Yesterday, as you probably know (I first read about it on Beth’s site), Finance Minister Jim Flaherty gave a financial update of sorts in the House of Commons. I’m not an economist, so I won’t speculate on the pros and cons of the Conservatives’ no-stimulus stance. I am, however, interested in talking about their proposed cuts to political subsidies.
Parties currently receive $1.95 for every vote they receive in a federal election, provided they win at least two per cent of the nationwide popular vote. The annual subsidy is used to pay for staff and expenses.
On the surface, it would appear Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have the most to lose if subsidies were cut because they garnered the most votes in the October election. The Conservatives earned $10 million in subsidies, compared to $7.7 million for the Liberals, $4.9 million for the NDP, $2.6 million for the Bloc Québécois and $1.8 million for the Greens.
But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party’s total revenues. By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals’ funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc’s, 57 per cent of the NDP’s and 65 per cent of the Greens’.
There is also, it’s worth noting, a $1000 cap on donations from unions, corporations and other organizations.
When the Liberals introduced this plan in 2003, I thought it was a terrifically democratic idea. Not only does it make each vote more meaningful, but it enables smaller and fringe parties to have a little more money to work with. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation supports the cuts, saying:
“It’s absurd that Canadian taxpayers are forced to subsidize through their taxes, political parties that they do not support, especially in the case of the Bloc Quebecois — a party that seeks to break up our country.”
I disagree. What could be more democratic than giving resources to all of the political voices, even the country’s critics? I don’t want my politicians beholden to corporate interests to the degree they are in the US.
In any case, there’s a great deal of sturm und drang in Ottawa about the proposed budget cuts. They amount, I gather, to about $50 million. The Conservatives knew this would be hugely controversial, and that it would look like they were exploiting home field advantage. Is their strategy backfiring (a bit like their cuts to the arts), or do they have a bigger picture in mind?
This qualifies as a client plug, I suppose, but it’s a cause that’s really close to my heart.
We’re doing some work with Greenpeace Canada, Sierra Club of BC and ForestEthics on the continuing campaign to save BC’s Great Bear rainforest.
The Great Bear Rainforest is a huge swath of the land–the size of Austria–on BC’s central coast. It’s home to three kinds of bears, six million migratory birds, 3000 genetically distinct salmon stocks and many species of plants unique to the region. Most importantly, it’s the largest tract of intact coastal temperate rainforest left on Earth.
As you may recall, there was a landmark agreement in 2006 among various stakeholders–the provincial government, logging companies, First Nations and environmentalists. They agreed to a new approach to resource planning developed by an independent team of scientists, and committed to its implementation by March 31, 2009. But we’re not (ahem) out of the woods yet. From the petition:
A couple of years ago, Premier Campbell made a very specific commitment to preserve this precious rainforest. The final countdown is on for the BC government to make their promise a reality by the March 31, 2009 deadline. Premier Campbell needs to hear from you.
We are down to the wire. Unless all elements of the promise are kept, the ecological health of the rainforest will be in jeopardy once again. We’ve come so far towards the rare success of having a vast unspoiled forest safeguarded, let’s not undermine all this good work by not reaching the finish line.
Give Me an Early Christmas Present: Sign This Petition
If you can spare 37 seconds, I’d really appreciate it if you would sign the petition urging the government of BC to keep their promises regarding this precious region. You don’t have to be from BC, either–support from other parts of the globe really helps.
If you’re keen to help beyond signing the petition, consider any of the following:
Blog, tweet, bookmark or otherwise spread the word on the campaign.
Watch, favourite and share this two-minute YouTube video about the project:
Thanks to Emily, Raul, Monique, Rebecca and everybody else who has written about the campaign thus far. We’re making good progress, but we’ve got a ways to go.
Well, some of my faith in the US is restored this morning. Senator Obama’s election to the White House is an extraordinary gesture of hope that ought to resonate around the globe. His acceptance speech was yet another example of awesome oratory. Let us hope that President Obama governs the way Senator Obama campaigned.
Of course, there were a few disappointments last night. California voted ‘yes’ on proposition 8, effectively banning gay marriage in the state. This exit poll is particularly shocking, indicating that 70% of African-Americans voted ‘yes’ on the issue. I should really learn more about the rationale behind referendums. Why do we (and the US much more than us) have them, and under what circumstances?
Likewise, Alaska probably re-elected an 84-year-old convicted felon (who thinks the Internet is ‘a series of tubes’) to the Senate. He’ll be the first person ever to be re-elected to the Senate after being found guilty on criminal charge. As someone said elsewhere on the web this morning, stay classy, Alaska.
On this historic day in American history, I wanted to reference Sarah’s excellent report from the coincidentally-named town of Obama, Japan:
I spent the past weekend in Obama, and awesome doesn’t even begin to describe how awesome it was.
Obama, a fishing village on the Sea of Japan, has transformed itself into a hotbed of Barack Obama activism. Although, I suspect the people of Obama are rooting for Obama not because they like his politics, but because they like his name.
The charming portrait of Obama featured in the flags and posters that line the town’s main street looks like it was sketched in about five minutes.
I recently read this fascinating article in The New Yorker about religion and teen pregnancy and sexuality trends in the US:
Regnerus argues that religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical. The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents—seventy-four per cent—say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, say that they believe in abstinence.)
A few interesting factoids that I took away from the piece: the states with the highest divorce and teen pregnancy rates in the country are all red states, and the ones with the lowest are mostly blue. It might be useful to map those states to per-capita income, to reflect how teen pregnancy pertains to income, not just political allegiance.
Even more interesting was that there’s a kind of tipping point for celibacy pacts in high school populations:
Bearman and Brückner have also identified a peculiar dilemma: in some schools, if too many teens pledge, the effort basically collapses. Pledgers apparently gather strength from the sense that they are an embattled minority; once their numbers exceed thirty per cent, and proclaimed chastity becomes the norm, that special identity is lost. With such a fragile formula, it’s hard to imagine how educators can ever get it right: once the self-proclaimed virgin clique hits the thirty-one-per-cent mark, suddenly it’s Sodom and Gomorrah.
There’s a useful marketing lesson in there somewhere, about tribes and passionate users (or non-users, as the case may be).
These are three clever videos I’ve come across in the last day and a half. Monique twittered about this Slate Vvideo, encouraging Americans to go northward in the event of another Republican president:
Professor Lessig is, as always, thoughtful and articulate in his critique of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum on banning gay marriage:
James sent me this well-crafted take on the Mad Men (a show I have difficulty getting excited about) opening credits from the Simpsons:
In passing, I note that none of these three videos are hosted on YouTube. It’s kind of a video hosting and sharing ghetto, when you get right down to it. You can’t ignore it, but discerning video creators seem to favour other solutions.
Oh, and yes, the imminent new site design is wider than this one, so that video frames won’t jut into the sidebars anymore.
I feel like I’m recommending a This American Life episode every other week, but it’s a reflection of how much I enjoy the show. Last week’s episode was called “The Ground War”, and tells several stories from the electoral battles being fought in Pennsylvania:
This American Life goes to Pennsylvania, a battleground within a battleground, to figure out why, and how, John McCain and Barack Obama both think they can win there. And we get to know the ordinary people who’ve become the candidates’ most forceful foot soldiers.
Pennsylvania, I take it, is one of the few states that John Kerry won in the last election that McCain could take this time around. It’s a classic battleground state, described by one Democratic consultant as “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between”. It does feel like a metaphor for the entire election, with passionate people on both sides debating the issues and the personalities of the candidates. Simultaneously, we hear from racists and sundry imbeciles from around the state.
One segment profiles volunteers canvassing door-to-door. I’ve never done it, and I’ve always admired people who have the gumption (yes, I said ‘gumption’) to talk to complete strangers about their voting choices.
UPDATE: I meant to mention the swinging cover of Billy Joel’s “Allentown” near the end of the episode. It’s by a German band called Berlin Voices, and feels like an improvement on the original (you can hear a snippet here). They released a whole album of Joel covers. You might want to pass on “We Didn’t Start the Fire” (which you can hear on their MySpace page).
UPDATE #2: Today I read a Slate article about voter registration form. This seems desperately needed in the US. How undemocratic is a process where, in some states, you must register a month before the actual election?
Via Digg and Cracked, here’s the first safe-for-work minute of “Who’s Nailin’ Paylin”. The acting (and setup, and set for that matter) is hilariously awful:
Here’s another PG-rated clip. It features a hot-and-bothered Hillary Clinton uttering the classic line, “I’m so tired of bipartisanship. Why can’t we just be bi?”
The film is produced by Hustler, which, of course, is owned the creepy and politically-active Larry Flynt. Given Mr. Flynt’s leftward leaning, I’d imagine that this production doesn’t, you know, flatter Governor Palin.
These pieces reminded me of this more amusing take on bad porn acting starring Nathan Fillion. Also entirely work-safe.
We were in the US this past long weekend, so we only got news of last night’s election when I logged into the AT&T wifi at SeaTac. To no one’s surprise, we got ourselves another Conservative minority government. I have read just about zero analysis of the results, but it seems to me that most of the parties hopped on the fail boat:
The Liberals, obviously, were the biggest failure. They haven’t won so few seats since 1984. Adieu, Monsieur Dion.
The Conservatives failed to secure a majority.
The Greens failed, yet again, to win a single seat.
Jack Layton failed to become Prime Minister. Though, admittedly, the NDP’s showing was one of its strongest ever.
Personally, I don’t mind minority governments. They feel democratic. And I don’t mind that the average Canadian is asked to pay attention to national issues every couple of years. Is it really that much of a burden to have to vote every 18 months instead of every five years?
UPDATE: Apparently the folks at Comedy Central agree with me.
Back in August, I mentioned the Conservative government’s cuts to arts programs, and their controversial grab for greater control over funding for film and TV production.
In roughly $5 billion worth of programs spending, Prime Minister Harper’s $45 million cuts feels like a rounding error. Did they hope to make the cuts quietly, or make a bold statement about tightening belts and, maybe, cultural funding? I’m not sure, but it feels like the issue broke the wrong way. Arts funding became an unexpectedly prominent issue in the campaign, providing fodder for the opposition Plus, the move may have provoked some previously apathetic non-voters to action.
As the Globe and Mail reports, Prime Minister Harper has repealed the problematic clause in Bill C-10. It feels like damage control:
The Conservative Leader’s about-face comes as Tory hopes of a majority fade, and support for the party is sagging in the crucial battlegrounds of Quebec and Ontario.
The move appears to be aimed at appeasing voters incensed at the provision in C-10, and at the nearly $45-million in recent cuts to a swath of other arts and culture programs.
The Globe also notes that all four opposition parties have promised to reinstate the $45 million in cuts.
