January 2006

National Prediction

Just before the polls open, I thought I'd make a prediction about the National results.  Here it is:

Conservative - 120
Liberal - 103
NDP - 30
BQ - 55

Some may say I'm being optimistic on the NDP vote. But if you look at it riding by riding, I think I've only given 2 to the NDP which are in significant doubt. This prediction assumes the NDP popular vote holds (compared with recent polls). It also assumes the conservatives won't see an election day loss in popular vote of the sort they saw last time. I think both of those assumptions are reasonable ones.

Predictions For London

The London Free Press has made some federal election predictions for the ridings in London. They predict The Liberals will keep London-North-Centre, the NDP will take London-Fanshawe, the Conservatives will keep Elgin-Middlesex-London and take London-West from the Liberals. I think they are very likely right on all counts.

However, I take issue with the reference to the NDP candidate in London-North-Centre as a no-name “UWO student”.  While it is true that Stephen Maynard is new to running for political office, he is also an intelligent, committed, and credible candidate who deserves more respect from the London Free Press.

It's Getting Nasty

I attended an all-candidates meeting for the riding in which I live and work (London North Centre) today. I was somewhat taken aback at the nastiness of the exchanges between the Liberal (Joe Fontana) and Conservative (John Mazzilli). It speaks, I think, to the desperation apparent in the Liberal camp.

I was also very impressed with the NDP candidate in the riding (Stephen Maynard). Now, of course, I'm partisan. However, I thought Maynard spoke very well, retained his dignity (unlike the Liberal and Conservative candidates), and gave good reasons to vote NDP in this riding (and everywhere else for that matter).

Electric Chair or Lethal Injection?

The polls just get worse and worse for those who lean to the left side of the political spectrum. The latest has the Conservatives 13% ahead of the Liberals. Worse, Canadians fear of that Party seems to have disappeared, and there is a general feeling the party now has the momentum.

These numbers are in stark contrast to what I predicted at the outset of the campaign. I am, to say the least, surprised that the Conservatives under Stephen Harper have been able to make the gains they have in Ontario (and in Toronto in particular). However, in my defense, election campaigns are unpredictable things. And I didn’t count on yet another Liberal scandal (the income trust business). And, looking at the polls, it is that scandal which seems to have been the turning point.

I’m still hopeful, however, that the Conservatives can be held to a minority government (probably the best case scenario at this point). It is starting to look like that will be determined in Quebec. Now there’s an interesting choice – more Bloc Quebecois members, or a Conservative majority instead. A little like choosing your method of execution.

Win, Lose, or Draw

The English language version of the second leader’s debate (for the Canadian federal election) just ended.  There are two things I’d like to say about it.  First, it was a heck of a lot more interesting than the first one. Or, more to the point, it actually was a debate. Second, no one won or lost. Everyone performed more or less as expected, and as they needed to. And there were no “knock-out” punches. I doubt many minds were changed tonight.

What's In A Name?

The media have fallen into the habit of referring to the Conservative Party of Canada as the “Tories”. This bugs the daylights out of me; they aren’t the Tories. What was once referred to as the Tory party – the Progressive Conservative Party – is dead and buried. Whatever else they are, the Conservatives are not the Tories.

Those who disagree with me will say Tory is a word used to describe rent-of-centre parties in a generic way, in both the UK and Canada. While they are right about that, but they are right about that because common parlance has come to use it that way. It isn’t that Tory means Conservative, it is that the word Tory is sloppily used to mean Conservative when in fact it means a specific conservative party (or rather one in the UK and one in Canada).

Or, maybe I’m just cranky about this because of the most recent Globe/CTV and Ekos polls.

Of Mice And Men

I couldn’t believe this story. What kind of person thinks it is acceptable to burn a mouse alive? He got what he deserved.

Poverty and Crime

Recent events have made crime a leading issue in the current federal election campaign. All of the parties have set out extensive positions on the issue, and even the NDP is trying to sound “tough on crime”. A lot of the discussion about crime misses the real issue, though.

Of course we must deal with crime when it happens. We have police and courts to do that. They aren’t always very good at it, but that is a subject for another day. However, dealing with crime after it happens is reactive – it compares to the mechanic fixing my car after it breaks down, or a doctor treating me after I’ve become ill.

We take our cars in for oil changes, we have pre-cancerous polyps removed from our bodies before they make us sick (sorry, it’s the only example which comes to mind) – that is, we are proactive in dealing with these things. We don’t wait for something to happen, and then hope for the best – we try to prevent problems in the first place. Well, many of us do at any rate (also a subject for another day – if you don’t, think about starting!).

Much crime can be prevented too. This isn’t a secret - most of us recognize this to be true. Most of us also a sense about what the underlying problems are, while at the same time realizing we don’t know enough about the problem to understand it in more than a superficial way. I’m little different in this regard. However, I suggest that poverty is the key root cause. In particular, the extraordinary (and growing) gap between the richest and poorest in our society. Poverty does more limit your economic possibilities. It also limits your opportunities, and the opportunities you can envision for yourself. Poverty disenfranchises by emphasizing class differences, and this disenfranchisement is more destruction than the fact of being poor.

If we want to do something concrete about crime, then poverty must be addressed. We must create a society in which the playing field is leveled on two counts.  First, there must be an equality of membership in society, with no one accorded special status as the result of wealth, social position, race, etc. Second, there must be a true equality of opportunity for all. Being born poor should not limit one’s future. As long as it does, some will turn to crime because they believe they have no other options.  Equally important, everyone must feel within themselves that these two things are true.

Some will already be heading for the comment button, saying this is already true. Why, we have scholarships, and student loans, and social assistance, and… If you are thinking that, then with respect, you don’t understand the real problem. The problem isn’t as simple as more money for poorer students to go to University (though that is a good thing). The real problem is much deeper, and much harder to solve. Social assistance programs (administered with dignity) are part of the answer, but not the complete solution. We must commit ourselves to the ideals above, and truly change the kind of society which has developed over the last 50 years.

We can continue to fight crime after the fact, or we can take a proactive approach and take action to change the conditions which lead to it.  Like maintaining your car, or your body, social preventative maintenance is cost-effective. Better yet, it is the right thing to do.

Finally, again before you hit the comment button or send an email. I’m not suggesting every crime is the result of poverty, or that poverty excuses crime. All of us bear ultimate responsibility for the decisions we make. However, we can influence those decisions, and we can do it by solving the problems it is our moral responsibility to solve anyway. Why aren’t we doing that?