Today, on Canadian Politics 90210

Oh dear. In the words of every headline on every Canadian paper for the last week:

OMG COALITION OMG!!!1!

Well we all knew it would come to this. Harper decided to have an election for all the wrong reasons, reopened wounds and spent millions on PC propaganda, won another minority government and retreated back into his cave. Then there was this great election in the States which ended up with an awesome, progressive leader being chosen and many Canadians were all like “wait- we totally got ripped off.” And now these Canadian are angry and taking over my Facebook page, excited out of their minds about a progressive collation of Canadian political parties. And they should be- this could mean the end of conservative bullies ruling over the government of my wonderful left-leaning country. This could mean the thousands of Canadians who work in the arts, who value environment ethics, who want assurance they will have control over their reproductive rights will have their voices heard. This coalition is what we have to do.

That being said, I’m not somersaulting onto the coalition bandwagon. This is a situation Canada shouldn’t be in in the first place. We shouldn’t have a Prime Minister well under half the population supports, or a smattering of left-wing parties that can’t get their act together. But my biggest reservation has to do with this mythical creature “the coalition government.” Having many questions about it, I clicked the helpful link on the CBC’s webpage that promised to explain how a coalition government worked. And this is the thing- the article was an interview with a Political Science professor who studies Canadian politics for a living, and his answer to every question was a well-worded “I don’t know.” How will it affect us? We don’t know. Who will lead the party? We don’t know. What exactly is a coalition government? We don’t even know that. This is what scares me. Maybe now the coalition sounds like a great idea, but what if it does gain a majority and has to lead the country? Is the Liberal party going to end up absorbing the NDP? What about the policies the parties disagree on, like the war in Afghanistan, or the privatization of health care?

So there’s a rally tonight supporting the coalition government and I’m not going. I will put my vote behind it, if that’s what it comes down to, but it’s just not something I want to wave signs and chant about. I’m not on the bandwagon, but I’ll be there to fix a wagon wheel or give a push if you need me.

 

Entire country dodges bullet

Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out McKenna.

[CBC]

 

A warm good-bye and a room-temperature hello

I have to say I’m a little sad to see Dion go. He wasn’t what the Liberal party needed this time around, but I did feel a sort of affinity with him, with his postgraduate degrees, book writing, wacky student politics, and time spend abroad.  Stephane, if you ever want to get together and talk about books and politics I’ll be around. You can even help me with my French!

I’m not really feeling it with any of the new contenders (or people “who some observers say may have their eyes on the Liberal helm”, in vague CBC terms) . CBC’s smashing political montage didn’t exactly rouse my excitement, either:

They could be the same four people with slightly different hair, for christ’s sake. But I decided to actually read the article and found there were some interesting tidbits:

Ruby Dhalla: is under 40!

Bob Rae: used to be an NDPer! (I suspect this is one of those things every else already knows and tries to act surprised when I bring up in conversation)

Frank McKenna: Voted for Bill C-484 and is notoriously anti-choice. Um, what the hell? (hat tip to JJ)

Several candidates: worked for Michael Ignatieff at some point. Running against your former boss= awkward!

 

It’s Super Monday in Canada because…

Alberta’s going to the polls! I’m feeling optimistic, despite the fact that we’re once again choosing from a group of middle class, middle aged white men. I think Albertans are finally cluing into the fact that 36 years of the Conservative Party appears to be making rich people richer and not doing a hell of a lot else for the rest of us.

More on the candidates and what this election means for progressive politics to come.

First! Some trivia- there is a Communist Party of Alberta! I bet they’re depressed. From the information I could compile, I can confirm their leader is not, I repeat not, a member of the Rankin Family. And that’s about it.

 

National Media Shocked to Find Women Have Political Opinions

Breaking news from Canada.com:

Recent polls by Ipsos Reid for CanWest News Service* show that support for the Conservatives among women trails support among men by a significant margin.

In the most recent Ipsos poll, released Dec. 22 […] forty-three per cent of men said they would vote for the Conservatives, compared with only 28 per cent of women.

Wow. I’m shocked why would women not want to vote for Harper? I mean, he’s got that awesome ken-doll hairdo.

Oh wait-

Critics also believe that women aren’t given enough prominence in the Conservative caucus or Harper’s cabinet. Just over 11 per cent of Conservative MPs (14 of 125) are women, compared with nearly 22 per cent of Liberal members (21 of 96).

and

One of the Harper government’s most high-profile decisions regarding women came in fall 2006, when it cut $5 million in administrative funding from Status of Women Canada, an agency that promotes gender equality.

Right. Yeah, I guess when a country’s leader treats a large portion of the electorate like crap; that portion tends to not want to vote for you. You’d think this would be a simple enough concept, but the media loves to treat women voters as some kind of wacky self-interest group they just can’t figure out.

According to the Ipsos Reid pollster guy:

Women tend to not to be as interested in the big-P political-power issues. For them politics isn’t necessarily about the cut and thrust of party politics or big-dollar economics or relationships among states,” said Bricker. “They tend to be focused more locally; they tend to be more interested in things that affect them and their families.

We, of course, don’t get the stats to back up exactly how he came to this conclusion, but I have to say I know a whole lot of women who are just as interested in foreign policy and voting strategy as they are in child care. I guess they weren’t asked to take part in the poll. It’s possible that women are interested in both, being that we’re not a giant monolithic group that all vote the same. Women want to participate in a system where they can elect someone who represents their varied interests and beliefs, just like men voters. I might have just blown Gwendolyn Landolt’s mind.

 

*A poll, I might add, that is not cited, not listed on the Ipsos Reid website, and Canwest has not responded to my citation request for…hmm…..