Li’l Depressed Boy #4

Review: Batman and Robin #23

‘Bob the Rebuilder forfeits run at permanent leadership

Politics is inevitably about power. It can be boiled down to two general camps: The group that has it, and the group composite of everyone else who doesn’t. The Liberal Party finds themselves in the latter predicament after the last election. With less than half the seats the party had prior to the dissolution of parliament and the NDP solidly as the Official Opposition (for now), the party once referred to as the national governing party of Canada lays in ruins. This current state really is just the latest in a lengthy sequence of events that have led to the party’s downfall since Jean Chretien’s retirement from politics and the subsequent discovery of the sponsorship scandal. From Paul Martin’s minority government to the subsequent Stephen Harper minority parliaments, the Conservative Party’s success has piggybacked on weak leadership from both Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff; all of this led to the meltdown of the Liberal party and the rise of a Stephen Harper led Conservative majority government.

Here’s the kicker; there is no real foreseeable successor and that’s the worrisome piece of the puzzle if you’re a supporter of the Liberal agenda. There is only Bob Rae. News broke on Friday that he had given up on his aspirations to hold the permanent leadership position, instead opting to throw his name among the contenders to hold the interim leadership while the party retools itself between now and the 2015 election. Meanwhile the Party will be amending its constitution to prolong its mandate to search for a new leader later rather than sooner. Let me be clear. At this point Mr. Rae is the best choice, but he cannot be the leader going into the next election. There are circumstances attached to the plight of his premiership of Ontario while representing the NDP, but the lasting impression left on Ontario voters may linger. Moreover it’s something that Mr. Harper would exploit and capitalize on with identical fear-styled tactics comparable to that of his recent campaign. It would be an easy win and the Liberal Party inner circle know this and I feel they understand that as capable, steady, and worthy of the position as Rae clearly is, he is a political liability. Mr. Rae is the most capable person of leading the party through its rebuilding period, but he is not the one to lead it back to prominence. Who that will be exactly is unclear at this point with only Mr. Trudeau and Mr. LeBlanc as potential front-runners, but if the party is to rebuild in the long-term they need to carefully choose the heir apparent to Michael Ignatieff’s throne. Mr. Rae stands to be the hero the party needs now. In doing so though, he sacrifices his own political ambitions because it’s what the party wants and needs in the long-term.

Until next time,

Over and out.

Andrew

Now in the wake of the Canadian general election the government has again discredited Canadian democracy in naming three defeated Conservatives to senate postings. In addition to its mound of anti-democratic actions, not the least of which centre upon its contempt of parliament conviction, I feel as though the government has misused its soon to be removed powers to once again make questionable senate appointments. The obvious reason being to ensure its more prominent members such as a Smith or a Manning will continue to be able to aid the party. The reality (and fact) is that the three appointees were recently defeated in a general election by the electorate which found their politics to not be on the same page as their own. Yet, here they are circumstantially continuing their public service based on their political connections.

Despite these namings, it’s been fairly obvious from the time Prime Minister Harper first took office that the senate’s fate was sealed. Over the last five years Conservatives have been gradually appointed to the upper house ultimately to ensure a Conservative majority as time wore on. The purpose being such that when senate reform legislation could be passed through the House of Commons that it could also be passed by the senate. Obviously until recently the Liberal party held a majority of the senate seats. Not that the NDP could prevent it if they wanted to considering the Conservative majority, but with the government and official opposition both seeking senate reform to varied degrees, the senate as it’s known will change very soon. On this point I agree that an accountable senate needs to exist. For that, the Prime Minister’s ultimate plan to reform it I support; I truly believe we need to elect our senators as opposed to its composition being decided by the prevailing government at any given time.

Even still, the last few months have been very telling of where Canadian democracy is heading. We returned an unhealthily disproportionate majority government to the House of Commons. Our government was found in contempt of the House, compounding the government’s laundry list of questionable actions while in power over the last several years. Now with this and electoral reform as unlikely as ever, I worry how our country’s politics are shaping up. Even more, I’m frightened that very few care.

Until next time,

Over and out.

Andrew

Canadian political parties, at least the federal level, are difficult to differentiate the majority of the time. The political culture of the Canadian state presumes that Canadians as a whole are very centrist in their political practices, not wishing for extreme deviations to either the left or right wings of the political spectrum towards the NDP or Conservative parties. This is essentially what led the traditionally fence sitting Liberal party to power throughout the 20th century, coupled with their foundational principles. Stemming from those, it’s always been a flexible policy party in its ability to lean to one side of the fence or the other depending on the political will of the Canadian population and whether the leader at any given time is a right-wing or left-wing Liberal. Yet, over the last few years with Michael Ignatieff as the party’s federal leader, it’s failed to capture the imagination of Canadians. It at least until this election has failed to define what it was in contrast to the political opposition, and it’s enabled Prime Minister Harper to manipulate parliament because the opposition parties either had inconsequential numbers, or in Mr. Ignatieff’s case, was fearful of voting against the Harper government on matters of confidence because it would A) trigger an election and B) he would easily lose. Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberal Party has not defined what it is, but has rather characterized itself upon its opposition to the actions of the government. In effect they’re saying, “that’s not our party, vote for us instead.” Despite finally taking a step towards defining itself with its recent “Red Book” and stance against the reprehensible actions of the government, the latter is not enough for voters dying for a clear alternative to the Harper government. Meanwhile, the former is too little, too late; all of the latest polls show the New Democratic Party (NDP) as the clear second choice in this election for voters while others over the last week have placed the party in a statistical dead-heat (close enough that given the margin of error of the poll, either party could be ahead of the other) with the Liberal Party. Even then, the most recent Nanos poll show the NDP as the clear second place party, poised for the role of official opposition at the very least.

That’s very interesting. At no other point has the NDP seen its support at these levels, to the point where some polling experts are projecting that they could secure close to 100 seats come election night on May 2. From my view this trend is a combination of factors. Foremost, the Liberal Party and its leadership has never been as weak as it is right now. Even during the 2008 election while Stephane Dion was the leader of the party. Secondly, right-of-centre voters are much more likely to gravitate towards the Conservative party considering that although they are more in tune with small “c” conservatism, their political philosophies fall in line with the federal Conservative party’s platform. Thirdly, I feel that voters are disillusioned with the Liberal party, indicative of both their current polling support, and the empirical realities of the MPs the party has had sitting in parliament since Jean Chretien stepped away from political life; they’ve been on a rapid decline since Paul Martin’s defeat and Stephane Dion’s in 2008. As a result, the NDP is a more viable alternative and I believe these aspects of the greater whole can at least partially explain the current phenomenon. The party is poised for breakthrough returns, and it’s fantastic as a political trend.

There’s more going on though in this election. The government’s support has not dwindled despite the prorogations, contempt of parliament allegations, delayed Afghan detainee investigations, F-35 misspending/non-competitive bid tenderings, very questionable G-8/G-20 spending; Stephen Harper and his inner circle have spat in the face of Canadian democracy during his stay in office, and the party’s continued support is deplorable. None of it makes sense, except that the Conservative electorate is that out of touch with themselves and what this country has represented throughout the 20th century. Our country is being changed, ladies and gentlemen. We’re viewed differently internationally, partially evident in the country’s Security Council snubbing last year. Our health-care system faces a privatized overhaul if we return the Harper Conservatives to a majority government. If we allow this, our country will be drastically reshaped and there’s nothing we can do about it other than trying to vote the party back out of office in five years. At that point though, the incremental changes in policy the government has implemented will have solidified, and the opposition parties will have had their public subsidies cut as per Mr. Harper’s platform. This hampers other parties’ very ability to function in our democracy and consolidates the sphere of political influence of the “classic” parties even further. Our democracy is already broken in the absence of a proportional system; a Harper majority will only render it irreparable.

As Canadians we have a choice to make on May, 2, 2011. With the Liberal party on the ropes, the only clear alternative to the Harper juggernaut is the NDP more lower-to-middle income family focused policies. But I ask you this: If you’re worried about the economy, or more specifically your job, why support a party that is philosophically founded on low wages/high-employment (read the Wealth of Nations)? Why support a party that favours corporate tax cuts over cuts for low-to-middle income families who actually need them? Why continue to devalue ourselves as workers? We accept the bare minimum because that’s what we’re given and we fear action in the face of the possibility of losing what we do have, not understanding what we can have is within our grasp.

If you want your country back, take it come May 2, 2011. This is our democracy, not Stephen Harper’s.

Until next time,

Over and out.

Andrew

Today I attended my third funeral in the last four or five months; I’m not even sure which it is. I’ve lost two uncles in that time, and now my cousin Marilena to cancer after a long battle. It’s one of those weird things really. Like most families it seems nowadays, we’re not nearly as close as families were even 20-30 years ago. I don’t really feel like there’s that sort of familial closeness, and if there were, I figure we’d see one another beyond weddings and funerals. I can’t really speak for everyone else obviously, I can just offer my own observations. Either way, something just seems off about it. I mean, we’re born and we come into this life into open, loving arms, but then we kind of drift off and go our separate ways in starting our own lives with our own friends and families. It’s the nature of things I guess. And as much as we talk about getting together more often or anything else in that vein, we never do. As I recall, the last time I saw Marilena was two years ago at my cousin’s engagement party.

We’re only here for a very short time, and I think we often forget that. I try not to, because with a snap of the fingers it can end. Whenever I think about my own mortality like I do on any of these kinds of days, this quote from Paul Bowles’ novel The Sheltering Sky always comes to mind:

“Death is always on the way, but the fact that you don’t know when it will arrive seems to take away from the finiteness of life. It is that terrible precision that we hate so much. But because we don’t know, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, some afternoon that’s so deeply a part of your being that you can’t conceive of your life without it? Perhaps 4 and 5 times more. Perhaps not even. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps 20. And yet it all seems limitless.”

During her battle over the last few years, Marilena has been a consistent source of strength and inspiration for her husband Danny and her two children Melissa and Christian. She never gave up despite overwhelming odds and constant struggles with chemotherapy. She truly was an inspiration to everyone around her, and that’s something that if I can achieve even a tenth of that I’ll have done something right. I can’t help but think things are a little less brighter without her, but at the same time, to see Melissa stand up today and commemorate her mom like she did, it’s not hard to see Marilena’s alive and well through her children and the enduring, loving example she set for them.

I don’t have the answers to life (yet), and I have it on fairly decent authority that I’m not wrong about the afterlife, but just in case I am (which I’m not); thanks cuz.

Take care guys, and give everyone in the immediate area a big hug.

Until next time, over and out…

Marilena Montanari R.I.P.

“George Smitherman accepted the surprise endorsement of Councillor Joe Mihevc on Wednesday, saying Mihevc knows that ‘a vote for Joe Pantalone is the same as a vote for Rob Ford.’”

This came in response to councillor Mihevc’s endorsement of Mr. Smitherman.

With the election winding down, the polls are as close as they could be with the margin of error of any given poll easily placing either in the lead. With Mr. Ford and Mr. Smitherman in a virtual deadlock, Monday’s vote can go either way. At the heart of the election has been the perpetual anyone but Ford campaign, with Mr. Smitherman placing himself as the prime candidate to derail Ford’s momentum.

The final debate

During this debate, one which both Mr. Ford and Mr. Smitherman actually attended, it was more about sludge throwing than it was about the issues facing the city. There were no talks of city services, the TTC, the arts, or youth employment; rather Ford and Smitherman threw mud back and forth, while insinuating that Ford and the other mayoral hopeful Joe Pantalone were aligned during the debate. Mr. Smitherman took it a step further.

“Too bad your legs aren’t longer, you could play footsie,” the Toronto Sun reported. This is in reference to Mr. Pantalone’s height.

With such a focus lately on keeping Rob Ford out of City Hall’s big chair, the election has become more about fear mongering to gather votes, while the concern that Pantalone is vote-splitting the centre-left vote has become the prime focus of the Smitherman camp. Essentially, similarly to the “anyone but Harper” crusade the federal Liberals engaged several years ago to keep Stephen Harper from the Prime Minister’s seat, this election has taken a similar tone.

When questioned though during an interview for an article I was doing for thedailyplanet.com, the Smitherman camp’s director of communications Stefan Baranski said it was anything but.

“I don’t think he’s conveyed that at all,” said Baranski. “I think it’s very clear to all the public voters that it’s clear it’s a two person race”

Baranski went on to say that this comes down to two competing visions of Toronto and it’s time for Torontonians to choose which vision they want for their city.

“Voters have to decide whether they want Ford for mayor,” he said.

This was not however encouraging strategic voting in his eyes, contrary to the previously attributed and documented statements Mr. Smitherman has made.

The Smitherman camp is all but writing off the conclusion as foregone, running on a fear mongering campaign while trying to swindle potential Pantalone supporters to the Smitherman camp. To all of the readers out there who may have stumbled my way, I must ask. Is this the kind of democracy we want? If Torontonians were to vote Mr. Ford in, that’s their choice to make. Time would tell whether it’s a mistake or not, and we could adjust support accordingly when the time is appropriate. It should be our choice, through the invocation of our democratic rights regardless of their present limitations to choose our governments in the absence of the negative influence of political powerplays and unnecessary bullying. Mr. Smitherman, Mr. Ford, Mr. Pantalone, who we vote for is not your choice to make. The voters hold the power in politics, not the politicians. Who each of us vote for is our choice, and we need to do so by our own convictions, not because one person influences you through subversive and altogether obvious political tactics.

Mr. Pantalone summarized this as well as one could in the final election debate.

“A vote for Joe Pantalone is a vote for Joe Pantalone,” Pantalone said in a Toronto Sun report. “There is nothing strategic about abandoning your principles and values … out of fear nothing good can happen.”

Through encouraging voters to choose the lesser of two evils, in the end, we lose our way regardless.

Until next time, over and out…

Calgary’s Naheed Nenshi becomes Canada’s first Muslim mayor

Mr. Nenshi defeated two candidates who had better funding, one of which was backed by Stephen Harper’s campaign team. The heavily grassroots based campaign fuelled by strong youth support helped Nenshi survive a smear campaign and technical/communication failures to extend what was a close race to a wide margin of victory once the polls closed. It’s still early, but it’s believed the municipal election turnout could reach 50 per cent, significantly higher than the 33 per cent turnout in the 2007 election.

What does this say, really? It says several things actually.

Foremost, I have to correct myself in a comment I made regarding this issue, but here the online social networks went a long way towards getting youth involved in this mayoral race, with Nenshi accumulating more support throughout Facebook and other social networking sites than his opposition. That’s not something even Ric McIver, backed by the Conservative campaign team could overcome. This indicates one thing to me, above all yes, the youth vote does matter. It can affect change in a city’s political landscape; one that isn’t mired by the faults of the single member plurality (“first-past-the-post”) electoral system. All we’re missing in civic engagement is that one candidate to engage us. We’re missing that level of captivation in politics, where the current crop of politicians create a disconnect between themselves and the youth vote; we don’t historically vote, and they gradually bother less. Some of Toronto’s candidates offer a prime example when two chose not to attend a local all-candidates debate last week at Humber College.

Does this indicate a shift in the political culture of the west? Who’s to say? It does indicate a shift in thinking that does not correspond to the historical political culture of the west, much less Calgary. It does indicate however that grassroots campaigning can be successful, that unlikely candidates with a message for their constituents can overcome the status-quo of the political sphere. More, that independent candidates with a strong message and a solid platform can overcome party rhetoric, and postured bravado and fear-mongering that plagues the remainder of political life.

Is this a blip? Does it hold similarities to the Edmonton-Strathcona case? It’s hard to tell. The one thing I believe we can draw from this is that youth involvement in politics is not dead, and if engaged, can be quite effective affecting change within their cities. The tone is irrelevant at that point. Now if we could only replicate those conditions  at the macro-levels of the Canadian political system, dare I say we might have an actual democracy on our hands.

Until next time, over and out.

Andrew

“I can only build if I tear the walls down
even if it breaks me I wont let it make me frown
I’m falling but no matter how hard I hit the ground
I’ll still smile” – Eyedea, “Smile”

R.I.P. (Rhyme in Peace)

Feel free to support his memorial fund, which can be found here.

With any election comes the outcry that youth aren’t being listened to, that youth issues aren’t a priority. And they aren’t because the youth have not been vocal enough, and have not in mass shown that level of civic engagement at the polls. Why should candidates show, when they know that the right political move is to go to where they can secure support to shore up their polling? Why engage an apathetic demographic?

Even still, both men were wrong. I’ve not gotten confirmation yet, but from what I was told at the event, Mr. Smitherman was double-booked for the night. Which would be fine, had the South Etobicoke Youth Assembly director Amber Morley not told me they had been in touch with candidates since the early summer months. As for Mr. Ford, no one knew why he wasn’t there. I will say this though, I hope neither man expects youths or young adults to show up on October 25th to readily hand them their vote. The relationship works both ways, and as far as I’m concerned, if politicians won’t engage a demographic or the population holistically, why should we vote for them and engage their policies? After last night, neither man deserves that demographic’s support.

For his part, deputy mayor Joe Pantalone spoke with students and local residents for close to an hour. That says a lot about his priorities. Whether he’s the best candidate for Toronto mayor is debatable, but what is certain is he cares about the youth vote, while still attending other events to communicate his platform in contrast to his opposition.

With municipal elections quickly approaching, we have decisions to make regarding who we feel best represents us. Pay close attention to their platforms and compare that to your own political beliefs. Each candidate has a political leaning unofficially, some just make it more obvious than others with their policies. Some on the other hand recycle old signs they used as Conservative MPPs and use them for their mayoral bids minus the PC logo. I’m looking in your direction Joe Tascona.

Before I digress too far, I’ll just finish up this morning’s entry by saying there’s a lot to account for, and with a week and a bit to go, there’s a lot to digest in order to understand each platform. You owe it to yourself to do it though. Mr. Pantalone delivered a great quote last night that applies across the board. He said that if someone broke into your house, that would concern you. The city is just a larger house, and what happens to its services and its infrastructure does affect you. Please take that into account when you vote October 25th.

Vote! It’s an order.

P.S. To my folk up in Barrie, specifically in my parent’s ward…you wouldn’t vote for Mr. Nuttall if you spent eight months in a classroom with him.

Over and out, until next time.