic system wrapped in an economic debate. And that is a little unfair.

4. I’m really not shocked – the Conservatives are going for the throat of the Liberals. That was really the point of the last election, and it is the entire point of doing this. And it will take a strategist better than I to get the Liberals out of this very serious strategic bind.