[fvc-wat-disc] Multi-cultural festival thoughts - part 2 - the parties
Jay Judkowitz
judkowitz at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 16:27:33 EDT 2017
Jen,
I'm not surprised Brenden is a friend. He seemed very sincere and
credible.
Laura Mae seemed very genuine also, but definitely new. Seems like a
good idea to make contact and see if we can nurture that relationship.
As for Stephen, well, given how he contradicted himself in his
reasoning, it's not surprising to hear that he's not a great guy and
generally looking for any reason to shoot down progress. Live and learn.
Thanks for the context!!!
Best regards,
Jay
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Sharon Sommerville <
sharonsommerville at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> Thanks for this overview of your political discussions.
>
> On Brenden perspectives; the LPC ran on a vague picture of electoral
> reform because it suited them as a means of attracting progressive voters,
> the party didn't think they would be in a position to actually have to
> implement any electoral reform measures but once they won a majority, they
> put the campaign promise in the throne speech.... that is a big deal... it
> commits the government to action. Then they stalled, operated in a
> leadership vacuum, set up the committee late and with the hope it
> wouldn't/couldn't produce a majority report but through the miracle of
> politics it did. If the party had run on an platform of AV, they wouldn't
> have won a majority. They knew they couldn't run on AV as it isn't
> credible. Thirteen reports, commissions, studies and citizen's assemblies
> currently sitting on the shelves in the Library of Parliament have all
> recommended PR so run on something fuzzy that we won't need to deal with
> anyway seemed to be safe. Had they tired to run on AV, the media and the
> other parties would have had a mud fest .... better to wait and see what
> happens, perhaps we can maneuver this our way after all.
>
> It is very true that the Liberal caucus was all over the place. However
> had their been an leadership on this file, it didn't need to be about
> herding cats. Without any leadership, the cats were all over the place. The
> issue as I see it is that Trudeau was devious & conniving and should be
> held accountable at the ballot box in 2019.
>
> On Stephen, it is neat getting to talk with legislators, new and old. One
> of the great things about living in a smaller country. We have been
> talking with Stephen for years. He is unwilling to understand that this
> issue is not about the relationship between MPs and parties, it is about
> representation; fair and equal representation in Parliament for all Cdns.
> regardless of where they live (your point and well taken) or for whom they
> vote. This problem just doesn't seem to register for Stephen.
>
> I agree that the CPC's real concern is about having to share power. It is
> the same for the LPC, each party knows the rules of the game: your turn, my
> turn, your turn, my turn. They are willing to sit it out for 2 or so
> election cycles to gain total power when their turn comes round which it
> will, eventually and they both know it. Why would anyone really want to
> change the rules when it benefits them so very well.
> Except in the case of Trudeau wishing to advance AV which will benefit the
> LPC.
>
> The NDP talk a great talk but many, many NDP provincial governments have
> come and gone with nary another look at electoral reform. Our best hope is
> a minority government in 2019 and the evolving situation in BC.
>
> Great work, Jay. It is very helpful that Liberals and Stephen hear about
> PR and the issue of electoral reform from more than the usual suspects.
> Thank you for taking that on.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> *** Please don't forward this mail around. I don't want to embarrass any
>> of the people who were kind enough to speak with me, nor do I want to take
>> on the responsibility of being their spokespeople outside this group ***
>>
>> Second of two messages on the weekend. After our booth, I went and
>> bothered three of the parties. Here were the conversation results. All
>> pretty interesting. And, I'm sorry this mail is so darn long.
>>
>> *Liberals*:
>>
>> - Spoke with president of the riding association, Brenden Sherratt
>> - He said that electoral reform was important to him personally and
>> that he was working it from the inside. He encouraged me to join the party
>> if I wanted to help :-)
>> - I shared my oft repeated concern that Canada's Trump, if he/she
>> ever comes, will come because of lack of PR. Brenden saw the point and
>> seemed to share some of that concern. If 39% of votes get you 100% of the
>> power, what happens when it's the wrong 39%?
>> - I asked when he thought the Liberals would take up the mantle and
>> slipped and sarcastically added, "... after the conservatives win again?".
>> Brenden was not that amused but another volunteer laughed pretty loud. The
>> rest of the conversation, I was much better behaved...
>> - Brendan confided that he wished that the Liberals had run on "AV"
>> and not "electoral reform". The broader promise got lots of folks (like
>> us) excited and won them more votes, but the more narrow promise would have
>> been more honest and, if the Liberals were elected anyway, they could have
>> claimed a mandate and just done AV without any studies like ERRE.
>> - So, in Brendan's world, breaking the promise was a good thing.
>> With over 50% of the seats, the Liberals could have pushed AV through.
>> They did not push AV because ERRE was solidly against it and they did not
>> push PR because the Liberals themselves were against it. He felt they
>> should only push something if there was a real mandate for it. He's sort
>> of right on this, actually - Trudeau did show some restraint by calling for
>> the report and not just cramming AV down the country's throat. It was nice
>> having another perspective to humanize the Liberal leadership and not just
>> looking at them as cynical promise breakers.
>> - In the end, Brenden was really encouraging. He said that we should
>> keep doing what we're doing. The more minds we change at the grass roots
>> level, the more the change becomes inevitable.
>>
>> *NDP:*
>>
>> - Spoke with Laura Mae Lindo, the new MPP candidate for Kitchener
>> Centre
>> - I told her that I understood that the NDP was for PR but that I was
>> disappointed in their performance on the May vote. Only Nathan Cullen
>> seemed really invested in this. What I would have hoped to see was a joint
>> press conference of all the leadership candidates saying how united they
>> were in PR and what an important vote it was. Even if it did not change
>> the result, it would have shone a spotlight on the matter. She thought
>> that was an interesting idea and wrote it down as something to share up the
>> ladder even though it was too late for this time.
>> - I asked her when PR would be in the NDP platform. She thought it
>> already was. But, she admitted that she was just appointed as the local
>> MPP candidate and the handbook with the official NDP positions was still in
>> the mail.
>> - I asked her which NDP leadership candidate was going to be the
>> strongest supporter and she said that Niki Ashton had some things to say
>> for PR recently.
>> - Long story short, it seems that PR is not a really big, urgent,
>> high priority item for the local NDP right now. My guess is that they are
>> concerned with more short term achievable policy objectives.
>>
>> *Conservative:*
>>
>> - I grabbed a random guy at the very lonely Conservative booth. It
>> happened to be ex-MP, Stephen Woodworth, which was pretty cool for me. In
>> the US, you don't just run into federal legislators, current or past.
>> - I asked the party's position and he said they were for a referendum
>> and if it won, they would dutifully implement it.
>> - But, without being asked, he offered that he was against PR
>> himself. His position is that PR solves the wrong problem. Being a right
>> of center person, he's all about the individual and his big problem is that
>> individual MPs have their arms twisted to vote with the party and that if
>> MPs had independence, they would represent their constituents better
>> regardless of party. He feels that PR forces people to think about party
>> as if all people in the party are one in the same. He wants elections of
>> people and not parties.
>> - Personally, I found his opinion naive in today's world of
>> centralized opinion making, but it does speak to my own ideals. It took me
>> years to get converted to PR because of this ideal specifically. I do
>> wonder if there is a broader non-partisan good governance movement here -
>> one that could encompass both party fairness and individual agency in MPs.
>> One would think that MP candidates of all parties would like some more
>> freedom to vote their consciences and their constituents interests. Maybe
>> there is a way to work with some Conservatives on this.
>> - He had arguments for everything I had to say except on the point
>> about Greens not getting any seats with 1 million votes but the Bloc
>> getting 49 seats with 1.3 million votes. I asked why an interest should be
>> punished for being diffuse rather than concentrated. He changed the
>> subject rather than admit to this problem. So, this is a powerful argument
>> that maybe we should invoke more. Instead of the specter of party power,
>> we can talk about national interests and making sure all the interests are
>> represented in proportion to their adherents regardless of how closely
>> together or far away they live.
>> - The argument he gave that really upset me and that I defeated
>> handily by bringing up the Federalist Papers (of all things) was the one of
>> accountability. He feels that a party that comes to power with >50% of the
>> seats is accountable for their promises (and he loves bringing up Trudeau's
>> broken promises). But, if you have multiple minority parties you get
>> horsetrading and compromise (as if that's a bad thing!?!) that leads to
>> unpredictability and an unaccountable legislature. Besides being silly
>> (politics without compromise?) it undercuts his point from before that MPs
>> should be independent. Majority parties only have the accountability he
>> talks about if the MPs vote in lockstep.
>> - So, either way, I found him to be a bit disingenuous. Either his
>> reasoning for being anti-PR is MP independence or party accountability. It
>> can't be both. The cynic in me says that Conservatives are against it
>> because they are the #2 size party and can only win power with a "3rd party
>> spoiler". The would rather have complete control every now and then rather
>> than being a large minority isolated right of the center 100% of the time.
>> - That said, like I said before, maybe there is a non-partisan good
>> governance angle we could work to find common ground with the personal
>> accountability people from the Conservative party.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jay
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
>> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_l
>> istserv.thinkers.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
> Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv.thinkers.org
> Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_
> listserv.thinkers.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170628/355a91a7/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the fvc-wat-disc
mailing list