April 12th, 2009, 1 Comment »
I spotted this Reuters photo in the Globe and Mail last week. You can just hear our Prime Minister thinking, “now is when the humans raise their hands in successive groups. I, too, shall raise my hands, to cement the illusion that I am one of them.”
I was interested to learn that the origins of the wave are hotly debated.
UPDATE: I submitted this photo to Reddit, and was amused to read this (slightly paraphrased) exchange in the comments:
Redditer A: The lack of enthusiasm on his face makes this picture.
Redditer B: That is his enthusiastic face.
1 Comment »
December 2nd, 2008, 16 Comments »
As you’ve probably heard, our federal government has gone a bit mad. If nothing else, this political crisis has taught an unsuspecting nation the meaning of the word prorogation.
I really don’t know what to think on this one.
There seems to be plenty of blame to spread around. Prime Minister Harper seemed pretty eager to goad the opposition with inaction on a stimulus package and the elimination of political subsidies (now off the table). The opposition seem all to keen to exploit this apparent misstep for all it’s worth. And poor, nerdy Elizabeth May is still trying to get a seat at the table.
What’s Best For Canadians?
It’s a simple question to ask, but I can’t answer it. Who are the better guides through murky economic waters? The Conservatives or a coalition? What kind of economic stimulus package (in your pants–sorry, just needed to get that out of the way) does the country need? And should we really bail out the auto industry? I’m philosophically opposed to such bailouts, but that’s a pretty unthinking response.
And then there are the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure. I’m pretty ambivalent about the whole mandate issue. Everybody in the House of Commons has a mandate. Prime Minister Harper’s high ground looks no taller than a pitcher’s mound when you consider his minority position and the fact that his party only received 38% of the popular vote.
Several of my left-leaning colleagues have invited me sign petitions or join Facebook groups supporting the coalition of the Liberals, NDP (doesn’t Mr. Layton look like an eager spaniel these days?) and the Bloc. I won’t blindly do so just because I voted Green in the last election. It seems a little petty, particularly when there are parliamentary processes in place for the parties to resolve matters, one way or another.
I’m not usually a fence-sitter. I’d like to hear the summarized professional opinions of about fifty economists regarding what Canada needs to weather the economic downturn. That might clarify what I think the country needs.
Where do you stand?
16 Comments »
November 28th, 2008, 5 Comments »
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.
I’d kind of forgotten about these subsidies, so here’s a little summary from the CBC:
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?
5 Comments »
February 1st, 2008, 4 Comments »
We’re in an era of media amalgamation. This is generally considered a bad thing for freedom of the press and unbiased reporting.
Unfortunately, we’ve also got a Conservative government in power that seeks to curtail those freedoms further. Let’s see what our Prime Minister’s done in the past eighteen months on this front:
What’s Prime Minister Harper’s latest restriction? Quietly muzzling Environment Canada:
The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department’s media message and ensure there are no “surprises” for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.
You know, aside from their head-in-the-sand environmental policy, I can’t complain much about the Harper government (of course, I’ve been out of the country for the past year).
But these tactics aren’t in the service of the Canadian people. They only serve self-interests. They serve to conceal, to obfuscate and, I assume, to deceive. They show a marked disrespect for the electorate.
Does anybody think these policies are a good idea? I’d love to hear a rational defense from a Conservative supporter (Stephen, maybe?), for example.
4 Comments »
