gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : Four parties enter, two parties leave

Tue, 3 May 2011 07:30:53 +0000

I don't think it is an anti-global warming bounce (hey, what's the NDP's position on anthropogenic global warming? How'd they do today?). Some of the lost votes are, as Elizabeth May insistently says every time there's a microphone within ninety feet of her, that she wasn't in the debate so she had less exposure. But they weren't in the debates apart from 2008 and did fairly well anyway post-2000. Anecdotally, I know a few Green-sympathetic voters who just don't like Elizabeth May. People who wound up going Dipper or anybody-but-Harper. There's definitely a perception in parts of the Canadian environmentalist movement that the Green Party of Canada is increasingly in the Elizabeth May business, not the environmentalism business. Well, now May's an MP representing a party whose campaign, if Gary Lunn hadn't completely self-immolated, would have been considered a colossal disappointment. We'll see what happens.

Macleans.ca : Four parties enter, two parties leave

Tue, 3 May 2011 07:02:35 +0000

Electoral reform is a bloody complicated question (even in British Columbia, a referendum to eliminate FPtP went down in flames a few years back). There's something to be said for local accountability and connections and, as I've discovered while campaigning for electoral reform myself, some Canadians approve of that. This isn't even a left-vs.-right thing for the most part.

Macleans.ca : Four parties enter, two parties leave

Tue, 3 May 2011 06:56:21 +0000

Lost in the "rise of the Greens" narrative: this is the worst performance of the Greens in the popular vote since 2000. They lost over a third of their support from the 2008 election. But in Saanich-Gulf Islands there was absolutely no vote-splitting against May: there was a reason she decided to run in that seat rather than in an area where she'd lived or worked. Very strong Green territory which received huge resources from the party. May's election is a great moment for the party, but if you're a Green candidate not named Elizabeth May you just had an awful night at the office. Maybe she can capitalize on this momentum, but the Greens had an MP heading into 2008 too and that didn't work out for them.

Macleans.ca : Four parties enter, two parties leave

Tue, 3 May 2011 06:35:55 +0000

Well, one of those consequences is that the Conservative Party no longer particularly reflects the principles of the Reform Party. The New Democrats and the Liberals would face the same obstacle if they merged. The Liberals would tone down their pro-business attitudes, the New Democrats would forfeit their traditional union friendliness, for example. They'd lose some of what made them Liberals and New Democrats in the first place. Is it worth getting power if you can't spend the power on what you think is right? I'm not sure. I might be the last guy on earth who thinks uniting the right was, arguably, not worth it.

Macleans.ca : A price must be paid—but by whom?

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:30:58 +0000

A protest vote is futile. You may as well stay home. I hear a lot of people say that. If all the people who said that and stayed home last time (or who "voted strategically" or whatever other abominations against good governance) actually went out and voted their conscience, our political system would be a lot better off.

Macleans.ca : A price must be paid—but by whom?

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:12:13 +0000

True - but the aptly-nicknamed Cons failed miserably. Oh, they sure did! And that's my point. Voters and pundits got behind the Conservative Party because they promised accountability, responsibility, democracy, etc. They got none of those things. Why? Because the Conservative Party is an old-school party like the Liberals: far from having an interest in changing the system, the Conservatives are half the group who made it. If anything, the post-Martin Conservatives were more dedicated in theory to cleaning up Parliament than the current, Ignatieff Liberals: the Conservatives promised the Accountability Act (and actually delivered; a rare campaign promise kept!) and to clean up Parliament. The Liberals are just generally promising change and imploring us to "rise up" like a Bruce Springsteen concert. Which is why I think a vote for one of the minor parties is at least a vote for something different and a genuine wake-up call to the Big Two. I wonder how many Green voters are just Generic Protest Voters? I can definitely sympathize with those who are.

Macleans.ca : A price must be paid—but by whom?

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:41:10 +0000

I meant to tie Chretien/Martin together in terms of Liberal regimes, not in terms of personalities. I didn't mind Martin too much as a Prime Minister, but he had the same MPs as Chretien, most of the same party staff as Chretien. The Liberals changed the boss but they didn't change the organization, and it's not like Chretien was just some lone kleptomaniac at the top collecting signed golf balls while his underlings stumbled blindly through the fog. And in any case, the big meme of that election campaign was accountability; that's where we got the famous Accountability Act and its associated infamous talking point. Much of the media, and presumably the electorate, perceived the Conservative minority as delivering the same blow in favour of democracy and accountability that Andrew now hopes a Liberal government will deliver.

Macleans.ca : A price must be paid—but by whom?

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:10:45 +0000

Replacing the Chretien/Martin Liberals with the Harper Conservatives didn't send a message about accountability and transparency, unless it's "they're optional." Basically, I agree with your objectives but differ with your tactics. Expressing your disgust with business-as-usual politics by voting for the other business-as-usual party is, at best, shuffling deck chairs. Meanwhile, the NDP as well as the Greens and whatever other minor parties are available in your riding are at least outsiders. They have a vested interest in changing the status quo as well as no real chance they'll form that government they're not ready for.

Macleans.ca : Don't seniors deserve better?

Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:14:07 +0000

I do think you are being a little to glib about apparently discounting the idea that there are certain expectations between aging parents and their grown children - the purpose of children might not always be explicitly, 100% to take care of the parents later on, but that element does exist. Damn, where did I sign that contract? I'll have to check my file cabinet. Listen, I love my parents and I'll do what I can for 'em. But ultimately, if my mom and dad wanted my brother and I to finance their dotage, they probably should have had more than two kids: short of my little bro and I tacitly agreeing to shove the more senile parent off the High Level Bridge, I find it hard to believe how each of us are going to both finance our own families and a parent and, hell, given our ever-expanding ability to push the dying of the light further and further back, maybe a couple grandparents too. I am, however, also pleased to report that in my case both my parents have been industriously working and saving for their retirements and they'll probably hardly need our help at all. If they hadn't... well, regardless of what the "certain expectations" might have been...

Macleans.ca : The Oda ado: overblown?

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:15:02 +0000

I fully agree the LPC would be trying to make Bev Oda out as the bad guy even if the Conservatives were perfect saints. I'm more referring to the chattering classes (like Andrew Coyne!) depriving the Conservatives of the benefit of the doubt because well, this is the sort of thing they do, isn't it?

Macleans.ca : The Oda ado: overblown?

Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:39:18 +0000

Reading an article is no prerequisite to disagreeing with it, as you well know. Bev Oda's problem is not that she or one of her staffers scrawled "not" on a piece of paper which was then filed away seemingly forever and could not possibly have done any harm to anybody. It's that the Conservatives have won themselves such a reputation for dishonesty and subterfuge that people jump at shadows. Even sensible people like Mr. Coyne. And, uh, the Maclean's comment section is by no means restricted to sensible people.

Macleans.ca : BQ amuse-bouche

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:32:16 +0000

Does Maclean's have 100 writers of whom 1 is female, or is somebody on the masthead a fraction of a female? Where's the Walrus when we need it?

Macleans.ca : Nearly half of Canadians want an election: poll

Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:29:41 +0000

In a shocking poll, voters for the opposition party revealed that they predominantly wanted an election which might see an opposition party gain power. Meanwhile, in a stunning reversal, voters for the government party say that they would prefer not to have an election and leave the party they voted for in power. Well I'm sure glad we have pollsters to tell us these things.

Macleans.ca : And Earl belched the opening of Away in a Manger

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:46:30 +0000

God friggin' bless us, every one.

Macleans.ca : The voting age: should it be raised to 50?

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:16:43 +0000

Cantankerous old pundit says best voters are cantankerous and old. News@11.

Macleans.ca : Two cheers for Oiler eye candy

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:10:17 +0000

The NHL isn't a free market, so such comparisons are not easily made.

Macleans.ca : Two cheers for Oiler eye candy

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:10:19 +0000

As long as we're being Veeckian, let me be the first to suggest Defenseman Demolition Night. We'll dynamite Jason Strudwick at centre ice during the first intermission, it'll be great.

Macleans.ca : Nothing to fear but WiFi and fluoride

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:46:17 +0000

On one level, I agree. Who the hell is the state to tell me "drink flouride in your water?" Just because I think it's a good thing, and would accept flouride in my water if given the choice, doesn't give me the power to force you doing the same. But if we're going to start a civil libertarian revolution of things the state shouldn't be telling us to do, flouridation of water is a long, long way down that list, just ahead of "why doesn't the close door button on elevators actually do anything?" The libertarian argument against flouridation has always sounded like the superstitious argument in fancy clothing: for example, you go into calling flouride "medication" with a definition that includes, among other things, vitamins.

Macleans.ca : Nothing to fear but WiFi and fluoride

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:10:26 +0000

AM radio is giving us all cancer. Everybody time travel back to 1850!

Macleans.ca : Nothing to fear but WiFi and fluoride

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:04:26 +0000

Let's face it, a thread like this is just a race to the DHMO jokes.