As the rhetoric leading up to this weekend’s Liberal convention in Ottawa begins in earnest I must—I simply must—say my piece.

I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I joined… gee I don’t know, back when what’s his name with the squeaky voice beat out Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae for the party leadership. I joined because I was interested in having a say in who would replace Jean Chretien or Paul Martin or however you want to look at it. At any rate, I’ve stuck it out for exactly that reason: because I want to have a say in the party going forward but as the outlook turns grimmer every year I’m beginning to wonder if I can get my money back.

Since Chretien stepped aside amidst the damning Sponsorship Scandal (remember that?) the Liberals have been left reeling, and lurching from election to election. And that was a while ago. But it’s easy enough to point out the flaws, nevermind that they’re glaringly obvious.

In-fighting. The Liberals are brilliant at fighting amongst themselves while slowly imploding. The results of said infighting are immediately tangible, just look at how mismanaged Michael Ignatieff’s election campaign was last time around. He was a genuinely bright and progressive guy but he ended up losing in an historic fashion. Why? Well partly because the party is so fragmented and divided. Ignatieff himself was brought in through backroom channels and never had support of all the party brass.

Denial. Not only has infighting and witless bickering brought the once might Red Machine to its knees but the whole party has a serious case of denial. No, you can’t close your eyes and everything will go away. The party has been in collapse since mid-way through the last decade and has been doing next to nothing to change their tact. No sweeping policy reviews, no ambitious goals or strong stances on, well, pretty much anything. The party has been trying to govern from the centre while in opposition and, frankly, that doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Looking back. Finally, the Liberals are absolutely fixated on reliving the good old days. It’s easy enough, say, to compare a character like Igantieff to Trudeau but—and this is important to remember—Trudeau governed in an extremely different climate than we have today and stood on, well, principles.

The way going forward for the Liberal Party is not easy, and that’s a point I want to stress. The party needs a complete ground-up renewal and while that is what a lot of prominent members are calling for it isn’t going to be simply done. A serious shake up needs to take place to eliminate fighting amongst the party prominent. A realization needs to be made that what worked as a governing party isn’t going to work in opposition, things need to change and serious policy planks need to be established to differentiate the Liberal brand from Harper’s Conservatives. And the party needs to stop looking back and reliving the old glory days. An honest, earnest focus on the future needs to struck and stuck to if the party is going to genuinely rebuild itself. It’s not something that can be fixed with a particular leader, a particular social media campaign, or a particular among of capital to spread around.

I know I said as few words as possible but let me say one more thing. With Canada’s top three political parties crowding as close as they can to the Canadian political centre it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish who is who. I guarantee you if the average Canadian were given an anonymous sampling of party platforms in most areas they couldn’t pick out which party held which view. To succeed, the Liberal Party needs to stand out and despite similarities there are obvious areas where the party could distinguish itself. I say, going forward, a principled approach is the way to success. Stand for something, plant a flag in the ground, look forward, shake off all those old cobwebs (let them get jobs in the private sector!), and begin the serious hard work of rebuilding what used to be the country’s natural governing party.

That is all.

Favourite Films of 2011

I had a quick look around because I was curious and it seems like Tree of Life is topping everyone’s lists this year. We have it in the queue but haven’t got around to watching it yet. I’m curious now though and I wonder if it would change things if I were to watch it first.

The curious bit, however, about the two films that did make my list is that both feature the unmatched Paul Giamatti as the leading actor. This wasn’t intentional but when I looked at everything I’d watched this year and boiled it down to just a couple of my favourites… Do I have a particular bias towards anything that Paul Giamatti does? Perhaps. Is he undoubtedly the best actor working in Hollywood right now? Yes, sir.

Barney’s Version

Barney’s Version is a brilliant take on the novel by Canadian literary heavyweight Mordecai Richler. I remembering having to read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in my O.A.C. (Grade 13) English class. I probably only understood about a third of what I read at the time but I can certainly appreciate a heavily nuanced and deeply moving plot a lot more now that I’m older. Barney’s Version is a movie about love, marriage, family, and memory. It’s wonderfully-acted (duh), well-written (duh), and unfolds itself in a fantastically pleasing fashion distilling all the very best parts of a well-developed Woody Allen movie. Complicated, comedic, and charming sums it up pretty well too.

Win Win

Win Win follows in the same genre of comedy as another of my all-time favourite movies Lars and the Real Girl. I’ll sum it up like this: Small town, quirky characters, social conundrums, and the kind of plot that sometimes seems like something you couldn’t make up if you tried. Like Lars, we’re treated to ninety minutes of some truly great and wholly surreal story-telling about people, a place, and a number of situations we’d never even thought about before. In this film, Giamatti plays and small-time lawyer and high-school wrestling coach as if he were born for the role.

Favourite Music of 2011

I have to be honest here, I’m losing my touch a little bit. It used to be that I’d troll around the Internet for hours every week seeking out new musical entrees to dig my teeth into. This past year, between teaching, walking the dog, union work, and taking a couple of extra courses online I haven’t had the opportunity to avail myself of a whole lot of new music. I worry I might’ve missed something great—it keeps me up at night.

Paul Simon, So Beautiful or So What

If you ever get a late night phone call from a heavily-disguised voice saying they’ve got me hostage and won’t release me unless you pay $1,000,000 the first thing you should do is ask some kind of question that only I can answer, just to prove they really have me and that I’m alive. If you asked who my favourite artist of all time is the answer, bar none, is Paul Simon. If the hostage-takers say differently then I’m probably already dead.

I didn’t love Paul Simon’s 2006 Surprise. Musically it had a lot going out and I loved that but Simon felt vocally weak, tired even. I don’t like tired Paul Simon. I used to put on Surprise and long for the Graceland days when Paul was younger and more energetic and I worried that maybe, finally, the great Paul Simon was on the out and out. Of course, I was absolutely wrong.

So Beautiful or So What is Simon’s greatest album since Graceland. It’s a guitar album—which is a pretty awesome direction for Simon—and features a lot of songs driven by virtuosic guitar melodies. It’s clear that Paul Simon has some serious guitar chops and he didn’t want us to forget. Both lyrically and musically this album is an absolute powerhouse. It runs the gamut from slow, lyrically rich near-ballads to lyrically rich up-beat, foot-stomping tracks and even some songs that are both.

tUnE-yArDs, w h o k i l l

Be honest, the first thing you think when you see a band name stylized like that is, “Avoid!”

Fortunately for me, when I first year about tUnE-yArDs it was on the CBC Radio’s Q—if I had actually seen their name first I probably wouldn’t even have given them a chance. Prejudice avoided!

tUnE-yArDs is mostly New England-based Merrill Garbus and a whole lot of loops. Her first album, I gather, was recorded entirely on cassette tape and was a one-woman show. 2011′s w h o k i l l is studio-produced and features help from some of her friends as well.

How to describe how great w h o k i l l is? I’ll say a few things. First, Garbus evidently spent some time in Kenya, a place that I’ve been to as well, and adapts a lot of African percussion rhythms into her music. Second, there are saxophones. Third, well OK, tUnE-yArDs is like a jazz, afro-funk, nouveau politique explosion that packs so much power I feel like you could take this record, play it for the people of North Korea, and instantly the entire country would rise up, overthrow their government, and democratically elect a new leader. Oh, and it’d be a she.

Bon Iver, Bon Iver

I missed the Bon Iver craze the first time around. Despite the best efforts of my good friend Andrew, I never really bothered with Justin Vernon’s 2008 For Emma, Forever Ago. I heard all about the mystique of being locked in a cabin in the woods, writing and recording using an old reel-to-reel recorder or something like that. I liked the idea but, for whatever reason, not enough to actually do any investigating. Finally—through what must’ve been an act of compassionate grace from the God—I decided to check out Bon Iver’s self-titled second album.

What how.

Bon Iver (2011) is like a sonic dream that Brian Eno would be envious of. What sets this album a part from everything else released in 2011 is the kind of depth packed into every track. The songs are stories about people and places set to music that can only be described as something out of someone’s wildest imagination. It’s soft and subtle and you kind of just float a long but there’s so much going on at the same time that you’re swept away just trying to take it all in. Not to mention Vernon’s now-trademarked vocal delivery which is, also, like something out of a dream I had once.

R.E.M., Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage (1982 – 2011)

It turns out that half of my picks this year were thanks to one particular friend with very good musical tastes.

I’ve always liked R.E.M., kind of in the background. Growing up when I did I missed my chance to like them when they were at their very best so whenever I thought about accessing their catalog of music it always seemed a little bit daunting. Where to begin? I knew, from loving Taking Heads, that I would like their early stuff but I was dying for some kind of career retrospective, something to serve as an overview.

Thankfully, Part Lies, Part Heart, Part Truth, Part Garbage came out and it was a steal on iTunes—40 tracks for $16. As far as retrospectives go, you really can’t go wrong here.

Favourite Television of 2011

It’s been a decidedly good year for television and if I’ve been remiss when it comes to seeking out good new music I think I’ve compensated in terms of what we’re watching these days. There’s a lot out there so it’s been a bit of a challenge picking out just a couple but here they are.

The Good Wife

The Good Wife is a legal drama with a lot of layers. Underneath the normal case per episode format is a pretty hefty plot line about politics, adultery, and corruption—a depth that sets it a part from all the other legal dramas that came before it. It’s as much a character study as it is a series of cases to be solved and that’s what I like about it. It’s timely and relevant and tackles big issues with a great cast of characters.

Once Upon a Time

From some of the people behind the epically successful LOST, Once Upon a Time takes a bunch of fairytale characters and plunks them down in the real world with absolutely no idea who they are. Like LOST, Once Upon a Time plays with the idea of alternate universes, alternate identities, memory, and mystery. I’ll say this: Finally, a show that we can really sink our teeth into.

Honourable mention goes to shows that have become reliable stalwarts like Modern Family (which never ceases to be funny) and Being Erica (which ended its run in dignity after jumping the shark mid-season).

Rob Ford lumbered into political office on the power of a lot of pretty pathetic promises. I didn’t vote for him but a lot of people did. Granted, the choices were miserable so it’s hard to blame everyone.

Nonetheless, one of the first things that Mayor Ford did upon taking office was to scrap the city’s Vehicle Registration Tax. A $60 charge for Toronto residents which appeared when you renewed your license plate sticker. When we lived in Toronto last year and I had to renew my plates I dutifully paid my $60. The fee went directly to pay for transportation infrastructure, something the city sorely needs to improve and, honestly, I pay enough taxes but I gritted my teeth and forked over the dough. I wanted to drive my car in an already congested city, I guess I gotta pay.

But of the few things Ford campaigned on eliminating the Vehicle Registration Tax was one of them and so it was the first to go. The elimination of the tax, Ford himself admitted, would cost the city about $64 million in lost revenue but would mean money back in the pockets of Toronto’s tax-payers and they could spend it however they wanted. Hilarious, given yesterday’s budget announcement.

For the record, I consider myself a realist so the deep-slashing Ford budget, tabled yesterday, isn’t going to get me all worked up. Yes, there are cuts to programs that I think are pretty essential: transportation for dialysis patients and breakfast programs for children, for example. Yes, I think that asking all departments to cut 10% across the board seems ridiculously arbitrary. Yes, I think that the cuts to public transit are coming at the worst possible time economically and environmentally. But, at the same time, we’re in what is arguably the foreword to a recession and costs need to be cut.

What I will get all worked up about—or at least spend a few more paragraphs pointing out the irony in—is Ford’s increase to property taxes. And here’s why.

When Ford cut the Vehicle Registration Tax, the $60 fee to Toronto’s drivers, he saved Torontonians about $64 million altogether. Simultaneously, because the money was going into Toronto’s coffers, he cost the city $64 million. While promising Toronto’s residents more money in their pockets Ford also froze on property taxes.

When budget time rolls around, however, Ford finds that a 2.5% increase in property taxes is necessary to balance the books. Why? Because, according to his own math, he is missing about $60 million. And how much will the tax increase cost the average Toronto homeowner? $60!

So, like I argued, along with so many others, when the Vehicle Registration Tax was cut, the Ford Administration was going to have to make up those lost revenues somehow. It’s just kind of hilarious that he’s having to do it so blatantly. A property tax increase that’s nearly identical to the revenue lost by scrapping the Vehicle Registration Tax.

The cost of a ride on the gravy train? Apparently, $60.

I’ve written about copyright several times before. Now I write more.

The Harper Government, now in a substantially more powerful majority position in the House of Commons, are poised to reintroduce the copyright legislation that died on the table last May. According to Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, the bill will be introduced in the exact same form it was left in before the election.

This is a problem.

To be fair, the most recent incarnation of the Conservative’s copyright reform has been, by far, the most balanced we’ve seen out of that government. They’ve tried before, several times, to introduce copyright reform legislation and always met with an enormous backlash of public opinion. After the latest bill was introduced Industry Minister Tony Clement made a concerted and very public effort to consult with groups that had expressed concern and hear them out. He heard them out and it seemed that he was really listening, but then the election was called, the writ dropped, and the bill met an untimely death.

The problem with the bill being reintroduced in the form it was last left in is that there were glaring—enormous(!)—issues with that bill. Through concerted consultation Mr. Clement discovered these issues. But this time around, according to the Harper Government, no consultations will be made.

In other words, they know the bill is broken, their previous consultations told them so, but they aren’t fixing a thing. Not a thing. Nothing changed or reworded or rejigged after all those consultations. Which really makes you wonder if it wasn’t all just window dressing from a government that, as a minority, really didn’t have a choice. They acted to appease; when push comes to shove, they don’t have to act anymore.

So the bill is broken. While it’s protections are, for the most part, fair and reasonable, the “digital locks” provision which has been in the legislation since the beginning is a fatal flaw.

To put it simply, despite any protections and provisions for consumers that exist in the law, if a piece of media is protected by a so-called digital lock, all consumer rights are null and void.

However, it gets much worse. In the midst of the Conservative’s last push for copyright reform cables released by Wikileaks reveal that the Harper Government actually lobbied to be put on a U.S. copyright watch list. Yes, if you can believe that. The Harper Government actually requested that we be put on an American copyright watch list—a list of prolific copyright violaters—that includes countries like China and Russia. We are on that list, at the request of the Harper Government, under the assumption that public pressure from the Americans would perhaps help pass the legislation through to law. Our government, lobbying a foreign government, to put pressure on our citizens. It seems pretty unreal.

So, there is a lot to worry about. We have a bad bill coming down the pipe. One that was introduced before, protested against strongly, and despite consultation was not amended in any form. And we have a government that, if the cables indicate anything, will do whatever it takes to push through this reform into law. For what it’s worth, both the Liberals and the New Democrats were opposed to the legislation the last time around. There’s also an enormous, well-organized protest movement that mobilized in the past and remains very active and energized. So, if nothing else, we can at least hope that the passage of this bill won’t exactly go quietly.

I wrote recently, in response to an article by Warren Kinsella, that merging the left wing of Canadian politics, while an immediate possibility, also possibly sucks.

My concerns are simple and, again, I reluctantly point you towards the American example. An example where a two-party system is beginning to demonstrate obvious flaws when put to the test. The far-right wing of the Republican Party—the Tea Party—is, in my opinion, threatening the collapse of the Republicans as we know it. From within.

In Canada, I worry that a merger of the left—a new party formed from the NDP and the Liberals—may result in something very similar. An eventual breakdown of the party from within its own ranks and the more fringe interests fight to be heard.

Without a doubt, the policy platforms of the New Democrats and the Liberals have become increasingly similar. In fact, neither are very dissimilar from the essentials of the Conservative Party. It’s all a matter of the creep towards the middle ground, something that all parties are guilty of. Terrible leadership aside, one of the problems plaguing the Liberals in recent elections may very well be the fact that the party that was once king of the middle ground is losing out as other parties creep in.

Nonetheless, a merger between the New Democrats and the Liberals would be, in a word, simple. And, lately, the rumours are flying.

A week and a bit ago, it was whispers coming out of the Liberal Caucus that a potential merger was being discussed. Despite all kinds of denials from the Liberals themselves these kinds of rumours usually don’t appear out of thin air. If I had to guess—and I will, it’s my blog—I would guess that the existence of whatever talks there were about a merger were leaked, to gauge public opinion. Or maybe I’m watching too much West Wing.

Still, last week, it was word from none other than former Prime Minister Jean Chretien himself that a potential merger is in the works. Now that’s big time.

The fact that the New Democrats are launching a search for a new leader may mean that this speculation is truly just that, or it could merely be a way for the party to test out the waters and see who’s willing to wade in. In any case, a merger of the two parties, while not necessarily my cup of tea, might be the best thing right now.

Both the Liberals and the New Democrats are leaderless. The NDP need to somehow capitalize on the historic gains made under Jack Layton, they need someone with guts and gumption. The Liberals need a rope. And while both parties are independently searching a lot could be said for just going it together. The timing couldn’t be better.

Looking at it another way, in the case of both parties, there is no clear candidate for leadership. There are no clear frontrunners. Yet, there’s much potential in an enlarged and invigorated pool made up of Canadians who might support a newly-minted political party. What reluctant candidate or hold-out wouldn’t want to lead the new, more powerful political alliance? I see a lot of potential there.

So there’s timing—both parties without a leader—and there’s the competition—both parties lacking any real frontrunner—but there’s also the fact that both the Liberals and the NDP have got an awful lot of room to breathe, which is nice. I think I said this before, but a Conservative majority, in more ways than one, might just be the best possible thing for the NDP and the Liberals. Not only will Canadians get a chance to see the Harper Government at work—something that some Canadians might take issue with, more than they realize—but this gives both parties on the left room to get themselves reorganized. The Liberals, without a doubt, are desperate to find their feet again and this gives them that chance. For the NDP, these four years will act as incredible, unimaginable experience for their many green—that is, inexperienced—Members of Parliament.

Although the timing is right now and the rumour mill does seem to be cranking away, both parties really have a lot of time to work things out. Four years before the next election, and four years before a merger would be necessary to win the votes. But don’t you think they ought to make the moves sooner, rather than later? A merged party would want time to exercise its political legs in the House of Commons, to work out the press scrums and their talking points before plunging into election mode. That’s why, I imagine, a merger might be more likely now, long before its actually necessary. And maybe that’s what the rumour mill thinks as well.

It wasn’t what I expected to hear as I stepped out onto the deck, blinking back the blinding Alberta sun.

“Jack Layton is dead.”

Maria and I spent the last week, from Friday until this past Saturday, out in Alberta seeing family. I spent the weekend that Jack died whipping around a lake on a Seadoo, sitting around the fire, and enjoying the company of Maria’s Albertan relations. A world away from our place here in Cambridge, from work (for Maria), and, in the way that only a good vacation can make you feel, from reality.

In that context—the context of being away from everything—news of Jack Layton’s dead was even more of a shock.

We were starved for information. On Monday afternoon we got on the road again, on our way to Maria’s grandparent’s bed and breakfast in Three Hills, Alberta, and we searched in frustration for the local CBC station. When we finally found it we listened, and listened. It became clear, quickly, that it was all too real. That the cancer must’ve been far worse than it appeared to be even at Jack’s last press conference, even when he stepped back from the helm, temporarily. But it had come so quickly, without warning, and it seemed to be impossible that Jack was really gone. Like that.

Jack Layton, who had led the New Democrats to mind-bogglingly incredible new heights. Who had taken Quebec by storm. Who had achieve what would have been nearly unthinkable even a year ago.

The thing that amazes me most about all the tributes that have been pouring in for Jack over the past week is the amount of people saying the same thing. Jack Layton was the reason why I first voted. Jack Layton was the reason I became interested in politics.

And the funny thing is, it’s true for me too.

It was in January 2003 and I must’ve been home one weekend from university; the start of the second semester of my first year. I remember clearly watching the NDP Leadership Convention on TV. It was the first political thing I ever did.

Jack Layton’s leaves behind a pretty substantial legacy. He led his party to historic highs, he inspired Canadians—especially, I think, young people and the marginalized—to become  interested in politics, and he was a genuine and kind person in the midst of politics.

But if the gossip out of yesterday’s Liberal caucus meetings have any substance behind them (and these things normally do) then Jack’s legacy may about to be, in the near future, even more incredible. A weakened Liberal Party merging with the NDP would not see the Liberals coming out on top, the New Democrats would lead. Canada’s “natural governing party” forced to merge with the left to survive, because of Jack. Now, imagine that legacy.

I just got done reading Warren Kinsella’s diatribe in The Walrus. It’s titled “The Biggest Losers” and, after reading it, I think the only real loser here is former Liberal strategist Kinsella himself.

For all his angry ranting and finger-pointing (not at himself, of course)—and I used to really like Kinsella, mind you—he manages to squeak out some interesting points. Namely, the the left needs to merge if it’s going to compete with the Conservative Machine and Overlord Harper. I’d like to explore this in two parts. First, at this point in the game, a merger between the Liberal Party and the New Democrats is going to be squarely in the hands of the NDP, not the Liberals. The Liberals have lost their chance to architect any sort of merger when they lost the election so badly. And, second, it’s possibly a very bad idea either way.

Kinsella paints an extremely interesting picture for us of a potential merger between the NDP and the Liberals that, he says, almost took place leading up to the election call this year. Despite admitting that he wasn’t involved, having tendered his resignation after not getting his way with the party brass, he seems to have quite intimate knowledge of exactly how it went down. According to Kinsella, it was the New Democrat leadership that approached heavyweights in the Liberal Party to float the idea of merging the parties. At that point, according to Kinsella, it would be a party headed by Michael Ignatieff.

How things have changed.

With the New Democrats now cozying up to their job as the Official Opposition it’s clear that any talk of a merge, at this point, would favour the NDP: it would be on their terms. Not only that, but the leaderless Liberals would clearly have no choice but to let Jack Layton—assuming he returns—lead the coalition party. And for the better! The NDP have already softened their socialist image to put themselves in a more credible position as the Opposition and if we’re perfectly realistic, it isn’t such a stretch between policy platforms. In terms of popularity and charisma, Layton is head and shoulders above whoever the Liberals could possibly pull to lead their party anyway. But, regardless, the Liberal Party have lost the chance to do things on their terms.

But either way, is a merger a good idea?

I think closer to election time, when polls begin to matter again, it will seem like a very good idea. When we’re looking at the Conservatives way ahead in the polling and the rest of popular support split between two very similar parties it will be something we’ll be thinking about a lot—and wishing that we’d got on with doing.

But now, with nearly four long years of Conservative majority spread out in front of us, a merge seems silly, unnecessary. The New Democrats are just getting their feet wet as Official Opposition and I think everyone wants to see how they do. Everyone wants Jack to come back, healthy and reinvigorated, to lead his Opposition. Who would’ve thought, eh? The New Democrats as Official Opposition. But even when polls start to reemerge, even when talk starts to come around to a coalition, or a merger, I’m not sure it’s the best idea in the world.

You could argue that the only reason the Conservatives have been so successful is that they merged the right. The Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. Stephen Harper’s Conservatives capture all but the extreme right-wing fringe vote in Canada, and they do it very successfully (and largely on optics alone). A merged Liberal-New Democratic Party would, in turn, capture all of the vote on the left and would be a serious contender to defeat the Conservatives. As I’ve already said, the policies of the NDP and the Liberals aren’t that far apart and for goodness sake the gentleman running the Liberal Party at the moment, interim leader Bob Rae, was formerly a very famous NDP Premier. Some think, and quite seriously, that a merged left is the only way to defeated a merged right and I might even be inclined to agree.

But look around, do we want a two-party system?

Warren Kinsella implores us to consider all of the countries in the Western world that have evolved into two-party systems and argues that this is what we need in Canada if the left and right are going to properly compete. But Kinsella doesn’t give any examples to back up his claim, and I would argue, to claim that politics in the Western world is evolving into two-party systems is utterly non-sense. British government, for example, took steps back toward a multi-party system in their last general election.

Nonetheless, if we’re going to advocate, or even talk about a merged left then we need to consider what it might look like for our federal politics and obvious place to start would be to look to our Southern neighbours.

Now I know there are vast and irreconcilable differences between the Canadian and American styles of government, but I think the current states of US politics gives us something to mull over. Because a merger between the parties in Canada doesn’t mean everyone is going to get along. In the Republican Party, for example, the far-right Tea Party movement is stirring up all kinds of wrong within their party and threatening to completely ruin their country. Could the same thing happen in Canada? I contend that it could.

The Conservatives, one could argue, have been a successfully merged party since 2003. While rogue MPs have popped up from time to time speaking out against their leader or their parties mainline policies things have been relatively peaceful. At the same time, however, Conservatives have been governing from a minority position. Less has been expected of them. Supporters from both of the former parties didn’t necessarily trade in their stripes for solid blue, they merely shut up because they knew their agendas weren’t going to slip through in a minority government. But now, with the Tories holding a majority in the House of Commons, expectations could very well, and are certainly, significantly raised. Will the old party divisions begin to show themselves now that the party is in a position to actually push through policies and legislation?

What’s to prevent a leftist coalition, or a merged party, from going through the same thing?

It’s certainly a difficult decision to make but it’s one that we need to be talking about and thinking about now, with lots of time for sober second thought, before the next election. Do we merge the left in order to defeat the Conservatives next time around? Or are we too wary of the political ramifications of trying to operate two parties in one?

Or, do the Conservatives, who are edging ever-closer towards centrist policies, break apart from within as the old political parties each vie for control of policy-making? As the farther-right fringe within the party lashes out against the more moderate middle? As those that expected a Conservative government in a majority position to pass through all kinds of conservative policies are disappointed by the lack of movement?

Then, maybe, we won’t need to talk about merging the left at all.

Maria and I are crazy for British period dramas, particularly anything adapted from Charles Dickens.

We recently watched a BBC mini-series called Little Dorrit, adapted from the Dickens serial novel of the same name. It was an incredibly well-done adaptation and if you love 19th century Britain I highly recommend it. This isn’t a television review though.

One feature of Little Dorrit was something that I hadn’t been familiar with before: a debtor’s prison.

Marshalsea debtor’s prison is one of the main focal points for much of the novel and it’s where we find Amy Dorrit, one of the main protagonists. Her father, a disgraced gentleman, has spent the better part of his life imprisoned in Marshalsea for undisclosed debts that he owes. Although we never find out who the father owes money to, we know that he can’t be released until he pays it back. That is, he’s in jail until he can pay off his debts.

Do you already see the fallacy here?

Little Dorrit was originally written as a satire on British society. Also featured in the novel is the famous Circumlocution Office, Dickens’ ingenious name for the local branch of the British government. Of course, both the debtor’s prison and the highly bureaucratized British government are easy targets for satire.

In fact, the debtor’s prison is nearly satirical by its very nature. Imagine, being put in prison until you can pay off your debts but having no way to work or make money—because you’re in prison!

It seems senseless.

So I was surprised when I stumbled across this story which seems to indicate that, at least in principle, the debtor’s prison is still in existence.

Now don’t get me wrong. People who, for financial reasons, are unable to afford to pay fees and fines issued against them shouldn’t be let off scotch-free. The law needs to be upheld, but surely there’s a better way. Off the top of my head I’d say it makes sense to waive the fee in lieu of, say, community service but to keep them in prison with no way to actually repay? I can’t understand.

In this day and age, is there any sense to the notion of locking someone up behind bars because they can’t pay a fine?

Wait a second here. Remind me, what is the goal of federalist politics?

See because I thought—and maybe I’m wildly(!) naive—that the goal of the federalists was the keep the country together and, like any good club, to increase their membership.

So when a former separatist, or, for sanity’s sake let’s say a former separatist party member, decides to come on over to your side shouldn’t that be a cause for celebration? Shouldn’t there be some kind of ringing of the bells, a shower of champagne spraying out of a bottle of Dom Perignon shaken up by none other than Brian Mulroney himself? While the ghost of Pierre Trudeau dances a proper newfie jig.

All I’m saying is that I don’t get it. This whole response to interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel and her tenuous links to separatist parties.

Even  if she did vote for the Bloc Quebecois at some point—which she didn’t(!)—what is she going to do, tear the country apart as interim leader of the official opposition? Does a person’s lackluster political past mean they can never Reform their ways? There are Conservatives, Denis Lebel I’m looking at you, who admit to being “active” members of the BQ in the past. Active. And, my goodness, Stockwell Day once showed up to a presser in a wet suit and we forgave him enough to let him be President of the Treasury Board! Turmel didn’t even vote for the Bloc!

She’s been clear: she’s not a separatist, so let’s leave it at that. Wait, no, let’s not. Let’s celebrate. Because the whole point of a united Canada, like I’ve been saying, is that we need to get all excited-like about our country, and about every time someone decides that they no longer want a geo-political divorce. Hey, Canada, we’re stayin’ together… doin’ it for the kids. Bravo!

When it comes up in conversation, Maria and I never shy again from a good Rob Ford joke. We tell people that he’s the real reason why we left Toronto, and some of the time, it feels very much like the truth.

Although they said it couldn’t be done, although they said he’d need the support of council—which he’d never get—and the support of the people of Toronto—which he’d never have enough of—he’s doing it. Rob Ford is nearly single-handedly dismantling the City of Toronto.

He’s blown through the city’s surpluses created by Mayor Miller, he’s repealed taxes and fees which are going to have to be replaced with funding cuts, he’s declared war on the city’s social services and programming, and he’s flipping the bird not just to cyclists and pedestrians, but to motorists too. What’s more, Doug Ford, the mayor’s equally erudite brother, claims to have never heard of Margaret Atwood, one of this country’s most celebrated authors, after she spoke out against Ford’s earlier comments about closing Toronto libraries. That is, Doug Ford thinks that since there are more libraries than Tim Horton’s stores in his Etobicoke neighbourhood, some of those libraries have got to go.

What the Fords are doing to Toronto is not surprising, I don’t think, to anyone. If anything what’s surprising is how easily they’re getting it all done. With the Fords in charge, politics in Toronto feels more like schoolyard wheeling-and-dealing than it does governance of the country’s most populated city.

But,  if anything, Rob Ford’s alleged middle finger salute and his brothers comments about Margaret Atwood aren’t atypical but are becoming the norm. That’s because politics in Toronto, and elsewhere, are seeing the rise of a new kind of anti-intellectualism. A second coming of the Dark Ages.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper, under the guise of Tony Clement, effectively stripped Statistics Canada of any meaningful role in Canadian society we cried for mercy. I wrote, as did many, many others, that the government was ignoring the advice and earnest appeals of intellectuals, of sociologists, political scientists, municipalities, ad nauseum.

Similarly, when the Conservatives moved to introduce sweeping new copyright law, despite being active on Twitter (which is a significant improvement over the last minister that held his position), Tony Clement ignored academics like Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-Commerce Law, to fix gaping holes in the legislation. Thank goodness the law died with the last election was called.

Now, Canadian scientists who received federal funding are speaking out about being muzzled by the government, their results and professional communication being tightly controlled by as high up as the Privy Council office. This from sources not unfriendly with the current administration.

The outcry is far from over. The Conservatives will re-introduce copyright law, this time for a majority standpoint, and who knows if they’ll even work to improve the legislation. Of equal concern is the Long Gun Registry, which I’ve written about as well. Despite criticism from heaps of intellectuals, police chiefs, dispatchers, and officers on the ground, the government insists on moving forward to abolish the registry.

The trend is not confined to Toronto.

Whether its truly an emerging pattern or merely blips on the radar, it’s of concern. A new kind of anti-intellectualism exists in, at least, parts of Canadian government. The kind that could sweep Rob Ford into office; the kind that sees the abolition of our long-form census; the kind that would elect Sarah Palin to office of the President.

We joke that we moved out of Toronto because Rob Ford was going to destroy it, but sometimes it doesn’t seem very funny. Sometimes I’m scared that it’s true. If a transit plan that was nearly a decade in the making could be dismantled almost overnight, what’s next? We’re targeting libraries? One of the centres of Canadian intellectualism, the home of, how many of our country’s universities(?), is closing libraries?

I was thinking today of where we live now, of Waterloo Region. We’re called a hub of innovation, we’ve been called the most intelligent community in the world, but could anti-intellectualism happen here, too? I worry that it can. If Toronto, formerly a bastion for both small- and large-L liberalism, can elect someone like Rob Ford how is Waterloo Region any different? If the university professors, the tenured academics, the scientists and think tanks can elect a mayor who didn’t shy away from explaining just how he would ruin Toronto all throughout his campaign, how are we immune? Toronto is intelligent, too.

In the end, it feels like our politics are increasingly dominated by a fear and an ignorance of our country’s intellectuals. I feel like we’re taking steps in the wrong direction in a time when the mayor’s brother has never heard of one of Canada’s most famous authors—when he wants to shut down libraries—and when the Canadian government silences some of its top intellectuals, federally-funded scientists. I fear that we’re taking steps in the wrong direction, that we’ve gone off the rails, that we’re spinning out of control. The Canada that I know, the Toronto that I know, the Waterloo Region that I know is one that values opinions, research and study, and intellectualism. Something’s gotta give.