The Conservatives are attacking Ignatieff. Ignatieff says something along the lines that he is the only one who speaks for the Liberals... that doesn't sound menacing at all... it sounds like the impression that I have of Harper -- he is the one that speaks for the Conservatives. I call it fear-mongering. It was bad enough last election... I miss the educated responses.
Speaking of educated responses, the debate is coming up. These have degraded over time. It is getting ridiculous. Last one, each person stuck to (as much as humanly possible) reiterating slogans and avoiding questions. Well, that's what I recall anyway.
And of memory... it's this short-term memory of people that is allowing politicians to get away with so much stuff. How is it that Harper can be against a coalition but have proposed one when it was to his advantage? (and how accurate is this statement given everyone lies -- white lies maybe -- to their advantage).
I can't blame people for their indifference to the political scene. Sometimes I feel that these people in power are fighting more to retain their job rather than get stuff done. For example, Conservatives with a budget to campaign on -- that's silly! Even sillier is the NDP laying out a set of requirements in the budget for their vote... The Conservatives will most likely get in. They will most likely have support of 25% of the population (50% vote, 25% vote for them -- 50% are too jaded and don't care).
Many ask what can be done for the low voter turn-out. I sometimes am tempted to turn in an empty ballot - but that is prone to tampering, so maybe not vote. The only reason to vote, I find, is to show support for a party. Which becomes $2 for whoever I vote for (who typically have no chance of coming to power in the riding I'm in -- Bloc Quebecois currently holds the riding). If the Conservatives do cancel the $2 per vote, I practically have no reason to vote. Go-go Harper! Before we even consider cancelling the $2, there needs change so people have reason to vote.
That gets me started on "strategic voting" -- people voting not for who they think would be best, but voting for who they think has a potential of winning and being the lesser of 2 evils. First-past-the post is nice (representation-wise), but when the representative is planted there and moved around, it makes little sense. And any changes must maintain the ability to elect independents (I seriously consider them more and more as time goes by).
Maybe the Conservatives have something to motivate the voting population. But without a platform, I can't tell.
That leads to my last comment for today. Why aren't the regional representatives put front and centre? Why do I not hear them campaigning? After all, it's not the leader that will speak for the population of a given region but the person campaigning to become an MP.
Actually, the Liberals have a nice nugget in their platform. More transparency, and opening up questions to netizens. Rounding up the hyperactive MPs in parliament and bringing the discourse to that of respectful debate then the distrust in the political class may go away (the last times I listened to parliamentary sessions wasn't to be educated, but for the entertainment. and I paraphrase what one MP said "Yes Mr. Speaker. It is essential that I speak of the incompetence of the previous MP from the opposition" and goes off repeating the same insults at least 3 times so they become true... sigh...).
No comments:
Post a Comment