Why this Election was a Game Changer

Although conventional wisdom is that the Canadian federal election was an unnecessary, $300 million exercise in futility, it was in fact a game changer. How so? Because of the October 14 results, Canadians have seen the last of all of the major party leaders. The election of 2008 will go down as the last for Dion, Duceppe, Layton and Harper. The next time Canadians go to the polls, the political scene will look nothing like it does today. Everyone already knew that this election was Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s last, even before he announced his eventual resignation this week. Dion ran a disorganized campaign, allowed himself to be defined by Conservative ads for months, and was unable to connect or convince voters as his party was defeated. There are no consolation prizes in electoral politics, especially when you finish with the lowest number of seats in a generation and the lowest vote share since Confederation. Dion is done and the next election will see a new leader for the Liberals, likely chosen within the next few months. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Quebecios leader will not run in another election either; he barely ran in this one. Duceppe made it clear in 2007 that he wanted to get out of federal politics and lead the provincial Parti Quebecois in Quebec and only hung around for this federal election after another took the PQ position. Throughout this campaign, and especially during the debates, Duceppe seemed tired and uninterested. After 5 elections, I suspect Duceppe is tired of the political game in Ottawa. He’ll be gone come the next election. The NDP’s Jack Layton is finished too. Despite his best efforts to appear as Canada’s white, mustachioed Barack Obama, Layton was unable to realize the major gains he had foretold, gaining only 8 seats and improving the NDP vote share by less than 1%. The NDP had high hopes for Quebec and BC but was unable to win big in either. This was Layton’s 3rd election and there are rumblings that the lone Quebecois NDP MP, Thomas Mulcair may be itching to replace him. There are others in the party who say Layton has moderated the party too much and has abandoned their ideals. Either way, Layton will have a hard time staying on as leader; he’ll be gone by the next election. Finally, I predict that Conservative leader Stephen Harper will face a challenge to his leadership. Harper has run in 3 elections now, and while each showing has improved upon the last, he was unable to win a majority government when given the dual gifts of a vote split between four left wing parties and the most unappealing, ineffectual Liberal leader in decades. If Harper could not deliver a majority in this election with this political climate, will he ever be able to? You better believe that this question is being asked by conservatives across the country. Harper has done a good job building the party around himself, leaving little room for others to flourish. But he can only run a one-man ship for so long before challengers like Peter McKay, John Baird, or perhaps Peter Van Loan begin questioning his leadership, especially if the Liberals select a dynamic leader to replace Dion and the probability of a Harper-led majority declines. Whether he is forced out by a leadership review or he steps down when the writing on the wall becomes clear, Stephan Harper will be gone by the next election too. Many Canadians were exasperated with this election. Many found it unnecessary, many thought the platforms and campaigns were largely uninspiring and there was little change in regards to the composition of the House of Commons. But Canadians should be thankful for having an election this year! Sure it may have been our fourth election in eight years, and sure it may have been dull compared to the drama of the United States’ election, but because of the 2008 results, our next election is bound to be more interesting: the political landscape will change dramatically and four completely new party leaders will be ready to vie for our votes. And there’s nothing boring about that.

In Defense of Bottled Water

This month the issue of banning bottled water has resurfaced in Metro Vancouver. Vancouver city councilor Tim Stevenson has come out in favour of a ban on bottled water at city facilities and is urging city council to pass a bylaw to that effect. And there’s talk at school boards that schools should be free of the bottles as well. Environmentalists and sanctimonious politicians have gotten out their soapboxes and are beginning to lecture us on the virtues of good old tap water. These activists insist that bottled water is evil. Water bottles are littering our cities and filling up our landfills! Producing bottles wastes energy, burns fossil fuels, and contributes to global warming! Then they charge that British Columbians are so shallow that we only drink bottled water because it’s cool. And for a final argument, they have even dragged out the old adage that Evian spelled backwards is naïve. What clever wordplay! Clearly this palindrome proves the necessity of such a ban! This idea is ridiculous and this campaign against bottled water is absurd. Firstly, it isn’t 1998; nobody drinks bottled water because it’s cool anymore. In fact, isn’t being eco-friendly all the rage right now? If so, then drinking bottled water is about as hip as leaving your Hummer idling while you go club a seal. People drink bottled water because it is convenient. Somehow this point escapes the anti-bottle zealots who keep informing us of the quality of our tap water and the necessity of bringing our own bottles from home. But sometimes I get thirsty and don’t have my reusable bottle (a stainless steel one at that) available. If I forget my bottle, all the high quality tap water in the world isn’t going to help. If I want to get some water to take with me to class or on the bus, bottled water is my only option. And some people simply do not like the taste of tap water or prefer their water to have bubbles or minerals or flavours and that’s a choice they should be allowed to make. The environmental arguments for a ban are flimsy too. Are our landfills really filling up with water bottles that should have been recycled? Encorp Pacific, the not-for-profit company that runs our beverage container recycling programs, recently disclosed that 73% of plastic beverage bottles are brought back to their depots and recycled. That’s a very high level of recycling participation by British Columbians and the last 27% could likely be captured by increasing the bottle deposit and adding more recycling depots and bins. Water bottles seem like even less of a problem when you look at the recycling rates of other waste items, such as dead batteries. Batteries can be very harmful to the environment but, according to Statistics Canada, only about 25% of them are disposed of properly. Where’s the outrage over this? Why isn’t Tim Stevenson calling for a battery ban? And as for the fossil fuel argument, I suggest we adjust our priorities. With all the environmental problems in the world, should bottled water be at the top of the list? If we are concerned about excessive burning of fossil fuels, then our governments need to improve transit, increase our hydroelectricity production, and make electric and hybrid cars cheaper and more readily available. These are real solutions to climate change; a bottled water ban is not. The politicians in our city councils and on our school boards should drop this silly idea, move on to tackling the challenges that really matter, and leave us free to drink what we want.

The Nasty Campaign

"...Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race.

Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the "race card"). When there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was--preemptively, on at least two occasions--warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping.

His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about Obama's past with racism. Second, for about 3 months all we've heard are references to McCain's age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can't remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc.

Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden's email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don't think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a 'messiah' or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on."

-Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/jumping_ship.html

McCain Seizes Coal Gaffe

The McCain campaign has released this new web ad that capitalizes on the contradiction between the official Obama-Biden platform (pro-coal) and the words of Joe Biden himself (anti-coal). The McCain web ads have usually been better than his tv ads and if I was giving him advice, this is one that should definitely get moved to the television sets of Pennsylvania and the other Appalachian states (Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia) as coal is an important aspect of those states' economies. Plus, this ad is just plain effective. You've got clips of Obama, secret footage of Biden, and a catchy tune to boot! Roll this ad out Senator McCain. You'll be glad you did.

Buck Up, Canada!

The Canadian federal election, after an agonizingly slow start, has now kicked into high gear. With the politicians crisscrossing the country campaigning, the party websites up and functioning, and the airwaves filled with partisan ads and commercials, it must be time for the traditional wringing of the hands over the negativity of our political campaigns. The media partakes in this willingly: our newscasts offer up polls on who is the ‘nastiest’ leader and our newspapers run columns denouncing the mean-spiritedness of the campaign so far. And individual Canadians are again complaining that our politics is too dirty, too harsh. This is absurd. This campaign has offered little in the way of negativity, with the exception of a pooping puffin. There has yet to be anything in the way of a controversial attack, a personal insult or a smear campaign—nothing. Canadians seem to hold this ideal of a friendly and civil campaign, but we must remember that on October 14 the country is holding an election, not a harvest ball; we are not electing a homecoming queen, we are electing a head of state. And in this contest there is no prize for congeniality and there’s no award for good sportsmanship. Only one person can claim victory on election night and it should not be based on who ran the campaign with a smile. Elections must be adversarial as they are competitions to see who is most capable to lead our country. The leaders have to display to us why they are the best choice (by presenting their ideas and qualifications) but they must also demonstrate why the other choices are wrong (by attacking and undermining the other guys.) Some people tend to confuse any ad or comment that questions or challenges the opponent as wrong. But this is not dirty pool, its politics and politics is meant to be a contact sport. By making those who seek office compete for our votes, we can see how our perspective leaders will handle challenges. If a candidate is confronted during the campaign, it is an opportunity for him to showcase his knowledge, wit, political skill and fortitude. If a party leader can’t handle a criticism during the campaign, how is he going to handle similar criticisms or attacks when they come from an aggressive Russian President, an angry European envoy, or a protectionist American Congress? The Prime Minister’s Office is not the place to first see how our leaders handle adversity; the campaign trail is. Our electoral system depends on allowing candidates to draw these kinds of distinctions between themselves and their opponents without being labeled as ‘negative’. If we were to do away with all kinds of negativity and make our politicians play nice, our elections would be even duller, our candidates less tested, and our democracy worse off. So buck up, Canada! The campaign has just started and if you think it’s too rough-and-tumble now, it is just getting warmed up.