Why you Should or Should not vote for Harper

A quick sample of my friends online activity shows that about a third of them vote conservative. About half of those are either voting conservative for the wrong reason or are unwilling to admit publicly why they are voting conservative. Many of my friends have business or economics backgrounds and flatly state they are voting conservative because the conservatives are better equipped to run an economy.
This, to paraphrase PM Harper, is simply not true. If we look historically the economies of Canada and America almost always grow quicker when the liberals or Democrats are in power. Furthermore the government tends to run a more balanced budget under left leaning governments.
This shouldn't be surprising when we think about the fact that most famous, well respected, Nobel prize winning, influential economists are all liberals. Right wing policies from supply-side economics to the trickle down theory have all been proven wrong. Even the bread and butter of almost all economic beliefs, that consumption taxes are more efficient-both in collection practice as well promoting savings-was flatly ignored by PM Harper, despite his economics background as he cut the GST as part of his platform in 2006.
Now if you are voting for the conservatives because of their Christian leanings, you have a moral belief that spreading wealth through taxation policy is wrong, you are anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion then you are voting conservative for the right reasons. Those last two might not be on the table now but only because it was the reason the Canadian Alliance lost their first two elections.
I would mention the irony of voting conservative for Christian reasons is that if you remember what Jesus preached about being charitable so perhaps the NDP are the most Christian. Although economically speaking they might create a welfare state that proves to be too heavy of a burden.
How did I vote? I voted for a local candidate, not a party. If I was in a different riding I would have voted for a different party. Likewise if we had a different system, proportional representation for example, I would have voted differently.
This isn't meant to be an attack on the conservatives, although I would love to see PM Harper out of power, but just to read a little deeper than the party's one line philosophy when you choose to vote.
There is no party I agree with completely. Despite living near a nuclear disaster I think that, unlike the Green party, it shouldn't be the first target in the energy industry for dismantling.
I like that the conservatives are offering money to subsidize sports and gym memberships. Another step would be a stronger Canada food guide. Ignatieff is an accomplished writer who would surprise most people if they actually read one of his books. He is the Canadian Noam Chomsky.
Anybody who completely rejects one Party's platform has fallen into the trap politicians set for you. If the other person came up with it, it must be bad.

Google Zeitgeist 2008

Google has compiled its 2008 edition of the Zeitgeist. This is their web search index of what people are 'thinking' about. The global list is not very surprising but the differences between some of the regional lists is quite interesting. An example of this is 'weather' being the fourth most popular search in Canada whereas in Australia it was the ninth. I suppose Canadians have less nice weather days throughout the year and so like to know when it is coming and plan as early as possible.
Unfortunately the categories listed for each region are different. In The UAE it lists local 'restaurants' whereas in the UK it has popular 'recipe' searches (what the hell is Eaton Mess?). There is also a lack of country by country information - only 34 nations have data showing. This could be caused by local privacy laws or the lists are not completed yet but either way it reduces the the value of the Zeitgeists.

One of the results I found interesting from the Canadian results was the popularity of the political parties, by search:
1. green party
2. liberal party
3. conservative party
4. ndp
5. bloc quebecois
Presumably the Green Party would have a boost solely because it is a newer party and so people may just be interested in knowing their policies. The Liberals and Conservatives on the other hand are well established and as such Canadians likely require less research to know their core policies. But, perhaps, this points to a greater voter base for the Green Party for the next few years.
In the UAE, a bastion of religious reverence, who was one of the biggest searches - by character name and real name? Hannah Montana. It's good to know we have things in common with the middle east. We need to build on this young Hollywood vixen affinity and work from there to gain the trust of the whole area.
The website Surf the Channel is one of the fast growing websites in the world. I find this particularly interesting because I only discovered the website a few weeks ago and I see the number of views their videos are receiving and it is not surprising that it is becoming one of the most popular websites. We will see if it goes the way or other video indexing websites.
The power of Youtube is growing very quickly. It will soon be the preeminent collector of humanities' culture. It is already one of the most popular websites in the world and is also steadily increasing its popularity. We see it listed in both of these categories on regional surveys from Brazil to Germany.
Facebook seems to be the digital border between the East and West. It is either one of the most popular websites or fastest growing or both in Countries from the Americas (North and South) as well Europe. It is, however not seen as often in the East and if it is only in the fastest growing field (Malaysia, Singapore).

Canadian Election Results

The results:

Conservatives - 143
Liberals - 76
Bloc - 50
NDP - 37
Greens - 0
(from cbc.ca)

Now it is time to get my pundit on.

First, this was an important election for Canada. But, unlike usual, it was an important election for the world. It was a verdict on our economy and the world economic crisis. This was the first election to follow the collapse of the world economy. The verdict, though not the one I personally would have liked, is probably the best for world stability. It says that Canada has decided it is pleased with the current situation.
Why shouldn't it be? The dropping Canadian dollar will help rebuild our export base, by reducing the price of our goods in America at a time when Americans need cheaper commodities, our banks are considered the strongest in the world (thanks in part to very heavy regulation), and our current account and fiscal balance are quite good.
Is this all the Harper administration's doing? No. As Harper himself once said 'It wasn't raining when Noah started building the Ark'. Which, apparently, means that the plans to protect the economy have been in place for a long time. The policies that are keeping Canadians wealthy started back with Trudeau (unless you are NDP, then Tommy Douglas). Trudeau helped shape the welfare state that keeps people safe, secure and healthy. This, furthered by a strong boom in first manufacturing, then energy, allowed Canada to become a first rate economy. The Chrétien administration is to be thanked for balancing the budget. But all of this is really beside the point which is Canadians said they are confident we can weather the storm.

Party by Party:

Conservatives: Harper should be disappointed. He came very close to a majority but failed to achieve it because of his inhuman demeanor. Politicians, everywhere, need to relate to the masses. If a leader is not trustworthy, compassionate and understanding, they face an uphill battle at the polls. Yes Canada has a better position than almost every other country in this crisis but you need to be able to speak to the people about this. The leader of Lockheed Martin, may need to be secretive but as the leader of a nation you need to be more open. I understand that there are security concerns that sometimes lead to silence but on a day to day basis this is unnecessary.

Liberals: This is essentially a deathblow to Dion's leadership. Unlike Harper whose French has improved greatly over the years, Dion has failed to get comfortable in English. His environmental policies are far better than previous Liberal leaders and that should be commended. He is clearly not electable. The Liberals failed to capitalize on the issues that differentiate them from Conservatives. Dion's best hope at retaining power in the long run may be to put his money where his mouth is and cross party lines and become a green party member in Parliament.

Bloc: Like every year, Duceppe ran a good campaign. He has moved his party from a Separatist party to a more relevant special interest party. This is an important deviance. It has become apparent that Separatist feelings are waning. The Bloc are helping to shape policies in a way they could never do before with a more antagonizing leader. Especially in a current administration where the conservatives only need the support of one party to pass legislation. Harper may find it easier to bargain with the Bloc than the Liberals or NDP.

NDP: Layton should be happy with his results. but, then, it is his tenacity that both helped him gain his party's influence and will deny him pleasure at the results. The NDP should be able to push through a couple of their policies in the new house. I think one specifically they could work on is a compromise with the Conservatives where there would be some sort of duel child care system. This would result in tax deductions for single earning families and free child care for other families. Or something else akin to this.

Greens: First, congratulations to Mike Nagy for 21% of the popular vote. It was not enough to be the first Green MP but I have confidence that he will be one of the first to be elected. I am disappointed by the Green's portion of the popular vote. I thought they could get 3% more. I believe that Elizabeth May is correct in saying that the Greens will win in a landslide in 10 years time. I, however, need to fault Elizabeth May. She made a decision to make a deal with Dion to have no liberal candidate in her home riding. She was running against MacKay, who is probably my favourite Conservative politician, and lost. She should have done one of two things. Either make a similar deal with the NDP which likely would have resulted in her being elected or move a riding over which probably could have resulted in her winning. She had already risked her scruples on the deal so she wouldn't have been too much worse for wear if she did either of those things. Or why not make a deal with Dion for 3-4 ridings. Mike Nagy may have won if there was no Liberal candidate.

In conclusion, congrats to Harper. I hope this time you are less autocratic and adversarial. It would be helpful if you were more compromising and less inclined to force an election. Your denial of environmental problems is concerning. I have said it before and will again; ignoring environmental problems is the most selfish thing you can do. You are harming your own children for personal gain. Hopefully this government can last a year. If you have to raise taxes, consider consumption taxes. That was your worst decision. With the economy the way it is we do not have to worry about your social agenda and your economic policies may be helpful in the short run.

Canadian Alliance Caught Plagiarizing

Bob Rae recently released information proving that a crucial speech given by the Leader of the Opposition in 2003 was stolen from a speech given by the Prime Minister of Australia. What makes the act of plagiarism worse is it pertained to the issue of the War in Iraq. The speech was pro the war which at the time, and even more so now, the majority of Canadians oppose. Bob Rae is quoted as saying, “How does a political leader in Canada’s Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving the exact same speech as another country’s leader, let alone one who was a key member of George W. Bush’s Coalition of the Willing?”

Plagarism in da House

Now this is an interesting one to pin down. I have to say first kudos to the liberals. I am sure the campaign ads showing the former Australian PM and the former Leader of the Opposition saying the speech as a duet will be very influential. But, then, people are fickle and really, overall, it doesn't seem all that pertinent to the current political climate. After all we are talking about the PM not the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservatives not the Alliance, etc, etc. On the other hand, Harper was the leader of that defunct party as well.

Considering the speech was given in Australia just 36 hours before Harper performed the encore, how is it nobody noticed? Surely someone in the Liberal caucus noticed the similarities. To say they didn't would mean nobody follows Aussie politics and that is a little bit frightening. What I am trying to say is at the time the Liberals did not need to smear the Canadian Alliance because the Alliance was never going to win. But now that the Conservatives have won the previous election, and could end up with a majority in this election, the Liberals are releasing the information.

Oh and did I mention Bob Rae used to lead the Ontario NDP? So in conclusion vote Green!

May is in the Debates?!

May is back in the debates. I am very happy about this to say the least. I think that everybody in Canada should be happy. The Green party has mobilized the Canadian youth to participate in Politics in the way that Obama surely will in America. The reason is simple. Old people clearly, in general, do not care about young people. They are suspicious of us because we try to steal their jobs (and with our higher levels of Education are replacing them at a faster rate).
Now of course mother cares for child and some older people may show an altruistic tendency toward the youth but it is quite rare.
Every time they deny Global warming, explicitly like a Palin might (worst choice ever) or implicitly like a Harper does when he plans to cut excise taxes on fuel they are showing us that they don't care. The baby boomers should be regarded as the most selfish generation of all time. They have exploited our resources, ruined our environment, flooded the market with so many workers that the wages are no where near where they should be, and their Pièce de résistance will be bankrupting pensions world wide to the point that we will continue to pay for their unbeleivably long retirement long after they die and we ourselves are retired. All because they feel entitled to the point of not saving (financially or environmentally). It was bad enough when the wealthy walked around feeling everything was theirs, now that everyone does it is quite worrisome.
I attended the Green Party's national convention a few years ago and it was something of a proud point that we influence policy even if we are not in the house. It is quite apparent when you can see the Liberal leader promoting an income neutral carbon tax. Something that I believe will be both more effective and efficient. I would rather use fiscal policy to shape a market than use regulation to restrain a market. Regulation also has the added effect of needing some sort of overview.
Anyways, I disgress with saying that May will focus the debates onto key issues that are important to the younger generation. Now if people are able to vote from their university town, maybe they will actually have a voice to answer the call May makes.

Finally this Makes Harper even more of a pussy. According to the canoe.ca, The Harper camp has said, "We don't think she should be there. But if the NDP have decided they're changing their position, we will not stand alone." So without the moral strength of Layton, who looks a bit like a cartoon character, Harper cannot fight 'the good fight'. Seriously, grow a pair. I said in my last post that if the news organization changed their stance the parties would have to fall in line because its better to be in a debate than not. Sure enough they did. Thank you Jack Layton, I was surprised at your initial stance. You always seemed like a decent person (although your ideals are far different then mine) so I am glad you did the right thing. Harper for being the person that followed suit of a much smaller party (and smaller man) you get no points. In fact I ridicule you all the same as it is not with courage you did what you did but from fear. And we all know fear leads to anger and anger leads to the dark side.

May not in the Debates?

Why is it that Elizabeth May is not in the debates? Democracy failed. Stephen Harper and (more surprisingly) Jack Layton threatened to pull out of the debates if May was allowed representation. This is absolutely unacceptable. The news organizations should not have allowed them to back out. Then if they did, it would be political suicide. At the end of the day if the organizers had the gumption to stick to their plan. Harper and Layton would eventually bow down. You cannot win an election without being in the debates.
Now their charge is it would be like having two Liberal candidates. If there was any team up it is closer to say two Green members would have been in the debate as Dion took a huge chunk of his policy from the Green Party.
Is it not usual in Canadian politics for people in the debate to join together in arbitrary alliances? Do they not always attack the person who is most different or most similar or most powerful?
The liberals, NDP and Bloc tend to have a lot in common and gang up on the Conservatives about all social issues. Then the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc attack the liberals because, traditionally, they are the party to beat. Then the NDP attack the liberals to try and make them look like the Conservatives. Then the bloc attack the liberals and conservatives because they need to gain votes in the only province they run.
I will follow with some policy in later posts throughout this election but first I want to pose this question:
If Harper is afraid of the member of an (unfortunately) marginal party in Canada how will he stand up to someone like Obama or McCain? He has already shown a pandering mentality to an unpopular and dysfunctional Bush; what happens when he has to deal with the personality cult of Obama?