Phendrana Drifts

For reasons that are kind of complicated and personal, I may have decided who to vote for, but explaining it here would kind of defeat the purpose of this blog series, if that makes sense. However, I would love to add I saw a sign for the Pants Party on a public thoroughfare yesterday – anyone know that is?

After reading and listening and analyzing, I have compiled a list of 25 election issues that have been raised in a serious fashion this election, or immediately preceding it. There was no scientific or even methodical approach to getting these, so I am 100% certain I missed one or two important ones. Of course, there are those topics that encompass, well, everything – so I suspect my butt is covered should someone say “Hey you forgot insert issue here.”

• Abortion
• Accountability
• Afghanistan
• Arctic Sovereignty
• Canada – US relations
• Child care
• Climate change
• Consumer rights
• Crime
• Culture
• Defence
• Democratic reform
• Digital copyright issues
• Economy
• Education
• Energy
• Environment
• First Nations, Métis and Inuit issues
• Gay marriage
• Health care
• Immigration
• Inflation
• Leadership
• Marijuana
• National unity
• Taxes

Alright – what issues can I simply remove because they are unlikely to affect my vote? Abortion and gay marriage are easy ones as no major party or leader is advocating change, however if any party advocates a change from the status quo I guarantee the issue not only goes back on the list, it may become a top five issue. 23 is still an unwieldy number. What can I combine into broad categories? Afghanistan, Arctic sovereignty, Canada-US relations and defence can all be lumped into one right-wing bread and butter category – let’s call it national defence and foreign affairs. We can also lump consumer rights, economy, inflation and taxes into a single economy category (although that is a lot of important stuff). Climate change and the environment is a pretty safe bet to combine too – we’ll toss energy there too in an environment and energy issues category. So is crime and marijuana. At risk of all sorts of ire, I’ll combine First Nations and national unity into a single category. So what does that leave us with?

• Accountability
• Child care
• Crime
• Culture
• Democratic reform
• Digital copyright issues
• Economy
• Education
• Environment and energy issues
• Health care
• Immigration
• Leadership
• National defence and foreign affairs
• National unity and First Nations issues

Well that’s more manageable. And while I do have an opinion on all of these let’s remove the ones that likely won’t influence my vote. For example, accountability – unless a candidate or party leader says something to the exact opposite of what I believe, I likely will not let “accountability” factor into my vote. So with that, I’ll remove accountability, child care (I know, but my kids are older, and while I have opinions, it isn’t likely going to shift my vote), national unity and leadership (of course my opinion of the leaders factors into stuff, but not as much as most people).

So my final list of ten issues are:

• Crime
• Culture
• Democratic reform
• Digital copyright issues
• Economy
• Education
• Environment and energy issues
• Health care
• Immigration
• National defence and foreign affairs

Hey – I took the quiz before – LINK. I have become slightly more right-wing in five years.

I love putting things in categories, ranking them, even filing them. So while many people say they despise the political spectrum and say things like the right-left politics are passe I still embrace it. But I also do believe that it is one-dimensional, and do tend to expand it into the second dimension of libertarian-authoritarian. So, thanks to the Political Compass Organization I am able to post where I sit on the two axes:
I actually feel pretty good about that – a bit more left than I would have guessed, but it feels like the right amount of libertarian vs. authoritarian. Now it would seem as easy as putting the Canadian political parties on the grid and finding the closest political party to my place. Fortunately the Political Compass Organization has plotted the Canadian political parties in 2005 on the grid. They have also plotted a few other countries’ political personalities and parties. Let’s compare:
Ok, I disagree with a lot of the placement. I even thought about not posting this, but then if I arbitrarily placed the political parties where I thought they should go then I wouldn’t really be using this as a tool but more of a Rorschach ink blot test. So I left the parties where the Political Compass Organization put them. That said, I have three strong objections:

The NDP believe in more state involvement than the Canadian Conservatives or Liberals. I think making the NDP the hero of Canadian libertarians is incorrect. If I were making the grid, I would place them well north of the Liberals and Conservatives.

The British National Party is an extreme right wing party, not left. I don’t know how they placed the almost fascist BNP, but left? Weird.

There is little to no evidence that the Canadian Conservatives are more “authoritarian” than the Canadian Liberals. While I would like to think that the CPC is more libertarian than the Liberals, I would concede there is a debate there over how strong a role the Conservatives see for the federal government in Canadian society. But substantially more than the Liberals? Demonstrably more than the NDP? I don’t think so. I know the Liberals think that Stephen Harper is an authoritarian Prime Minister, but I think the compass isn’t meant to measure whether you have regular press briefings but more focused on what the government does in your life on a daily basis.

Side thought, Obama is to the right of the Canadian Conservatives according to the Political Compass Organization. So is Gordon Brown’s Labour party in the UK. Also, in fairness, I can’t guarantee the Political Compass Organization ever meant for multiple countries to be correlated in this fashion, so I should put that caveat out.

Now it would seem that regardless of my thoughts on placing the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP, my vote should be clear. Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe. Except I don’t think so. Sigh, back to the drawing board.

A Member of Parliament? Check. Over 600,000 votes in the last Federal Election? Check. 26% / 9,864 in the London North Centre by-election? Check. Polling at 10% which would translate to 1.5 million votes? Check. Approval of other parties’ leaders to be in the debate? Hey, why is that a criteria?

To my dismay (no pun intended) Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, is not to be included in the leaders’ debates despite meeting and exceeding the criteria that had previously applied. And why? Apparently it is because Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton don’t want her there. That’s just stupid. Bah.

I enter this federal election in a unique place for myself – I’m unattached and actually need to be convinced to vote for someone. Being a an active participant in the political process for 10 years usually I’m volunteering and convincing others to vote one way or another, but I had decided this summer to take a sojourn away from politics. So I’ve decided to chronicle my own personal decision on whom to vote for here on my blog, partly in an effort to provide structure and impetus to blog, partly just to make sure I give this the proper thought. Today’s section will be an outline of the context and where I already am at, who I am, where my riding is, and how I make decisions like this.

1. Who I Am: It takes about one minute to sift through this blog to discover I’m somewhat right of the Canadian centre and have voted Conservative in every federal election since I’ve turned 18 – Progressive Conservative in 1997 and 2000; Conservative Party of Canada in 2004 and 2006. That said, I’m open. Later posts will chronicle what issues I care about the most and the positions of the parties and candidates I agree with most, but to provide the overview on most political ideological surveys I come out fairly fiscally conservative (bordering on libertarian) and very socially progressive – however given how I’ve voted and participated politically it might be safe to say the fiscal position tends to trump my social values. Then again, this might be the election that shifts.

2. Where I Vote: I live in the riding of Edmonton-Spruce Grove, which has been represented by the Honourable Rona Ambrose for the entirety of its existence since the boundary redistribution before the 2004 election. The nominated candidates (to date) are:

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Conservative) – www.ronaambrose.com
Chris Austin (Liberal) – convoluted liberal link
Barb Phillips (NDP) – www.ndp.ca/page/321

So far, neither the Bloc Quebecois or the Green Party have nominated a candidate in Edmonton-Spruce Grove, and I’m too lazy to look up the fringe parties.

5. The National Campaign and Me: It doesn’t take a political scientist (although if it did, fortunately one of my two degrees covers that off) to know that in Canada party discipline is almost extreme, so it matters what the national campaign does almost more than the local campaign, given that as a rule my MP will obey the will of the national caucus over local concerns. I don’t mean to denigrate the role of the MP but anyone who says they vote for the person over the party is missing the majority of the picture.

This does affect the decision in multiple ways, and well beyond simply which party’s platform I agree most with. It begs questions like “Do I want my MP to sit in the government caucus or an opposition caucus?” and “Which leader do I want representing my vote in a minority or majority parliament?” Given Canada’s party finance system I also grant the party with my vote funding and status (although a single vote is a very tiny amount) – which I’m happy to say makes voting for parties that are unlikely to win my riding still palatable. Which is a big deal in my case since the Conservatives are very likely to win, although I hope Minister Ambrose isn’t counting her chickens before they hatch.

4. Timeline and Limitations: I have until the morning of October 14 to figure this out, and there are some limits on what the decision can be. First, I’m voting. Even if I decide I hate all the choices, I’m not skipping out on my right and responsibility. I’ve only ever spoiled a ballot in the Alberta Senate election (and have each time I’ve been asked to vote in that) and I doubt I will be willing to do that this time around.

Much of this series will be dicatated by the national and local campaigns – their issues and media cycles – but in an effort to provide some structure, here is an outline of what the series will certainly cover during the 36 day election campaign:

Week 1: Establishing the issues that mean the most to me
Week 2: Evaluation of MP and national party performance since 2004
Week 3: Evaluating the party leaders, Edmonton-Spruce Grove profile
Week 4: Evaluating party platforms
Week 5: Decision-making

I’m oddly drawn to the Liberal Green Shift policy. I blogged about it previously and on the eve of a possible federal election Stéphane Dion has announced some additional vote-buying strategies policy changes to the policy.

The Liberals have announced $900 million in funds to help and re-announcing $1.7 billion (over four years, $600 million annually by year four) for a capital cost allowance for green investment. Curiously of the $900 million in new funds is stated to be a part of the original plan. “As part of the Liberal green shift plan, $400 million over four years will be allocated for Emissions Reduction Credits. The credits will be delivered as refundable tax credits, meaning that farmers and forestry companies will get credits for emissions reduction regardless of income.” I’m worried I missing something as in the original plan the words “Emissions Reduction Credits” don’t appear together once. The closest thing I can find is the Green Rural Credit, but that is a substantially larger planned program than $400 million ($749 in year four alone).

Just as interesting is the $500 million in additional spending. It ends the claim that the Green Shift is neutral, as it will now at least cost $500 million in the bottom line and the last I looked $500 million is not just a lot of money, but is also coming from a decreasing surplus (even deficit, depending on how the government finances go).

Still, I’m happy the Liberals are releasing policy. And I’m looking forward to seeing other parties’ platforms and policy as the campaign rolls out. Read the Green Shift here, and look at yesterday’s news release here.

If the Globe and Mail is correct, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson will not be running in the next federal election scheduled for October 2009 but will actually be held next month. And I think that is too bad, as by all accounts he did a fantastic job in both the Harper and Martin cabinet and our government will inevitably miss his experience, regardless if it is a Harper or Dion government. Of course, he likely is better known for crossing the floor than for his work in solving the softwood lumber trade dispute and cleaning up after Maxime Bernier.

I like crossing the floor – of course it shouldn’t happen too often but I think it adds a healthy dose of excitement to politics and offers the smallest hint of independence from a party’s leadership to an individual politician. I cheered when Solberg, Strahl, Grey and et al. formed the Democratic Representative Caucus, liked when Belinda crossed the floor and even secretly thought it was neat how Garth Turner, Walid Khan and Blair Wilson have turned their poorly dealt hands from their parties into fortunes in others. Admittedly I was happy for the genuinely great guy but sad for the Conservatives when Scott Brison left to become a Liberal cabinet minister in 2004.

Many don’t like the idea of switching parties – in our party dominated system it seems disingenuous and so often opportunistic. And I would agree if it happened so often that every day was dominated by a floor-crosser, but when looking at the list of those MPs who have switched the past decade it seems that the majority of circumstances were in the country’s best interest as well as the MP’s, and I hope it is a possibility that doesn’t die.

So thanks for the hard work Minister Emerson, and I wish you the best.

Before I dissect the Liberal policy announcement today I would like to first say kudos to the opposition for actually introducing genuine, honest-to-blog policy. It is well-costed out, it presents its values front and centre and it does not resort to using vague promises of cost-savings from other departments or something otherwise disingenuous to tell people how to pay for it. It is a large carbon tax that will in turn pay for a income tax cut and a serious of other income-supplement programs. Good on them.

However, it is not a simple tax shift. And while I remain a fan of consumption taxes over income taxes, Dion and the Liberals miss a piece of basic math. An income tax cut plus new programs in exchange for a new tax is not a simple shift. Of the $15 billion policy, only $6.7 billion is an income tax cut and $3.3 billion is a corporate tax cut (and actually $500 million of that is lost revenue because the Liberals must be assuming that corporations will produce less profit and therefore pay less taxes). Of the remainder, $4.5 billion is new social spending. Given that the income tax cuts are weighted heavily to the lower end of the income scale as is the majority of the “Benefits for Working Families and Canadians” this new policy in fact is not a tax shift, but a state transfer of wealth from corporations and wealthy Canadians to poorer Canadians. Who will pay for this policy? It isn’t polluters – it is the rich. Not that I have a problem with that – I mean I have strong opinions on economics and faith in the free market – but let’s not gloss over the fact that is a tax and spend program, not a neutral policy meant to discourage polluting.

On the topic of discouraging polluting (which I’m not 100% convinced it will do), the policy doesn’t seem to plan on success. $15.3 billion of revenue at $40 per tonne – what if there are less tonnes? I mean, that’s fantastic and wonderful but how are we going to pay for all those cool new tax cuts and Liberal spending promises? I’m just saying…

Like the majority of the critics I think the price increases we are going to see will be far deeper and will be compounded by the fact that the things that will increase most in price as a result of the “green shift”: fuel, energy, consumer goods, FOOD are all things whose price is escalating from other global pressures. The price of imported food is about to go through the roof and in a country where the diesel to transport that food will have an additional $0.07 a litre charge on the fuel that drives it to Safeway it is going to be even worse. I also can’t imagine this is making the 2,000 laid off workers from Air Canada or the soon-to-be-former employees of GM in Oshawa feel any better about their plight, knowing that hundreds if not thousands more will be joining them.

I really want to like this policy more. I want to reward a political party – particularly one that does not have access to the vast bureaucracy of economists, policy analyists, lawyers and engineers that the government has – for a policy that honestly will probably see me better off and tries to tackle the problem of climate change. But Dion needs to do better to win the election. This policy is difficult politics that is going to need one heck of a salesperson and communicator to get Canadians on-side. As of yet, Dion has not proven to be that kind of guy.

If it weren’t for the fact that the bill is very much alive, I’d suggest I was beating a dead horse by talking about the the copyright amendment act under consideration by the House of Commons. After all, a quick internet search will yield dozens of blogs, newspaper editorials and other commentary on the subject (even a comic book). But the horse is not dead. At least not yet.

When I listened to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josee Verner talk about the upcoming changes, I admit my first thought was positive – having downloaded music I seemed to be moving from nebulous waters of legality and ethics into being a copyright violator in $500 (or not, should I choose to follow the letter of the law should the act make it to proclamation). As it turned out, the devil was in the details, and the details transfer a lot of power into corporate hands – specifically foreign corporate hands.

A balanced look – certainly not perfect to either consumers or copyright holders, but perhaps a considered compromise – is shattered when you read that the copyright holder can override the rights afforded by the act by putting in “technological measures” or “digital locks.” Once that is done, no copying at all is permitted, under threat of a $20,000 per instance. Whether or not a copyrighted work gets a digital lock or not is completely at the discretion of the copyright holder, and all of the rights that the new act supposedly bestowes on consumers is taken away in a blink of an eye and the compromise is gone in favour of the rights overwhelmingly held by giant multinational entertainment corporations.

And ultimately to what end – will Canada experience a cultural revolution of artists producing without fear of losing revenues to downloading? I doubt it – not that we can’t have a renaissance of Canadian culture, but that it has been supressed for the past decade by piracy. Artists have at best mixed opinions on piracy and are increasingly looking at alternative models for getting their works out into the community and getting paid to do so. In the end, the rabid desire to protect copyrighted materials and zealously sue those who steal music and other works is not from artists but corporate labels and studios who see the loss of millions of dollars of their money, money which I believe was a result of overinflated CD prices in the 1990s and DVD prices today.

The rhetorical question at the heart of the amendment should be “What is the point?” Why are we passing this act? If it isn’t to encourage and protect artistic works – which in all likelihood will be largely unaffected, then what? I hope the answer isn’t just conforming to international expectations or pandering to the US.

Reform is needed – the law is outdated and we need a better balance. Just I’m not convinced Bill C-61 is it.