Damn.The Canadian election is tomorrow and I had almost made up my mind to vote for the Liberal candidate in my riding. He's a man I can respect and he will be a much better member of parliament than the Conservative candidate.
Up until last week I was considering a vote for the New Democratic Party because their policies are close to my personal position. Also, I wanted to send a message to Stéphane Dion, who I don't think is up to the job as leader of the Liberal party. I realized that my vote might result in the election of the Conservative candidate in my riding since the race between the Conservative challenger and Liberal incumbent is very close. That risk was worth it, in my opinion, because Stéphane Dion needed to lose in order to resign from the leadership.
The latest poll results indicate that the Conservatives might win a majority and I don't want that to happen. So I decided to vote Liberal, hoping that the events of the election campaign would be enough for Stéphane Dion. When he loses tomorrow he will resign.
At least that's what I thought until I read this morning's newspapers [The Canadian Press].
"I will never quit. I will stay for my country," the Liberal leader said Sunday during a last swing through southeastern Ontario before flying off on a frenetic coast-to-coast tour seeking the NDP and Green votes he desperately needs.That's it for me. I'm voting NDP and I'm going to tell my Liberal candidate exactly why I'm doing it. If the only way to save the Liberal party is for Dion to quit ASAP and if the only way that will happen is if he's kicked out, then it looks like the Liberals are going to have to lose a lot of seats before they get the message.
"But I'm working hard now. We're working all of us for a victory, for a progressive government. This is what is at stake."
When pressed on how he would respond if Liberal rivals push to oust him, a chippy Dion raised his voice.
"I'm the leader! I am the leader. And I'm working to win. I'm not a quitter."
...
Dion's strident tone may raise eyebrows in Liberal circles where private reaction to his campaign performance has typically ranged from tepid praise to hand wringing. Dion, a political scientist and former professor of public administration, has a reputation for tenacity and a mile-wide stubborn streak.
He is set to face a Liberal party leadership review next spring.
I'll suffer the short term pain for the long term gain.
24 comments :
That would do it for me, too, if I were inclined to vote Liberal. We need someone who is responsive to the voters, not another "leader" who thinks he is the boss.
Dion says, "I am not a quitter." Well, so what? When we say, "Quit," it's time for him to quit. For the good of the party, as well as the country.
It probably wouldn't be good for the Liberal Party to have another leadership contest too soon after this election. The leadership candidates still have debts from the previous leadership contest, and Liberal Party finances aren't in good shape either.
It's why I'm not voting at all
This brings up the question of who would replace Dion. Of well-known Liberals, who would people like to see? My vote would probably go for Brian Tobin if he would run. Any other thoughts?
I was surprised by that too, but I assume Dion is just putting on a brave face for sake of the election. By Wednesday if he hasn't jumped on his own, there will be a line up of Liberals to push him off the gangplank.
As for who would replace him I attended a conference in September and the speaker was Liberal senator Romeo Daulaire. He was amazing and although I didn't agree with him on every issue, he was a straight talker and didn't dodge the tough questions people were asking him about Afghanistan. He would give the Liberals some much needed street cred and I think could unite the party.
I respect the fact that you feel that having a Liberal Party led by Stephane Dion is worse than having a Conservative majority. I respect the fact that you feel that one form of strategic voting (voting NDP when you would rather vote Liberal) is preferable to another (voting Liberal to avoid a Conservative win). I wholeheartedly disagree, however.
A Conservative majority would be an absolute disaster for this country, and would set Canada's economic and (especially) social progress back by years.
I agree, however, that Dion is not the man to lead this party. Even if the Liberals do relatively well in this election (>90 seats; essentially keeping what they had), the pressure to replace Dion will be huge; his popularity ratings are terrible. The Liberals are in need of a massive restructuring, to be sure; but they have to find a way to do that without giving the Conservatives a majority.
I will be voting Liberal in our riding (which, I believe, is the same as yours); the contest there is too close to call, and, since the NDP candidate cannot win, a vote for the NDP is, essentially, a vote for the Conservatives. I cannot provide explicit or implicit support for that party, no matter who is leading the Liberals.
Brian, good suggestion with Roméo Dallaire. He is certainly one of the most respected people in Canadian politics. His age (62 now, probably 65 before potentially taking office) and lack of experience in parliament may make it difficult for him to become leader. But at least he could be a valuable cabinet member in defence or foreign affairs.
Maybe the place where he could do the most good would be as Secretary General of the UN.
Why not vote Green instead?
By voting Green you help to ensure that environmental concerns are not entirely sunk in the usual "economic growth" rhetoric that issues from all the other political parties. Of course you can't have economic growth AND healthy habitats and ecosystems (never mind clean air and water) but most people still delude themselves into believing that they can have unlimited economic growth and a healthy environment. Pure delusion--rather like belief in God.
A Green vote means a little money to help sustain the Green Party as a lonely voice for the environment in a country that is deeply committed to cutting it down, digging it up and shipping it out.
Why not vote Green instead?
Because the Greens will not win a single seat in this Parliament (which is a separate issue).
It's very simple: you vote for two reasons. First, you vote to have your preferred party win. Second, in some cases, you vote to avoid giving a win to the party you dislike.
You always (always!) have to balance those two forces. For instance, I used to live in Ottawa-Centre, and have always voted Liberal. In the 2006 election, I voted NDP (Paul Dewar, the current incumbent) because (a) the Liberal candidate was unlikely to win and (b) the Liberal candidate was likely to get a significant number of votes, and I did not want a Conservative to win the seat. So I voted against my conscience, for the simple reason that while I disagree with many NDP positions, having an additional NDP member in the HoC is not as bad (not nearly)as having an additional Conservative member.
In my current riding, the Liberal incumbent is facing a stiff challenge from a Conservative with strong local ties. One or the other will win; the NDP and Greens do not challenge there. So a vote for the Greens or NDP is wasted; it may make YOU feel better, but it will not help elect the member that will represent the riding in the HoC; except that it WILL. If you feel that an additional Conservative member is worse than having Stephane Dion add one more LIberal to the HoC and feel better about his performance as leader (as I do), then a vote for the NDP or Greens is a de facto vote for the Conservatives.
If I lived in Parkdale-High Park (which I did), where an NDP or Liberal WILL win the riding (even with vote splitting, the Conservative is too far behind), I would vote my conscience, which would be for the Liberal (Gerard Kennedy), because it doesn't matter either way; I'd be happy even if the NDP incumbent (Peggy Nash) won the seat.
To me, anything is better than a Conservative. Even if you are a super left-wing NDP supporter who thinks the Liberals are far too right-wing for your tastes, you still have to admit that they are a whole lot better than the Conservatives. If this is the case, voting NDP in a riding that only a Liberal or Conservative can win is doing yourself a disservice.
I'm sorry, but in a first-past-the-post system like ours (again, another discussion for another day), strategic voting just makes sense.
Let me put it another way: Vote Green because you support the proposed policies of the Green Party and because you realize that the other parties' "growth is good" ideology is ecologically untenable over time.
Sustainable development = sustained developement = sustained destruction of habitats and ecosystems. Development is destruction.
The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats believe in sustained economic growth, growth in populations, and continuous development. In that they are in tune with Canadians, who do not value nature except as a source of resources. Canadians stand for cutting, digging and shipping -- and building on deforested farmland around their urban wastelands. They like destroying lakes and lake shores with their summer cottages. Anti-nature is Canada's core value. Only the Green Party confronts Canadians with the truth about themselves; that they are destroyers.
Vote Green because it is the right thing to do.
Vote Green because it is the right thing to do.
Do you believe that the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP will be equally bad on the environment? Or do you believe that there is a spectrum of strength of environmental policy, from the Greens on one end, to another party on the other?
I do.
I believe the Greens are far and away the best when it comes to environmental policy. But I believe that either the NDP or Liberals would be far and away better than the Conservatives, who will, quite literally, do nothing for the environment.
So the choice is clear. I can vote Green and feel good about my choice, or I can vote NDP or Liberal (depending on the riding) and get representation in the HoC that will actually give SOME progress on environmental issues, thereby preventing a scenario in which no progress is made at all.
The choice seems simple to me.
A vote for the party of your choice (the Greens, say) is a strategic vote because:
1) It ensures more public funding per year for that party;
2) Builds credibility for the next election. (More votes = more credibility); and
3) Attracts votes next time because voters begin to take the party seriously.
No, I don't think the either the Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats would be better on ecological protection and restoration. They may delude themselves into thinking they are; they may fool people into thinking that their slogan, "sustainable development", is ecologically responsible, but they are wrong. They are deluded and therefore deceiving. They are for what most Canadians are for: cutting, digging, shipping, building...
We need a government that values nature and is therefore willing to promote a reduction in the Canadian population, withdrawal from destroyed lands, an end of logging and mining, the removal of highways and bridges (conduits for further destruction), restoration of destroyed lands and waters, conservation of relatively undegraded lands and waters, etc. etc.
Sustainable development = sustained development
Development = ecological destruction
Sustainable development = sustained ecological destruction
Vote Green because you care about habitats and ecosystems.
No, I don't think the either the Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats would be better on ecological protection and restoration.
Ok. I accept that. For you, the Conservatives "2050" emissions targets are the functional equivalent to the Liberals Green Shift plan. I respectfully disagree, but that's fine. In that respect, and given that environmental policy is the only issue at hand in this election (right???), then a vote for the Greens is the right choice.
Just keep in mind that in a riding where a Green cannot win (which is all 308 of them) and in which either a Liberal or a Conservative CAN win (which is, about 130 of them, I'd guess), a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Conservatives. If you happen to live in Calgary-Centre, then vote Green and give the Greens their $1.75 per vote (or whatever it is now). If you live in my riding, where the Greens can't win and either the Libs or Conservatives WILL, then I think you're doing a tremendous disservice to progressive values if you vote Green or NDP, $1.75 or not.
The simplest and best answer for all of this is electoral reform, of course.
Well, sure, if you take any of these "plans" at face value, the Liberals plan is better than the Conservatives plan, I suppose. But neither the Liberals or Conservaties (or Canadians generally) are committed to restoring habitats and ecosystems nation-wide. Or ending the destruction of northern Alberta for oil. They are all committed to ocntinuing the destruction and calling it "sustainable development". By voting Green you signal your rejection of their deluded notions.
Development is unsustainable. Development is destruction.
Vote Green.
While you guys were splitting hairs the Tories have made themselves another term in office. Canada has a parliamentary, party based model,and I understand that, being from India. Odious alternatives triumph because - or by keeping - the Opposition is divided. Canada is a naturally liberal polity, and the Tories would never win had the liberal constituency not broken into three - Libs, NDP, and the Greens, who together enjoy a big lead in vote share over the Tories. Does anyone remember how desperate the Tories were, that they even wanted to build a wall around Alberta and/or BC? As long as liberals keep running these circular firing squads, the Tories will continue to rule. Maybe when the Tories dismantle healthcare and ban unions, gay rights, and pass some regressive legislation the liberals will unite
Vote Green.
Thanks for helping put Stephen Harper back in the Prime Minister's Office.
As long as liberals keep running these circular firing squads, the Tories will continue to rule. Maybe when the Tories dismantle healthcare and ban unions, gay rights, and pass some regressive legislation the liberals will unite
Finally, some sense emerges.
Stephen Harper is a radical right-wing nut job, who is being kept in check only by the fact that enough of us can see through the sweater-clad veneer. In Stephen Harper's ideal world, health care is privately funded for all but the very poorest individuals, abortion is illegal, same-sex unions have no legal recognition, unions are outlawed, children are sent to prison for life, and the open market rules all. We don't have to dream this up: he's already said all of this.
Wake up, folks. You may find Stephane Dion boring and ineffective, but he's not Stephen Harper. Not by a mile. Hopefully the Liberal party will elect a decent leader this time and will make a legitimate shot at governing once again.
Three observations:
1) Our first-past-the-post system ensures that minorities always rule in Canada.
2) The NDP has lost again. For some 50 years the NDP has lost. That's called "the verdict of history". It is time for NDPers to accept the verdict of history and leave a losing party. They should join the Greens and fight for ecosystems, habitats, biodiversity, policies to promote a decline in the global birth rate, de-development and anti-destruction activities.
3) Conservatives and Liberals will now cooperate to ensure that ecological destruction proceeds apace. We will continue to destroy northern Alberta for oil, southern Ontario for tract housing and malls, ditto Montreal and Vancouver.... New pipelines will continue the process of destroying the far north.
4) The environment (habitats and ecosystems) remains the real issue.
I mean four observations...
Mike says,
I will be voting Liberal in our riding (which, I believe, is the same as yours); the contest there is too close to call, and, since the NDP candidate cannot win, a vote for the NDP is, essentially, a vote for the Conservatives. I cannot provide explicit or implicit support for that party, no matter who is leading the Liberals.
The Liberal candidate lost and the Conservative won.
I will now officially join the Liberal Party. This gives me a dual opportunity. I can help select a better candidate for our riding and I can help select a better leader for the party.
That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned and it's even better because Harper didn't get a majority.
The Liberal candidate lost and the Conservative won.
I will now officially join the Liberal Party. This gives me a dual opportunity. I can help select a better candidate for our riding and I can help select a better leader for the party.
That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned and it's even better because Harper didn't get a majority.
Yes, it seems you got the best possible outcome. A crushing defeat for Dion, but without a Conservative majority.
200 votes was the margin, I believe.
Prof. Moran:
After Dion, the Liberal Party will revert to its traditional role as the party of "economic growth" a.k.a. ecological destruction. If you value habitats and ecosystems and if you wish to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Liberal Party is a dead end.
Parties of development such as the Liberals and Conservatives are parties of environmental degradation and destruction. They are indeed what Canadians want: Big box stores in the suburbs. But their growth policies are ecological dead ends.
Growth is bad for habitats and ecosystems. Growth leads to extinctions. Growth leads to global warming. Growth leads to population increses, deforestation, desertification, rising sea levels, droughts, the rise of new and more devastating infectious diseases ... and the list goes on.
Growth is bad. Parties that promote growth are wrong.
anonymous says,
Growth is bad for habitats and ecosystems. Growth leads to extinctions. Growth leads to global warming. Growth leads to population increses, deforestation, desertification, rising sea levels, droughts, the rise of new and more devastating infectious diseases ... and the list goes on.
Growth is bad. Parties that promote growth are wrong.
Unfortunately, life is not that simple.
In poor underdeveloped countries economic growth means hospitals, schools, clean water, sewers, and less crime. Perhaps you would like to visit those countries and tell the people they can't have those things because it hurts the environment?
Even in countries like Canada, economic growth usually means a rise in the standard of living. Now, you could argue that the status quo is preferable. You could try and make the case that we have to get along with lower levels of health care because the cost are rising faster than inflation. You could make the case that building mass transit networks isn't worth it because the money needed to do so comes at the expense of the environment.
To me it's not that simple. I think we need to face up to the fact that there will always be trade-offs. The correct way forward, in my opinion, is to weigh all of the costs and benefits and make responsible decisions.
It is not responsible to ignore the environment and promote selfish capitalism. But, just as important, it is not responsible to sacrifice everything else for the sake of the environment.
I'm trying to decide which political party will be in the best position to make a difference. Part of that decision involves an examination of their platform and part of it involves an evaluation of their chances of holding, or influencing, power.
I think the Liberals are in the pest position to make a positive contribution but only if they get their act together and choose a leader who appeals to a majority of Canadians.
The election results, and Dion's impending announcement, give me hope. It's too bad that the Liberals had to lose so many seats in order to get the message but I didn't see any other way to get rid of Dion.
Prof. Moran,
Growth is good. That is indeed the dominant ideology. We don't ask ourselves how to reduce the global birth rate while at the same time increasing the global standard of living and reducing our destructive impact on habitats and ecosystems.
Why don't most economists and demographers look for ways to 1) bring the global birthrate down below replacement levels while 2) distributing wealth so that the median standard of living goes up everywhere? Why aren't we looking for ways to stop urban sprawl, concentrate density in areas that are already degraded (instead of destroying new one) and bring the population down? Why aren't we investing in de-development and ecological restoration? Why, for example, don't we have a major effort to restored the whole Grand River system in southern Ontario, for example?
Here's a good local Toronto example of the way in which we are promoting further ecological destruction:
1) Extension of the subway north from Finch to Richmond Hill. This seems to be environmentally sound. It means fewer cars on the road, right? No. It means more tract housing farther north, many more cars and many more transit riders. Transportation growth (even mass transit) is an avatar of environmental degradation and destruction. If you build a railway, you destroy the Prairie. If you build a highway, you degrade/destroy Muskoka. If you build mass transit you promote sprawl.
What about the "green belt". Well, it is a "zoning bylaw" that is guiding the destruction (a.k.a. devleopment) of farmland and unfarmed habitats in the GTA. When these areas are destroyed and the areas near them are degraded, the zoning regulations will be revisited, existing areas of destruction will expand and new areas of destruction be added. Today's "green belt" is to become tomorrow's urban park system--sod surrounded by houses, malls, roads, subway stations, etc. etc. (To see what this will look like, visit the Boyd Conservation Area just west of Toronto; as you enter the CA you will see a vast tract housing development on its edge.)
Honestly, there are no trade-off. There is only a relentless process of environmental degradation and destruction of habitats and ecosystems driven by the global birth rate and an rigid economic system that fails to raise standards of living for most people.
200-250 or so years ago, southern Ontario was all but pristine; today it is mostly degraded or destroyed ecologically. In another 50 years, if current trends continue, the conurbation will extend from Windsor to Subbury.
That's the "growth" that the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP want. And it is, I acknowledge, what Canadians want. Our history is a history of environmental degradation and destruction. It is what we do. Nothing much has changed, yet. But how long can the process continue?
Post a Comment