Mr. Topp and the Big Bad Blog

I am not fond of the “no confidence” vote, the mechanism in parliamentary politics by which members of parliament can vote out the current government by expressing that they do not have confidence in those MPs who are currently running the country. While some votes are natural confidence motions, as their passage is necessary for governing the country — budgets are a good example — confidence motions outside these key votes are mere politicking.

Years of minority rule in Canada have soured me on these motions. On one hand, we have a government which routinely declares a controversial vote to be a “matter of confidence” in order to push through legislation disliked by the opposition, who are not prepared to force an election over the issue. The opposition, meanwhile, watches the polls and gathers funds into their war chest, and will miraculously “lose confidence” in the government when they believe they have an opportunity to form the government themselves.

All of which is politics at its worst.

However yesterday I came across this story in the Globe and Mail, which details Canada’s Conservative government’s attempts to avoid an inquiry into police behaviour, tactics and strategy during the G20 meetings in Toronto, all of which was criticized a couple of weeks ago here on the Big Bad Blog.

If there ever was a reason to suddenly “lose” confidence, Liberals, this is it. When all reports suggest that the forces you use to “keep the peace” instead waged war on the liberties of your citizens, the government has a duty to conduct an investigation.

Instead, the government is accusing the opposition of supporting “thugs and hooligans”, and siding with “anarchist groups” for daring to suggest an investigation should take place. While nobody has ever accused a politician of being honest, the dishonesty is overwhelming in these statements as the concerns expressed by the opposition are not in regards to the arrest of those who actually committed criminal acts, but threats and arrests of those who did nothing wrong.

For instance, here is a photo of National Post photographer Brett Grundlock being arrested by five police officers in riot gear, who appear to be using force that one would think would be unnecessary in order to subdue a lone photographer:

This photograph is from the National Post article regarding his arrest. The National Post is one of two national newspapers in Canada, and is known for its right-wing editorial stance. Does that sound like an anarchist group? Does “photographer” or “newspaper reporter” sound like “thug” or “hooligan”?

Click on that link to Canada’s right-wing newspaper, and read about the treatment of their reporters. This is from a newspaper which posts editorials like this one, claiming civil liberties advocates ought to be ignored, and containing gems like this:

of course it was wrong and unfortunate that police seemed to believe secret laws had been passed giving them the right to violate civil rights. It should be remembered that this was a delicate time, and it’s unlikely to happen again.

Yep. It was a delicate time. It was unfortunate. But no need for consequences — it won’t happen again. Honest.

Finally, we would like to present to you another one of those arrested protesters. As much a thug and hooligan as a four-year-old at a picnic. Perhaps an anarchist? Do we arrest people for thoughtcrime now?

There is something very interesting about being a Canadian in the UK during voting season.

As a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I am basically on-par with other non-EU residents in terms of most UK rights and responsibilities with one exception: voting. Canadians (and other Commonwealth citizens) who are UK residents have full voting rights — which is something even EU citizens cannot claim. In June, the UK goes to the polls in a MEP vote — that’s “Member of European Parliament” for you outsiders in the crowd — to determine who represents the country in the EU.

I, of course, need to figure out who is running and how to vote.

Paying attention to politics in this manner — that of a voting member of the public — in a foreign country is odd, as it gives insights into the way people’s minds work in terms of making voting decisions. For instance, approaching a vote where I know nothing about the people up for election or issues involved — in Canada — my likely vote can be easily broken down as follows:

NDP – 75% likely
Liberal – 20% likely
Green – 5% likely
Conservatives – 0% likely

This is because my view of each of the parties is well-entrenched. I had a party-based opinion established well before I was old enough to vote, and in every election bar one I have followed that pre-determined position … and, in that one election, it required something that basically slapped me in the face to vote differently.

In short, the research I do prior to a vote in Canada is done to rationalize the uninformed choice I have made — it is not done to inform a choice I wish to make.

Turnover amongst the political ranks means that not everybody is as entrenched as I am, of course, but not as much as you might think. Political battles in the United States have become less about attracting undecided voters and more about fighting apathy amongst those members of the voting public most likely to cast their vote in your favour.

Here in Britain, there is a three-or-four party situation much like Canada. There is the Labour party, who match fairly closely with the Canadian Liberals. Both countries have Conservative parties. Each has a third party with enough popularity to make its voice heard, but not enough to threaten to form a government (NDP and Liberal Democrats). Finally, there is the separatist party for each country — the Bloc Quebecois in Canada and the Scottish National Party in Britain.

Of course, then things get muddled. The British Conservatives are not nearly as scary as the Canadian version to somebody who is socially liberal, like myself. The Labour party is often to the right of the Conservative party, but has unionist roots much like the Canadian NDP. Canada’s BQ holds much more power than the Scottish National Party does.

In short, upon examination, I cannot just fall back upon my established voting habits and ignore the issues the way I might in Canada. Not that I would want to, now that I have identified that problem.

Choosing who to vote for is difficult, however — the politicians do not want to tell you anything. Let’s look at how the NDP (my party of choice) would court votes in Canada:

For starters, the NDP never really had to court me – I would vote for them if they did not screw up. They were “my” party. So when an election rolled around, their job was to:
1. Make sure I was caring enough to go out and vote;
2. Try not to embarrass themselves (as then I might not vote, or might vote for someone else);
3. Try to pick up some Liberal voters by pointing out how they are drifting to the right (as the left is pretty well covered for the Liberal party) and differentiating themselves on a populist issue or two … without alienating people like me.
4. Hold off similar moves from the Green party who normally vote NDP based upon their environmental stance.

The trouble is that nothing in the above involves dealing with serious issues, or tackling questions such as: Were you to win, how would you govern? These are the things that might actually help us to decide who to vote for.

All of this is clear now, as a voter who always exercises their right to do so but is somehow completely unaware of the real records of the parties and politicians he has to chose between. The dance described above is incredibly visible to the interested outsider, even during times like these when statements about some important issues cannot be dodged in favour of those niches where inroads can be made.

It’s a sad dance, though — one that makes me understand those who do not bother to dance along.

(Photo © Central Audio-visual Library of the European Commission)