Poly Ticks

Our Government In Action

Why Stephen Harper and his gang think it's ok to yank one of our top scientists from attending his commitments at an international forum on climate change.

Canada is not living up to it's international obligations.

Does Anyone Check Facts Before Reporting Them Any More?

GM workers make, on average, over $70/hour. Heard this stat lately? I just heard it on Newsworld and was shocked. No, not at the amount, but at the fact that Newsworld was repeating the figure even after Media Matters pointed out a few days ago that this number is a gross error. The average GM worker makes just under $40/hour. So where did that number come from? GM. And it's easy to guess why.

The Media Matters story here.

Politics And Fear

An interesting study (article here) suggests that our political leanings may be influenced by our biology. After testing the fear response and corelating it to our political persuasion, the reaserchers suggest that those with a high fear response tend to vote conservative. Those with a low fear response tend to vote liberal.

It would suggest that for the conservatives, raising the fear level would help mobilise their base. That certainly explains a lot about the right wing politics we've been seeing a lot of lately.

One Dollar And Ninety Five Cents

Much has been made of the axing of the political subsidy. The right is claiming it is the sole reason for the upheaval and that it needs to be done away with. Politicians at the public trough. For the most part the left coalition has ignored this and tried to keep repeating, "It's the economy stupid." It is the economy, but it's also about those subsidies. And just why is our Government giving away tax dollars to political parties?

First of all, there are two main subsidies available to political parties for fund raising. One is tied to donations and one is tied to votes. The first one is available to any registered political party. If you give them $100, you get a $75 tax credit. This is the one that makes up the majority of funding for the Conservative Party, and pays out considerably more than the per vote subsidy, as in we would have saved more money getting rid of this subsidy. Funny that this one wasn't on the chopping block. People in favour of this subsidy say that it demonstrates that people are interested in your party because they are willing to give you money. It's a subsidy you have to "work for" in that someone has to drum up all of those donations.

The other subsidy is tied to votes. There's a threshold, so getting one vote does not get you the subsidy, but if enough Canadians vote for your party you receive a payment, at this point around $1.95, for every vote you receive. This subsidy makes up the majority of funding for the rest of the political parties in Canada. People in favour of this subsidy point out that political parties that champion, for example, the poor will still have a voice in our political system. Myself I have to think that getting a few hundred thousand people to vote for you in a federal election takes at least as much real work as phoning your friends and asking for money does.

The second subsidy was brought in as an attempt to help remove the importance of money, and the corruption that money can bring to politics, from our political system. Of the two subsidies, it is the one that was specifically designed to remove corruption from our political system. It's the one that lets people without large sums of money have a say in Canadian politics. And it's the one that makes sure no vote is ever wasted. Almost a million people voted for the Green Party in the last election, and the Green Party didn't manage to win a single seat in Parliament. Those people can feel like their votes will now be ignored, or those people can know that they have increased the ability of the Green Party to get their message heard by almost two million dollars. If you voted Green last election, which would make you feel like your vote actually meant something.

Personally I think that anything that makes Canadians feel like their votes are not wasted is a good idea. It should also be a relatively easy sell to the vast majority of Canadians.

Civics

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around these days about just what exactly is and is not going on in Ottawa. Let's look at some of the basics.

In Canada we elect Members of Parliament. We do not elect a government and we most certainly do not elect a Prime Minister. All we elect is Members of Parliament. Most of those Members belong to one of the politcal parties in Canada. Once all the Members of Parliament have assembled, the Governor General asks one of the political parties, traditionally the one with the most seats, if they feel able to form a government. Notice the word tradition. Constitutionally the Governor General's job is to decide which party has the best chance of forming a stable government and asking them to form the Government. By tradition the Governor General starts with the party with the most seats. The Government does not exist outside of Parliament it is an expression of the will of Parliament. This is the very basic core of democracy in Canada. The people we vote for then cast their vote for the one amongst them they feel most able to lead Parliament.

This means that no Government in Canada has a mandate from the Canadian people. The Canadian people give a mandate to Parliament, and Parliament gives a mandate to the Government. Parliament is more important than the Government. Those that form the Government are MP's that were elected in a few ridings in Canada, Parliament represents the vote of every riding in Canada and is the voice of every single Canadian who voted.

Parliament has a mandate from the Canadian people. Everyone else gets their mandate from Parliament.

Crime And Punishment

I knew it was coming. There is an election on after all, and "Tough on crime" is a very easy sell for the Conservatives. Every one of their hard core voters believes that crime is on the rise in Canada and there is something that needs to be done to fix the system. It's also a hard policy to be against. Surely you're not suggesting we let those criminals walk?! Like most things coming out of a politicians mouth during an election campaign, it's complete and total garbage.

Let's look at the facts. In the developed world Canada ranks second in the number of it's own citizens it jails. First place is held by our neighbours to the south. Let that sink in for a moment. Canada jails a (much) higher percentage of it's own citizens than any other developed country except the U.S. There are fewer people thrown in jail in Northern Ireland. Tough new sentencing will increase the number of people in jail. Is this really an area where we want to keep up with the U.S. example?

On top of this the reality is that violent crime rates in Canada have been falling steadily for the last 30 years. Not to mention Canada actually has an incredibly low rate of people who re offend. One of the lowest actually.

Now politicians say a lot of things during an election campaign in order to convince people to vote for them. We're used to that, but this particular bit of campaigning has a very unfortunate side effect. It devalues the incredible work that thousands of people in Canada's criminal justice system do. We should be standing up and applauding the work these people do - in Canada, they do it very well.

Deconstructing The Ads

Rex Murphy had an interesting point about political advertising and the image make over that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are trying with their leaders. Both parties are trying to portray their leaders in a "new" light. Stephen Harper wears sweaters and Stephane Dion plays hockey. But the ads imply that the opinion we already have of these two is wrong.

I recall as a young lad watching tv, and as the commercials started, my father asking me who the person in the white lab coat was. A doctor was my astute reply. No, said my father, they're an actor. I had to think about that. This deconstruction was a great thing for my young mind. Until then I had blankly assumed that what I was seeing was, for the most part, accurate - that commercials were somehow more real than the movies slipped in between the ads. Well, unless they were singing frogs of course.

Political advertising, especially when it focuses on image and not on policy, should be viewed with the same eye as any other ad. The point of the ad is not to inform, but to convince. Are we seriously to believe that Stephen Harper regularly hangs out with families in Richmond wearing blue fuzzy sweaters? That when he was absent from the House of Commons he was cuddling babies?

Practice your advertising deconstruction on the easy things. Drink a case of beer and see how many scantily clad, single, horny women appear magically on your patio. Then apply the results to the political ads we're being inundated with. I like singing frogs, but I still drink Guinness, not Budweiser.

Welcome to 2009

Heard talk of a fixed election date being put into law? I thought I'd start there. Here's the relevant text of Bill C-16

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. The Canada Elections Act is amended by adding the following before the heading “Writs of Election” before section 57:

Date of General Election

Powers of Governor General preserved

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

Election dates

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

The full Bill can be seen here.

Welcome to 2009.