Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Being right v. Sounding right

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 1:17pm - 0 Comments

Stephen Gordon sees what’s going on here.

A disconcerting trend is establishing itself in Canadian politics. Political parties are showing essentially no interest in the merits of a policy proposal beyond its potential as an element of some shrewd communications strategy … All three parties have now decided that the path to power is paved with stupidity. We won’t have good government, but at least we’ll see cunningly-crafted communications strategies.

Tags: corporate tax, democracy, economy, Government, GST, hst, Stephen Gordon, tax, taxation, taxes

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

And this is new….how?

YYZ

Well it's probably not new but perhaps we're in an "communications strategy" upswing. Several substantive and/or good policy initiatives have been passed that are difficult to sell:

- Universal health care
- Free trade
- HST
- Harmonizing securities regulation

Others have been tried and have failed (sometimes ending in ruined careers)

- Carbon tax
- Meech Lake
- Electoral reform
- HST (maybe)

The list goes on. I've struggled to put my finger on what exactly bothers me about the Stephen Harper cast of characters…and best I can come up with it's exactly this issue. They will not make a stand on anything substantive, they seem to make policy based on what sells or what they can squeak through with minimal backlash. They do not engage the people with anything substantive. Michael Ignatieff has shown a little more than Stephen Harper on this (but not much).

gottabesaid

I agree wholeheartedly. The next election is going to fought over the question "Do you want a Conservative majority or do you want a coalition of socialists and separatists'. There won't be any substantive issues debated. That said, I don't necessarily blame Harper… these days, people have become politically lazy, and he has been the best at capitalizing on it… people don't want to be fed anything too complicated. Sad, really.
Horatio

Recently though Harper has made a habit, as one poster yesterday so eloquently put it, of putting out fires that weren't lit. He seems to tackle issues that don't need to be tackled, or only appeal to his base (who are already going to vote for him anyway).

LynnTO

Reason #62 why I'd sooner reform the party system than the electoral system: parties still define "winning" as "getting the most votes", rather than as "being the best government".

Emily

But the catch is that you can't be ANY kind of govt if you don't get elected.

LynnTO

Touche, but rhetorical arguments and "when people vote, they vote for"s aside, we elect candidates – not parties. That the parties can't see beyond the writ is a serious problem in Canadian politics.

Emily

Actually we elect leaders, and their policies….that's choosing a party….most people don't know who their local candidate is, and don't care.

Some years ago when just names….no party affiliation…were put on ballots, people screamed blue murder because they didn't know who to vote for.

LynnTO

Since I'm being purely literal, parties elect leaders. Citizens elect candidates.
ChrisWPG

Speaking for myself, only twice did I not vote for the candidate, but rather against Harper's con candidate, and threw my vote to who ever had the best chance of beating them. Now I plan on donating my time to a liberal candidate in a riding other than my own in hopes of getting rid of a Con incumbent.

This is new for me, and isn't how I like to vote, this is the choice Harper has left me.
Patchouli

I have stepped out to help a flailing Liberal riding too, Chris. MY riding. I'm excited and nervous, but after all these years of kvetching about politics and politicians, I think it's time I put my TIME where my MOUTH generally is.

Best of luck! I'm in SK, so perhaps we have no chance to win at all, but I already feel better supporting something — Liberalism — that I believe in.
Blacktop

Those are great examples of so-called strategic voting where you have thrown your vorte away. Why not just vote for the man/women you think is the best.?

bergkamp

"A disconcerting trend is establishing itself in Canadian politics."

This trend established itself long ago. Since baby boomers started to enter politics in late Mulroney era/beginning of Chretien, it has been all about image and little about policies that might improve the country.

Free Trade election of '88 was last election where proper ideas/policies were presented to electorate and ever since it has been style over substance.

The three major parties are basically indistinguishable from one another – voters have choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

craigola

Three major parties, so also: Tweedleduh.

Horatio

When party that didn't 'win' the election forms a coalition with the third (and kinda the fourth) place parties, it looks like a coup. No matter how many people say 66% DIDN'T vote for him, I would argue that 100% of people did not vote for a coalition.

This coming election, if the Libs want to form a coalition with the NDP if neither wins the most seats, they should simply relay those intentions to the electorate. People want to know what they're voting for.

Emily

No, it doesn't look anything like a coup.

The party that can command the most votes is the govt.

No one ever runs for a coalition, and they aren't now.

Blacktop

Too bad we can't return to an earlier British tradition in Parliament when there were no permanent parties, just individual members who were loosely identified as Whigs or Tories (or Reformers) but where each member voted as his (there were no hers) conscience dictated. Of course there were rotten boroughs where the member voted as the man who owned him wanted. But in this way, support or attack formed up around the issues, I think, more than the party. Not an egalitarian age, but a better parliament.

Horatio

I blame the media blamers for the lack of legitimate discussion regarding good policy.
Marlene Stobbart

It's difficult, when not succeeding in obtaining a majority, to accomplish beneficial good for the country – the Provinces which much include Quebec. We are a diverse multicultural nation from the West to the East and having a pragmatic leader who has managed to conduct the affairs of this country within a minority government is actual a miracle. The policy PM Harper took to Ottawa he has attempted to maintain and, yes he does have a moral code. What has happened throughout the world re the fiscal mess is due to greed and not having a moral compass and that applies to crimes and criminal as well. This is not preaching it is just fact.
Hey

This is a doubly ignorant and unsophisticated point.

Firstly, of course, since if you don't win you enact exactly 0% of your best policies. This makes having good communications rather important. Even in dictatorships the communications take precedence over the policy (be it communicating to the supreme leader that it's some other guy who should be shot or communicating the glories of running your own steel mill instead of eating) so the tyrannical dictates of academia are for not even in the regimes they do like.

It also betrays a superficial understanding of politics that voters have discarded for a more nuanced take. Politicians will say anything and might even do a few things, but they are addicted to the hidden moves they think that they can get away with. They use the bureaucracy and inifinite mind-numbing regulations to do what they can't do in public such as with bracket creep, changes in interpretations, new documentation requirements… The "savvy" theorists believe the superficial promises and the theoretical supremacy of their policies (such as a tax cut equivalent to the GST cut) while the public knows that they can't hold politicians to the theoretically superior policies but can easily verify changes in GST. Whenever one has to bet on a politician or bureaucrat lying or exploiting the public, cynicism is he only successful strategy.

In short, Stepehn Gordon is an over educated ignoramus who can be fleeced by anyone with a good model. I see an opening at AIG in his future.
hosertohoosier

Only an economist could be surprised that politicians try to win votes, just as firms maximize profits or casinos take bets. Policy as communication and bareknuckles politics are not a problem, so long as the shameless quest for votes pushes politicians toward broad-based policies that yield long-term benefits for the populace as a whole. This process has been thrown off course by a few factors.

Firstly, party activists have become increasingly important. The cap on political donations means that the party that is best able to keep its core supporters happy will tend to have a financial advantage over those that seek out the mythical median voter. Moreover, because voter turnout is low, naked appeals to the base are more politically advantageous. Policies that yield large benefits to a few people win out over those with modest benefits to larger groups.

Secondly, minority governments mess with the time preferences of governments. Since a government doesn't know when the next election will be, it has little incentive to put forth policies that will stimulate positive long-term benefits. Chances are that by the time any benefits are felt, a different party will be in power. In contrast, policies with short-term benefits – even if they have long-term costs – become politically preferable. Governments are often myopic, but minority governments make this worse.

These problems can be mitigated somewhat. We need to loosen caps on corporate and union donations, so that political parties do not solely rely on highly motivated (and ideologically inclined) party members. OMOV leadership conventions should be opposed tooth and nail. Mandatory voting laws would also limit the reliance on a narrow band of party activists.