Or, “How to Rebuild a Political Party, in as Few Words as Possible.”

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.

Read the rest of this article »

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.

Read the rest of this article »

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 like that our election cycles are short; the actual campaigning doesn’t last very long. Sometimes, however, it just feels too short and I imagine on Tuesday morning, the day after the election, all this machinery that’s been built up around the election, all the political parties, the journalists, and us interested bloggers will find ourselves returning to our ordinary routines rather begrudgingly. Still, there’s time for one last kick at the can before Monday night, so here goes.

Read the rest of this article »

I’ve been mulling it over and have decided that the difference is strong leadership.

There’s no question that Conservative leader Stephen Harper is a strong leader. Under Harper the powers of the Prime Minister—already alarmingly broad and sweeping—have become more concentrated than ever. Harper rules his party caucus, his party, and indeed his country with a very tight fist. During the English Leader’s Debate Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff remarked, several times, that Harper “shuts down anything he can’t control.” To be honest, I don’t think Harper would disagree.

Mr. Ignatieff’s case, however, is a classic example of poor, weak leadership.

Ignatieff is a Harvard professor. He’s an academic, a writer, a journalist, a human rights activist, and he’s very well respected around the world. In Britain he’s widely referred to as “the thinking woman’s tea crumpet” which is apparently some kind of veiled compliment alluding to the fact that he’s smart and handsome. Regardless, he’s a bright guy with a good grasp of how our parliamentary system works and boat loads of respect and integrity. But he’s a weak leader.

Read the rest of this article »

I feel like I’m a pretty connected guy. Especially during this election, I’m following things pretty closely. Twitter, which has become hugely important this time around, is an provides an endless stream of information. But how much of what’s going down during this campaign is the Canadian public actually paying attention to, and what does it take to begin to sway their opinions, and their votes?

I wonder, because I feel like the Conservative Party have come into this campaign hurting. They’ve made some fairly serious missteps. They’re constantly falling on their faces. And, according to the latest polls and numbers, no one really seems to have noticed. Instead, as far as I can tell, the Liberals and Conservatives—the two front-runners to form the next government—seem to be at relatively the same percentage of popularity as they were going into this election campaign.

What am I missing?

Read the rest of this article »

Here’s something to consider.

On the same day that Canadian opposition parties declared that they can’t support the government’s budget, thus forcing an election, opposition parties in Portugal, a world away, were making the exact same decision.

In Canada, opposition parties forced an election for a very clear set of reasons. The Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, spelled out these reasons in the weeks leading up to today’s final nail in the coffin, the vote of non-confidence. The Conservatives, they alleged, were hiding information from Canadians; they were refusing to release to Parliament the true cost of some of their major initiatives (expensive fighter jets and American-style mega-jails). The Liberals alleged that the Conservatives were playing fast and loose with their obligations and responsibilities and that Canadians were fed up. The NDP joined the fray when Jack Layton declared his own non-support for the budget as well. The New Democrats alleged that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives don’t understand or support the needs of ordinary, middle-class Canadians and since they refuse to work to make things right, they must go.

At the end of the day both parties agree that the Conservatives have abused their power. As the campaigning begins to ramp up it’s clear that regardless of the nuances in their platforms and strategies their messages, at the core, will be the same: Stephen Harper has taken this country in a direction that Canadians didn’t want it to go.

Mr. Harper has derailed Canada’s national census agency, pulled us out of and stalled support for international environmental agreements, mucked up our foreign aid to developing countries, controlled his government with sealed lips and an iron fist, and tarnished Canada’s image internationally.

That, in my opinion, is the narrative we will see begin to take shape.

In Portugal, on the very same day, important austerity measures were being voted on in that country’s parliament.

Stricken by debt—comparable to the situation in Ireland—Portuguese President Jose Socrates and his governing party felt they had no choice but to push through painful economic measures to try and bring the country back onto its feet. But in a rare show of unity, the country’s opposition parties united to vote against the proposed reforms. Beaten, President Socrates resigned, handing symbolic power to the country’s Prime Minister and effectively ending his government’s rule. An election must now be called.

Two elections, triggered by the very same mechanism, but with two very different catalysts.

Read the rest of this article »