0
The Slumber Party at the polls
17 December 2005
[indent]So far in this dreary and dull election campaign, the first two national "debates" have been characterized by an unbearable sense of heaviness. They're not as much dull as they are soporific. I'm not sure why the networks didn't just replay the debates from the last election - they, at least, showed some spark of life.
It's difficult for Canadians to get excited about this election, since the issues are still the same as those we heard at the last election - a mere year and a half ago. The rhetoric has not changed, merely been dusted off for reiteration. So have the same, tired old insults. Canadians are equally tired of national leaders using the campaign to trade pique instead of promoting policy.
There have been some little hillocks in this otherwise prairie-flat campaign. First, Buzz Hargrove, the president of the CAW changed his tune to promote the Liberals instead of the traditional pro-labour NDP. That may not cost the NDP a lot of votes, but will rather cost Buzz the remnants of his credibility. What a sell out! I suspect it shored up the loyalty of the ardent NDP voters who might have thought of switching just to keep Steven Harper out of 24 Sussex.
Then the US ambassador got pissy about Paul Martin's comments made over America's flouting NAFTA and WTO agreements and its refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement. The ambassador jumped into the fray and chastised the Canadians for daring to be critical of their neighbour. That didn't hurt Martin at all, merely raised Canadian ire over perceived American intervention. This ain't Iraq, Mr. Wilkins: keep your nose out of our election. But his comments did raise Martin's stock in the eyes of those Canadians who think our government hasn't stood up sufficiently to US trade bullying in the past.
That, of course, was tough for Steven Harper to challenge. Looking soft on America during a Canadian election is the kiss of death - akin to an American presidential candidate looking soft on war. The reality is that the next person in power will cozy right up and make nice with the US because we have to and they're our biggest trading partner. Candidates may huff and puff during an election, but after the vote it's just so much hot air.
Speaking of hot air, while the Greens moan and wail righteously about being excluded from the national debates (rightly so, mind you), they haven't emerged so much as an alternative as they have a dumping ground for voter frustration. Most people are unaware of their stand on any issue, and they have no significantly different policy or platform that makes them stand out. People seem to choose them simply because they're fed up and tired of the same old parties running around the same old mulberry bush. It's a protest vote.
In a recent report in the Tyee, the Greens don't come across as very likable under their skin. We usually assume by the name that they're a pro-environmentalist, slightly socialist party like the Greens in Europe. Well, think again. Their leader, Jim Harris, is a former Tory and, according to the article, what policies they do promote are suspiciously right-wing, like a breakaway Reform Party platform.
The media's inexcusable refusal to include the Green Party in the debates has angered a lot of Canadians who feel such Soviet-style media management is unacceptable and un-democratic. After all, they allow Gilles Duceppe the opportunity to speak - and he's not only anti-federalist, his party refuses to run candidates outside Quebec. I'm sure that tactic will garner the Greens extra votes this election.
But since the media is almost entirely controlled by a handful of people in this country, it's hardly surprising that the debates are as tightly controlled as Stalin's puppet politburo. It tarnishes the remaining parties with the same brush, however, because none of them stood up and demanded the media play fair.
The refusal to include the Greens in the debates had given them an aura of greater respectability. Had these mavens of the media been a little brighter, they would have allowed them to participate, so Canadians could have realized exactly what they stood for. And maybe that would be good for the Greens. Or even better for the other parties. We'll never know. However, they may make the news the wrong way - allegations of financial wrongdoing in the last election have surfaced.
Meanwhile, the campaign crawls along at a snail's pace. as exciting as watching paint dry. We can only hope that it heats up and becomes more lively after the New Year. Canadians didn't want this election, polls show most of us are angry at the parties who foisted it on us at this time of the year. So unless something changes significantly in the next few weeks, my prediction is that the Liberals will win another minority government. And the whole silly cycle will start all over again.[/indent]
It's difficult for Canadians to get excited about this election, since the issues are still the same as those we heard at the last election - a mere year and a half ago. The rhetoric has not changed, merely been dusted off for reiteration. So have the same, tired old insults. Canadians are equally tired of national leaders using the campaign to trade pique instead of promoting policy.
There have been some little hillocks in this otherwise prairie-flat campaign. First, Buzz Hargrove, the president of the CAW changed his tune to promote the Liberals instead of the traditional pro-labour NDP. That may not cost the NDP a lot of votes, but will rather cost Buzz the remnants of his credibility. What a sell out! I suspect it shored up the loyalty of the ardent NDP voters who might have thought of switching just to keep Steven Harper out of 24 Sussex.
Then the US ambassador got pissy about Paul Martin's comments made over America's flouting NAFTA and WTO agreements and its refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement. The ambassador jumped into the fray and chastised the Canadians for daring to be critical of their neighbour. That didn't hurt Martin at all, merely raised Canadian ire over perceived American intervention. This ain't Iraq, Mr. Wilkins: keep your nose out of our election. But his comments did raise Martin's stock in the eyes of those Canadians who think our government hasn't stood up sufficiently to US trade bullying in the past.
That, of course, was tough for Steven Harper to challenge. Looking soft on America during a Canadian election is the kiss of death - akin to an American presidential candidate looking soft on war. The reality is that the next person in power will cozy right up and make nice with the US because we have to and they're our biggest trading partner. Candidates may huff and puff during an election, but after the vote it's just so much hot air.
Speaking of hot air, while the Greens moan and wail righteously about being excluded from the national debates (rightly so, mind you), they haven't emerged so much as an alternative as they have a dumping ground for voter frustration. Most people are unaware of their stand on any issue, and they have no significantly different policy or platform that makes them stand out. People seem to choose them simply because they're fed up and tired of the same old parties running around the same old mulberry bush. It's a protest vote.
Quote
...the party seems to have no written policies. A diligent search of their website reveals no platform at all. Last spring, there was a policy document entitled Platform 2005, but it has been removed. Click on "Policies" on their website and you get a statement saying they will release policies as the election unfolds. There are also some broad policy principles. But what happened to the policies the party had last year? Have they been dumped and if so, on who's authority?
From thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/16/GreensArentGreen/
From thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/16/GreensArentGreen/
In a recent report in the Tyee, the Greens don't come across as very likable under their skin. We usually assume by the name that they're a pro-environmentalist, slightly socialist party like the Greens in Europe. Well, think again. Their leader, Jim Harris, is a former Tory and, according to the article, what policies they do promote are suspiciously right-wing, like a breakaway Reform Party platform.
The media's inexcusable refusal to include the Green Party in the debates has angered a lot of Canadians who feel such Soviet-style media management is unacceptable and un-democratic. After all, they allow Gilles Duceppe the opportunity to speak - and he's not only anti-federalist, his party refuses to run candidates outside Quebec. I'm sure that tactic will garner the Greens extra votes this election.
But since the media is almost entirely controlled by a handful of people in this country, it's hardly surprising that the debates are as tightly controlled as Stalin's puppet politburo. It tarnishes the remaining parties with the same brush, however, because none of them stood up and demanded the media play fair.
The refusal to include the Greens in the debates had given them an aura of greater respectability. Had these mavens of the media been a little brighter, they would have allowed them to participate, so Canadians could have realized exactly what they stood for. And maybe that would be good for the Greens. Or even better for the other parties. We'll never know. However, they may make the news the wrong way - allegations of financial wrongdoing in the last election have surfaced.
Meanwhile, the campaign crawls along at a snail's pace. as exciting as watching paint dry. We can only hope that it heats up and becomes more lively after the New Year. Canadians didn't want this election, polls show most of us are angry at the parties who foisted it on us at this time of the year. So unless something changes significantly in the next few weeks, my prediction is that the Liberals will win another minority government. And the whole silly cycle will start all over again.[/indent]
