Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca

Since day one of the campaign, Harper and his gang have been consistently spining the message that a majority goverment for his party is good for us because it will provide stability.  Let’s take a closer look at that highly dubious proposition.

First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing?  Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not.  Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power  undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not  necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008.  That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate.  So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.

A similar question can be asked about stability.  Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment?  One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground  of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy.  But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted.  The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying  and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.

Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business.  We should rejoice in  that fact, not bemoan it,  as so many in the main line parties seem to do.  Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all.  From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world,  the only exceptions in the western world being  -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this  last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon.   Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?

Take a look at what  Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.

-----------------------------------------------

Here are some suggestions for gearing up:

1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.

2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.

3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse  about the issue.

4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation.  (After this election, that may number two, not one.)

5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.

5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.

We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first.  The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation.  When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates.  Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems.  Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations.  That's what democracy is all about, one could argue

via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.

Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?

I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.

Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca

I hate to admit this but John Ivison in his piece in The Post on Saturday could have a point: “There is anger in the herbivore community about Stephen Harper’s failings — some of it is even justified. But the evidence on the doorsteps suggests it does not extend beyond the politically engaged into the suburbs, where people have to get up in the morning.” Two questions: does the apparently large turnout on Friday at the advance polls suggest a newly engaged voter constituency or was that the already committed who showed up? Will the votemob constituency have any real voting power now that the University year is coming to an end?

The answer to the first question is we simply don’t know whether these are newly engaged voters or what their voter preference might be, but if they are they could potentially  make a difference for any of the parties.  As for university students. there are 3 million elegible votes under 25, and pollling suggests that their voting preferences would probalby favour the Liberals, NDP, or Greens over the Harperites. But did they vote on Friday in their campus ridings, and if not, will they vote today?  If they do vote over this holiday weekend on campus, what percentage of support would there be for each of the three favoured parties, and how split would that vote be? And will their votes make a difference?

There does not appear to be much room for optimism.  Now that through the not so subtle voter-supression tatics of the Harperites to shut down special voting polls on university campuses has occurred, students would have had to remain on campus this holiday weekend to vote in their university riding in the advance polls, but most univerisites are in the process of wrapping up the semester, and preliminary estimates of students who did remain are that one-third of  the student body have remained on campus. How many of those plan on voting, and even if all did so, how much of a difference is there in effect between one-third and a full student body? For those who did not remain on campus and still wished to vote, their  only option is to vote in their home riding today or on May 2 where their vote,  because unconcentrated and spread as it would be across many ridings, would count for much less.

It remains to seen how all this plays out.  but one thing is certain:  the shutting down of the special voting stations on campus by elections Canada in complicity with the Harperites might turn out to be far more significan than first thought.

via Suburban Voters and Voter Suppression | rabble.ca.

Earth Day is April 22. Will its Celebration Change Anything? | rabble.ca

A recent Ipsos Reid poll for Postmedia News reveals that only 5% of Canadians think of the environment as a key issue that our federal parties should be discussing, and even poll figures from Day 22 of the campaign from Nik Nanos rank it well below heathcare and jobs/economy at 4.3%, a drop from 5.1% on April 16.   These are shocking numbers for a variety of reasons, among them that respondents to the polls are apparently unable to see a connection between health and the economy, on the one hand, and the “health" and “the economy" of the planet, on the other. So who can blame the four federal parties for ignoring this issue? To them, obsessed with trying to win as many seats as possible, it’s just one of many issues in a long list.  Political expediency, as is so often the case,  trumps both principle and, in this context, reality.  The  absence, in varying degrees,  of a meaningful strategic policy initiative in  three of the four federal parties and in all four the recessing of serious discussion on the most pressing issue our world has ever faced  during this federal campaign is a direct result of such ordinary Canadians’ apparent indifference to it.

I write of course about the crisis in our biosphere — the rapid and now, it would seem, inevitable  movement towards the total destruction of our planet and everything in it through the unconscionable industrialization of the planet over the past century and a half that manifests itself in countless ways, not just in the global warming phenomenon.  Unfettered industrialization and indiscriminate economic development have led to global warming and, in turn,  the climate change phenomenon.  But the environment is not just some “natural” realm external to ourselves, as David Suzuki continues to remind us with greater urgency every day.  It’s everything, and we –plants, animals, humans, water, land, air — are in this together.

To name only a few disturbing trends in which we now find ourselves in 2011:

• Unsustainable population growth throughout the world from roughly 3 billion in 1960  to approximately 7 billion in 2010 (Malthus haunts us: while the rate of growth is declining, the absolute numbers are increasing unsustainably)
• Corporate and other forms of industrialized farming with the widespread use of toxic chemicals  (Where have all the bees gone?) and,  as so many economists have been telling us for months now, a massive food shortage looming throughout the world and, as a result,  rising food prices
• The commoditization of water ( Jean Chrétien had the audacity to talk about that possibility two weeks ago.)
• The massive destruction of wildlife habitats and the extinction of countless species
• The irresponsible clear-cutting and destruction of forests that still happens through the world
• Our very own Canadian embarrassment: the tars sands operation and  its out-of-control carbon emissions and now scientifically proven  toxic waste leaching into the  land and water around it  (Despite aggressive Canadian lobbying, we learned very recently the EU is about to slap a “dirty fuel” label on the tar sands.)

What continues to astound and appall me is the total absence of a focused discussion about the erosion of our biosphere from any of the federal parties.  Even the Green Party, which does indeed have a comprehensive and meaningful policy on a sustainable planet, is not talking about it much, though it does form the ground of its platform.  Hard to fault the Greens given the politics of exclusion exercised against them by Big TV’s federal debates consortium.  They have a good excuse. But it would seem that, in general,  politics takes precedence over the destruction of the world during this federal election.   Everyone wants  political  power -- some because they think they may accomplished policy with it; others, alas, for its own sake.   Who can blame them?

Well I, my children, and my grandchildren can. This is the pre-eminent issue of our day. For  job growth, health care, pensions, education, tax credits, the ethical behaviour of politicians — these mean nothing as issues of concern  if we are on the way to self-extinction.  Many scientists have been arguing with increasing frequency that we may already be beyond the tipping point, that the process of self-destruction cannot be reversed but only inhibited.

We are currently spewing 388ppm (parts per million)  of CO2 in the biosphere, a disturbing notch on an escalating  trending pattern of 2ppm a year, way past the tipping point of 350ppm that scientists maintain is the real tipping point.   This is what James Hansen of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming over two decades ago, wrote recently:  ”If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”   In other words, this is our last chance: if we don’t reverse that trend in the next ten years, we’re done.

via Earth Day is April 22. Will its Celebration Change Anything? | rabble.ca.

P.S.World Environment Day, June 5: http://bit.ly/iiu0pu http://bit.ly/jqz9VY
CO2 emissions reach a record high in 2010; 80% of projected 2020 emissions from the power sector are already locked in: these bleak findings from the International Energy Agency in a recent report suggests the crisis is even more intense than we have imagined.

Students Just might Make a Difference in this Election | rabble.ca

Students Might Just Make Difference in This Election

“Ratings monitor BBM Canada said that 3.85 million viewers watched the debate Tuesday night, an increase of 26 per cent compared with 2008’s showdown. The number jumped to 10.6 million viewers once those who only watched a portion of the debate were included.”

The question is who are these viewers? Are they the already entrenched partisans of each party combined with the usual political junkies, pundits, and journalists — the usual suspects — or are they that cabal in combination with the undecided and the uncommitted? It would be intriguing to think the latter, and the 10.6 figure for those who only watched a portion does indeed suggests a fairly substantial level of interest if not engagement. If we take these numbers, then, as a postive trend towards engagement and thus, as a result, a potentially larger voter turnout and link them to the large increase in Twitter traffic on the election and to the Rick Mercer energized votemob initiative expanding every day, we may indeed have a radically different election than 2008. The result may surprise us.

The second question, then, is who gains from this increased matrix of activity if it’s real? We can’t be absolutely certain it’s Harper, who is obviously counting primarily, as many have pointed out, on his base, targeted ridings, and of course voter apathy, indifference, or ignorance to get him his coveted majority, though at least some of the undecided will swing his way. But countering that movement is the increasing number of whack the Harperites websites and videos, the extremely pumped Green supporters since Elzabeth May’s exclusion from the debates, whose numbers are also expanding, and, most significant, the increasing participation in studentvote-votemob movement, which I strongly suspect is not travelling in the direction of the Harperites.

Driven by the leadnow.ca intiative, this group refuses to lie down and roll over even after Elections Canada, pressured by the Harperites — a blatant Rove-like voter suppression tactic — has shut down campus voting. Leadnow.ca has started a petition to have campus voting reestablshed, and sudents all across Canada have said if they can’t vote on campus, they will vote in advanced polls and in their home riding.  Apathyisboring has already heard from 60,000 students pledging to vote.

But the last question remains the very first one everyone asked:  has either debate make a difference, changed anything, or were they just a little stop on the way? The polls suggest the latter, but, remember, students, whose communciation matrix is social media and cell phones, are not a significant part of the polling sample if at all. We may indeed be having a different election, and on May 2, the results may just turn out to be  much more than simply intriguing.

via Students Just might Make a Difference in this Election | rabble.ca.

Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca

Last week we once  again witnessed politics trumping principle in the swift, complete co-operation of the four main political parties in agreeing to shift the french debates up a day to allow Canadian viewers to watch the Habs game. What does this say about the parties' underlying  attitudes towards and trust of the Canadian public?  Something sadly cynical, I'm afraid:  that Canadians can't be trusted to choose the potential good of their country over a mere hockey game, that "sports" means more than the fate of our country, that the parties fear viewers might just not tune in because most would prefer hockey to the debate?  Alas, they're probably right.

But who else benefited from this particular shift?  RDS and Mother Corporation, of course, both of whom are now probably overjoyed at this opportunity to have  recovered potential lost revenue.  Had the game and the debate taken place on the same night, potentially splitting the viewing audience, the already reduced revenue because of the ad-free debate would have been further eroded, though one could argue that the bulk of that audience for the debate would be Quebec, not necessarily an increased across-Canada viewer-ship, who could still watch the game in comfort if they're not bilingual or interested in the debate. But since it's the Habs, that viewer-ship in Quebec had the potential to be very large.

The financial  relationship between the CBC and the other hockey corporate broadcasters  and the NHL, itself a large  corporation, is also foregrounded here in this decision, and the story in theglobandmail today about the NHL inking a new contract with NBC TV -  a contract, by the way, that might prevent the move by the Coyotes back toWinnipeg - reveals just how insidious that relationship is. Hockey of course is a big ad revenue generator for Canadian broadcasters, but the larger U.S. markets generate much more revenue for both the U.S. broadcasters and the NHL in absolute numbers.  And this corporate driven thinking is the main reason the NHL is resisting any move to the tiny TV market of Winnipeg.

On a personal note,  I have relatives who work in profession hockey operations (who, as Jack Webb would say, shall be nameless to protect the innocent),  and I myself once played in the Leaf organization for a few years when I was a teenager until I got sick of playing what I now see as propaganda, recruiting games in North Ontario in  addition to regular games and practices -- seven days a week.   I wasn't very good, so no big loss for the Leafs. But we all know - that is, my relatives who are still working in professional hockey and I - that the illusion of professional hockey as a “sport” dissipated years ago.  I mark the original expansion from six teams as the day the music stopped.

And aren't most such expansions quite obviously driven by corporate agendas to expand the market and therefore make more money?  Isn't it always about money?  We all know, my relatives and I - especially because of the massive expansion into the U.S. -  that professional hockey, like most professional sport,  is positioned for marketing purposes as undignified entertainment, not sport, and that corporations and their bottom line  agendas are what really matters.  Plain and simple, hockey is deeply inscribed in capitalism:  NHL teams are designed to make money - sometimes they’re successful and sometimes they’re not -- and the players with their outrageous salaries are, as in all professional sport, bought and sold  commodities.

I haven't watched a game since that original expansion.  And I'm just as proud of that political gesture as the fact I never shop at Wal-mart, for, as I learned a long time ago, all shopping is political, and so too, one might argue, is all television watching.

via Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca.

Ethnic Voters Unite: I Was Lost and Now I'm Found

Why don't all of you who seem so upset with the mainline parties take a good look at the Greens?   I simply can't vote for potential power anymore. Every time I have -- whether for the LPC or the NDP, never the Harperites -- I've compromised myself morally on some issue or other. I've found my way to the Greens in this election, and not just because of their clear recognition of the crucial condition in which planet earth finds itself on this Earth Day but also because they respect all Canadians and, unlike the mainline parties, respect the members of their very own party. Real input from the grassroots in the mainline parties is an illusion. A cabal at the top still calls the shots, and, in the case of the Harperites, an autocrat if not an implicit dictator - some would say explicit - controls everything.

Remind yourself of what sort of input the rank and file had the day Iggy was anointed and ascended to the LPC throne. That was the day many rank and file quit the LPC. Remind yourself of how man times, despite some half-decent policies, the NDP actually propped up the Harperites in order to gain a little bit of pathetic power and prestige. Remind yourself that the BQ is selfishly concerned about the welfare of  only one province, not Canada as a whole. And of course  you need no reminder of the endless abuses of the Harperites.

P.S. I am not a member of the Green Party. I just see full moral value in everything they do.

7:36 AM on April 22, 2011

Ethnic’ voters, unite! You have nothing to lose but your temper

Helena Guergis is No Michael Chong

http://bit.ly/gD5hki

"Basically, we’re talking about an internal Conservative Party of Canada dispute. As Andy Beaudoin, former head of the Simcoe-Grey riding association, asked at Friday’s press conference: “How reliable is a process which allows one man, [Conservative Party lawyer] Arthur Hamilton, to address the national council, the caucus leadership and the caucus with the recommendation to banish an MP, and no rebuttal or defence is permitted?”

Answer: Not very. Perhaps people will hold it against Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. But if it’s “the worst kind of politics,” as Ms. Guergis said on Friday, it’s not the worst by much. If this had happened to some notably principled Conservative MP — Michael Chong, say — we might have a poster child for better politics. But Ms. Guergis was best known as a not-very-impressive, three-bags-full partisan. Non-partisans can support her on principle, but again, this is the life she chose.

All that said, I hope Ms. Guergis wins on May 2. It would be a pretty impressive middle finger to the Conservative establishment, though it’s questionable if it would eventually accomplish anything for Simcoe-Grey or for Canada. Unfortunately, the real moral of this story seems to be not to let your children grow up to be politicians."

Chris Selley has it right.

Implicit Voter Suppression: Are we Witnessing the Opening of a New Bag of Dirty Tricks?

Pressured by the Harperites, Elections Canada played perfectly into their Rove-like voter repression strategy yesterday in suspending special ballot voting on campuses across the country. If I were a university student, no matter what my voter preference, I’d be appalled if not outraged at such an ant-democractic tactic, and it amazes me how few pundits and media types have twigged to what’s really going on here. Aware of well-established voting trends on campus, the Harperites know that this potential campus vote is not, in general, going to favour them; it’s going to be for one of the other four parties. And so, in addition to all the strong-arm assaults against students at Harperite rallies, we now have another manipulative, unethical way to work towards that coveted majority. What further imported Republican-style dirt tricks are we now going to witness during the remainder of the campaign?  This is really scary.

I urge all those students who want to vote on campus but will not be able to do so to bring your energy and passion for voting to your home riding or advanced polls, which begin on April 22. The future is yours to lose.

The importance of youth voting

Elections Canada puts end to ‘special ballot’ voting

Elections Canada rejects Tory bid to quash student votes

Numbers: We May Have a Different Sort of Election (Revised)

English debate’s viewership gets hefty boost over 2008

“Ratings monitor BBM Canada said that 3.85 million viewers watched the debate Tuesday night, an increase of 26 per cent compared with 2008’s showdown. The number jumped to 10.6 million viewers once those who only watched a portion of the debate were included.”

The question is who are these viewers?  Are they the already entrenched partisans of each party combined with the usual political junkies, pundits,  and journalists — the usual suspects — or are they that cabal  in combination with  the undecided and the uncommitted?  It would be intriguing  to think the latter, and the 10.6 figure for those who only watched a portion does indeed suggests a fairly substantial level of interest if not engagement.  If we take these numbers, then, as a postive trend towards engagement and thus, as a result, a potentially larger voter turnout and link them to the large increase in Twitter traffic on the election and to the Rick Mercer energized votemob initiative expanding every day, we may indeed have a radically different election than 2008.  The result may surprise us.

The second question, then, is who gains from this increased matrix of activity if it’s real?  We can’t be absolutely certain it’s Harper, who is obviously counting primarily, as many have pointed out, on his base, targeted ridings, and of course voter apathy or indifference to get him his coveted majority, though at least some of the undecided will swing his way.  But countering  that movement is the expanding votemob crowd, which I strongly suspect  is not travelling in the direction of the Harperites, the increasing number of whack the Harperites websites and videos, and, not least, the extremely pumped Green supporters since Elzabeth May’s exclusion from the debates who numbers are also expanding.

But the last question remains the very first one everyone asked:  has either debate make a difference, changed anything, or were they just a little stop on the way?

Twitter traffic 'erupted' during leaders' debate

ShitHarperdid

go Ethnics go

The Harper Song: Steve Has To Go

Iggy's Rebuke of Harper on Trust

You don't have to be Liberal to appreciate this remark:  it's dead on.  Indeed, it confirms what the director and I suspected during the audition experience with Hair-in-the-Fridge, which was seriously frozen last night,eh? (I can't wait for John Doyle to get back to TO.)  I found the debate appalling:  scripted, canned, vetted, safe  questions -- big media at work again; uninspiring and totally lacking in genuine passion; disturbing in its absence of what should be discussed; entrenching in its to be expected partisan spinning; and an absurd format.   There should be a live audience with real people.  And I wonder how the editorial decisions were made to choose these new TV stars.  The question itself, visual presence, gender?  Who knows since there does not appear to be an intelligible rationale.

No one will change his or her mind after that spectacle unless he or she is out to lunch.  Unfortunately, many are still out, wandering around like zombies,  who may never come back.  We have to find them and bring them back.

Casting for a New Film About the Prime Minister of Canada

As I mentioned in my opening entry, I lived the life of a film producer for a number of years  -- even did a couple of projects for Mother Corporation, hoping to meet Pastor Mansbridge or, at the very least, Evan (let’s beat-this-story-to-death) Solomon,  and that experience got me thinking about a new film project called  Prime Minister of Canada:  How to Become a Dictator in a Democracy, which I intend to pitch to the new Sun Media channel  since I’m pretty sure the other big three national networks simply wouldn’t be interested in that so much of their programming is either in-house production or U.S. shows, apparently what Canadians want to see. You know,  things like Pastor Mansbridge ministering every night, and Lisa Laflame now pretty well every night for your viewing pleasure or Dancing with the Stars, though I could see one or two of those who came to the audition on that show waltzing or bumping around the dance floor.   Can’t you just see Iggy and Hair-in-the-Fridge (John Doyle’s phrase for OGL [our glorious leader]) doing their thing and getting all those on-line votes from giggling female viewers.  But Sun claims to be true blue Canadian, so I’m going with them.

So far, the agents of five potential actors have approached me, getting wind of the project through my Twitter account of course: Gilles Duceppe (many years of performance on various stages in la belle province), Jack Layton (very big on the Toronto stage), Michael Ignatieff (many years in front of the TV camera in Britain), Steve Harper (who’s been doing his one-note over-the-top angry bit  in Alberta political theatres for quite some time and has recently brought his act to Ottawa trying to go national but hasn’t been all that successful so far), and Elizabeth May (who is a less seasoned performer but a fresh face).  Now in the film business, when you’re casting, two considerations mean everything:  what we call less-is-more and screen presence, not really mutually exclusive categories.  Who does the camera love, who’s infinitely watchable, who does the small things well, who’s “natural?”

I’ve seen all five now, and, in consultation with the Director (who shall be nameless since he used to be a journalist) I’ve hired, we think we know who might sell this project with viewers.  Here’s our assessment of each:

Giles Duceppe:  No charisma and no acting talent whatsoever, too matter-of-fact in his delivery of lines, scripted or not.  Natural, but no screen presence.  Difficult to know how he got into the business or how that agent of his could possibly imagine we’d be interested given his limited Canadian experience.

Michael Ignatief: Apparently has two nicknames, Iggy and the Count.  I never know which of those to use. There’s a certain charm -- I think it’s called the crumpet motif that derives from old British ladies’ affection for certain TV types or Opal’s infatuation with Alex Trebek.  Not sure which. Has become adept at delivery, getting slicker everyday, and not bad at improvising lines, which does, however, get him into trouble with other cast members occasionally, but unfortunately the camera knows that HE’S PERFORMING.  In his case, less-is-more is just not working because it’s far more dramatic than it should be.  That desperate urgency just doesn’t work these days except in soap operas.  I’ve recommended to his agent that he give Days of Our Lives a call.

Jack Layton:  Slick, well-oiled, clichéd delivery but interesting look, especially the moustache and baldness.  Good teeth too. Unfortunately, all his performances are routine or predictable.   He’s one of those actors who just doesn’t know how to surprise us, sad to say, and it’s unlikely he’s ever going to make the big time.  Still we wish him luck in the small theatres, for his heart would seem to be  in the right place.

Stephen Harper:  Far too many nicknames to list here, especially since some children or the parents of children might be reading  this, but I am fond of Hair-in-the-Fridge.  It has a certain ring to it.  Not sure how to describe all the problems of performance here. The Director and I, having both steeped ourselves in Freudian analysis years ago, think there may be some issues haunting this actor from the past -- probably something to do with loyalty and trust.  We think that perhaps, some time ago, one of his fellow actors whom he thought was loyal betrayed him and that  incident has generated a distrust of everybody in the cast, not to mention the viewing audience itself.  His performances are edgy, true, and that makes them watchful, but they drift towards resentful in tone far too often.  And he cannot deal with the paparazzi or fans that might want to get in and see him at all.  But he’s natural, too:  we do see the man for what he is; there’s no performance here for the most part.  In fact, when we do see a performance, especially when we see him working at his desk, playing the piano, or wearing a sweater, unfortunately we know he’s performing.  I haven’t told his agent yet that we’re rejecting him.  To tell you the truth, I’m a bit scared to do so.

Elizabeth May: a fresh face, an up-and-comer, getting better known all the time, but not as well known as Charlie yet.   We producers are always on the look-out for fresh new faces, and we think she might be able to pull it off.  Totally natural, what you see is what you get performances in all her other stage and film work, a total absence of artifice, no acting tricks, smooth articulate delivery and a great sense of working  with the other actors comfortably -- which sort of surprised us -- and the viewing audience, whom she seems to respect for their discerning abilities -- not something that can really be said about the others who auditioned.

But we do see a possible problem with the project.  Sun, it turns out, might be having second thoughts, especially since we said we were going with Elizabeth.  Turns out, they thought we would automatically cast Hair-the-Fridge.  Seems like we might have to wait for a while to get the film up and running.

Elizabeth May's Answer on Climate Change Excluded from Mansbridge Interview

My comment on the CBC's exclusion of Elizabeth May's answer on climate change in the interview with Peter Mansbridge on last night's National.

I suppose you'll call it editorial discretion or privilege, but what happened to Elizabeth May's answer to the Climate Change Crisis?  When did the CBC become a Climate Change Denier?  Bad enough that the Consortium has excluded her from the debates; appalling that the people's network has also chosen to practice the politics of exclusion.

“2010 was the warmest year on record around the world, with 19 countries setting all-time temperature highs.” (Jeffrey Simpson, GlobeandMail 08.04.11)

We are currently spewing 388ppm (parts per million)  of CO2 in the biosphere, a disturbing notch on an escalating  trending pattern of 2ppm a year, way past the tipping point of 350ppm that scientists maintain is the real tipping point. This is what James Hansen of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming over two decades ago, wrote recently:  ”If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”   In other words, this is our last chance: if we don’t reverse that trend in the next ten years, we’re done.   Job growth, economic development, health care, pensions, education, tax credits, the ethical behaviour of politicians — these mean nothing as issues of concern  if we are on the way to self-extinction.

http://bit.ly/dEoHMP

Ballot question is clearer, but not outcome: EKOS poll | iPolitics

Ballot question is clearer, but not outcome: EKOS poll | iPolitics.

We see a deepening East-West divide emerging, as well as a relatively new and more active generational divide. Older Canadians (boomers and seniors) are opting for security and stability. Younger Canada (gen X and gen Y) are missing from the Conservative ranks and possibly seeking a different agenda. University-educated Canada is leaning decidedly Liberal, while college-educated Canada likes the Conservative Party. Women are twice as undecided as men and appear relatively underwhelmed with both the Liberals and the Conservatives where they are underrepresented. How they eventually weigh in will be a crucial factor.

Why Social Media Matters in This Election

The federal parties are primarily using Twitter and Facebook to market their brand even more than their political positions. Most of us in the social media world take these now conventional strategies with a healthy grain of salt. That's not where the action really is.

Far more ordinary citizens from every demographic group, old and young, and far more journalists are using social media to communicate during this election than in 2008. One very tangible benefit of that is a wider awareness of the public's perspective for the journalists, and that knowledge affects their reporting if not in direct ways then subtly. In other words, there really is a political effect at least in terms of communication spread. In fact, in some ironic ways, it could be argued that all this activity online is not about politicians but ordinary, politically active Canadians and journalists, who have twittered among themselves fiercely, bouncing off each other since day one.

But the most important benefit of participation in social media during this election for ordinary Canadians, both politically and psychologically, is its empowering effect -- the very sense that one is actually involved, actively politically engaged, really in the game, doing something, being part of it all somehow, illusory as that might be in reality.  I say might, not is. It generates a sense of individual political power -- people power, if you will.  And so perhaps the therapeutic effect of self-expression in such a context should not be underestimated either.  The full effect of this democratic phenomenon has not yet been fully analyzed, but it tells us in the meantime that democracy, in all its messy forms, is alive and well in Canada.

This is my response to this piece in The Globe. http://bit.ly/hjeg3Y

Lame Letter from CBC on Debates

Below is the email I and probably everyone who lodged a protest about  Elizabeth May's exclusion from the debates received from the CBC .  It's classic alibiing, pass-the-buck, lame excuse stuff. So much for the people's television network. Not an ounce of courage, just PR spin about how the decision was made as if that were a satisfactory answer.

Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, concerning representation of the Green Party in the upcoming leaders’ debates. Ms. McGuire asked me to reply.

I want to emphasize that the decision about which parties will be included was made by the Broadcast Consortium, a group of Canada’s largest English and French television networks – including CTV, Global, TVA and CBC/Radio Canada. It is the Consortium that organizes leaders’ debates during federal elections. While CBC/Radio Canada is a full participant, the decisions reached by the Consortium are unanimous.

This year, the Consortium has invited the leaders of four major parties to participate in the debates. That decision was made on editorial grounds, including, among other things, representation in the House of Commons. I might point out that the broadcasters are not alone in making that decision. Party leaders’ debates programs are staged in full agreement with the political parties.

From CBC/Radio Canada’s point of view, the Green Party is playing an increasingly significant role in the election and we fully expect that the party and its leader will receive the fair and equitable treatment it merits in our election coverage.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

G. Fortescue

CBC Audience Relations

Suspicious, Unenthusiastic, Wary

http://bit.ly/dQhA9B

Thomas Walkom in an exploratory walk with Mark Holland around the riding of Ajax-Pickering east of Toronto  found "an electorate that remains suspicious of Ignatieff, unenthusiastic about the May 2 federal election, yet wary of Harper." Rick Alexander, the Harperite candidate, had invited him to travel around the riding, but --wait for it, surprise surprise -- the Harper regime vetoed that idea.  Ajax-Pickering, a suburban riding of Tronna,  is quite different from my own rural riding outside Ottawa,  but the flavour of the responses are not radically different  from what's I've encountered.


Here, over the last few days, as I mentioned yesterday, I've seen a slight rise in support for opposition parties reflecting somewhat  a wariness about Harper and the behaviour of the regime in general.  But   I've also seen widespread suspicions about Ignatieff despite a quality local Liberal candidate, an intelligent women with a marvelous political background. And although I'm for anyone but Harper in essence,  I actually share those suspicions to some extent, principally  because he was anointed the leader of the LPC undemocratically by a Liberal cabal -- a sort of laying on of hands --who placed politics before principle with its own members by not allowing them to vote.    What's that  old cliché?  Oh yeah, one should practice what one preaches or one's credibility is undermined.  This is also a party hard to support, in my mind, for its swift co-operative support for both the Lybian UN initiative without extensive discussion in Parliament and, of course for  the Afghan war, which has led to so many deaths.  Their tempered support for the Tar Sands is equally disturbing, and the absence of a strong privileging position on the environment and,  in particular, on their failure to recognize the urgency for CO2 reductions take them off the table as an option for me.


I've also seen the lack of enthusiasm for another federal election from many of my neighbours,too, one or two of whom are angry at Jack Layton for not compromising with Harper on the budget.  Yeah, right:  let's chastise the opposition for placing principle  before political expediency, though one could argue that there is a political subtext for all three opposition parties in their defeat of the Harper government on a nonconfidence vote of contempt of parliament, a historical decision no one seems to be discussing at all in the campaign. Go figure: the very reason for having an election is merely an excuse, an occasion, an alibi to get out there and campaign on other issues that might win the electorate over.   Even so, my answer:  we may not have wanted an election, but we sure as hell need one.


What I haven't seen is an ounce of movement away from Harper's base. Any gains for the opposition have come from the undecided.  Although that opposition is active here, it is small compared to the Harperite base.  The riding remains hopelessly a small and big C riding, characteristic of so many rural ridings in Eastern Ontario,  filled with apathetic, indifferent potential voters who have, through that political failing, in effect allowed the active base of the Harperites to succeed. The challenge here is not unlike the challenge across Canada: How do we get people, young and old, energized and politically active?  As Elizabeth May has said, "The problem in Canada is not vote splitting, it is vote abandoning."

Increasing Public Engagement

All of a sudden, early yesterday evening, a bunch of new Liberal signs went up in my white bread, exurbia, small and big C neighbourhood in Eastern Ontario, and rumour has it that a bunch of Green signs are going up today.  In the 2008 campaign, sad to say, there were only Harperite signs throughout the subdivision.  What’s gives?   Am I sensing a refreshingly new level of political engagement from ordinary Canadians, and, if so, why? Usually, if they get engaged at all, Canadians twig to what’s going on sometime after the TV debates.  So what’s brought about this apparent early interest?

Four main  reasons:
First off, users statistics suggest that many more ordinary Canadians of all ages, not just the younger demographic, have become involved in social media:  Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Blogs in particular, and many more media outlets, journalists, and politicians themselves have become actively involved.  Andrew Coyne, the “Kady,” and Tony Clement come to mind immediately.

Second, Elizabeth May’s unjustified and undemocratic exclusion from the TV debates has awakened the interest of the public. And the court decision yesterday with its revelation from the Consortium’s lawyer that the other leaders might not show up for the debate if May were to be allowed in just pours more oil on the fire.  She has had considerable media exposure over the issue, and poll after poll has revealed that the vast majority of Canadians across the whole country thinks she has been mistreated.  This is unequivocally giving the Greens a very good bump.

Third, the increasing alienation and frustration of  the press by the Harperites is certainly a factor.  Reporter after reporter is continually lamenting their handling by the Harperite regime and the lack of access to the PM, and in such reporters as Robert Fyfe, Mark Kennedy, Roger  Smith, Terry Molewski, and Jeffrey Simpson the frustration is palpable.   These emotions, unconsciously and sometimes consciously, seep into their reporting.  Most if not all of both Power Politics and Powerplay yesterday were devoted to negative stories about the Harperites.

Fourth, of course is the bad behaviour of the Harperites themselves and, in particular, Harper’s pass-the-buck answers on the Carson affair and the control-freak dismissal of  a war-vet in Halifax, two young women in London, and a get-the-vote-out group of students in the Kitchener-Guelph area.  Such behaviour is suggesting to both the public and the media that this man and his party really don’t want to hear from Canadians about anything and that their  sole agenda is the regaining of power, this time with a majority.

The rest of the campaign is indeed going to be interesting.

Carbon Footprints in the Election Campaign

A report on the CBC National last night reveals that the four federal parties are creating in their campaign travels a carbon footprint of 45x the average  of an ordinary Canadian household for a year -- a total of 405.5 T.   And the campaign has just started. Surely, there’s a less carbon intensive way to run a campaign, or does politics once again trump the environment?

At least the Liberals, Dippers, Bloc, and Greens are buying carbon offsets, and Elizabeth May to her credit, as we would expect,  is using the least carbon intensive modes of travel she can -- a Prius and trains.   Not the Harperites, who have chalked up the most kilometres at13,500 generating 139.5T of carbon emissions.   Of course not.

Now here’s something politically entertaining.  Get this: they actually consider their campaign promise of a loan guarantee to Newfoundland for a hydro project a serious contribution to reducing carbon emissions.   Yeah, that’s right:  a campaign promise,  a loan guarantee (of our money), vitual money, not a real initiative, not real action.

Let’s end here on a whimper if not a groan:  at least they’re consistent in their total disregard for the environment, but consistency in everything this party does, as we know, is not a virtue.

http://bit.ly/h569um

One Week Later: Leger Poll

This poll is both encouraging and worrisome for Greens:   encouraging because, though slight, overall support for the GPC has risen, but worrisome in that 72% of those apparent supporters claim they might change their mind.  That's an extremely high number, one that suggests a lack of commitment.  Were these potential voters to do so, the migration would no doubt  be to the Liberals, who are gathering momentum, not the Harperites or the Dippers.   Thus the absence of Elizabeth May in the federal debates becomes even more crucial.  Tomorrow's court appearance means everything.

http://bit.ly/eAhAHp

Nik Nanos' Numbers

Health Care remains the number one issue, but the environment has moved to 5.9% from 5.2%  -- a slight improvement, but nothing to get excited about.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110401-IssueE.pdf

Rick Mercer: The Error of his Ways

Who doesn’t love Rick Mercer?  Always entertainingly political or poltically entertaining.   But his offer to host a debate between the two big boys,  Hair-in-the-Fridge and The Count,  amusing as no doubt such an encounter would be, is a misplaced gesture that is, inadvertently or not, democratically alienating in its potential outcome.  It privileges two of the five main parties and, in effect, excludes the range of voices in the other three federal parties.  In short, it’s another example of the politics of exclusion.  It’s disturbing enough that the gaggle of suits who make up the TV Consortium want to limit the range of voices to which the public might be exposed; it’s downright disappointing that our boy Rick has so far failed to see the drawbacks of his suggestion.

It’s in the public interest to hear from  everyone, a position the Consortium regime should have obviously taken.  Why limit democratic expresion, messy as it is,  during a federal election?

Elizabeth May Argues for Inclusion

Elizabeth May on Canadian Press Yahoo Video eloquently and rationally arguing why she should indeed be in the federal debate. With each passing day, Big TV looks more and more ridiculous. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, as should Chantel Hebert after her remarks on The National last night. It's a frosty day in hell when Andrew Coyne of McLeans sounds more reasonable than a reporter from the Toronto Star. What's happened to Hebert over the past few years? Why has she drifted so far to the right?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/video/capolitics-22424923/may-calls-debate-exclusion-anti-democratic-24725120.html