At Friday's general meeting of the Toronto chapter of CAPP (Cdns against Proroguing Parliament), the following proposal was discussed. The group recommended that it be tabled with the National CAPP steering committee for consideration.What follows is a revised version of the proposal I floated on facebook and this blog after the rallies.
=====================
Electoral consequences proposal: Catch 22 (Tories)
Objective –To contribute to the defeat of 1 incumbent Conservative MP for each day of prorogation as a consequence for their abuse of power.
CAPP provided a vehicle for people who care about democracy to express themselves and to take action. People just need to know what to do and how to do it. CAPP has shown that people can work across their differences when something bigger is at stake.
While the Conservatives are feeling some heat from proroguing Parliament, including dips in public opinion, after March 3 it will likely be business as usual (with or without a spring election). There is one consequence that will stand out for them more than any other and that is votes in the ballot box. A targeted riding level campaign to defeat 22 of them (or more) has the best odds of scoring some victories while adding some turmoil, uncertainty and tension to the Conservatives’ election game plans. It also sends a message to all political parties.
Catch 22 would give CAPP a national spotlight that would complement the local activities already underway. What follows an overview of how we can defeat 22 Conservatives.
Pre-election period
Planning and preparation would need to begin immediately. Once an election is called, we are competing with all the parties. Raising awareness of the issues with voters at the riding level (while they’re still hot) also puts voters on alert for future abuses.
1) Form a Catch 22 sub-committee to take responsibility for this plan.
2) Develop a communication network and Catch 22 facebook/website presence.
3) Develop a list of the 22 most vulnerable, incumbent Conservative MPs in Canada from as many provinces and territories as possible.
4) Base riding selection principally on winnable margins of victory in the 2008 election and the extent of local participation.
5) Identify local organizers and spokespeople in each targeted riding.
6) Recruit volunteers to distribute non-partisan, pro-democracy literature to homes in as much of the riding as possible.
7) Literature could focus on democracy issues, including prorogation abuse and provide a democracy report card on Harper. Encourage people to vote and provide voter registration information.
8) If the capacity is there, posters could be produced to give more local visibility. Billboards could also be considered.
9) Develop a toolkit that each riding group can use to maintain a consistent message, “Catch 22 brand” and detailed campaign “how to” information.
Election period
1) Endorse and assist the opposition candidate with the best chance of winning.
2) Endorsement could be conditional on their support for our objectives.
3) Consider producing and distributing another piece of literature under the Catch-22 name.
I don't doubt the good intentions of the people behind this initiative.
But along with the fact that so-called "strategic voting" has never worked, here's the problem: what happens after election day? What kind of government will we have replaced Stephen Harper with?
Do progressive people no longer hope for public child care, target-based reductions of GHGs, a re-balanced foreign policy, real democratic and ethics reforms in government, a fairer tax system, etc.? If we do, does it not make more sense to organize to not just defeat a leader we don't like, but actually elect a leader who is committed to those ideas?
Think back to 1993 when to get rid of the Conservaitves, Canadians gave the Liberal Party all of the marbles. The Liberals rewarded us with a $25 billion cut from health care, education and social assistance. They rewarded us by killing Canada's housing program. They rewarded us with $100 billion in tax cuts, while child poverty deepened.
Has our politics become only about what we despise, not about what we want? Has our anger replaced our optimisim as the motivator for organizing and voting? Is destroying "the enemy" a better outcome than "change we can beleive in?" If the answer is yes, then our politics has become the same as Stephen Harper's.
It doesn't make sense to hope for change and then trade back and forth between Harper's Conservatives and Ignatieff's Liberals. Change will come when we make a clean break from the politics of the past. It will come when we elect Jack Layton and a majority of New Democrats.
Good comment, Oppo-Guy.
This Catch-22 proposal only serves to confirm my suspicion that CAPP is just a stalking-horse for the Liberal Party.