Election

Why are the Conservatives paying us to buy homes?

Tom Bateman — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:02:08 -0600

The Conservatives have just announced that if re-elected they will make available to first-time home buyers a tax break to defray the costs of purchasing a home. The tax break is for costs like legal fees, land title transfers, and home inspection costs. Is this responsible? Is this a conservative policy?

Of course the Tories need the large, urban middle class to support them. The electoral logic is clear. But isn’t this too cynical by half?

Is it not the most compelling conservative criticism of other parties that they will shamelessly buy electors’ votes with their own money? Do conservatives not bemoan the increasing complexity of the tax regime, arguing instead for a tax system that is simple, efficient, and minimally disruptive of market decision making?

The tax break scheme is worrisome in another respect. The American economy is sliding into recession and financial torpor because of the temptation of sub-prime mortgage rates offered to home buyers who could not afford the commitments they were making. Lots of blame to go around for that disaster.

In Canada, Stephen Harper proposes a kinder, gentler government-sponsored version of the same thing: encourage people to undertake a long-term financial commitment they would not otherwise make were it not for a little up-front sweetening.

This looks like cynical electioneering run amok. If the Conservatives have a "hidden agenda" they are indeed hiding it very well. I suspect more than a few conservative in Canada would like them to shed some light on that so-called hidden agenda.

The National Election in Surrey

Royce Koop — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:04:02 -0600

More on B.C. races: Shane Edwards also has a great ongoing series on the local campaigns in Surrey (on Fleetwood - Port Kells, Surrey North, and Newton - North Delta). Surrey's politics at the national, provincial, and municipal levels are full of drama, and Surrey is one of the few Canadian cities (including Winnipeg) that presently has MPs from all three major national parties.

Impressions from Week One

Royce Koop — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:44:04 -0600

First: Elizabeth May deserves congratulations for gaining entry to the leaders' debate. I'm not so sure that she should be so happy over this, however. Many people think that May has a good speaking style. This may be true in some contexts, but I'm not sure if she will perform well in a debate with four other party leaders. Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe all have significant experience in Parliament and the first three have already participated in televised debates. May has no similar experience. "Elizabeth May," argues Kevin Libin, "talks faster than an auctioneer on a caffeine buzz." And we've already seen that her tendency to talk quickly can get her into trouble. As Harold Jansen observed, it may be Harper who benefits from May's inclusion in the debate, as he is left to look prime ministerial as the other four leaders natter away.

In any case, even if May does perform well, so what? Is there a single seat where the Greens can actually win in this campaign? I doubt it. At least if she had been excluded from the debate, May could have justified a poor result. But her participation will raise expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and which may cost May her job.

Second: Harper was mostly engaged last week in moving issues off the table. It's hard to call Harper a Republican-wannabe when he's an Obama-booster. And it's hard to bring up the Afghanistan issue when Harper has committed to pulling out Canadian troops. The Liberals have to find a way to deal with this, because once all the unfavourable issues are slid off the table by Harper, all there is left is the distinction between the strong leader Harper and the puffin pooped on Dion.

Third: I notice that some of the NDP's ads and some hand-held signs are making reference to Layton as a strong leader. What's the angle here?

Fourth: The Liberal Party has won 69% of the national elections held since expansion of the Canadian franchise in 1918. This obviously means that Conservative leaders should never take it easy on the party, even when it seems (as it currently does) that the Liberals are down and out. Harper understands that he needs to stay on the attack, but the party has to find some kind of balance between tenaciousness and the goofy mistakes that we saw last week. The Edmonton Journal gets this:

"...you sense that certain younger, ambitious party types...have been sent conflicting messages by the prime minister's inner circle. Urged (ordered?) to be tough, partisan and relentless when it comes to media and the opposition, they're never offered a guidebook on how far they're meant to go."

The Retirement of Monte Solberg

Royce Koop — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:03:58 -0600

Rick Bell has written a glowing political obituary for Monte Solberg, one of the three senior cabinet ministers that won't be running for re-election.

First elected in 1993 as a Reform Party MP, Solberg was probably the most entertaining MP in the House throughout the 1990s. He was certainly one of the most effective oppostion critics I've ever seen (the other being Diane Ablonczy, although the two of them employ radically different styles). While complaining about tax increases, Solberg once asked Paul Martin in Question Period:

"When is the minister going to change the name from 24 Sussex Drive to 24 Sucks Us Dry?"

As a Conservative critic, Solberg ran a very entertaining blog. He then convinced his room-mate, MP and future indian affairs minister Chuck Strahl, to start his own half-hearted blog. From their respective online homes, the two future cabinet ministers began criticizing one another for refusing to do the dishes.

The blog disappeared after he was appointed as a minister in 2006, and so it seemed did Solberg. He likely had a great deal in common with Deborah Grey, the first Reform Party MP who has long since retired, and never accepted Preston Manning's defeat. Solberg seemed to confirm as much in his interview with Bell:

"I bleed Reform green. There's no question, at the time, Reform was more than a party, it was a movement. People were committed at the heart level. It wasn't just a head thing and we wanted to make big changes," says Monte, who adds many people are like him and proud of the bygone days.

The Greens shouldn't have been in the debate anyway.

Melanee Thomas — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:41:10 -0600

I can't help but find the hew and cry about Elizabeth May's exclusion from the leaders' debates amusing. For example, over 1500 comments have been posted on the original story on the CBC website, which is more than I've ever seen on any other story. The cynical side of me wonders if the same number of people actually watch the debate from start to finish.

I've had a number of conversations with friends as to why they're disappointed May isn't included, and their reasons range from that one Member in Parliament (a former Liberal who only recently crossed over to the Greens) to sexism on the part of the other party leaders.

When presented with the idea that the one floor-crossing MP should be the magic word that gets the Greens in the debate, I'm reminded of the Bloc Quebecois. After all, Lucien Bouchard participated in the 1993 leaders' debate. Of course, at that point, the Bloc had a sizable caucus and had been sitting as that caucus for months.

Preston Manning also participated in the leaders' debates in 1993, as Reform had elected their first MP in 1988.

As for the sexist charge, while I am typically one of the first to call sexism in the political sphere when I see it, I don't really see it in this debate exclusion. Sure, May is a woman, and while the Conservatives are trying (and will likely fail miserably) to attract women voters, I suspect the exclusion is motivated by anything but May's gender. Instead, this feels more like power politics, and is about who has the power to grant access to it, and who's using that power to keep a new player out.

It's worth remembering that Elizabeth May likes to play this power game.

If the consortium's decision is about little else than access and power, then I must admit I think the network consortium should be chastised for deferring to the political parties already in the system so easily. Had a party leader said, "I won't participate if May's there," and the consortium said, "well, that's too bad. We're inviting her," I'm not sure the party leader who made the threat would dare not participate. He would unequivocally look like a child who didn't want to share the sandbox. If the media consortium had the guts to make such a decision, it would be much easier to call out the party leader(s) playing this game than it is now.

I think it's also worth taking a critical look at how the networks are covering the parties as well. The CBC has a reporter following each party, meaning there's likely going to be a spot on the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens in each election report the National does every night. CTV, on the other hand, does NOT have a reporter on the Green campaign (or at least they didn't on Sunday). Is this unfair? Absolutely, but you don't hear many calling out CTV for denying the Greens access, nor do you hear many praising the CBC for putting a reporter on the Green campaign.

And while the discussions about the media and this decision are interesting, I think it's important to back up and ask ourselves if the Green Party has earned a place at the debate table. My view is unpopular: I don't think they do.

IF the Greens elect and MP, THEN their leader should be part of the debate during the next election.

If the Greens don't elect an MP but somehow manage to form a parliamentary caucus, their leader should be in the debate the next time around. This does NOT include convincing an ex-Liberal sitting as an Independent to switch to the party a mere moment before the election call. The Greens can try to spin this is akin to electing an MP or having a caucus prior to the election like the Bloc in 1993, but it is certainly not the same and they know it. May can say she does politics differently, but that move alone indicates she's as prepared to cynically use the system in a disengenuous manner as any other party leader.

I might be more inclined to play the "it's not fair to exclude the Greens" card for "democracy's sake" if the Greens vote share increased significantly over the past two elections. However, the Green total increased from 4.3% in 2004 to 4.5% in 2006. If Quebec is taken out of the mix, the Green Party vote share didn't increase in 2006 over 2004. This vote share makes the Greens marginal by any standard, and until they demonstrate they're more than a single-issue fringe party, I'm not going to get too whipped up about their leader's exclusion from a debate that few Canadians watch.

There are more important and pressing inequalities and problems to address in our system, and I can't see how adding another talking head to a debate most Canadians avoid like the plague helps address those issues. Elizabeth May and the Green Party might do well to remember that.

Liberal Election Strategy - Our Fraud Is Not as Bad

Greg Farries — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:29:20 -0600