Making history in Ottawa... the context and the response

I'm just pasting in something I wrote on the 29th about the madness that's going on in Ottawa.
_________________

The Canadian economy produced about $1.3 trillion dollars worth of goods in 2007 at purchasing power parity. During the most recent fiscal year, the federal government budgeted expenditures of well over a quarter trillion dollars, and thus collected a similar amount in taxes.

There is a significant degree of concern these days that the global economy is on the brink of a serious collapse, with some economies already experiencing negative growth. The origins were largely in credit markets (for reasons I’d rather not get into at the moment), while surging commodity markets surely didn’t help.

Intense fear of insolvency among debt-carrying companies with currently low cash flow, concerns about excessively leveraged positions among financial institutions and the risk of job losses among families have created a lot of problems. Together, they have combined to decrease corporate investment and employment, increased the cost of borrowing or turning over debt and have decreased planned expenditures among households.

With the markets gummed up as they are, governments across the world are faced with the sheer inadequacy of monetary policy measures that increase monetary supply and reduce interest rates. Even built in fiscal measures such increasing unemployment payments in downturns and decreasing tax collection in a downturn are widely expected to be grossly insufficient to keep the economies of the rich world out of a severe downturn.

As such, most countries around the world have proposed significant financial stimuli to help prevent severe global recession.

Our glorious leader’s response?

Well, there’s nothing but global turmoil and confusion going, and the rest of the parties are broke after fighting a surprise election this fall, while the most serious challenger is presently looking for a new leader. When, oh when, would the Conservative Party ever find a better time to put their grand vision of Canada into place?

The proposed response includes NO significant fiscal measures, proposes that it should be illegal for the public service to strike and proposes decreases in taxes sometime after the next budget.

Despite such inaction, however, we are in such a severe downturn that the politicians must share our pain. This means cutting, completely, the voter subsidy where each vote translates into $1.95 for the party that is supported. This was put into place by Chretien after he put an end to the potentially corrupting role of corporate and union donations, balanced by the inherently democratic practice where one’s vote contributes directly to the ability of one’s preferred party to participate in our democracy.

The Conservative Party is rolling in money right now, whereas the rest of the parties just came out of a surprise election in debt, and are counting on this vote-based funding to pay off campaign debts and prepare for participation in future campaigns.

Meanwhile, Canada’s national debt stands at about 25% of GDP, the lowest in the G7, and less than half of what it was 15 years ago. For comparison, members of the EU are required (particularly in good times) to keep their annual deficit at less than 3% of GDP.

Most countries are generally being urged to allocate at least 2% of GDP towards a fiscal stimulus. Harper’s priority has been to SAVE money (rather than offer economic stimulus by spending it) by eliminating vote-based funding of political parties, which presently costs about one ten-thousandth of government expenditures and totals about 0.02% of GDP. Not only is it in the wrong direction, but it’s absolutely insignificant.

This is a clearly calculated move to destroy the capacity of the political opposition to wage political campaigns in a time when fundraising is next to impossible, likely because it was expected that in their currently indebted position the opposition parties would be unwilling to fight. The world is heading into the abyss (well, not really), and Harper’s number one concern appears to be strategic partisan interests.

Y’know, I can just imagine a bunch of the guys in the Conservative war-room in August thinking …. Hmm… how do we respond to the credit crises? Then, one brilliant mind says, “we call a surprise election, bleed the opposition of their funds, leave them indebted, then propose that politicians have to share the pain and completely eliminate the voter subsidy, thus cementing our hold on power for a very long time.” The ads against the Bloc suggest that this move was extremely pre-meditated.

Oh yeah, did I mention that there is a clear relationship between the amount of money spent in a campaign and the amount of votes that a party gets?

Y’know, I’m willing to accept that politicians decide to do things that I don’t like. I don’t like it, but I respect the fact that people think differently from me. It’s one of the great strengths of our society. It’s the beauty of democracy. Many voices competing in a political system offer greater opportunities for innovative and practical ideas to bubble to the surface.

Our glorious leader seems to think that our country would be a better place if there was only one voice.

A few days ago, beguiled by statements of a desire for cooperation and with an apparent interest in building consensus across the political spectrum, I thought that the guy was growing into his role as prime minister.

It is now clear that our prime minister is a man of vision for nothing but intense partisanship. Harper playing nice is an indication that he has something up his sleeve.

I used to laugh at the notion of a hidden agenda. Next on my agenda is to figure out just what would be on the wish list of the Conservative base. Apparently number one is destroying the opposition.

If there is one thing I have learned this week, it is never to trust a confrontational politician who all of a sudden starts to play nice. It’s seems incredibly obvious, but in the context of the challenging economic situation across the globe, I think the collective delusion and naivety should be forgiven.

We wished upon a star that we could have a leader who was worth respecting. It seems that if it is to come to pass before the next election, such a leader will have to be found among the ranks of the majority of MPs who are found in opposition.

For the time being, perhaps our glorious leader could pretend and we could play along for a while.

A funny thought just crossed my mind though … wouldn’t it be extraordinarily funny if Dion were to walk up to Harper in the House of Commons on Monday, given him a bloody nose, then pull the rug out from under his feet? I mean, I know Dion’s a little guy, but I think democracy would be well-served by some prime-time hand-to-hand confrontation between the leaders of out two largest parties. I mean, let’s see who really got the brawn.

Sorry, but I will never respect political leaders who put partisanship ahead of their country.