Suck it up, Canada: What are we -- shoppers or citizens? A portion of each, I suppose. But it's fatal to confuse the roles, as seems to be happening with all the whinging and whining over "another" election that "nobody" wants.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was the first to moan in, right after Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced his intention to pull the plug on the Conservatives' minority government. Iggy had a list of plausible enough reasons that would more likely lead you to ask him Why did you wait so long? than What for? The PM's response was that he hasn't met "a single Canadian" who wants an election, which may only reveal the limited range of his contacts.
Yet many in the news media echoed it. I think at random of Suhana Meharchand on CBC Radio's phone-in last Sunday, chortling over the silliness of another election. I may have gone humourless, but I don't really get it.
In a vital democracy, like ancient Athens or the Iroquois confederacy, people were involved in politics continually. Under our system, politics more or less equals elections, so you could call frequent elections our form of participatory democracy. It keeps citizens engaged and parties on their toes. Under a stable majority, everyone goes to sleep for four years. Do you think we'd have had even the minimal action we've seen from Mr. Harper on the economy or on withdrawal from Afghanistan if he'd had a majority?
But everything turns upside down if you treat politics as a shopping trip -- I don't waaant an election -- rather than the ongoing duty of each citizen. It's like newscasters saying, "Thanks for watching," as if we tune in to do them a favour, rather than from our need as citizens to be informed. Citizenship isn't a consumer choice that you may or may not make. People can opt out of it, but then they lose the right to complain, and it's a mingy choice to make if you think of kids and others affected by actions taken in the name of us all.
Besides, if these whiners really don't want an election and prefer Parliament "to work," why did so many of them object to a coalition last winter? It was the very definition of making Parliament work in a minority situation. I don't think minority governments are inherently unstable; I'd call them inherently alert. The current one has indeed been unstable since it's so distant from the majority of members in the House and voters in the country. But, say, a Liberal minority could well find enough common ground with the Bloc and NDP to enact many things that most citizens would value.
It's the snickering and eye-rolling among media opiners that I find most offensive, as if their stance is so sophisticated. In fact, they function as dupes for a rotten status quo, helping to keep power in the hands of those who can afford to pay for it by getting others, like the party bosses, to fulfill their wishes. There is wreckage to be dealt with out there, lives are still being destroyed, although the recession is supposed to be all but over. My little strip of College Street in Toronto now has a solid row of abandoned small businesses such as we've not seen in previous crises. It's become a street of broken dreams. Add the fact that voting numbers are declining, which the pseudo-wit of the moaners tends to glamorize. The downward trend reduces the constituencies to which politicians must attend, and ratchets up the electoral clout of the resolute pressure groups, such as evangelicals and gun owners.
Advertising
If there is a problem with another election, it's that voting is all we're ever offered to satisfy our political impulses, and it is a repetitive and intrinsically shallow exercise. But this implies that we should vote for those ready to expand the arena of democratic participation so that we need not shoehorn the entire human political drive into the narrowness of elections.
Why did Canadians object to the Coaltion last year? That is easy enough because Canadians were troubled about the economy and weren't sure about the 3 birds in a bush. As clearly it was going to be difficult for the three to run the country. That was it in a nutshell as Dion steps down and Iggy takes his place and works with government, as it is what the people wanted.
I don't think getting a new government is like a shopping trip, it goes a great deal farther as Harper's sells out Canada and Canadians to foreign interests . While hard times befall Canadians as poverty and dispare line her streets while Harper creates a greater divide between the rich and poor. What has Harper done right? Well like the premier from BC he sure has a great many tall tales to tell of the economy and Canada's recovery because it just isn't so. Campbell's lies helped him win the last election will Harper's lies win him many votes? Harper and Campbell also set record deficits and a lot less services while erroding small business where most of the jobs were created but all the breaks go to big coporations.
As where are the paying jobs, and do you really believe the deficit is sitting at 60 Billion and Harper has saved the economy? How? Because of advertisments, or what Harper has to say? Like I said Campbell got in telling people what ever he figured they needed to hear even if it caused them harm by not being prepared for serious cuts to services and not allowing them any recourse. Leaving many Canadian families in the lurch, and it looks like Harper is up to the same tricks. So is it Tricks or Treats in the fall election given there is one and boy Canada sure could use one to rid itself of Harper's rein of power once and for all.
Conservative advertisments are all over the media while Flatherty talks about no new taxes, like what is the HST but worst than the GST as its Harper's trick on Canadians as cash strapped provinces seek out Ottawa. Flatherty says nothing will change with transfer payments and Canadians need to expect reduced services and no new taxes and a 5 year projection of paying down the 60 Billion dollar deficit. And of course the recession had hit them harder than expected as citizens where going to be doing a lot of belt tightening in the next 5 years was the news from Ottawa as its full of contridictions. Just like the extended EI? Why does Harper increase EI on serious talks of a fall election when there is no need because Harper has saved the economy and there are tons of jobs on the horizon all thanks to the Conservatives or so he says. Extended EI was long over due and the Conservatives know it. Harper is just not believe able as unemployment in its major cities continues to climb and serious cuts to services aren't helping. Who is Harper fighting for in this hard recessionary time but big business as no chance he would grant an audience with the average working stiffs representative, the NDP he doesn't have the time of day for, nor the Canadians opposition represents.
A lot of economists believe that the United States will be bankrupt in as few as twenty years. It may take several decades for future generations of Americans to pay off America's debts, if it is even possible. In a worse case scenario, Americans would not even be able to pay the interests on the American debts. In the best case scenario, the United States would cease funding several key programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, and even increase the retirement age again just to name a few possibilities. Pay back is in part by giving important and handsomely paid jobs in governance to party 'friends', instead of to professional and incorruptible servants of the public. Payback for big money donations from business can come from awarding contracts within USA, and in countries the USA government payday cash has invaded, or in which it has based itself.
Recommended reading for the loo: Our Benign Dictatorship by Stpehen Harper and Tom Flanagan. I don't know if I should laugh, cry, or get mad. The text is available through the link.
"But, say, a Liberal minority could well find enough common ground with the Bloc and NDP to enact many things that most citizens would value."
What evidence do we have that the Liberals stand for anything that makes an election worth calling? Take a long look at the Liberals on the issues, from taxes to trade to defence policy. They go along with the Conservatives, over and over, and then they retroactively claim that the Cons did it all wrong: like not spending enough, and spending us into deficits... while Iggy claims he wouldn't raise taxes.
The Liberals' function, aside from cooperating, seems to be to bring up the odd issue for the Conservatives to gamely co-opt, and either the NDP or the Bloc could do a better job of that. With Iggy saying that there won't be a coalition with the left or confidence in the right, what's left?
The reason people don't want another election is because the people forcing the election haven't given anyone a reason to vote for them. They haven't said what will change, and that opened them up to the Bloc's ads saying that they're "Two parties, One opinion." Ignatieff doesn't seem to be ideologically all that different from Harper. So what are we going to get for the cost of running the 4th election in 5 years?
I would be okay with an election, if the election had a point.
I figure there are two men in this race that have anything to offer the Canadian people and surprising enough one of them is the leader of the Bloc. The NDP leader I just can't pin down as he is all over the place.
I agree with you what do these leaders feel Canadians would be better off if their government was in power. I do believe the group said it all when trying to take Harper down in the first place, and the 3 were right about Harper and what he would do to the economy and human rights and the environment to name a few.
Like Harper said the Liberals and Bloc and NDP are bleeding socialists, you know a party for the people so thats a good start I would think as Harper dosen't have the time of day for average Canadians now that is the truth, even if your an 8 years old and walking our cities streets and forced into doing tricks for survival. Harper lies like the sidewalk he has unemployed Canadians sleep on, children included.