Now, boys, kiss and make up. Hee.

Where did that extra production go? That's the question answered by the second number, 45%. The lion's share of Canadian economic growth in the 1990s was pocketed by government, especially the federal government. Between 1993 and 2003, federal revenues rose by 45%, or almost $60-billion.

The third number in my series -- the number 31 -- suggests just how heavily Martin's tax program weighed on individual Canadians. Between 1993 and 2003, disposable after-tax income rose by only 31% per person in Canada.

Let's take an extreme case: suppose Federal Revenues were only a dollar (against trillions going into people's pockets). Then suppose these percentages were still valid. Now the federal government is only getting $1.45. Now how can you say that government took "more of the economy's growth than people" or that "Martin held people's income down through taxation"? The fact is that these percentages themselves have no direct bearing on the distribution of growth between ordinary folks and the government! Which is what DeLong was pointing out.

Now as for taxes, well, Marc pointed out pretty much the other bit of missing information in Frum's argument. But not only that, note that it's just 45% vs 31% If we look at this in terms of what these percentages are growing from, it doesn't actually look like such a big gap—it could very well be accounted for by something else. We don't know. As Marc said, until we get a fuller accounting of where all these things are going (personal income vs. fed gov't revenues are not a closed system!), we don't really know much about how to compare these numbers, even if they were comparable.

You're right that he is using a lot of rhetoric; he is using incomplete numbers effectively to demonstrate that the government is gobbling up Canada. In other words, he is using a possibly valid (but very incomplete and jump-to-conclusionsy) argument to demonstrate in the mind of the reader something quite different. And my (and likely Brad DeLong's) objection is to this sort of dishonesty, which is the core of the article. By the way, I don't want to make it look like I necessarily approve of Martin's fiscal policy. But what is presented by Frum is worse than useless as a criticism on these grounds.

Now finally, Mustafa writes:

Finally, concerning your cheap shot of Frum's former role as a speechwriter to the President. First, he was an economic speechwriter and didn't deal with foreign affairs or military matters. Second, he had quit that job well before Bush even began talking about Iraq and it's likely non-existant WMDs. Third, he was a speechwriter, not a policy maker or policy advisor&mdas;he wrote what the President told him to write; he didn't make decisions or policies. And fourth, I don't see how his logic on this matter (which is, incidentallly correct) has anything to do with the stupid rationale of going to war in Iraq. If you want to make this claim, you'll need to explain the similarities in logic.

DeLong showed that government's share of the GDP decreased. If he did the calculations for personal incomes he'd see an even sharper decrease. Frum's argument isn't about the share of the GDP change in personal or government income. Rather it is the difference in change in the share of personal and government income. And there, the personal share fell relative to the government's share. Both just happened to fall as a share of the total GDP as well.

Of course, if both the people and the government have less of the GDP, then someone or something is getting more. Who or what is that? Unfortunately, I can't help you there. I'm not an economist.

Now that we've established that you're misinterpreting the numbers and that the people have, in fact, seen their incomes rise less than the government's income, let's deal with your other complaints.

You point out that the 31% is an increase in something different from the 45%. You're correct. However this doesn't necessarily make the number incomparable. If the government's income is mostly derived from taxing personal income (which it overwhelmingly is), then a certain percent increase in personal income should correspond to the same percent increase in government income— the latter being approximated by multiplying the former by the tax rate. Now, there is an issue of the tax rate being staggered. However, the moving between tax brakets is minimal and won't make a major dent simply because a few percent of tax on a few people doesn't amount to a whole lot of government revenue. So, we can say with confidence that government income should increase approximately as much as personal income. We may be comparing two different fruits, but they're of the same specie so we can assume they are about the same.

Of course, personal income and government income didn't rise together; government income rose at a rate almost 50% larger. Which is Frum's whole argument.

Frum is focused on personal income vis-a-vis government income. Yes both rose in the absolute sense. Yes, both fell as a percent of the GDP. Both are correct, but that's not what Frum's writing about. He's writing about the change or personal income relative to government income. And on that point he is correct.

Finally, concerning your cheap shot of Frum's former role as a speechwriter to the President. First, he was an economic speechwriter and didn't deal with foreign affairs or military matters. Second, he had quit that job well before Bush even began talking about Iraq and it's likely non-existant WMDs. Third, he was a speechwriter, not a policy maker or policy advisor&mdas;he wrote what the President told him to write; he didn't make decisions or policies. And fourth, I don't see how his logic on this matter (which is, incidentallly correct) has anything to do with the stupid rationale of going to war in Iraq. If you want to make this claim, you'll need to explain the similarities in logic.

As PM, Harper would have come out looking worse for the next election and he'd no longer have an electorate angry about Adscam to win. So what does Harper do when faced with this situation? He pulls back just enough to have fewer seats than the Liberals.

Harper wanted the Liberals a little ahead so Martin would have to deal with the headaches of being PM, and for Martin to be in a situation where he needed Bloc support for lack of a sizeable NDP contingent (Harper wanted Martin to deal with the separatists so Harper could claim to be the true federalist the next time around). Now, I don't think Harper expected to do this poorly$mdash;think he expected to be in the 105-115 range—but he wasn't looking to be PM yet.

In 2000 on the eve of the election, Harper outlined a two election strategy for the Canadian Alliance to become the ruling party. Effectively it called for the first election to be an introduction to the party, a chance to learn to campaign, to come together as a coaltion of many types of conservatives, and to learn that "loose lips sink ships." This would set-up the party for a win the next time around. Harper is following this strategy with the Conservatives now.

This wasn't an election to win. It was the election to showcase the new party as "modern, moderate, and mainstream," to bring the Progressive Conservatives and the Reformers together, and to learn that a campaign needs to be disciplined in message—stupid one-off comments will sink a campaign.

And in response to Ian Welsh's comments that the social conservatives will be purged, that's not part of the strategy. Harper's not going to alienate the social conservatives of any other group of disaffected voters. Harper doesn't believe in purging groups for electoral success—that's what Liberals do. He wants to make an opening for people not represented by the Liberals who share his views on a more democratic and more economically libertarian society. And he wants to include all people who share these two goals. Social conservatives in the west generally do, so they belong in the coalition. Harper will stick to his stance on keeping these out of party policy and leaving them to free votes in Parliament.

In 1994, at a Reform Party Assembly (their equivalent of a convention), social conservatives voted to adopt a policy against same-sex marriage. At the time Harper said, Those are not partisan issues. Those are moral issues. People have to be able to belong to political parties regardless of their views on those issues.

Harper has long outlined a philosphy that political parties should be a coalition of diverse groups that agree to a narrow agenda. On matters in that agenda there should be near universal agreement. On matters outside of that, everything should be a free vote.

Moreover, Harper has argued that moral issues should always be outside of political agendas. Governments shouldn't meddle in people's lives any more than they need to. Things like economic policy, foriegn affairs, and defence policy are areas in which government must have policy. They're fundamental to the existance of a state. A state has to have positions on these issues to exist. The policies adopted on these issues affect the survival of the state.

On the other hand, moral issues don't affect the survival of the state. People can be free to live lives of differing moralities within the same state. As such, these are areas of much less importance to the state. And they should be of much less pressing importance for political parties. Hence they should be left to free votes. As Harper said in March 2002, My position is the party is a big tent. On things like abortion, the party simply can't be defined by those issues, it has to be open to people with different views.

Currently, Harper has made the Conservative agenda to be on tax cuts, economics, military spending, and democratic reform. Everything else is outside the scope of that agenda. Anyone agreeing with these principles should join the coalition. He's not going to kick out social conservatives if they agree with these principles any more than he'll kick out social progressives if they agree with these principles. It runs counter to his philosphy of what a political party is.

In this light, I'm pretty sure we'll see a very similar Conservative Party platform next time it heads to the polls.

Thus Frum's argument is very obviously wrong if Brad's calculations are correct. The government is not taking the lion's share of the economy. It's share under Martin has actually shrunk. To which you say, Mustafa:

However, I was trying to point out the incorrect analysis of Frum's position by showing that he is correct in arguing that government took more of the economy's growth than people and that Martin held people's income down through taxation.

Let's take an extreme case: suppose Federal Revenues were only a dollar (against trillions going into people's pockets). Then suppose these percentages were still valid. Now the federal government is only getting $1.45. Now how can you say that government took "more of the economy's growth than people" or that "Martin held people's income down through taxation"? The fact is that these percentages themselves have no direct bearing on the distribution of growth between ordinary folks and the government! Which is what DeLong was pointing out.

So then you conclude,

The government increased taxes over the course of 1993-2003 increasing government revenue more than the personal incomes of Canadians. Frum's argument, despite its biased rhetorical flourish, is correct.

Finally,

Some of this money was wasted, given to friends of the Liberal Party, and pocketed by politicians. As such, taxes should not have been raised as much as they were.

It's not just a matter of "Fair Share." It's whether David Frum is right. And he is not. It's not just a rhetorical flourish, it's silly (wrong) logic, the same kind of logic that led him and his ilk to develop the failing theories that tried to conquer Iraq.

First: there's no natural coalition that can hit the magic number of 155 seats (156 if you exclude the Speaker). While the Liberals and NDP can come close at 154 (and may hit it if some recounts go their way), right now, they can't command a majority of the House, decreasing the incentive to create a formal coalition government. We can more or less discount the possibility of Liberal/Bloc and Conservative/NDP coalitions, leaving us with only one other even vaguely possible set of partners, the Conservatives and the Bloc (who won't form a coalition, but could work together on some issues). Surprise, surprise, a Conservative/Bloc block has ... 154 members.

The implications of this are positively delightful — a Conservative/Bloc block has a serious chance of pushing through legislation or defeating government legislation if the Liberals aren't on their toes every single day. Also, there now is a non-trivial incentive to try poaching members from the opposite bench. If Harper was appropriately inclined (I don't think he is), making a list of the top few opportunistic Liberal MPs that got passed over for goodies and then spending a lot of time wineing and dineing them might prove fruitful. Watch for individual MPs to suddenly become much more important.

Second: there are three winners in this election, and their names are Stephen, Jack, and Gilles (who went up a Parliament Hill to fetch a pail of water....), but they won in very different ways.

• Gilles managed to tie (or almost tie, depending on recounts) Lucien Bouchard's record for Bloc MPs. He can probably write his own political ticket from here on in. Watch for him to think about jumping to provincial politics and replacing Bernard Landry.
• Jack managed to nearly double his vote and seat counts. He put the NDP back on the electoral map in BC and Ontario, and took out Dennis Mills. Provided he doesn't excessively irritate the Canadian public with his perennially over-perky smile, he's set. He also holds the balance of power right now on a wide range of issues and can hold the Liberals to their promises, putting him in a good position for the next election.
• Stephen Harper managed to make some inroads (although not as much as might be liked) into Ontario and the East, and hold his Western base. Not bad for the leader of a new party that hasn't even had a policy convention yet. He gets to consolidate the party, hopefully steering it in a more attractive direction for urban Ontarians. This is probably the best result he could have hoped for, since it buys him time to wait until the Adscam story resurfaces and to ride out any problems with the economy without actually being in power. In fact, if I were him, I'd've been thinking along these lines during the election and when it became obvious that I couldn't win a majority, I'd think long and hard about trying to throw the election. Remember that he's always had a two-election strategy for becoming PM, so this fits his game plan perfectly.

Third: there's one big loser in this election, but it hasn't yet hit him. Paul Martin managed to squander plenty of goodwill between when he took office and now. As Warren Kinsella put it,

When Jean Chrétien figuratively left town, in mid-December 2003, the Liberal Party of Canada enjoyed the support of approximately 55 per cent of Canadians, in every region. Eight weeks later, Mr. Martin's brain trust had figured out a way to lop 20 per cent off of that figure - the level where, during the writ period, the Liberal Party's support has mostly remained. Dropping 20 points in a matter of weeks; that is no small achievement, but Mr. Martin's acolytes pulled it off.

Martin now has to deal with a Parliament that won't let investigations into Adscam die (as it benefits the other parties to keep it alive as a political issue), is going to be very restive, and in which it's entirely conceivable that he could lose votes at any time. Look for him to try governing as if he has a minority and to hold that only confidence votes will lead him to resign. Look to him to try to implement much of the "democratic deficit" agenda (how committed he is to it is another question altogether), as if he doesn't, the other parties will slap him upside the head and do it without him.

In addition, he'll probably have to go to the polls between one and two years from now (I'm expecting a fall/winter 2005 or early spring 2006 election) where it's quite conceivable that he'll get thumped hard unless he seriously improves his performance. Think of this as probation, if you will. Expect him to be unceremoniously dumped shortly after that election, unless he manages a stellar performance. The Paul Martin Magic(TM) has definitely worn off, but he might yet necromance it into dancing for him.

Finally: if you're looking for entertainment out of your Parliament, this is about as good as it gets. Now we get to hang on and enjoy the ride!

(Favourite moment of the evening: the Marxist-Leninists leading for a few minutes in a Toronto suburb. Must have been the poll where all the candidate's friends voted.)

The First Past The Post system is a system primarily designed to support the interests of property/feudal title. It was designed for a time when democracy was only intended for male property-owners. Of course, their common interests were best seen as being represented geographically. They were all effectively of one class. When long ago the Industrial Revolution happened and when the franchise was extended beyond property-owners, the FPTP lost its representative power. It fails/failed to account for class and other forms of non-geographical disparity. It doesn't represent these groups.

FPTP unfairly loads the political dice towards the interests of property, preventing creative solutions to the problems that increasingly face us. It also happens to disproportionately increase the importance of another kind of geographical grouping: nationalists and separatists. I have no illusions that under the present arrangement (looks like we have a tie in Parliament—the NDP is not enough *frown*) we will get full proportional representation or even Mixed Member Proportional Representation, the German kind where there are still constituencies, but it has been painfully clear for a long time that we need electoral reform. And maybe we might get some small measure of it.

Despite that, Gilles Duceppe managed to gain a massive number of seats, leaving the Liberals with mostly the seats that would never go Bloc no matter what. So Gilles Duceppe can claim this as a victory for Québec nationalism; he is a truly successful leader who has matured into his role. But he now walks a fine tightrope. He cannot now alone hold the balance of power. Most of his platform is still represented in the NDP, so he cannot claim credit for progressive reform so long as they hold the balance of power (and this is presently tenuous, see below). He has to find an issue on which the Bloc is isolated without it looking like a transparent attempt at fanning separatist flames. And he has to find issues on which the other parties can claim the Bloc is irrelevant. Only if he walks that tightrope very carefully will he come closer to his party's ultimate goal.

As for losers, it's a toss-up between Layton and Harper. It's only a toss-up because Layton's hold on the balance of power is presently (before all the seats in BC have been completely settled) rather tenuous; otherwise Harper would be the clear loser. Layton got bitten by the first-past-the-post system, and by the strategic voting rhetoric of Paul Martin. But he didn't do much worse than the polls suggested, and throughout Canada he greatly increased the NDP vote and seat count from the last election. If he manages to still hold the balance of power (by the time all the counts are completely finished) and hold Martin's feet to the fire as an external partner, the next election may generate a higher seat count for him. It's clear that in this election, devoting too much time to Québec was a mistake, but perhaps it was a forward-looking one.

Harper is a definite loser in this election. Not only did the giant gains in Ontario not materialize (well, some did), but he also managed to lose some of BC (while gaining some of Saskatchewan). He now sits once again as opposition. But there is a silver lining—another few months or use with which to launder the Conservative Party into something still further more acceptable. There is an irony in a putative Liberal government with external NDP support. It means that the Conservatives and a strong Bloc are together in Opposition. The Mulroney Coalition redux? Probably not, but still interesting to think about.

Chris correctly asserts that spaceflight in the world of Trek is undeniably less a matter of aviation than it is in the great naval tradition. He cites the government-commissioned exploits of Columbus and Drake as imperative trailblazers prior to the opening of commercial traffic, but it is here that the analogy falls apart.

Consider, for a moment, the reasons why monarchs such as Isabella and Elizabeth funded naval exploration. It is safe to say that the motivations of empire lie in greater imperial power through expansion and better eating. As romantic as it is to put the Vangelis theme to 1492: Conquest of Paradise on the stereo and imagine an equivocation between the Enterprise's exploratory mandate and the investments of the imperial treasuries, it is clearly not so.

The voyages under the banner of the Federation and their discoveries of new worlds and new civilizations carry no commercial benefit. The reason? A little thing called the Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive - that not only are Federation starships prohibited from establishing trade with newly discovered civilizations and setting up the odd East Cardassia Tea Company, but are not to contact them at all - is what separates Star Trek from what we know as human history. Under a policy of non-interference, Starfleet's exploratory arm acts as an information gatherer that in the stories we see on the screen, fill the role of diplomat by occasional necessity. Combined with what we know of the wholesale replacement of material wealth with abstract "credits" - the most capitalistic civilization one encounters is the Ferengi and their Rules of Acquisition, which are on more than one occasion portrayed as a less enlightened species still dependent on material goods - the portrayal of humanity's future is evidently a literalization of the "knowledge-based economy".

As anybody who has been reading up on his Alfred Thayer Mahan knows, the primary role of a navy is to secure its flag's dominance of commerce and communication. In Star Trek, we only see this as it pertains to the commerce of information, over which pioneering government starships like the Enterprise reign supreme. Beyond that point, Starfleet stops being a naval power in the military sense, and is no different than the de facto NASA monopoly on moon landings, Mars rovers and Voyager space probes.

Not only is privatization largely absent from the Roddenberry universe - one will note that even Deep Space Nine was government property manned by Starfleet officials - but in a world where there is no evidence of a causal relationship between state-funded exploration and the establishment of private commerce, it has little place.

1. Corruption is always better than malice. I am wary of the rule of the righteous, especially when in their heart of hearts they wish to tear up what the corrupt merely allow to decay. I am particular wary of self-declared Trojan horses.

2. Fortunately, there is hope. This election, of all elections, contains little excuse to engage in strategic voting.

3. We really do need a minority government. 'nuff said.

4. Sovereigntists are not so bad. They negate their own purpose by being in the House of Commons. In particular, they should not be excluded ipso facto from participation in a minority government, including in a supporting role. This only makes them stronger. Including them makes them weaker. They're separatists, duh.

5. Alberta deserves exactly what it gets. It is, after all, the font of almost every reactionary and regressive signficant political movement in the country for a while. There's a reason why it is a target of the hypocrite Martin's attacks. Martin's foolish original strategy of dealing with Western Alienation ruined the Liberal's winning formula. He should have run on his record---and never mentioned Western Alienation except to deny it or denigrate it au Chrétien.

Not because he is much better. I agree that he is hypocrite, and I would not vote Liberal even in a close riding, particularly not in this election. But nevertheless, he is right. Western Alienation is as hypocritical a phenomenon as the Liberal Party's attacks on Alberta. A one-party province with a corrupt media and anemic political culture, criticizing Ottawa? Really, now. It's just a vehicle. A Trojan Horse. (The NDP doesn't run on this because it is bad strategy for a smaller party to alienate any vote at all.)

6. You can't hire people to do constituent work. Election is their incentive to do that sort of stuff. Otherwise, I pointed out a number of weaknesses in Chris' argument in my introduction to Chris and crack. They still stand. (He suggests that his position is the one that this blog has generally taken on representation. Well, I am the dissenter to his take on it.)

7. I love cooking Thai food.

The first number -- 67% -- totals the growth in the Canadian economy in the 1990s. Between 1993 and 2003, Canada's total gross domestic product -- the value of all Canadian-made goods and Canadian-provided services -- rose by two-thirds.

Where did that extra production go? That's the question answered by the second number, 45%. The lion's share of Canadian economic growth in the 1990s was pocketed by government, especially the federal government. Between 1993 and 2003, federal revenues rose by 45%, or almost $60-billion.

That too is no kind of record. Government revenues rose much, much faster than those in the late 1960s. But when the economy is growing very fast, governments can raise more and more revenue with steady or even declining tax rates.

The rising revenues of the 1990s, however, were achieved not by lightly taxing a booming economy but by heavily taxing a struggling economy.

The third number in my series -- the number 31 -- suggests just how heavily Martin's tax program weighed on individual Canadians. Between 1993 and 2003, disposable after-tax income rose by only 31% per person in Canada.

Sadly, for most Canadians, that 31% increase felt even smaller than it looks. Remember: Over those same years, the value of the Canadian dollar collapsed. So Canadians may have earned more and more -- but they could afford to buy less and less.

Back in 1989, when the Canadian dollar still traded near its historic norm, the average Canadian took home about 90% as much as the average American. A decade later, he or she took home only slightly better than 75% as much as the average American.

In short: Canada prospered in the 1990s. Individual Canadians did not. And because Martin attacked investment as well as consumption, Canada's poor economic performance threatened to continue far into the future.

Paul Martin claims that he saved the Canadian government's finances. That claim is largely justified. He did eliminate the federal budget deficit. He even accumulated huge budget surpluses -- surpluses that allowed his Cabinet colleagues to start spending again. But he saved the government's budget by savaging the family budget. He protected the government's future solvency by compromising every RRSP-holder's future security.

Canadians did not like paying taxes. But they understood that the federal deficit had to be brought under control and that medicare cost money. Finance Minister Paul Martin promised a "balanced approach" to Canada's budget problems. That certainly sounded reasonable -- more reasonable than anything they were hearing from the Liberals' divided and fractious opponents. So they grumbled -- but they paid.

They paid once in taxes. They paid a second time in reduced government services.

They paid a third time when the government accepted the depreciation of the purchasing power even of the dollars they were allowed to keep. And they paid a fourth time in the form of slower growth in the value of their RRSPs.

Canadians paid in good faith. They paid assuming that they were doing a public-spirited thing. They paid to lift the burden of debt from their children and grandchildren. They paid believing that their federal government would use their money wisely and responsibly. Even if they did not quite trust Jean Chretien to steward their money, they trusted capable, honest Paul Martin.

And when the sponsorship scandal erupted, they realized they had been played for fools.

That winter vacation you didn't take? Some Liberal advertising executive in Montreal took it. That new car you couldn't afford to buy? You did buy it -- only somebody else is driving it. Those RRSP contributions you couldn't make? They're slushing around in the Prime Minister's national unity emergency fund.

And capable, honest Paul Martin? He says he didn't notice a thing. The money was filched from right under his nose. He overlooked the abuses at the time, and even now he has no idea where the money went or who took it. But don't blame him! Nobody is more upset at the disappearance of your vacation, your car, your RRSP than he is. Really. And though it was regrettably not possible for him to get to the bottom of the scandal before he called the election, he solemnly promises a full accounting sometime after he is safely returned to office.

So we come back to my position on Martin.

First off, I don't like being demonized by Paul Martin and his gang. Yes, I don't like what Klien is likely to do with health care, but it's none of Martin's business. I haven't seen Martin dong anything to help improve health care. Rather he cut transfer payments to aggravate the problem. We aren't "dark forces" just because we recognize the problem, the failings of the Liberals, and think that we might want to try a better government. If the NDP who's even farther from us ideologically can be respectful, then so can the Liberals. The Liberals chose not to because we Albertans are a pawn in their thirst for power. Shame on Martin for treating us like that after making an explicit promise to treat us with the respect we deserve.

Moving on, as Frum illustrates, despite surpluses our economy isn't that well off according to a more careful analysis of underlying indicators. And it certainly isn't helping ordinary Canadians. Especially lower middle class Canadians. People aren't better off because of Martin and the Liberals and our country's future is not economically secure. This makes them a poor managers of our economy and one that has put our future in some danger. A government should make the country better. But let's put this aside for a minute.

Despite poor management of the economy, Martin was still fortunate to run surpluses because the strength of the US economy spilt over into Canada. Martin and his party had the chance to use that money to improve the country in other ways. He could have invested in health care, education, affordable housing, the environment, or reducing poverty. Instead he let things get worse in all these areas. That is a failure of governance and budget-making. But let's put even this aside for a minute.

Martin and the Liberals took Canadians' money—money they needed to pay for their education, for their children, for their expensive housing, for high drug costs—and used this money for wasteful purposes. They wasted $2 billion dollars on the gun registry which still isn't up and running in any meaningful fashion. They wasted $1 billion on the HRDC boondoggle. They spend money on programs that were poorly administered allowing for thing such as a book on blonde jokes to get government funding. And despite Auditor-General reports highlighting these problems, the problems weren't solved. That was money that could have been used for useful purposes. Money that many Canadians needed to avoid hardship. Martin and the Liberals failed all these Canadians. But I'll even put this aside.

What is utterly unaccptable is that Martin and the Liberals also spent our money on themselves. Martin's company got a more favourable tax regime (while, of course, avoiding most taxes because it was not registered in Canada). It got $160 million in government contracts. Martin's friends in Earnscliffe were hired in contracts that weren't tendered. And money was funneled to Liberal party donors in the sponsorship scandal. Martin and the Liberals didn't just fail Canadians in improving the country. They didn't just fail Canadians in letting things get worse. They didn't just fail Canadians in wasting their money. They even failed Canadians in stealing their money. Martin took Canadian's money and gave it to his friends and himself.

I don't buy this crock argument that Martin is innocent. Martin was the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance administers finances. That means it is his job to make sure money is spent as budgeted and is not wasted or misused. It means that he is supposed to adapt the budget each year to eliminate funding to wasteful programs. Paul Martin was also the political Minister for Quebec. That means it was his job to advise the Prime Minister on policies and initiatives in Quebec as well as advise on who to reward in Quebec (e.g. who gets appointments, who gets patronage, who gets contracts etc.). Martin's job was to prevent misuses of money like the sponsorship scandal. It was his job to advise on which companies would get contracts in government programs. If Martin didn't know about the sponsorship program he was either (a) incompetent or (b) not doing his job. One doesn't become a self-made millionaire by being incompetent and/or lazy. Martin knew. And he definitely should have known.

So while Martin was busy damaging the country, wasting our money, rewarding his friends, and lining his own pockets, what else did he do? He plotted his own quest for power. He plotted his accession to the Prime Minister's office. He almost never took a position on any issue because he didn't want a record to come back and haunt him. Rather, he hijacked the Liberal party. And when he did get power, what did he do with it? Nothing. He has no vision, no plan. He wanted the power and nothing else. He didn't use it to make our lives better. And after six months of doing nothing he decided to call an election and expect we'd put him in office for another five years.

Canada has real problems. Our health care system is in danger. People can't access education. We're losing people to the US because we can't offer a good economic environment for them. People live in poverty. People who can't afford homes die on the streets. But what did Paul Martin do? He stole our money, squandered it, gave it to his friends, lined his own pockets, and funneled it to political friendly firms that would help him win power and keep it. He spent 10 years playing political games for his own benefit at the expense of Canadians. And when we figured out what he was doing, he promised he would find out for us before the next election. And what did he do? He covered up the mess by obstructing the Parliamentary inquiry, eventually dissolving it, and then calling an election before a judicial inquiry could begin to look into things. He hoped to be rewarded for his actions with power. When the judicial inquiry revealed the truth, he'd have a few years in power with his fresh mandate to let people forget.

Such conduct is criminal in the private sector. In government, Martin expects it to be rewarded with our trust, trust he has repeatedly failed to honour in spectacular fashion. The man belongs in jail. I can't fathom how anyone could think he belongs in the Prime Minister's office.

Well, aside from the fact that one of the biggest obstacles to the proliferation of manned spaceflight is a government trapped by the reluctance of taxpayers to act as financiers, it means that we may be hurtling towards a different future than the one envisioned by the likes of Gene Roddenberry. It always struck me as odd that space traffic was under such tight governmental control after the formation of the United Federation of Planets. Now, before anybody brings up the counterexample of how Zefram Cochrane's landmark warp flight in 2061 was a private initiative, or how socio-political factors like a war against an external common enemy (in this case, the Romulan Empire) tends to bring everybody under a single flag, my point here is that under the Federation, private spaceflight all but disappeared. One would think that the private citizens of Earth would have more than just the occasional cargo frieghter to call their own.

What Nick's analysis is missing is that the vast majority of the action on Star Trek takes place on the far reaches (and beyond) of the Federation — the missions of the Enterprises were, after all, to To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life and new civilizations, To boldly go where no man one has gone before!. Private trading and passenger liners would, one thinks, generally stay out of unexplored and possibly hostile areas, in favour of moving people and things between settled and friendly places.

Think of the golden age of sail, to which Star Trek harkens back so often: while there were certainly private explorers, the vast majority of private traffic was engaged in moving around the European and North American coasts, or perhaps the Carribean basin. The long journeys to round Cape Horn, cross the Pacific, explore the coast of Africa, or seek out the Indies were, while nominally private, heavily state-supported (consider Columbus or Drake!). It wasn't until these areas were charted, the dangers known, and markets for goods discovered that private ships sailed the ocean to move goods around the planet.

The dramatic imperative of the Star Trek universe requires that we rarely see private shipping, except when it serves to provide the Enterprise's crew with something to rescue (Kobayashi Maru, anyone?). The exception to this rule, of course, is Deep Space Nine, which is a trading hub. Just take a look at the station and all the references to private trade, and you'll realize that there is plenty of private space trading going on in the Star Trek universe: it's just that it doesn't move the story forward and/or doesn't take place where the Enterprise, our roving point-of-view into the universe, is.

Right now, as Ian notes, we essentially have a dictatorship of the Prime Minister. But this leads us to two problems: first, I don't get to choose who the Prime Minister will be, except in the most indirect way possible, and second, it also begs the question "So, why do we have MPs, anyways?". If they're just there to line up behind their party leader and vote obediently in favour of whatever the leader wants, why not just save on salaries by weighting each party's parliamentary vote by the number of ridings they'd've won?

Ah, but wait, you say, MPs have important functions in representing their constituents, greasing wheels, or filling committee spots. The first is immaterial if you've said they're beholden to their party on everything (and if they're not subject to the whip all the time, when should they be subject to it, and what makes some things out of bounds?). The second can easily be accomplished by just hiring someone to attend to constituents' problems, while the third can be finessed by just having the parties name people to go mark up legislation without the need for messy and expensive elections.

Having then rejected the notion that we shouldn't have MPs, we then need to find something for them to do. I happen to think that it's a bad thing to elect people to represent me and then have them be effectively useless at, well, actually representing me. (As an aside, this blog has generally been strongly in favour of this line of argumentation.)

Is it a good thing to reject the devil we know in favour of at least trying the devil we don't? Maybe it is, maybe not. I have a fundamental inclination in favour of seeking change to systems in order to try to improve them. Others may be, well, more conservative. But the status quo is clearly dysfunctional, and ought not to stand.

As an aside, I'll have to try this recipe for Chocolate Swirl Cheesecake, once I have an oven again.

My candidates are a rather interesting lot, overall: the three major party candidates all have at least one potential indiscretion in their pasts, ranging from not actually doing a radio interview (Rahim Jaffer, Conservative) to having been charged (and acquitted) of fraud (Debby Carlson, Liberal) to making at-best questionable comments on USENET (Malcolm Azania, NDP). I've then got three minor party candidates, representing the Greens (Cameron Wakefield), Marxist-Leninists (Kevan Hunter), and Marijuana (Dave Dowling) parties.

We can start by eliminating Ms. Carlson. Not only is she a Liberal and without any reasonable prospect of winning, she's also been an (at best) unmemorable MLA. Add this to her seeming inability to answer questions as seen at the all-candidates' forum, and she's definitely out.

Next, we can quickly eliminate Messrs. Dowling and Hunter. While I'm all for the legalization (and taxation) of the demon weed, and could even be persuaded to support the smashing of the state (by non-violent means, thanks), not even pity is enough to persuade me to put my vote to these ends. Sorry, guys. Maybe you'll break into high triple digits in the vote count --- you'll've beaten my best efforts by then.

We're now left with three prospective MPs, from the Conservatives, NDP, and Greens. As much as I love Malcolm Azania's speaking voice, I would find him rather more useful continuing his radio show on CJSR than being a member of a small third- or fourth-party caucus in Ottawa. I'm not even going to get into discussing how objectionable I find parts of his platform, nor the fact that his party's leader looks entirely too much like a child molester at times.

And that leaves us in the place where I was until recently: Jaffer v. Wakefield. Both of them turned out acceptable performances at the meeting I attended. Both got the right answer ("none, and we can't") to my loaded question (roughly, "what powers do provinces have wrt education and health, and how (if applicable) would you get them to conform to your desires wrt delivery and/or payment?").

I'm a bit more comfortable with the Green platform and especially its stressing of the importance of sustainability than the Conservative platform, though there are some big internal contradictions in it, particularly on finances. However, the difference between the two to me isn't big enough to decide my election.

I'm coming down on the side of the Greens, because in my riding, Rahim Jaffer will (probably) not need my vote in order to get elected. On the other hand, voting for Cameron Wakefield will give them one more vote towards the 2% mark, and puts my $1.75 firmly at work to give Canada another viable national alternative party.

Can I have my cake and eat it too? I sure hope so, but we'll find out later tonight.

Le Devoir has a blog (cybercarnet). It has many interesting posts. Here's one that links to an appeal by a letter-writer to the RoC not to vote "strategically" against the Reformatories but to vote for the social-democratic NDP, noting that the Harper would be Charest writ large. (But forgets that Ontario had Mike Harris...) It's a pipe dream to have an NDP-Bloc governing alliance in Ottawa at this point for sure. It also ignores that in some ways the Reformatories are also similar to the Bloc in that they hail from Reform/Bloc Ouest, with the same demonology and resentment painted in the individualistic local colour.

Also, there is this entry on the foolish Liberal attempts at equating Bloc and Reformatory votes. Here's an interesting comment by Denis Beaulé:

Quoiqu'il soit vrai qu'un vote stratégique n'est pas idéal (s'il n'est que stratégique), il faut remarquer que les Québécois et Québécoises s'avèrent très habiles à ce sport: rouge à Ottawa, bleu à Québec; rouge à Québec, bleu à Ottawa, etc. On en a même trouvé une «meilleure» ces deux dernières années, en votant fédéraliste à Québec et en s'apprêtant à voter souverainiste à Ottawa... Vote «stratégique»? En tout cas, pour qui n'a pas encore compris ce petit jeu 'malin', il illustre fort bien que, contrairement à ce qu'on semble croire communément, tant qu'il y aura des souverainistes québécois à Ottawa, une majorité de la population québécoise va continuer de considérer non nécessaire de faire la souveraineté du Québec.

I've lately been reading Québec newspapers to get a hold on what precisely is propelling the Bloc to such a victory in Québec. In particular, I have been reading the La Presse and Le Devoir. Just on the face of it, La Presse appears to have a somewhat greater federalist bent of mind; Le Devoir is often quite radically separatist. (Possibly more so than the average francophone Québecois?)

It's clear that the sponsorship scandal is the main factor in the swing to the Bloc. But we knew that already. However, in English media this is often read as Québecois feeling that their image had been tarnished as corrupt in the rest of the country, despite that their provincial politics are no worse than anywhere else. But really, the main resentment is that the sponsorship scandal was money spent on an assumption that Québecois were stupid.

I should not, of course, forget that Gilles Duceppe also had to play his cards right. Indeed, he seems to have developed a lot of charisma and gotten over the infamous cheese hat incident, which may actually have been a long-run asset. The peculiar thing is that the Rest of Canada doesn't find him nearly as offensive as Parizeau or Landry or Bouchard. Is it that the others seems to have a scolding, resentful scowl when addressing the rest of the country? Was it just that they achieved prominence in the aftermath of Mulroney? Duceppe seems like a lot more positive person than the others, whose political platform is forward-looking and dovetails quite well with the opinions of many Rest-of-Canadians, aside from the sovereignty angle, which is neither impending (Charest...) nor as threatening a concept as it seemed when Parizeau was its champion. Indeed, I am told that the Bloc has received email as far as darkest heathen Alberta wistfully suggesting that they run candidates "nationally"... (I don't know how far this is true.)

But one of the ironies of the Bloc success is that in some ways, it demonstrates that Québecois are more in synch than ever with sentiment in the Rest of Canada. After all, some of the very same factors that are contributing to the Bloc success (and Liberal decline) are also contributing to the growth of the Reformatories and the NDP in the Rest of Canada—the sense that the Liberal Party is losing the Mandate of Heaven.

• John Meisel suggests, in Echoes of 1957: A Realignment in the Making?, that a fundamental realignment of Canadian politics has taken place with the merger of the right, leading to minority governments along the lines of the late 1950s and 1960s.
• George Haynal suggests four big ideas on continental integrationThe Next Plateau in North America: What's The Next Big Idea?, which boil down to simplifying cross-border interaction and providing mutual recognition of standards and procedures.
• Tom Axworthy writes on partnership and why the moral high ground is insufficient to maintain Canada's place in world diplomacy in On Being An Ally: Why Virtue Is Not Reward Enough.
• When Security Trumps Economics: The New Template of Canada-US Relations is former US diplomat David T. Jones' (no relation, as far as I know) look at how to mend Canada-US relations and where to go from here.

(Full disclosure: I have two relatives who've worked for IRPP on Policy Options.)

• If you vote for the Bloc, then there is a risk that Steven Harper will get enough votes in the RoC to form a government


• A government of Steven Harper will put various issues at risk (the usual ones like choice).


• There will be no Québec cabinet ministers in such a government.


• A vote for the Bloc is a vote to leave Québec to Harper's tender mercies.


• Hence voting for the Bloc is a betrayal of Québec.

Let us leave aside the fact that some of the accusations regarding Harper are probably true; Harper and his party are very much ideological aliens in Québec, which can barely stomach Jean Charest and only flirted with Mario Dumont when it didn't count.

But these ads are a form of scorched earth campaign on the part of the Liberals in that they serve to highlight the cultural differences between Québec and the RoC that the Rest of Canada could even be contemplating anointing as PM such an extraterrestrial robot. It is precisely the Bloc's point that the true Québec viewpoint can only be expressed by un parti propre au Québec—and un pays propre aux Québecois, though they downplay that part of their agenda for now—and the notion that the rest of Canada might vote for Harper (whom Québecois don't generally even know much about, so have to take it on face value that he's a demon) is just as likely to drive people into the Bloc's arms as push them away. Not to mention the important aspect of confirming sovereigntist tendencies.

Of course, the Reformatories are quite guilty of something almost as bad. Even the mere suggestion that bilingualism in any Canadian institution (even a privatized one like Air Canada) can be touched is deeply disturbing for national unity. One of the arguments for federalism is that French is protected as a national (Canadian) language. This means that even if it makes no narrow economic sense, French—and travel in French—is preserved throughout the country. For the Reformatories to mention this is yet another sign to Québecois that the federation doesn't work for them. Do the two major parties really want to encourage even the possibility of another referendum?

And if this makes things difficult for Air Canada, then perhaps privatization wasn't such a great idea after all...

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it Ed Broadbent? No! It's HARPERMAN!.

Seriously, this is funnier than the Ed Broadbent video, and I'm not even a Harper fan. "Let me be clear!" sayeth the villain.

(Discovered through this babble thread.)

Some of the ramifications of this position have been ably criticized by Ian Welsh at Tilting at Windmills. While this position is not in itself dishonest, any party espousing it should discard its platform and campaign during elections directly on that. I do find it dishonest that Harper is pushing this effectively by stealth in this campaign. Indeed, on the gay rights issue it has very important ramifications.

This is the exact same mistake that the majority of political commentators who talk about how scary Stephen Harper allegedly is, because some of his MPs are loose cannons without the wit (at least, from a getting-elected point of view) to take a deep gulp of some nice frosty STFU during the campaign, and that thus a government led by Harper would roll back all sorts of things. Well, no, it ain't that simple: a Harper-led government would roll back all sorts of things if the House agreed in free votes on private members' bills, when they're not part of the party platform.

Layton's point during this campaign is that SSM is a rights issue, and that the NDP considers this a matter of principles. Democracy does not just mean voting; it also means the defense of rights. Harper's failure to elucidate a party principle on this is itself a statement not merely on SSM, but on any rights issue.

Furthermore, Harper has not elucidated whether he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to block SSM if the Supreme Court were to strike down a private member's bill on it. Naturally, as Ian Welsh's co-blogger points out, Harper may not have the power to do so. If so, this is a cop-out. If not, Harper is willing to abrogate any charter right on the altar of Free Votes... But we don't know. To me, this sort of intellectual dishonesty is at least as severe as any trivial Liberal corruption.

What's worse is the Reformatory self-censorship on the issue. If we are to entrust rights to the tender mercy of free votes, then as Ian Welsh pointed out, we should also be able to know what the MPs position on the matter is. They should speak openly and tell us about abortion and gay rights and all that and keep putting their feet in their mouths. This "clean" campaign is also dishonest for a leader with a Reform-populist philosophy. Unlike some, I don't consider it an unforgivable sin to be a social conservative.

Guess what — that's exactly the same stance that Paul Martin claims to have, except that he hasn't come out and acknowledged the inherent contradiction in his simultaneous dedication to free votes and private members' bills (part of that agenda to tackle the "democratic deficit" — remember that?) and his stated support for gay rights, abortion on demand, and the like. There are only two possibilities, either Martin'll let a private members' bill to (say) prevent gay marriage through, or he'll go back on his oh-so-vaunted commitment to greater power for backbench MPs (who, in the Liberal Party, are by no means necessarily socially progressive): which will it be, Mr. Martin, which will it be?

Readers (and you, Chris) know that I am no Martin fan. But Martin at the very least did make it clear that he would never use the Notwithstanding Clause on a matter of rights like this.

Beyond this, Chris provides some gems like this one:

(As an aside to Mr. Layton, if you want party discipline to control everything, as you seemed to suggest by your comments on "social progressivity" being a core part of the NDP, shouldn't we just get rid of the whole messy electing MPs thing and just vote for which party leader(s) we like best? At least that way, you'd know what you were getting, and we could save a whole lot of money on salaries and running Parliament, in order to pay for your agenda.)

Chris, there's a lot more to MPs than just voting on bills. And MPs can defy and face the consequences, cross the floor, and so on. But let me turn it around: what's the point in having political parties if their positions don't matter? When I vote, I am endorsing a position. And when that position is embodied in a party platform, it means strength in numbers. It means that MPs from other ridings in the same party will add their voice to that of my candidate on issues that matter to me. That is precisely why the NDP can't allow dissenters on some of these issues: because it is a principle for the NDP that these are matters of rights and not subject to majoritarian populism. It doesn't mean that there can be no free votes at any time; but on some points, some fairly strict solidarity is required.

And that's good for democracy. Proportional representation would be even better.

P.S. Your "command-and-control" jab is interesting. I'm not really sure how it applies to me. I'll let the "pay for your agenda" thing slide now; interesting that it is coming from a Reformatory supporter...

Much of my evaluations of the French debate hold true here as well. Surprise, surprise; these are the same men. Duceppe "won" this debate too. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem hard for him to do so. Well, his burden is lower: he never intends to form a government...in Canada. His (too long, interrupted) opening speech was an interesting approach too, and I'd have liked to have given him longer. It seems as though he (perhaps partly correctly?) identifies RoC angst over Québec nationhood as a fear that Québec is claiming that it is Too Good for grungy anglo Canada.

Aside from a couple of token disagreements over the Clarity Act (claiming that the NDP is inconsistent) and a couple of other things , Duceppe essentially ran an agreement-fest with Layton, confirming my original opinion that if you take away the national question, the Bloc is almost like an NDP Québec wing, notwithstanding that the NDP has its own token wing. Indeed, lots of NDP supporters, myself included, wish that we could vote for Duceppe; but sadly he is a Québec sovereigntist.

Speaking of Jack Layton, he still looked a little stoned. I can see how some people might have found him too shrill this time around, especially with Martin's wounded-gentleman act. Nevertheless, both he and Harper had some effective attacks on Martin, and Martin sometimes fought back fairly well. Otherwise, it was as Tilting at Windmills describes it...

No clear winner again, except maybe Duceppe. This debate probably has some impact on the NDP, but I'm not so sure about Harper and Martin. We'll see.

But I find that most of this election debate analysis to be politically rather vacuous. There's very little scope to discuss real issues here. It's great for the media, but I don't know how great it is for democracy.

Just because Harper opposes gay marriage doesn't mean that a House with him as Prime Minister would: Jack Layton also made this logical error, conflating Harper with his MPs, during the debate. (As an aside to Mr. Layton, if you want party discipline to control everything, as you seemed to suggest by your comments on "social progressivity" being a core part of the NDP, shouldn't we just get rid of the whole messy electing MPs thing and just vote for which party leader(s) we like best? At least that way, you'd know what you were getting, and we could save a whole lot of money on salaries and running Parliament, in order to pay for your agenda.)

This is the exact same mistake that the majority of political commentators who talk about how scary Stephen Harper allegedly is, because some of his MPs are loose cannons without the wit (at least, from a getting-elected point of view) to take a deep gulp of some nice frosty STFU during the campaign, and that thus a government led by Harper would roll back all sorts of things. Well, no, it ain't that simple: a Harper-led government would roll back all sorts of things if the House agreed in free votes on private members' bills, when they're not part of the party platform.

Guess what — that's exactly the same stance that Paul Martin claims to have, except that he hasn't come out and acknowledged the inherent contradiction in his simultaneous dedication to free votes and private members' bills (part of that agenda to tackle the "democratic deficit" — remember that?) and his stated support for gay rights, abortion on demand, and the like. There are only two possibilities, either Martin'll let a private members' bill to (say) prevent gay marriage through, or he'll go back on his oh-so-vaunted commitment to greater power for backbench MPs (who, in the Liberal Party, are by no means necessarily socially progressive): which will it be, Mr. Martin, which will it be?

Harper's at least acknowledged this conundrum and dealt with it by sticking by the principle of greater participation by MPs. His government will not introduce legislation on abortion or gay marriage: that's up to MPs, from any party, to do. His government will also not take a stance on such legislation. He, personally, takes the stance that gay marriage ought not to be permitted (a stance with which I disagree, but mainly on the grounds that the government ought not to be involved in marriage at all, provided at least two persons consent) , but if he happened to lose those particular votes, then he'd suck it up and implement the laws that passed the House. Sheesh. It's not that hard to understand, people.

As Andrew Coyne summed it up,

When Mr. Harper says his party takes no position on abortion or gay marriage or capital punishment, he is accused of being "unclear." But he hasn't been unclear; he's been crystal clear, albeit in stating a nullity -- the party has no position. When an individual MP puts forward his view, he isn't contradicting the party's position, since there is no position to contradict.

Indeed, since, so far as the party has a position, it is that individual MPs, not parties, should decide these matters -- i.e. in a free vote in the Commons -- these "backbench eruptions" are the furthest thing from a contradiction of the party line: They are the living embodiment of it.

Now, back to the rebuttal of Micheal's post:

And really strange, when Martin asked Harper about the statements that Harper's MPs had made during the campaign about homosexuals and abortion, Harper told Martin that he (Martin) had made the exact same comments 2 days previous. I'm sure, during an election campaign especially, that if the PM came out and declared that gays would not be eligible for public jobs, we'd know about it.

Except that that's not what was said, Micheal. The relevant comments are Rob Merrifield's musings that third-party counselling would be valuable (as the Globe put it) pre-abortion. Guess what — Paul Martin did say, two days earlier, that third-party counselling would be a good thing. In fact, if I remember correctly, he said it while answering student questions in a Catholic high school. That, incidentally, is rather more tame than what some sitting Ontario Liberal MPs want.

Double standard? Of course not. They're Liberals, from Ontario, not crazy right-wing Westerners. Nuff said.

In terms of the horse race, the clear winner was Gilles Duceppe. And how could it be otherwise? All he needed to do was avoid saying "I believe that wearing cheese hats should be mandatory in Québec for the next three decades" in order to win. After all, what was the competition? Martin, who tried to buy Québec off with logos on race tracks and managed to get into a huge scandal about it? (Disclaimer: I do not totally buy this take on it, but this is the way it's been sold everywhere, and there was little Martin could do about it.) Harper was an alien from outer space, really; he was on the wrong side of almost every issue in Québec.

Layton and Duceppe got into awkward agreement-fests most of the time, since there's little materially in which their platforms disagree, evidently. They are even more similar now that Duceppe has effectively and repeatedly disavowed sovereignty as an issue in this election. But this ironically leaves the average Québec voter with little incentive to switch votes to the NDP; since neither one will form a government (unless the NDP is ultra-lucky), the Bloc effectively becomes the NDP's policy wing in Québec terms. There were some meagre attempts at disagreeing; Layton brought up the valid (but unimportant) point about building progressive alliances with the Rest of Canada. Duceppe sometimes pokes at the NDP centralisateur tendencies; being an NDP supporter of this variety, I guess it's a fair criticism.

Martin and Harper both played the "shouldn't Québec have a cabinet minister/large government representation" card. Duceppe easily deflected this by saying that Québec doesn't need a cabinet minister with extraterrestrial values (Harper), and that Martin has ill-served Québec's interests (fiscal imbalance etc) during his Finance Minister tenure, so what good is it to have a Québec cabinet minister? He also got in a good zinger or two against Martin about Barbados/CSL...

Harper and Layton had the least to lose in this debate, Harper not changing his standing, really. He's an alien, and there's nothing he can do about it. Layton's joual accent is cute, but his grammar was poorer than usual this time around, but he made some good points that at least tell Bloc voters that there are RoC politicians on their wavelength. Martin needed to do really well, but he did only a mediocre job. Duceppe didn't try too hard and didn't need to. So no knockout punches, no surprises, and a mostly clean slate moving into the English debate.

Let’s imagine for a moment that all of the current candidates in your particular riding resigned and pulled out of the election for personal, family, or health reasons. Let’s suppose that the (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, (Bloc,) and Green) parties all nominated new candidates whom you knew nothing about. In this hypothetical situation, which party would you vote for?

Why did COMPAS ask this question? They wanted to see if "local candidates" matter in elections, or if everyone just voted for their partisan political party.

The results are interesting. For certain candidates (Broadbent, Layton, Brison), many voters would "switch their votes" if there were a new set of candidates. That is, Ed Broadbent is leading in Ottawa Centre despite the fact that he's in the NDP. The same for Mr. Layton, and a similar case can be made for Ms. McLellan. However, in other ridings, there are parties that are getting votes in spite of their candidates.

An extreme example is the case of Chuck Cadman, the current MP for Surrey-North (BC). Now, I don't know whether Mr. Cadman can be classified as a "high-profile candidate" -- he doesn't have a national profile, and I hadn't heard of the guy until last week. His story is an interesting one.

Mr. Cadman, who has served as an MP first for the Reformers, then for the Alliance, and then for the Conservatives, lost his nomination battle this past March. (Another one of those questionable nomination processes.) While disappointed, Mr. Cadman was encouraged to run again as an Independent.

Big deal, right? Well, the COMPAS poll seems to indicate that it is a big deal. Mr. Cadman has a huge lead in the polls in Surrey-North, with 40% of the surveyed vote. Apparently, before Mr. Cadman's election in 1997, he was well-known in the community as an activist for victims' rights and for intervention for first-time young offenders. For this and other reasons, he seems to be hugely popular in the riding of Surrey-North.

At this time, the Conservatives don't want anything to do with Mr. Cadman. (They recently revoked his membership.) And that's probably just fine with him. Besides, like other "star candidates", he may win his riding in spite of his political affiliation.

Here's the Returning Officer's Headquarters in my riding. This office happens to be in (pretty vacant) Westmount Mall. Still, I didn't necessarily have to vote here. One can vote at any Elections Canada Office in the country, or at selected Canada Post outlets. You can even get Elections Canada to mail a ballot to you.

If you're on the Electors' Register, all one needs to show is a driver's license, and fill out an easy, one-page form. One then receives the "Special Ballot Pack".

In your "Special Ballot Pack", you'll get all the materials shown here. Well, except for the stuffed cow. With all the envelopes and stuff, the ballot may initially appear overwhelming. However, marking your ballot is pretty straightforward.

Here's a photo of the special ballot paper. As you can see, it's a tiny little thing, with a sketch of the Peace Tower on the front, and a blank line on the back. The ballot is distinct (erm, "special"?) because there is not a multiple-choice selection as in most election ballots. There is simply the blank line. We then write the name of the candidate of our choice on that line (as I did in the ballot in the photo(**)). (No, you shouldn't write in a vote for "Santa Claus", unless he is really running in your riding. (That, admittedly, would be very, very, cool.)) Then, we:

• Place the ballot in the inner envelope and seal it;


• Place the inner envelope in the outer envelope;


• Sign the declaration on the outer envelope and seal it;


• Place the outer envelope in the mailing envelope, and mail it/ return it to Elections Canada.

Isn't this great? Props to Election Canada for a smooth process.

Finally, I would like to editorialize for a bit. Various people on this site and others have discussed why Canadians don't vote. (In case one has forgotten, sample posts are here (Mandos), here (Mustafa), here (Steve), and here (Torstar). And, indeed, if one feels disenfranchised and pessimistic about the process, it certainly isn't my place to tell you to vote. These "holier than thou" arguments are ridiculously patronizing, and aren't effective anyway.

However, "voter pessimism" isn't the only reason for a lack of participation. A POLLARA(*) survey asked non-voters why they did not participate in the 2000 General Election. 15% of those surveyed stated that they were "away" or "out of town". The survey also notes that 21% were "working" or "busy". (Admittedly, nearly 50% of those surveyed stated that they were "uninterested" or "uninformed". In addition, the sample size in this survey was somewhat small.)

I'm slightly bothered about those 36% surveyed. For those 15% who were "away" on Election Day, I'd guess that they weren't informed of advanced polls or special ballots. If these voters were informed of these options, they could be able to vote before Voting Day. Voters need to be informed about the alternate voting options of advanced polls and special ballots.

The 21% who were too "busy" really concern me. Firstly, employers are mandated by federal law to allow their employees sufficient time to vote. Do all employers follow this policy? Well, maybe not. But, I'd be willing to guess that a larger portion of these "busy" voters are people with higher incomes, who claim to have a billion-and-one different things to do. For these people in particular, I find the "I'm too busy to vote" excuse to be rather sad. In the entire 36-day election cycle, you can mark your vote on any day, 7 days a week. It took me about 20 minutes to complete the voting process, and about 15 of those minutes were spent taking these silly photos.

The "special ballot" is easy, painless, and takes very little time to complete. With these ballots, advance polls, and mobile polls, no one should use the excuse, "Aw, I just didn't have the time to vote."

(*) (Results from the POLLARA survey are discussed in The Canadian General Election of 2000, J.H. Pammett and C. Doran, eds., Dundurn Press, 2001.)

(**) (No, I didn't really mark "Bryan Mulrooooney" on my ballot. I mean, come on.)

In some ways, I do wish that I'd been at the U of A about six or seven years before I actually got there, in time to catch the glory days of political activity, most notably the Malmo-Levine / Levant debate. Ah well.

In comparison, the past six years at the Ewe of Eh? have been rather tame, notwithstanding the election of probably-certifiable lunatic to the post of Students' Union [Full disclosure: I also ran for the job, and lost by a margin of several thousand votes. It was one of best things that ever happened to me.].

"Gibleeeeets," Fafnir says to me this morning "I need you to take over the Faaaaaafblooooog."

"I will do it!" says me, Giblets. "It is mine! It is Giblets's! It is Giblog!"

"I must work on my one-thousand-chapter-long whaling epic, 'The Salt and the Crashing and the Salt: An Ode to the Sea,'" says Fafnir.

"It is mine!" says me, Giblets. "It is all mine! Every word and letter and syllable! Every hyperlink and punctuation mark! Every comment is Giblets's!"

"It is about whales and whaling and the sea," says Fafnir. "The first half is narrated by the whale. The second half is narrated by the sea. The third half is narrated by a Falknerian idiot man-child."

"Nothing will ever wrest it away from the mighty fist of Giblets!" says Giblets. "No power on earth or in heaven! No fire or scourge of the gods! All will be laid low by my Gibletsian blogocracy!"

"The character of the sea talks entirely in capitals," says Fafnir, "and in big 'WHOOSH' noises."

"Bow before Giblets, Fafblog!" says Giblets. "Bow before Giblets FOREVER!"

"WHOOSH," says Fafnir. "WHOOSH."

They have three members. Fafnir and Giblets are, well, Fafnir and Giblets. The Medium Lobster is a higher being, except that it doesn't look that way to us. To us. Fafblog allows comments and does not support Trackbacks. That is the way of Fafblog! And it is fabulous. Frequently, politically fabulous, for US and international politics.

And to whom do I owe the pleasure of making my acquaintance of this Far Side of blogs? (Or perhaps Non Sequitur.) Why, the intrepid J. Bradford DeLong. I dunno how such a high powered economist has the time for Fafblog. But I am not complaining. I do complain about his economist orthodoxy, but his heart is at least in the correct location.

But what interested me most were Mustafa Hirji's fourth and fifth reasons, particularly the fourth. The motivations behind the Foreign Policy Independence rationale are mostly sensible to me—not only in terms of our foreign policy would it be good to be able to act more independently from our southern neighbours. But we first have to identify the threats. Who in the near future is likely to invade us in such a way that would require a large military defence? In the long run, our resources such as water may be an issue; in fact, they already are. But while it may seem far-fetched, the most likely long-term threat to the independent use of our resources would be the United States itself. If we do not wish to capitulate every time there is a crisis (which there may be as climate change, for whatever reason*, continues), we would actually need to deter them.

But can we really believe that we would be able to achieve a military capacity large enough, quickly enough to defend ourselves independently of the US (let alone from the US) assuming that a threat really exists? Anything less than that means that we have intermediate stages where we have a larger military, but insufficiently so to achieve our goal of policy independence. I am thus deeply suspicious that some politicians would use this larger but still non-independent military to entrench us even further into policy integration with the US. Indeed, the vociferous cries from some quarters about our inability to participate fully in US adventures makes me suspicious that that is exactly what expanding our military means. Consequently, this would leave us in a worse situation regarding policy independence than before, and identify us even further in the eyes of dangerous individuals with the US. This is not a desirable outcome.

The fifth reason, Diplomatic Influence, seems to me to relate influence too strongly with peacekeeping missions. I would argue that the alleged "debt" to the US for peacekeeping is minimal in relation to its influence, and that other factors: the gargantuan size of its military, its economic and cultural weight, and so on. Peacekeeping may make us feel and smell like Boy Scouts, and it may make us popular with ordinary folks, but its political importance is probably rather overblown, especially now.

After this brief intro, the youths begin "singing" the song lyrics. By "singing", the youths actually "talk" in a rhythmic/rappish/square-dance-ish manner, without any lyrical quality whatsoever. However, you can't say that the performers don't put their hearts into it. From the cute brunette to the creepy-looking guy, the singers are certainly enthusiastic, and shine despite their dumb lyrics.

We then hear the much-nicer chorus, the lyrical climax of the theme song. It's reminiscent of an Olympic ballad (or maybe, "We Are the World"), with dozens of performers singing passionately for the cause. Awwww.

After another ridiculous set of rap lyrics, we're now nearly at the end of the video. And, it's about darned time -- I'm starting to get sick. As the artists sing the final chorus, "Ensemble on est bien plus forts..." ("Together, we're much stronger"), we fade to a Québec rally, with Québec flags flying everywhere. With the climax, "Comme un peuple pacifique, Et souverain" (roughly, "Like a peaceful(*) people, and sovereign"), we see a Montréal cityscape, a few Québec landmarks (including the Chateau Frontenac) and more Québec flags. We observe a Québec demonstration, with citizens of all ages from all walks of life, and even more Québec flags. Gee, you think that they're trying to tell us something?

The video ends with the singers repeating, "Et souverain/ et souverain/ et souverain/ et souverain...", while we fade to a white background with "Un parti propre au Québec" ("A party unique to Québec", or, alternately, "A clean party in Québec", heehee).

The lyrics

If one was interested in singing along, a copy of the lyrics is available here (PDF file).

"But," one may ask, "what if I wanted to sing along, but can't get my eyes off those charming music stars???" No problem!! The Bloc has charitably displayed the lyrics as subtitles. So, if one was deranged enough to sing along during the video, don't worry!!!.

The lyrics are actually rather impressive -- they manage to be simultaneously very effective and very absurd. The dumb lyrics are in the "rap" part of the song:

Moi et toi et lui et nous / Et vous, oui tous ensemble nous pouvons / Construire et nous dire que nous savons / Grandir et être fiers / De nous quand nous sommes unis / Déterminés dans la vie / Ouverts de cœur et d’esprit / Maintenant / Ici

which translates to

Me and you and him and us / and you, yes all together we can / Build and tell ourselves that we know / how to grow and be proud / of ourselves when we're united / [and] determined in life / open in heart and spirit / Now / [and] here

Hrm. Well, maybe something got lost in translation. Nonetheless, even the translation is sappy and trite. And don't get me started on the phrase, "open in heart and spirit".

The chorus is much better, and reinforces the Bloc in the listener's mind:

Parce qu’on est différents
Nous, c’est le Bloc Québécois
Car le Bloc est différent
Car le Bloc, c’est notre choix

Because we're different
We are the Bloc Québécois
Since the Bloc is different
Since the Bloc is our choice

Sur la terre d’Amérique
Nous faisons notre chemin
Comme un peuple pacifique
Et sou-ver-ain / Et sou-ver-ain / Et sou-ver-ain / Et sou-ver-ain

On the land of America
We create our own path
Like a peaceful people
And sov-er-eign / And sov-er-eign / And sov-er-eign / And sov-er-eign...

The chorus is probably more tractable in French. And, the lyrics actually quite catchy, reinforcing the purpose of the Bloc ("because we're different") and the party's main goals. (You know, just in case we've forgotten.)

The impression

Well, after watching the video a couple of times, I can't get the darned song out of my head. Arghhhh! Thus, the song is effective becauase it has a certain "replay-ability" factor.

This is not a unique sentiment. The theme song has been available to the public for a couple of months now, and rabble.ca has a discussion on this very subject (including the quip, "On est différent, on chante comme William Hung..." Heh.) Because this may be "old news", I'm doubtful that the Bloc uses the theme song for anything substantial other than rallying up supporters.

Still, the idea of an "organizational theme song" raises an interesting question -- what is the purpose of such a song? Some songs are clearly marked as advertisements, with a specific focus on brand recognition (e.g. Coca-Cola's classic tune, I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...). Other songs, however, are meant primarily for internal consumption. The BBC has an interesting article on the use of company songs in Japan, where company songs are used to reinforce team spirit. (The BBC's "company song" is also worth a listen.)

The Bloc deserves credit for introducing a creative campaign tactic in a sometimes-dull election. Even so, I don't believe that this is the first time that elections had theme songs. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Bryan Adams' "Can't Stop this Thing We Started" was used for a previous Mike Harris campaign. Ugh. Mike loses my vote for that decision alone.

Nonetheless, I would consider extending this concept to other parties. Perhaps this is the silver bullet to attract the youth vote!!! Imagine Mr. Layton serenading "Some Enchanted Evening", while discussing the future of seniors' care. Mr. Martin and his Liberal Ministers could play a rendition of the Beatles' "Help!".

And, to reinforce their increased defense spending, Mr. Harper and his Conservatives could dress up as the Village People!!! They'd sing, "In The Navy", of course! (In the Navy, in the Navy...) Now that would get my vote.

(Images and lyrics in this post are from the Bloc Québécois.)

(*) (Edit June 04: Mandos is correct, pacifique translates to "peaceful" instead of "pacifist". It's probably still better than my first translation, which described Quebecers as "Pacific" people, whatever that meant.)

Harper's and his party's perspective on economic relations with the US as well as overall ideological alignment with certain US political trends give them a clear guide as to how to act, regardless of what Harper may or may not have said. They would have taken us to Iraq. They would certainly more align us with the War on Terra.

And so this is worth noting in the post:

Unlike Stockwell Day, Harper hasn't hidden his true stripes; he's just agreed to compromise. He won't try to do everything he wants, the old Progressive Conservatives aren't getting everything they want either, and we voters won't get everything we want. Harper is putting forward a compromise, he hopes, we can all agree with. And by being up front about this, the Liberals are having a hard time convincing the media he has flip flopped.

It should be remembered that this only holds true during election time. (There's no reason to think that the Liberals won't go down a similar road as the Reformatories if they win another term, though, but it's possible that they would do it slowly, with much sighing.) It should also be remembered that while strategy and tactics are fun, you also need to pass judgement.

First off, Harper's record on Iraq is up for scrutiny. As someone who likes Harper and has followed him closely since 1995, I can say with authority that foreign affairs is an area where Harper is pretty clueless. Harper's writings since 1987 have always been on economics, government waste and mismanagement, social policy, governmental accountability, and democratic reform. Harper has, as far as I know, never written anything about foreign affairs and what he believes is the right way to deal with foreign affairs. That's because Harper really doesn't care. Because Harper doesn't care, he'll pander to whichever group he needs votes from. And while in the Canadian Alliance when the party was down on its luck, that meant pandering to the party's right-wing base that supported the US war on terror and the war in Iraq. Today Harper is no longer going after that group of voters because he's riding high in the polls and he wants to pander to moderates. Harper's flip-flop on this issue makes him open to criticism. But I emphasize that it only opens him up to such criticism; it doesn't mean it will necessarily stick. I'll get back to this issue.

The abortion issue. If anyone thinks that Harper wants to force counseling or take away abortion rights, they're clueless. Forcing counseling is the exact kind of pointless government interference in people's lives that Harper detests. He'd never support that. As for reducing abortion rights, Harper isn't going their either. He doesn't mind abortion—Harper is no social conservative. But though while he personally prefers freedom on the matter, this is the kind of thing Harper has consistently argued should be left to free votes in Parliament (I can dig up quotes from him going back ten years if you'd like). Harper's record on this matter is clean. As for the party, I'll get back to that.

Bilingualism. Official bilingualism is the kind of activity that Harper thinks government should get out of. Harper would ask, "why should we force people to learn another language and to print cereal boxes with french in the middle of homogeneous english populations?" However, it isn't a big cost and Harper has bigger fish to fry (tax cuts, corporate subsidies, gag law, gun control, etc.) He's not going to fight this one, hence Harper's speech in Montreal at the start of the campaign. Yes, Harper personally agrees with Scott Reid's comments. No, he's not going to make that party policy when it is against the terms of the merger and when it will cost him votes. It's a fight for another election. But in the meantime, Harper may be vulnerable on this seeming flip-flop.

There are two things going on in this election that are very interesting. First, nothing seems to stick to Harper. In part this is because the Liberals have been acting desperate and their attacks have looked petty. Neither the attack ads that ran the week before the election call, nor the attacks by Ministers Mcallum and Sgro this week made the Liberals look like honest politicians raising real questions. Instead it has made them look desperate. And everyone suspects that desperate politicians are lying and saying whatever it takes to get ahead. So attacks on Harper by desperate Liberals are seen with suspicion by the public. Positive media coverage cements Harper's image as a moderate who's being vilified by the Liberals.

The other thing that's happening in this election is that Harper has in most cases been very up front about what he stands for. And when he makes a compromise, he says he's compromising. He's doing that with the capital gains tax. Harper thinks the tax should be rejected "on its face" but that he'll live with it in order to put forward a moderate conservative option to voters. He's doing that with bilingualism. Harper will scale it back so that we have both languages where "numbers warrant" but he won't touch the Act. His openness has won Harper much political capital. As Andrew Coyne wrote:

. . .Harper has probably been . . . more shamelessly opportunistic [than Martin]. Pharmacare? Friend of bilingualism? And that "no GST on gas when the price goes over 85 cents" thing: what the hell was that? Yet no one believes this shows he's slipped his moorings. If anything, people give him credit for learning how to play the political game. I can feel myself doing this. Even as he tacks about this way and that, I trust him. That's the payoff for establishing a clear ideological identity: your base are willing to give you a lot more room to manoeuvre. Whereas after 14 years in public life, it's still hard to say what Martin stands for.

Unlike Stockwell Day, Harper hasn't hidden his true stripes; he's just agreed to compromise. He won't try to do everything he wants, the old Progressive Conservatives aren't getting everything they want either, and we voters won't get everything we want. Harper is putting forward a compromise, he hopes, we can all agree with. And by being up front about this, the Liberals are having a hard time convincing the media he has flip flopped.

The combined effect of the Liberal attacks looking petty and Harper looking honest has meant that nothing seems to stick on Harper. Remember the bilingualism goof? How much media coverage has there been of that since then? Virtually none. It's not sticking. Likewise, attacks on abortion may not stick especially when Harper's record on abortion is sparkly clean. Foreign affairs is Harper's achilles heel—I don't think Harper can defend it. At best he can say that he was wrong. However, if the Liberals keep making weak attacks on Harper, when they talk about foreign affairs, it will look like the Liberals are crying wolf.

The other danger of Liberal attacks is that they might backfire. Harper is very good at throwing things back on the Liberals. Remember how the Liberals kept going after Harper over his support of tax cuts? Well, when the Liberals came out with their expensive health plan, Harper questioned how they'd pay for it. The media pounced by making the extension that Martin might want to raise taxes—maybe that's why he was so opposed to tax cuts. I despise Martin with my guts, but even I don't buy that Martin wants to raise taxes—that's ludicrous. Yet, the media used it.

While I don't think that Harper will crack under increased scrutiny, I think there is one big danger left for the Conservatives. I think the Tory Syndrome may return. The Tory Syndrome describes the fighting that tends to break out between the various factions of the Tory party. The Tories have always been a coalition of fairly different groups that are united by their hatred for the Liberals. That's partly why the party keeps fragmenting (it fragmented in the 1920s, then again in the 1940s, then in the 1960s, and most recently in the 1990s). The party is an artificial coalition so it fragments when everyone realizes the marriage won't work. Right now Harper isn't giving the social conservatives much in the way of policy. That's why people like Merrifield are making very social conservative statments—they're annoyed they're being shut out and they're trying to get something in that they like. I suspect the Tory Syndrome may break out with the social conservatives being angry that they are getting the short end of the stick and that they won't get anything now that their party has finally got a chance at winning. Keeping the party together in these tough times, I think, will be Harper's greatest challenge the next little while.

1. Filling the Peacekeeping Void

   Since the Liberals took power in 1993, Canadian support of UN Peacekeeping missions has declined markedly. Prior to 1993, the number of active peacekeeping missions of which Canada was not a participant could be counted on one hand. Today, the number of Peacekeeping missions that we are involved in where we have more than 8 soliders numbers four (Sinai, Haiti, Bosnia, and Afganistan). And one of those missions (Sinai) involves only 28 Canadian soldiers. Because of troop rotations and needs for troops at home, at our current 52,400 sized military, we can't afford to have many troops abroad. In fact, most experts argue that we should pull out of Afghanistan this summer because our 3,800 troops abroad is too great a commitment. (See Canadian Forces International Operations)

   With the US no longer interested in peacekeeping and busy either fighting wars abroad or pulling soldiers from Bosnia to protest the International Criminal Court, there is an enormous vacuum of peacekeeping missions to fill. A vacuum that Canada cannot fill and is already doing too much to fill. If we are to play a meaningful role in fostering peace and security around the world, we need to have a larger military.

2. Safety of Soldiers

   Currently, Canadian soldiers are forced to use 40 year old Sea King helicopters and 30 year old Iroquois ships. The Sea Kings, in particular, have become a complete insult. It requires 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour that the Sea Kings are in service. With that level of disrepair, Canadians could die because of mechanical failure.

   In Bosnia, Canadian radios use old protocols that can easily be tapped into. This puts troops in danger of ambush. Worse, it prevents assisting armies from using more secure radios—they have to accommodate our lesser technology.

   In Afganistan, Canadian soldiers were sent in with camouflage meant for woodland areas, not for a desert-like area—the desert camouflage wasn't ready yet. In dark brown and green, Canadians were not well camouflaged in the light tan environment. That's not exactly safe.

   Dead soldiers, especially when their deaths are because of poor equipment and uniforms, don't help anyone.

3. Soldier Health and Welfare

   Soldiers make low salaries and in many cases live in quite poor conditions. The Conservatives have indicated cases where soldiers need welfare. The NDP has shown many soldiers live in substandard housing. If we're going to fight poverty, paying soldiers adequately would be a good start.

4. Independance of Foreign Policy

   The military and foreign policy tend to be linked. One of the dangers of depending on the US for military support in time of crisis is that any such arrangement will inevitably involve some quid pro quo. That is, we should give support to US foreign policy in order to benefit from the US military's protection.

   While I never much liked US foreign policy, about two years ago I became much more opposed to it than before. I dislike having to support the US in activities that I, and I suspect most Canadians, disagree with. If we are to start disagreeing with US foreign policy, it is unlikely we can expect enthusiastic protection from the US. Building up our military to the point where this is no longer of great importance would be one big step to asserting our independence, or if you prefer, our sovereignty. A weak military isn't the answer to escape from US influence. (I agree that we need to do more than build the military to escape US influence).

   The other issue that arises from depending on the US for protection is that Al Quaeda has decided that it is fair game to attack the US and US troops. If Canada is to be defended by US soldiers, then it makes it seem as though Canadians are in alliance with the US and we then become fair game for attack as well. With an independent military that carries its own weight, it will be clear that we are an independent (or sovereign) state that does make its own choices. At minimum, Canadians will be less appealing targets for terrorists. At best, we can safely refuse to be accessories to US foreign policy and thereby be free of any danger of attack.

5. Diplomatic Influence

   If Canada has a strong military, we'll be able to step into peacekeeping roles when no one else is able to do so. By doing this, we will win political capital—other countries will owe us for our volunteering to step in. For example, when instability arose in Liberia last year, it took a while to find troops to send it because so few countries had fee troops. If we had been able to volunteer troops, other countries would owe us. Currently, the US tends to be the one to step in so everyone owes the US.

   If countries were indebted to Canada instead of the US, we would have much more sway in international affairs. At the UN, we would be able to exercise the influence to build a more peaceful world as Samantha argues for. A strong military could be a valuable tool for our diplomats to exercise in shaping the world.