Pretty funny

Inspired by other separatists, in other parts of the country, one of the candidates for UBC AMS President is running a separatist campaign of his own.

Although I am a proud Arts student, and I definitely consider myself and other Arts students distinct from all other faculties... I'm not willing to contemplate sovereignty. Like most Quebecois, I'm an Arts Nationalist, but not an Arts sovereigntist. I believe in co-existence.

Here's the candidate's nomination writeup:

Quinn Omori

As one of the two founding faculties of UBC, Arts has a history that is rich and storied, and a culture that stands apart from the other UBC faculties. To be brief: Arts is not just a distinct faculty, but a distinct society. We in Arts should no longer have to endure the ridicule that stems from the misunderstanding by non-Artsies.

Separation is the answer to our woes.

Students of UBC, I have but three promises. If elected I will:

1. Call a referendum of all students in the Faculty of Arts to settle the separation question.

2. Rename the Pit after Rene Levesque, and ensure that the poutine is only served with authentic cheese curds, not that cheddar crap that they throw on the fries right now.

3. Rename the Gallery after Gilles Duceppe, and ensure that La Fin Du Monde (overproof, oversize, Quebecois biere) is served... at cost.

I also promise to be drunk and muttering in French while administering all three of the above.

This election you have a choice. That choice is another corrupt AMS government, or a government that represents the true interest of Arts students.

Vive l'UBC. Vive les Arts. Vive les Arts libres!

If I wasn't cautious about incurring the Karma of electing someone who didn't deserve my vote, I would've voted for him... but as in all elections, even for student bodies, I only consider it appropriate to vote for someone who actually deserves to win.

It'd also be a shame

If Svend Robinson loses to Hedy Fry in the riding next door to mine - Vancouver Centre.

Yes... Svend Robinson is a leftist, a convicted criminal and so on...

But it'd still be nice to have him in Parliament, and not only for his entertainment value.

He appears to be a man of courage. He appears to be someone who likes to take on issues that no one agrees with him on... even if he's usually wrong on those issues.

Even though I strongly disagree with the positions that he takes on almost every issue, the way he and others broaden the debate is always welcome.

Not only that, but Svend has always been (until 2004) the most likely MP in Ottawa to stand up for individuals. Refugees who deserved sanctuary from oppressive governments, people who were unfairly imprisoned and so on.

I would never want to see a parliament composed of 308 Svend Robinsons... but it's constructive to have at least one or two of them present.

It'd be a shame

If Michael Ignatieff loses on Monday.

I'd prefer to see a Conservative majority but it's also in everyone's long-term best interests to see a vibrant, mature and intellectually honest Liberal Party as well.

Michael Ignatieff will (unless he's corrupted by the system, like Paul Martin was) almost surely work toward making both of Canada's ruling options reasonable and to a degree, principled.

Ignatieff's positions seem to be derived out of his core beliefs instead of being constructed out of convenience (anti-americanism, cynical manipulation of the electorate, etc.)... we need more of that in our governing institutions.

Yes... he's losing...

And he'll almost certainly lose on Monday.

... but to say that the surest sign of Paul Martin losing is his campaigning in Liberal-held ridings is pretty short-sighted.

At the dissolution of this past Parliament, the Liberals DID hold the most amount of seats... if they hold all of those seats, they'd win again.

But they won't... and so they'll lose. Woo hoo.

If I didn't care at all about ideology...

Or taxes... or anything that actually has to do with the workings of government.

I'd vote NDP.

I've seen dozens of NDP candidates on TV over the past 2 months... I've seen dozens of Liberal and Conservative candidates as well.

NDP candidates seem far more articulate, far more committed, far more dedicated, far more likely to be going into politics for the right reasons.

Of course, there are plenty of Liberal and NDP candidates who seem this way as well, but NDP candidates seem impressive in a far greater proportion.

I suppose it's just easier to seem impressive when your party isn't likely to be in power, when your ideological inclinations are far more concrete.

NDP spokespeople always happen to be the most impressive as well. (Jamie Heath, the guy who's usually on CBC?)

Now, if they could all just change their views and beliefs... That'd be perfect.

Good on them

Today, the Globe and Mail endorsed Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.

I think that's really interesting, and my impression of The Globe has just increased measurably.

Why might you ask? It's not because they're endorsing the Conservatives... well not that alone at least.

It's because they endorsed the Liberals in 2004 and have since decided to change their mind.

Even more importantly, endorsing different parties in different elections shows a sense of honesty. Other newspaper editorial boards (such as the Toronto Star, in contrast to many of the Star's columnists) dishonestly stand up for the Liberals at every turn, regardless of what the Liberals have done, and at the same time, they slam the Conservatives at every possible opportunity, even when the Conservatives "move to the centre" and even when the actions of the Liberals are indefensible. There's no intellectual honesty in that. You'll often see the Toronto Star blatantly misrepresent the Conservative Party's positions, just for the sake of creating a partisan advantage for the Liberals.

The Globe and Mail considers itself to be centrist - so it only makes sense that it would endorse different parties at different times. By (rightfully) endorsing the Conservatives today, the Globe has proven itself to be honest, and their endorsement also adds weight to their previous endorsements of the Liberals.

The Toronto Star, on the other hand, is pretty left wing... but instead of acting left wing in a principled way, it (by it, I'm only referring to the editorial board) acts in a partisan manner, hoping desperately to help the Liberal Party, instead of helping their left wing, socialist cause. It's obvious that the Toronto Star would never endorse any other party, not the NDP and definitely not the Conservatives.

Also, last but not least... the ability of an important national newspaper such as the Globe and Mail to endorse 2 different parties, 2 years apart, shows that their editorial bent is not solely dominated by corporate or ownership concerns. That too is always good.

A Harper Cabinet

I just saw a very poor prediction piece on what a Harper cabinet will look like.

I mean, seriously, SEVEN (8 if you include Harper) Albertans in cabinet!? PM *and* Deputy PM from Alberta???? And that's without even going through most of the available portfolios.

Whoever wrote that seems to lack an even basic knowledge of Canadian history.

Harper's deputy will probably be from either Atlantic Canada (Mackay) or even from Quebec, maybe from Ontario too, but DEFINITELY not from the West.

Sadly, also in the name of regional balance, Monte Solberg will likely be demoted from the Finance file, in favour of someone from Ontario or elsewhere.

Funniest part of the debate

...Was when Martin plugged his former and now his sons' shipping company.

"The bulk of the company's ships fly the Canadian flag, over 500 employees, the head office is in Montreal, they pay their taxes in Montreal, but they're doing something that I think is very exciting, they've also expanded around the world, you know, I just don't want to see foreign companies coming and incorporating in Canada, I want to see Canadian companies with head offices in Canada expanding around the world, we can do it..."

That's what Martin actually said.

Weirdly, the CTV transcript didn't accurately portray Martin plugging his former company.

Here's how CTV has it recorded (as of now):

"The bulk of the company ships fly the Canadian flag. Over 500 employees, the head office is in Montreal, they pay their taxes in Montreal. They have also expanded around the world. You know, I just don't want to see foreign companies coming and incorporating in Canada. I want to see Canadian companies from head office in Canada expanding around the world. We can do it. I feel very good about our country and I believe that's the kind of proof that we need."

Well, CTV got down most of it, except for the part where Martin excitedly talked about how his former company was doing something "very exciting". Why would Martin bother to mention the fact that his sons' company was doing something exciting? And why would the CTV transcript folks leave that out? I doubt there was any malicious reason behind it, since there's plenty of other mistakes as well... but the way Martin was talking about the activities of his former company was very telling, in both good and bad ways.

Obviously, it showed a lack of awareness, and even a lack of class to plug his former company on national television during an election debate, but on the upside, at least it showed that Martin has *some* capitalistic instincts, even if his rhetoric suggests otherwise.

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister for how long?

Stephen Harper is a relatively young man, especially for someone who could be Prime Minister in less than a month.

He's 46. Meaning, there's no way that he could retire because of old-age (Trudeau and Chretien both basically went out this way).

Considering that it's easily possible to serve as Prime Minister into one's 60s and even 70s (Chretien was just short of his 70th birthday when he retired), it's interesting to speculate on how Harper will leave his post as Prime Minister (if he even attains that post.)

I think that the actual title of Prime Minister will raise Harper's stature considerably. Once people see him in the Prime Minister's chair, once people see him putting his agenda into action, I can't think of any federal Liberal (out of all the potential leadership candidates) beating him in an election.

Also, Harper is far different when compared to Prime Ministers from the past, both Liberal and Conservative. Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien, all 3 of these men were fairly occupied with attaining and maintaining their power. Harper, at least in my eyes, doesn't come across that way. I think that this quality will make Harper hard to defeat. I think he'll be shrewd in maintaining his post as Prime Minister, but he won't be as transparently power-obsessed as most past Prime Ministers and Prime Ministerial contenders.

Anyways, moving onto potential downfalls for Harper, let me go over the possibilities and why I find them unlikely:

1) Being defeated in the House, and then subsequently losing the general election: At least in the short to medium range future, I can't see this happening. Paul Martin is fairly old, he's in his late 60s. A Liberal loss will almost surely result in a new leader, but who? Every potential candidate seems highly mediocre, both in their personal charisma, but also in their electoral prospects. None of the major contenders are francophones (meaning the Liberals will likely be unable to recapture their Quebec base), and none of the potential candidates really has a national profile. Again, like I said, I think being the incumbent will help Harper a lot in future elections. He won't sound whiney, he'll actually BE Prime Ministerial, instead of seeming like it, and he'll also likely have a somewhat impressive record to point to.

2) Being challenged from within: If Harper wins the election, his leadership within the party will be unquestioned. He'll be a hero to Conservatives across the country. Some will undoubtedly wish for a leadership race, but they won't get one, as long as Harper sits in the Prime Minister's chair, even in a minority parliament. Stronach, sitting in a Conservative cabinet, would have undoubtedly been a major annoyance, as her only aim would have been for Harper's job. Her defection this past spring may prove to be a major blessing in disguise.

3) What else is there? The first option presumes that nothing "major" will happen. I'm assuming that the Conservatives will put forth and largely pass laws if they're the government, and that they will eventually be defeated in the House. National unity issues are still pretty out there, but the Liberals have lost all credibility on that file. The economy, which was largely Mulroney's downfall, will likely continue to be in good shape, so that issue shouldn't cause any trouble.

So assuming that Harper DOES become Prime Minister, for how long will he hold that post? There's no major obstacles lying in his way (except for national unity, but like I just said, the Liberals no longer have the upper hand on that file), I can't imagine him being defeated in a general election by any one of the current batch of Liberal leadership contenders, and his leadership from within the party will almost certainly be unquestioned.

There's so many ifs, especially when predicting what will happen in the years to come, but if Harper DOES win the election on the 23rd, I think that's he's likely to be Prime Minister for a Trudeau or Chretien-like period of time. Once (if) he's in the PM's chair, I think he's smart enough to not make any stupid mistakes, and as I've tried to explain, a lot of other things are lining up in his favour as well.

Let's just hope that if I'm right about Harper being in power for an extended period of time, he uses his time in office productively, fostering the creation of a long-term and genuinely conservative Conservative majority in Canada, something I'm sure Harper considers his ultimate goal and potential legacy.