Out in Left-Centre Field

Earlier today, I read with great interest a column in the Toronto Star by the inimitable Chantal Hébert on the Conservative government's ongoing internal struggle over the issue of abortion -- one of those great, colossal elephants in the room for any social-conservative-friendly government.

Amidst the furor over Conservative backbencher Stephen Woodworth's motion to reopen the abortion debate in Parliament, chief whip Gordon O'Connor (to his credit) took some time out of his presumably chock-full disciplinary schedule to attempt to shoot down the nascent initiative.

Mr. O'Connor quite rightly pointed out that no law compels anyone to have an abortion at all; rather, the issue is left to personal conscience. He went on to reinforce the fact that Parliament is not a place where religion has sway but rather the secular rule of law, which is as it should be.

What made this whole exchange remarkable -- to myself as well as, apparently, pundits like Mme. Hébert -- is that a Conservative government which is readily seen as being friendly to social conservatives is actually taking the time and effort to stonewall part of their base.

Could it be that Stephen Harper is afraid of what might ensue if the abortion debate results in a ban? Could it be that he fears an electoral revolt against his rule if the Canadian public sees the Conservatives pandering to a religious minority?

It is not a huge leap to estimate that the Conservatives saw what happened earlier this year to their provincial Reform-derived cousins, the Wildrose Party in Alberta. Danielle Smith's party was riding high in the polls until late in the campaign, when a number of factors converged to rob her and her party of victory.

Prominent among those factors was an outbreak (these days we call that a "pandemic") of vocal social conservatism among several Wildrose candidates. And it is not a stretch to imagine that similar or worse revulsion might erupt on the federal scene if the Conservatives were to experience the same.

Stephen Harper and his subordinates fear what will most likely happen if the Conservatives are defined the wrong way by the abortion debate. As an outside observer, I am curious to see how such a potent mix of fear and anger will play out when it occurs internally among the Conservatives, rather than being used externally by them as a campaign tool.

Is this the beginning of the end of Mr. Harper's hegemony? Is this the flashpoint, the flicker that grows into the inferno that costs him the loyalty of his caucus? Despite their trained-seal routine and sycophantic demeanour in the Commons, Conservative backbenchers nevertheless have their own minds, agendas and priorities.

How long can the social-conservative wing of the CPC be kept in check? How long can Harper command their fealty without throwing them a substantial bone? Conservative politics have forever been wracked by the tug-of-war between social conservatives and social moderates.

It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before the joints and fractures erupt into a full-blown fault that shakes the Conservatives to their bedrock. (Geological analogy FTW!) How will that manifest? A new party leader, perhaps one not nearly so competent as Stephen Harper? A mass caucus exodus, perhaps to a new socially conservative party similar to Wildrose or to Ontario's Family Coalition?

Religious voices will never cease calling for the laws to be changed in their favour. At the same time there are moderate adherents, like myself, who support a woman's right to choose. The strain even among the churches is clearly present.

The following words may shock and astound you, but on this issue, I support Stephen Harper. I support those who commit to leaving intact the right to choose. I support those who refuse to use this issue as a wedge to further divide us all.

The progress has been made. We've turned this corner already. Going back to the past is beyond pointless. Let's move on and deal with issues that really deserve our attention.

- AS

So, tomorrow's going to be another long night for political junkies like you and I.

Yup, it's the Alberta provincial election. And for once, something might actually change!

Or will it? [... insert dun dun duuuuuuunn here]

Okay, old dramatic cliches aside, will it really make a difference if Danielle Smith's Wildrose Party does the expected and curbstomps incumbent Premier Alison Redford's Progressive-Conservatives after 41 straight years of power?

This is simply a right-wing/conservative province seeking the best fit for their leadership, which is nothing remarkable. There's a reason Alberta has been governed by right-wing parties since time immemorial: that's the values that the province, by and large, shares as a whole.

True, there are a few key differences between the PCs and Wildrose. The PCs, while conservative, have gradually become more enamored of an ambitious and almost activist vision for government. Meanwhile, Wildrose is made up of hardline libertarians who would prefer that the government go away as much as possible (without, of course, disappearing outright).

These parties are as popular as they are because most Albertans are staunchly and proudly conservative. They won't adhere to political labels, but their actions and words and opinions speak for themselves. When their political leaders fail to be sufficiently conservative, they get turfed. It's logical.

Alberta was and is built on a foundation of individualism and self-reliance. The communitarian and interdependent ethos of leftism is alien to a province that grew up spread-out, rural and self-dependent. Libertarian conservatism is in Albertans' blood and in every fiber of their society.

This focus on the individual self is why Albertans resent external control and condescension (whether real or perceived). It's why they hated the NEP, it's why they hate "Toronto elites", it's why they hate having to pay provincial transfers, it's why they hate environmental regulations on the tar sands, etc. and ad nauseam. Albertans hate anyone who tries to tell them what to do.

And really, us here in Ontario and in the rest of the country share a little blame for that. We have done and enacted things which people in the West have legitimate reasons to dislike. But at the same time, there's not much we could have done to make Alberta individualist and isolationist -- the province has been that way from the start. It's not a reaction to the rest of Canada; it's their nature.

And who knows? That resistance to outside influence may one day culminate in a serious attempt on Alberta's part to remove themselves from Canada. If their mindset and their priorities make them think so negatively of being subservient to a federal government, then that may well be the ultimate end result when all other options have been tried and found insufficient.

But for the time being, for good or ill, I'm glad Alberta is a part of Canada. I may disagree wholeheartedly with their political and ideological attitudes, but in reality, we need conservative voices to keep us honest and to find the best course of action for all Canadians -- not just the progressives, leftists or centrists. Albertans remind us that their conservative model can be successful, given the right conditions.

Albertans do things the way that they feel is best -- so how can we blame them for that?

- AS

The busy political week continues.

To my mild surprise, the Toronto--Danforth byelection was won much more soundly than I had anticipated. I figured Craig Scott would win, but not by this much; evidently the people of Toronto--Danforth thought otherwise.

The guesses in my last blog post were not far off: the NDP was at 60% instead of 50%, the Liberals were bang-on at about 30%, and the Greens and Conservatives were down at 5% each instead of 10%. Maybe, just maybe, that last one has something to do with the Conservative candidate basically boycotting the election (most likely in a failed effort to get the Liberals to take it).

The real story I find is not in the vote breakdown, but in the turnout. Another look at that Elections Canada results page (link above) shows that 32,469 voters out of 74,512 eligible citizens cast a vote in the by-election. That may be down from a general election, but that's still a turnout of 43.6% -- I don't think I've ever seen such a high turnout in a by-election. Congrats to the people of Toronto--Danforth!

~~~~~~~~~~

So, what's next? With the bounce in seat count and morale from this by-election, New Democrats of all political stripes are converging on Toronto to choose the next Leader of the Opposition.

It will be a critical and defining moment on the national stage -- the federal NDP has never before held this kind of stature and will be putting forward someone who could plausibly be the next Prime Minister in 2015. The weight and consequences of that choice are enormous.

So that means you have to choose the right person. There are seven candidates remaining. I am not a card-carrying New Democrat, but I know who I prefer, and this is what's on my mind:

I've got to give kudos to Martin Singh for being courageous and tenacious, but he should not win the leadership. Being an activist and a faith and social justice commission president does not qualify one to be the leader of a national party that comprises one-third of the seats in the House of Commons. He would have to wait until a by-election arises in Nova Scotia to join the House, and for all we know that could take 'till 2015. The NDP doesn't have that luxury -- he will make a fine candidate in his riding, but that's all. (But even then, I hope he would find a different riding, as Singh's home district of Sackville--Eastern Shore is held by the excellent Peter Stoffer.)

I'm heartened by the fact that the NDP has people like Manitoba's Niki Ashton on their side. She is knowledgeable and competent far beyond her years. And yet, she needs more experience in politics -- I hate to find myself basically concurring with the ageists that have bashed her all campaign long, but a caucus of mostly rookies needs a proven, steady veteran at the helm. Ashton's day will come when the current older generation of NDPers have moved on, and I look forward to it.

Paul Dewar, too, is a remarkable man and would be a mainstay of any front bench. He has done a great job so far, between his Ottawa riding and the role of Foreign Affairs critic. But the leadership of a national party in Canada -- let alone one that has the majority of its caucus from Quebec -- demands fluency in both English and French to connect with and engage with all the regions of the country. Don't get me wrong, Dewar is a great MP, but as a leader his lack of French would instantly alienate the Quebecois. Robert Chisholm, to his credit, realized this obstacle. Dewar has not.

Toronto MP Peggy Nash also strikes me as a great member of the front bench. She was Jack Layton's finance critic, the counterpart of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and she also knocked off prominent Liberal MP and leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy in Parkdale--High Park. I would support her, but her closeness with big unions makes me uneasy. Just as the Conservatives and Liberals are wrong to be beholden to large corporations, the NDP would be wrong to be beholden to large unions. With Nash in charge, I fear for the NDP's vital autonomy and the clout of its grassroots membership. That fear is, I hope, unfounded; but regardless of labour's role in the formation of the NDP, they cannot conscionably have structural control over the direction of the party.

The wild card of the race -- and for once I actually agree with the mass media -- is Nathan Cullen. He has done a remarkable job as an NDPer in former Conservative territory, is fluent in both official languages, and is a very intelligent man. I would love to see him win but for his most controversial proposal: joint nominations. On paper, it seems like a good tactic to run a single progressive candidate in Conservative ridings. But, as I enumerated in a past blog post, this ignores three main things: firstly, partisan support may not transfer easily or at all; secondly, it limits choice in our democracy; and thirdly, the Liberals never lifted a finger to come to the NDP with this kind of deal, so why should the NDP fall on its sword for them? This plan just strikes me as a massive mistake in such a volatile electoral environment.

Former NDP president Brian Topp was the early frontrunner in the leadership race. He has some eminent NDPers on his side already, and he announced the support of some of the biggest ones (Broadbent, Romanow, et al.) right off the bat. But from the very beginning, Topp's transparent attempt at steamrolling his competition struck me as bullying. He's the darling of the Establishment, but if there is anything NDPers hate, it is being told what to do and how to think by the elite. Topp has no front-line electoral record; he's a fine strategist, but (just as with Mr. Singh) the NDP cannot wait around for a by-election for their prime-ministerial candidate to finally enter the ring. It would be fatal. I appreciate that Topp has rediscovered his commitment to his native Quebec, but the province has not warmed to him. The NDP must not turn to such an unproven politician at such a critical time.

And that brings me to Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair. There are many hardcore NDPers who are uneasy with his candidacy -- understandably so, since he is a former provincial Liberal -- but I, for one, see no evidence that he is about to ditch the greater whole of the NDP's essence for Liberal vagueness. He wants to modernize the party and make it more appealing to the moderate majority of Canadian voters, a goal with which I agree. If the hardcore communist/socialist wing of the NDP wants to mutiny over that, let them. Mulcair is the candidate who, from what I have seen, can best take on Stephen Harper and possibly win. That should be the goal -- the NDP was not formed to lose, even if we as supporters have gotten used to that dynamic over the decades. But the dynamic has changed; now the NDP is realistically in a position to win. For the sake of this country, and for the sake of the party, the NDP needs to pick Thomas Mulcair in order to continue to move forward and prosper.

~~~~~~~~~~

TL/DR -- So, what would I like to see happen in the NDP? Mulcair for leader, Nash and Cullen as deputy leaders, either Dewar or Ashton as House Leader, and Topp returned to being NDP president or some kind of chief strategist.

And I'll see you on the other side ...

- Adam

If you're a dedicated political geek like me, today's byelection in Toronto--Danforth should provide plenty of excitement and discussion fodder.

First of all, to the citizens and voters of Toronto--Danforth: vote.

It's one of the unfortunate weaknesses of our electoral system that our greatest chance to shape the political discourse and direction of this country comes only once every four (or three or two) years. So take that chance. Sieze it. Whatever your political inclinations, don't let your values and your priorities go unheard. Even if you feel alienated, even if others are more vocal, you always have something to say.

One site I've found most illuminating is political analyst Éric Grenier's overview of the history of Toronto--Danforth over at his ever-informative blogsite, ThreeHundredEight. It's a great recounting of T-D's political history, back to its precursor ridings and the era of Confederation.

You might have heard Toronto--Danforth being proclaimed in the media as a "historical Liberal riding" or by the Conservatives as "the Liberals' to lose". One look at a particularly good graph in Mr. Grenier's article reveals this assertion as nothing more than fanciful spin.

The Liberals have only held Toronto--Danforth or its parent ridings for a grand total of 18 years. 16 of those years were with Dennis Mills from 1988 to 2004, and two more were with D.G. Hahn from 1963 to 1965.

Meanwhile, the NDP have held Toronto--Danforth for a total of 30 years. This includes successive incumbents John Gilbert (1965-1978), Bob Rae (1978-1982) and Lynn McDonald (1982-1988), in addition to the late Jack Layton (2004-2011). In fact, one of the main reasons that Mills was so strong in the area throughout the 1990s is the fact that the federal NDP was abysmally weak during this period, thanks in part to the provincial government of one Bob Rae (hmm, that name sounds familiar, eh?).

Prior to 1963, Toronto--Danforth had been owned by the Progressive Conservatives and a smattering of independents dating back almost a century to Confederation in 1867. So if we're going on a "historical" basis, Toronto--Danforth would actually be a historical PC riding -- if, indeed, the "Progressive" Conservatives still existed and were not transformed into some pale clone of the USA's Republicans. (But I digress.)

Today's byelection is almost certain to be closer than the last general election. NDP candidate Craig Scott is no Jack Layton, and it would be an utter mistake and gross wishful thinking to expect him to fill those substantial shoes, either right off the bat or at all. If Mr. Scott wins, he will be a newbie, a rookie just like 57 members from Quebec found themselves on May 3rd of last year. But they have been learning admirably, and so will he.

The Liberals' Grant Gordon has also been running an indisputably strong and often unconventional campaign. He certainly turned heads (including mine) when he ran for the Liberal candidacy, reaching out to members of all parties in an innovative bid to, essentially, keep Ottawa on its toes. It heartens me that the Liberals are showing signs of gradually turning themselves around to work for their success, instead of the self-assured assumptions of the past.

However, Mr. Gordon's campaign (or what I can see of it here on the other side of the GTA) has profoundly disappointed me since. He has fallen back on the standard partisan Liberal assertions that (1) the NDP have never accomplished anything and have no economic competence, (2) the Conservatives only ever care about corporate profits, and (3) the Greens are a waste of votes. Haven't we heard all of these gross generalizations before? How well did these Liberal talking points play in May 2011? If Mr. Gordon really wanted to bring "fresh thinking" and ring anything other than hollow, he could easily have run as an independent (and probably would have done better too).

I feel bad for the Conservative, Green, independent and small-party candidates. Being squeezed between two well-led, well-staffed, well-funded and well-publicized campaigns cannot be any fun. I sincerely hope that all of the candidates have a good run and achieve a healthy standing in the polls. It must be harder than I can possibly imagine to put in the work required to run in an election, but choice and freedom are the lifeblood of our democracy. Everyone deserves to have their voice be heard -- even if I personally disagree with what they have to say.

So ... my extremely informal guess on the results? NDP about 50%, Liberals about 30%, Conservatives and Greens each about 10%. But as always, anything and everything can happen. We'll find out tonight!

~~~~~

On a related note, I couldn't help but notice how Prime Minister Harper had so conveniently called the byelection so close to -- and yet before -- the NDP leadership convention this coming weekend in Toronto. March 19th vs. March 23rd. There is no way that's a fluke.

Even if it works out for the NDP and they hold the riding, the proximity to the convention will heighten confusion among less politically astute viewers of the news. Furthermore, any leadership candidates without a seat in the House of Commons (I'm looking at you, Brian Topp) are busy with their own campaigns and cannot use this by-election to try and gain legitimacy by becoming a sitting MP.

And if it works out for the Liberals and they gain the riding (in an eerie parallel to Winnipeg North), then the NDP will be significantly deflated heading into the leadership convention. The Liberals would also get all kinds of press coverage for the upset victory. This scenario also plays into the Conservatives' hands, as they'd love for the progressive vote to continue being split for as long as humanly possible.

Once again, it's going to be interesting ...

Apparently, in Mayor Rob Ford's idea of Toronto, toadyism trumps competence.

It's true, the TTC needs major improvement and Toronto needs more subways, but that is no excuse for such a blatantly ideological and political move. Firing general manager Gary Webster might be legal, but that does not make it right.

In fact, Webster's termination is emblematic of the Ford administration's entire approach to governance.

Apparently, for hardline ideologues so concerned with black-and-white issues of right and wrong, having the audacity to demonstrate independence and a conscience is a mortal sin. Fealty to the all-encompassing "mandate" is now the yardstick of one's character (never mind all that unimportant stuff like actually being good at one's job).

Maybe, before this episode, even as a leftist, I was prepared to give Ford and his administration the benefit of the doubt. I thought, hell, they're just trying to improve Toronto the way they think is best. How bad can it really get? I was prepared to be tolerant, to look past the chorus of voices claiming that the sky was about to fall -- to maybe, just maybe, accept the concept that Rob Ford and his allies were fit to lead.

No more. They are the farthest thing from it.

For starters, there's the act of casually firing the people who disagree with you. In reality, democracy is all about disagreement and debate in the process of assembling the best solution to a problem. If you start purging anyone who refuses to be a yes-man, what will remain? Mayor Ford and his slavish cronies clearly don't give a flying hint of a damn as to figuring out the best option -- they just want to advance their preferred option above any others, and apparently anyone who disagrees has no business even participating at all.

So now you're thinking "Well, didn't leftists do it too? What about that commie Miller and his gang?" You know what? It's wrong when left-wingers do it, just like it's wrong when right-wingers do it and when centrists do it. The so-called Responsible Government Group cried the blues (and rightly so) whenever it was done by the last administration -- but oh no, now that they're the ones in power, suddenly it's The Right Thing To Do For The Future Of Toronto^(TM).

And the exalted mandate? Every time someone speaks out against the Ford administration's plans and ideas, they mindlessly repeat that they "have a mandate" and can do whatever they please. Meanwhile, the citizens of Toronto have only had their unadulterated say on Ford all of once, and the next time they can even try will be more than two years from now. Their opinions can change en masse at any time, but based on a single vote back in 2010, Mayor Ford and his allies feel they have the right to do what they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want, with no checks or balances whatsoever for four years straight.

Does this all sound like someone who actually respects the democracy that put them in power?

Mayor Ford and his allies (and opponents) were elected fair and square, so to an extent, they have the advantages afforded by victory. But if democracy is to be any more than just a word, politicians of all levels and stripes have a constant responsibility to listen and govern based on the present and not just the past.

I get that Mayor Ford, his administration and his allies are angry. They have been defied. They have been inconvenienced. They have been opposed. But without opposition, all we are left with is dictatorship. Democracy is always messy, and sometimes people can do things that we don't like. But instead of coming to the table to resolve the differences, Mayor Ford and his followers have decided to throw a complete temper tantrum to get their way at all costs (and the consequences be damned).

I get that the stock and trade of today's neoconservatives is anger. It motivates their supporters, it serves as a driving force, and to some extent, it is a legitimate response to the otherwise moderate-to-progressive outlook of the rest of Canada. Anger is a base emotion, but it is how we handle it that shows who we are as civilized, intelligent human beings.

What a waste. What a waste of talented individuals, thrown aside because their views are inconvenient to those in power. What a waste of Torontonians' votes, when they thought they were getting new, responsible representatives and instead got bullies and sycophants of the lowest calibre. What a waste of time, funds, energy and effort at a time when Toronto is far behind real world-class cities in building modern and adequate civil infrastructure.

What an utter waste, when what we need is real, courageous, inclusive leadership.