Written Diatribes on Canadian Politics and Public Policy
May 20, 2012 Leave a comment
So it has been several months since I last wrote on my blog.
Events have taken place. News has been reported. People have commented.
All the while, I am sitting back and trying to figure out what it all means.
And really, I have no idea.
But, the purpose of this post is to advertise that I am still around. Alive and kicking.
January 15, 2012 Leave a comment
For the past few days, the Liberal Party of Canada has been meeting in Ottawa.
It has been over seven months since their shlacking in the last federal general election, and this weekend marks their coming together to discuss and figure out how they are going to move forward.
While there are numerous resolutions and policy ideas being discussed and voted on – if you dislike the Queen or love to smoke up, they’ll have a policy that speaks to you – the one idea that has gotten me invigorated is the idea about having a dual-class member/supporter system.
From what I understand, the new “supporter” class will allow an individual to vote for the party leader. They’re not a full-fledged member and hence do not have all the privileges and benefits that holding a LPC card entails (which, being out of power, I suspect is next to nothing!), but, I gather, these “supporters” will, at a minimum, be able to vote for the party leader.
This idea strikes me as odd for a few reasons.
First, asking an individual to pay $10 for a five-year membership doesn’t strike me as being that onerous a request if that person truly believes in the party and its ideals. Having a supporter class is much like having a person say, “I want to decide who will run the party, but I’m not much interested in anything else.” For a party that is having trouble with enlarging its membership and fundraising from that group, the new approach seems to me to be a lowering-of-the-bar and devaluing the worth of a LPC membership.
Second, I question whether having a dual-class system of memberships will really expand the pool of support the LPC believes it can achieve. Perhaps this is a black-or-white idea, but if you are inclined enough to become a “supporter” of the LPC, you’re probably just as likely to become a member. If you’re not, then you’re more than likely not to do anything.
Last, and for me more importantly, having a member/supporter system of electing a LPC leader does tremendous damage to the accountability relationship between a member/supporter and the leader. Back in the good ol’ days, party members elected candidates to run in elections, and if successful, those candidates became Members of Parliament who would elect the party leader. The accountability chain was clear: the leader was beholden to the Parliamentary caucus, the members of which were beholden to local riding members. Simple. Each element in that chain could be held accountable if they move outside of where the party should be going (if anybody doesn’t think this works, look at Diefenbaker in the 1960s or Thatcher in the early 1990s).
These days, that relationship is much less clear. Party leaders no longer rely on or need the support of their caucuses, believing that under the one-member-one-vote system their mandate comes from “party members” (which it does, but is rarely, if ever, subsequently challenged). Since leaders get the mandate from the people (whoever they are), it becomes much more difficult for party members to hold the leader accountable for their actions. Now, under the LPC’s new system, leaders could be elected without having a majority support; their support could be based on temporary “supporters” who have a casual and passing relationship to the LPC. Are permanent party members being left to hold a leader accountable who was elected by non-member supporters?
This does not strike me as being good for the party, its members, or its prospects for the future.
In any event, the LPC convention will soon be over and, I suspect, the policy resolutions and debates will soon be forgotten. Whether anything will materially come from this weekend – the new member/supporter system notwithstanding – is anybody’s guess.
December 17, 2011 Leave a comment
It has been quite a while since I’ve shared, in written long-term form, my thoughts on the to-ing and fro-ing of Canadian politics.
In recent months, I have moved gone on vacation, moved homes, done minor renovation work around the house, worked my full-time job and on weekends, and thus, have had little time to read and write.
When at home.
However, given the amount of time I now spend commuting to and from work (over two hours per day), I have plenty of time there to read.
One such book that I’m almost finished is Peter C. Newman’s latest book titled “When the Gods Changed.” Originally meant to be written about the leadership of then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, Newman changed his thesis shortly after the May 2011 federal election to focus on, as he sees it, the long-term declining fortunes of Canada’s once-mighty Natural Governing Party.
While there certainly is plenty of evidence to show that the Liberals have lost support across all regions of the country – the West, Quebec, rural Canada – and across the major demographics – seniors, the immigrants, etc – my feeling thus far is that Newman does a rather poor job of articulating and describing the Liberal downfall.
Instead, he focuses on the “Great” days of Pearson and Trudeau, and talks about how Ignatieff was hoped to be one of those guys. It is evident that the major thesis of the book changed post-May but the majority of the book had already been written such that many of the chapters underline the original thesis of Ignatieff and his leadership.
While Newman is no doubt a Liberal supporter or at the very least an anti-conservative (he confidently describes Prime Minister Harper as being the most right-wing prime minister this country has ever seen, while offering absolutely no evidence or facts to support this “fact”), the fact that one of the Liberal’s own is calling out the party for its ingrained arrogance should be alarming.
In my mind, he has given a public voice to all those Liberals who are genuinely concerned for the state of their party, but his articulation of the reasons behind that steady decline could have been better.
December 14, 2011 Leave a comment
Yes, I’m still here at patrickmciver.com.
And yes, I’m still deciding on whether I should reactivate the blog.
A lot of things have been going on in the public policy and partisan politics world that has peaked my interest. Unfortunately, with the new house and a baby on the way, time has been getting away from me – so much so that I haven’t had the time to really sit down and write something.
But, that may change in the new year.
At that time, the library should be completed and decorated, and I’ll have some time to devote to writing again.
It has been a year since I finished my Masters program, and I’m finding myself eager to read, think and write.
September 23, 2011 Leave a comment
It hasn’t been a long time since I decided to stop blogging.
However, in that short period of time, I have found myself yearning to write again, to argue again, to debate again.
In the next few weeks, my domain name PatrickMcIver.com will come up for renewal.
If I do nothing, than I will lose the domain name, possibly forever.
If I do something, than I risk having an inactive domain name.
For some reason, I quickly renewed the domain name shortly after receiving the renewal email.
Is this a foreshadowing of things to come?
May 13, 2011 Leave a comment
Yup, that’s right.
I have decided to take down the blog.
There are many reasons why I have decided to take such drastic action, but it mostly comes down to time.
I just don’t have sufficient time to keep it up, and post on a regular basis. And with life in the future about to get even busier, I will have even less time to maintain it.
Therefore, shortly, I will take down the site, and will archive the posts I have accumulated since 2006.
It’s been fun.
And perhaps it is the end of an era.
In any event, thanks to everybody who read my blog posts in its various iterations.
May 8, 2011 Leave a comment
It has been seven days since Election Night in Canada and I have deliberately avoided blogging about what I thought took place that night. As readers of this blog will know, I didn’t live up to my promise of blogging about each day’s activities on the campaign trail. My only explanation is that 1) life got in the way of me being a politically junkie and 2) I was conflicted about how I was actually going to vote, thus preventing me from commenting too much on the day’s events since I wasn’t exactly sure what to make of it.
April 10, 2011 Leave a comment
In yesterday’s post, I wrote about how I have been thinking alot about why I am a conservative.
In particular, I explained how my flare of conservativism is premised on three core beliefs: respect for individual freedom, promoting respect for individual responsibility towards ones’ self and towards others, and respect for the institutions and the laws that govern us.
However, as important as those three core values are to my belief and faith in conservativism, there is one overriding belief that manifests itself in each one of those beliefs.
To put it bluntly, “it’s all about the money”
Read more of this post
April 9, 2011 Leave a comment
Ever since this election began on March 25, 2011, I have been thinking quite a lot about which local candidate I am going to vote for.
For those that think that I am just a partisan stooge who will blindly vote for the local incumbent Conservative MP, you will be sadly mistaken (if you are a supporter of the Conservative cause) or pleasantly surprised (if you are a support of the anti-Conservative coalition).
Read more of this post
Public Opinion