LP_468x60
Screen Shot 2021-05-07 at 11.05.14 PM
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, string given in /home/forge/looniepolitics.com/wp-content/themes/loonie-politics/template-parts/content.php on line 134

Unless you're the most rabid of partisans, it's pretty much agreed that this election has been utterly insufferable, and that everyone seems to focusing on a whole lot of penny ante bullshit rather than anything of substance.  It used to be that we could fight elections over a clear issue, and that we could have parties lay out clear positions and that there could be a genuine debate over those positions, and Canadians could go to the polls to make their preferences clear.  This election, however, is so far removed from that kind of narrative, and it's become wearying.  But what has changed that makes this election so egregiously bad?  I would argue that it's intricately tied to the fact that we are now in the reality of fixed election dates and it's suffocating what elections should be about.

It used to be that a government could chose the timing of an election within a constitutional five-year window and be able to put a question to the public.  It didn't always happen this way, granted, but more than not, there was an impetus to the timing of the election call, and that could help set a narrative for what Canadians could be voting on.  The most famous example in recent memory was the 1988 election on free trade with the United States, where Mulroney faced enough political pressure, in the Senate and elsewhere, that an election was called in order for Canadians to be able to weigh in.  With the Liberals and NDP against him, Mulroney won a second majority parliament, and the FTA went ahead, and soon after became NAFTA and the political centre of gravity shifted where trade is concern, where the Liberals are now free traders and the NDP's anti-trade tendencies are somewhat more tempered.

But what is there to put to people when your election date is prescribed in four-year increments?  It essentially turns an election into a decision of whether to renew the current lease that the party in power has on the PMO.  Yes, there is an element of accountability to this which elections should very much be about, and one of the things that an electoral system like ours is very good at doing.  The ability to "throw the bums out" is one of the most defining features of "first-past-the-post," and we are all the better for it.  But unless you're able to attach that question to a question about why the government deserves to carry on, it makes it harder for Canadians to care about the choice being put to them.

The parties have been trying to force their own narratives onto that choice the Conservatives with a forced narrative of "affordability" that is largely a sham, built on a misreading of poll results that stated that nearly half of Canadians are $200 or less from insolvency at the end of the month.  But even there, the Conservatives keep getting distracted as to whether they want to make that the ballot question, as they try to use that "affordability" wedge to preach a watered-down version of climate denialism, and the constant flailing at trying to insist that Justin Trudeau is unfit to be prime minister and because they seem incapable of basing their arguments on any very real issues or failings of Trudeau and his government they have build a campaign on a series of lies, while asking Canadians which party they trust.  It's hardly inspiring stuff.

The NDP, meanwhile, are trying to catch the "affordability" wave but trying to frame it around the Liberals and the Conservatives being too cozy with corporations and then offering their own mischaracterizations about things like pharmacare (for all of those lobby meetings with the pharmaceutical industry that they keep pointing to, said industry is mighty unhappy with the government for their changes to the Patented Medicines Price Review Board that are forcing down the prices of prescription drugs) or the output-based pricing system for large emitters (falsely claiming that heavy industry is exempted when they are not, and that temporary exemptions are for the sake of those industries that are trade-exposed, which you would think a party concerned about workers and jobs would be all over).  Not to mention, they have a campaign whose promises all areas of provincial jurisdiction and telling Canadians that they'll totally get the provinces to agree (while simultaneously offering them vetoes on things like pipelines).

The Liberals, unable to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, have decided to try and run the campaign on the backs of Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, and asking Canadians if they want to be subjected to the same kinds of cuts on a federal level as those provinces are experiencing.  "Choose Forward," a clumsy slogan if there ever was one, doesn't really communicate that theirs is a government trying to make some transformational changes to the way this country is governed and that it's a project that needs more than four years, so would Canadians like to see it carry on?  I'm sure they'd also like to make this a climate election, contrasting their record of actually bending the curve on emissions versus Scheer's plan to undo the steps they have taken, but again, they can't even get their message straight there, and promising to come up with future implementation plans leaves them vulnerable.

But for as much as the four-year election cycle is the imposition of Americana on our Westminster system, the increasing presidentialization of our media frames makes these elections more leader-focused than policy-driven.  That too is dragging down the discourse in this election, where you have leaders who are either damaged goods after repeated disappointments, uninspiring even to their own base, or who have alienated swaths of their supporters because they can't organize to save their political lives.  And with the media pouring all of its focus onto those leaders, it's leaving people to try and make an unpalatable decision that will only serve to turn people off.  These attempts at Americanizing our elections is making them intolerable, and it will only get worse the longer we keep down this path.

Photo Credit: Maclean's

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.



Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, string given in /home/forge/looniepolitics.com/wp-content/themes/loonie-politics/template-parts/content.php on line 134

 

In a discussion with my group chat over who will get our vote this cycle, we concluded that the only party left that we can stand is the Animal Protection Party of Canada.  So that's been my week.  Let's get to everyone else's week.

  1. GIRL LOOK AT THAT BODY

Everyone has a different way of getting into their zone, and they like to stick to it.  Alex Ovechkin has sex before he hits the ice.  Wade Boggs ate fried chicken before games.  For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it seems his method is not just a round of boxing, but being photographed and videotaped during a round of boxing.  But every media outlet in Canada should have multiple clips of that by now.  If they're going to humour him by showing up, can't they just pretend to record instead of wasting more server space with new footage of the same stuff?

It's a waste of energy asking Trudeau to alter the habits of a lifetime and stop flexing.  Flexing is just his thing.  But it's not too much to ask that he find ways to flex that we may not have already seen many, many times.  By inviting cameras to his workouts four years later, he is falling back on his old standards as an attempted smokescreen for a lack of new material.

  1. The most interesting thing he's said in years

I have always emphasized the importance of coming out with uncomfortable details before the narrative turns to your refusal to come out with uncomfortable details.  Conservative leader Andrew Scheer apparently does not share this view.  After two years as leader, it took last night's French-language leaders' debate for him to state explicitly, at last, that he personally opposes abortion.

Five little words: "I am personally pro-life."  Were they really that hard to say?  Perhaps seconds before making it clear that a Scheer government would pursue no further legislation on the matter?  It wouldn't have flipped any hardened pro-choice voters, but it might have eased the worries of moderates who were warily eyeing Alabama.  He should have accepted this outcome years ago, for this matter and the matter of the gays, so we could all  mostly  move on.

  1. And the "Most Improved" award goes to . . .

Between Trudeau's self-cliché and Scheer needing to be dragged kicking and screaming into an honest moment, almost any other leader would feel like a breath of fresh air.  The NDP's Jagmeet Singh is more proactive about this, telling an unidentified man in Montreal that, by wearing his turban every day, he looks just as Canadian as anybody else.

I used to go to work in a predominantly Sikh neighbourhood of Winnipeg.  He's right.

  1. Nobody tell her what happened to the stenographer

Among my circle, the "robot tax" from Green Party leader Elizabeth May is possibly the single most loathed policy any leader has proposed yet.  Yes, even more than the children's arts tax credit, which is saying a lot.

The idea is that, when a worker is replaced by a machine, the company would have to pay the equivalent of the income tax that worker would have paid.  This money would theoretically be used to fund employee retraining programs, although it would first go to general revenue.  Except this supposes an economy in which machines replace workers at a 1:1 rate, which according to a battery of research is not the case.  Retraining programs are one way to ease the effects of labour minimization, along with a guaranteed income mechanism.  But this method of funding those programs may not be the cash cow May hopes, especially with her planned small business exemption and lack of ring-fencing.  If her preferred outcome is to keep payrolls longer than necessary, she will lose.

  1. Kick in the Beauce?

One thing I admired about People's Party leader Maxime Bernier two years ago was his willingness to buck conventional wisdom in his own riding, where supply-managed agriculture dominates.  It may finally bite him this year, when his image has grown far beyond that of a previous MP's son.  His Conservative rival is also well-known locally, and a dairy farmer to boot.  Moreover, the protections Bernier is offering from "mass immigration" are not so palatable in an industry that depends on immigrant labour.  He already forgot who his true friends were once, when he changed his niche from economic-minded libertarian to race-minded populist.  He may do it again.

Photo Credit: TMZ

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.