Follow Your Rules, Lizzie May

Green Party leader cements status as sanctimonious hypocrite

If one were to judge Green Party leader Elizabeth May by her statements regarding Prime Minister Stephen Harper, one would think that rules are really, really important to May.

After all, she frequently accuses Harper of breaking the rules, including in her book.

All the rule-breaking, she contends, is just awful.

Unless it's May herself breaking the rules.

The leadership review mandated by the Green Party's constitution won't take place, although a resolution by Sylvie Lemieux that would require a leadership contest proceed as planned received enough support to be discussed at the upcoming Green Party convention.

While the elimination of any prospect of the Ottawa Group of Four extending their iron grip over the party will likely be good for the Greens, the violation of the party constitution by way of a dubious online/mail-in vote unequivocally is not.

For one thing, as Tasha Kheiriddin points out, May's rationale for wanting to avoid a leadership contest is rather weak.

"News to the Greens: in a minority government situation, there is always the risk of an election," Kheiriddin writes. "One could argue that an early spring election, when the government puts forward its budget for a confidence vote, is more likely than one this fall. So watch for the continued presence of Ms May on a television screen near you into 2011."

"If the Greens want to be taken seriously, they have to start by respecting their own rules," Kheiriddin later continues. "That means holding a leadership contest when they say they will, and attracting a strong roster of quality candidates to the race."

In other words, not only does the Green Party need to hold a leadership contest, but it needs to attract stronger candidates than Elizabeth May or Sylvie Lemieux. Perhaps attracting David Chernushenko to take another run at the leadership would help. Perhaps even a lunatic like Kevin Potvin to liven things up.

But it's clear that May thinks she's been written carte blanche to simply disregard the party rules.

"[The convention] will be a good occasion to get together and recharge our batteries," May muses. "Then I will be back to British Columbia, where I have the certainty of knowing I don't have a leadership race to deal with so I can concentrate on winning my riding."

In other words, May is treating the defeat of Lemieux's resolution -- which must pass through the workshop phase in order to reach an odd green light/yellow light/red light voting process whereby 60% of delegates would have to support the resolution for it to pass.

That 51% of voters in the aforementioned dubious online/mail-in ballot would support this resolution suggests that it may have legs at the convention.

That would be a long way to go for Sylvie Lemieux -- who herself holds some alarming policy plans for the Green Party -- just to get Elizabeth May to respect her own party's constitution.

Canadian politics' queen of sanctimony needs to start playing by the rules, not just by her own rules.

What Are They Going to Do, Threaten A Coalition?

 Conservatives to campaign on end to political subsidies

When Pierre Poilievre appeared on CTV's Power Play recently, host Tom Clark was notably disappointed when Poilievre mused about the Conservative Party taking on the opposition parties over per-vote political subsidies, then declined to announce they would table legislation in the house.

Clark may be less disappointed today, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office has confirmed that the Tories will campaign against per-vote subsidies during the next federal election.

This comes after opposition parties voted to end the privilege for MPs to mail ten percenters outside of their riding.

"The position of our government is clear. If all the parties wish to abolish this particular subsidy for mailings outside of an MP's own riding, of course this party would be delighted to do that. Of course, we would also like to see the $30-million direct tax subsidy to political parties abolished," Harper announced.

Some may recall that it was the Harper government's last move to eliminate the per-vote subsidy that led to the ill-fated Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition push. But with the coalition effective redudiated by Canadians, one may wonder precisely what the opposition would do about such an arrangement.

Interestingly enough, Tom Flanagan suggests that the per-vote subsidy should be replaced with some measure that would allow the opposition parties to receive a comparable level of funding.

"As much as I applaud that, there would be bound to be a backlash from that," Flanagan predicted. "The media would beat you up for deliberately bankrupting your competition and I think the blowback from that would be pretty intense, so if they are going to do it, they have to find some practical way of replacing at least a substantial portion of the lost revenue."

"It's hard to find an approach that would yield the amount of money that's equal to the subsidies unless you go back to some level of corporate donations or raising the level on individual donations," Flanagan continued. "The other one is a taxpayer check-off system, which is used in the United States."

For his own part, Minister of Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher doesn't seem to think that any replacement of the subsidy is necessary at all.

"We believe that the per-vote subsidy is not necessary, particularly in these tough economic times," Fletcher insisted. "People voluntarily donate to political parties in Canada. That's one of the problems with the per-vote subsidy, is that it's not a voluntary donation."

As Tasha Kheirddin points out, however, abolishing the per-vote subsidy would require the Conservatives to win a majority government.

"If the Conservatives fail to get a majority, this promise will be impossible to keep, as other parties will want to keep riding that public gravy train," Kheirridin writes. "And while this pledge may be a vote getter, it’s hard to see it as the defining issue of a campaign, with so many other things on the table."

Indeed, it seems unlikely that Canadians will grant the Conservative Party a majority government based on a $30 million budget line item.

But as much as the last desperate hold-overs from the pro-coalition crowd (those who have yet to realize the folly of dealing with a regressive separatist party) may hold out hope that Layton and Ignatieff will threaten a coalition again, or even try to pull it off, it's simply incredibly unlikely.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Walker Morrow - "Pro-active Voter Apathy. I Like That Strategy."

Chrystal Ocean - "Per-Vote Subsidy is Baaaack!"

The High Road is a Hard Road

Meghan McCain's same-sex marriage appeal likely to win few friends in GOP

In a recent post on the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain has issued some advice to the Republican party that some people in the GOP will almost certainly not like.

She insists that Repblicans need to support same-sex marriage.

"Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart," McCain writes.

She goes on to note how important the Log Cabin Republicans are to the GOP, re-connecting them with some of their most important values.

"The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission 'is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians,'" she continues. "The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP."

Even Ronald Reagan, the United States' prototype arch-conservative, was wise enough to recognize how important organizations like the LCR are to the party.

"Yeah, you read that right," McCain continued. "The ultimate Republican rock star bucked the conventional wisdom of his advisers as they were planning his presidential campaign and helped fight the [California] anti-gay proposition because he knew it was wrong. Reagan’s argument centered around the idea that parents already had all the rights they needed to protect their children and that the government did not need to interfere. It was a perfect example of the Great Communicator doing what was right, but not in a way that further divided voters."

Few conservatives have made the case for conservative support for same-sex marriage quite as eloquently as Canadians Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin. In Rescuing Canada's Right Daifallah and Kheiriddin argue that conservatives should support same-sex marriage as well as adoption rights for same-sex couples precisely because they're pro-family policies.

Kheiriddin and Daifallah's appeal made them highly suspect to religious conservatives within Canada's conservative movement. Fortunately, religious conservatives have been comparatively marginal within Canadian conservatism.

However, Meghan McCain isn't as fortunate. Her pro-same-sex marriage appeal will likely draw the ire of American religious conservatives, and give her detractors -- individuals such as Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham -- more ammunition to usse against her.

It doesn't change the fact that supporting same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. Certainly, the Republicans could support same-sex marriage for political gain, but this is the wrong reason.

The right reason is to follow the example of Ronald Reagan and support the Log Cabin Republicans because it's right. It's precisely the kind of right thing that ideologues like Coulter, Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh will not allow the party to do, except over its own dead body.

"At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated," McCain writes. "If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric."

What Meghan McCain has done promises to make her life in the GOP extremely difficult. But the high road -- the right road -- is rarely an easy one to follow.

The high road is usually a hard road. Hopefully, Republicans share McCain's courage to walk it.

Ignatieff Makes the Right Move

Liberal leader eating Stephen Harper's populist lunch

In politics there are big triumphs and there are small triumphs.

Today's passage of the Conservative party's federal budget is hardly a triumph. As Tasha Kheiridddin notes, many conservative-minded Canadians feel betrayed about the deficit the government has run up.

But Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff emerged with a small triumph today, as he allowed six Liberal MPs from Newfoundland to vote against the budget -- and against the official party line -- without the threat of reprisal.

"I decided to permit them in the budget vote tonight a one-time vote of protest to signal their displeasure and my displeasure at these unilateral actions which in my view weaken our federation, cause strains in our federation at a time when Canadians should be pulling together," Ignatieff announced.

It's a far cry from the fate that befell then-Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey, who voted against the 2007 federal budget and was ejected from caucus for voting his conscience.

Reportedly, the part may not have been done with Casey even after that. In the 2008 federal election Casey was forced to fight an election campaign against a Conservative candidate who had access to funds raised in the riding by the Tories while Casey was still with the party. The Conservatives reportedly even accused Casey of embezzling funds from the party.

There's a stark, unflattering distinction between these two approaches. One party, the Liberals, not characteristically known for allowing its MPs to deviate from the party line -- Not even Dr Carolyn Bennet, who was forced to vote in favour of a Hepatitis C compensation package that fell far short of meeting the needs of tainted blood victims -- and another party that was expected to marry populist traditions with traditional party discipline.

Both are moving away from what Canadians have come to expect of them -- one for its betterment, the other to its detriment.

Ignatieff has, in one fell swoop, dispelled mounting rumours that he is a control freak. Harper could have done this long ago, but his party's continuing treatment of Bill Casey simply will not allow that particular spectre to disappear.

The political momentum in Canada is clearly turning, and for good reason: Michael Ignatieff is making good decisions, and his opponents are suffering from a combination of poor fortune and poor decisions.




Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Jerad Gallinger - "Iggy, Danny, And a Battle Delayed"

Far and Wide - "The Appropriate Response"