Author: Stephen Taylor

Tonight’s debate: the drinking game

Tonight, Canada’s four national mainstream party leaders (and one wildcard) will gather at Ottawa’s National Arts Centre for the English language debate. To occupy yourself while you twitter, and yell at the screen here’s the debate drinking game.

First, pick your poison.

If you support Stephane Dion, make sure you have some Château Pétrus on hand. Sip it slowly and savour it. If Stephen Harper is your guy, go to the corner store and get yourself some Coke Zero. Same great taste, zero calories. For those of you supporting Jack Layton, grab a can of Steelworkers Oatmeal Stout. Gilles Duceppe will be in the debate and without much of a clear purpose, if he’s your choice, just pour yourself something bitter. Finally, if you choose Elizabeth May finish your organic pomegranate with vodka and then go and mooch off of Dion. That Pétrus is some good stuff, and though and it won’t give you a hangover unlike the one that came after that thirteen year bender when the Liberals were drunk with power.

And now the rules:

If Jack Layton references the initiatives of one of his MPs, take a drink.

If Elizabeth May calls an idea/policy/person “stupid”/”ridiculous”/”outrageous” take a drink.

If Stephen Harper talks about the fundamentals of the Canadian economy take a drink.

If a leader says “George Bush” take a drink.

If Stephen Harper says “George Bush” finish the bottle and keep drinking til it stops hurting.

If a leader says in reference to Dion “you didn’t get it done”, “Mr. Dion doesn’t think it’s easy to make priorities” take a drink.

If Dion says “this is unfair”, finish the bottle.

Every time Duceppe puts the emphAsis on the wrong SyllAble take a drink.

Every time Dion seeks clarification take a drink.

If Jack Layton says “corporate tax cuts”, “boardroom/kitchen table”, “Ed Broadbent”, “Tommy Douglas”, “hope/change”, “working families”, “big oil/gas/pharma/banks” take a drink.

If Jack Layton says “big labour”, “big ass” or “Barack Obama” finish the bottle.

If Elizabeth May/Jack Layton/Stephane Dion cite Al Gore or David Suzuki take a drink.

If Stephen Harper cites Al Gore or David Suzuki finish the bottle.

Every time Harper/Layton tag-team Dion take a drink. Every time Dion/May tag-team Harper take a drink.

Anytime anyone tag-teams anyone with Duceppe, finish the bottle.

Every time Steve Paikin brings out his pleasant non-offensive wit, take a drink.

If Steve Paikin makes an off-colour joke, finish the bottle.

Add your own in the comments, and… please drink responsibly.

“Clearly, our leader won the debate”

You’ll hear this line from every party but the first public utterance of it that I saw was from the Liberal camp on twitter:

“Stéphane Dion won decisively! He clearly demonstrated that he is the only leader with a credible plan for Canada’s economy!”

This might be the same “credible plan” that was introduced on the floor of the NAC tonight by Dion that CTV commentators admitted reminded them of Paul Martin’s “Hail Mary” Not Withstanding Clause policy at the 2006 leader’s debate. Nobody heard about this plan until tonight. Having already released their platform, which was or wasn’t about the Green Shift depending on what polls Liberal strategists were reading in a given day, the Liberals seem to have released a second draft of their platform tonight. On the economy, is Stephane Dion making it up as he goes along?

The Liberals are stuck in a difficult place during this election. The Green Shift was a train that had already left the station and for Mr. Dion one that was already serving dinner in the dining car when Canadians suddenly became fixed upon the economy. For a serious political party that is vying for power, it is not simply enough to attack a party on an issue — especially one on which one’s rival is strong — but one must also define the path that a party’s leader would take should he or she become Prime Minister. What is astounding, is that Dion is reacting to the global economic crisis like an investor that gets the market numbers from the local TV news between the weather and sports. On the twenty-third day of the election campaign, Dion derails the train and tries to make it hop the tracks. Instead of being proactive on the economy, Dion is reactive.

For the Conservatives, this is an easy pick-up because it underlines the message they’ve been carrying as one of their main themes since this campaign started: Harper represents stability and Dion represents risk. What a disaster it was to see Mr. Dion drop his bombshell so quietly on the debate floor while the other leaders simply paused and moved on. Mr. Dion appeared but as one of four opposition voices — hardly dominant — against the Prime Minister and for Mr. Harper, representing one pole of a polar argument doesn’t exactly hurt his chances.

The most heated exchanges during the debate occurred between Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe, the two front runners of the election in Quebec. On the issues of 14/16 year-olds going to prison for serious crime and repeat offenses, Harper with rare emotion for the evening responded by backing up his plan with third party endorsements of the idea from a police union president and the head of a victim’s rights group. On the Quebec nation and Mr. Duceppe’s two day hesitation and subsequent reversal on the motion that declared Quebec a nation within a united Canada, Mr. Harper demonstrated strength. However, on most other issues such as the environment and the arts, the four-on-one atmosphere that Duceppe led for most of the evening showed the Prime Minister defending his record, the default position for any incumbent.

Will this debate move numbers in Quebec? Likely not. For Mr. Harper, this may mean that he might need a scripting change for that province in order to produce a game-changer that may light a fire under his numbers there. On the other hand, Bloc support may have firmed up on the island of Montreal and the numbers breakdown outside of the city may float Mr. Harper in the more conservative regions of la belle province in order to secure that majority.

Elections Canada takes up arms, risks losing the war for us all

I admit, I have an abnormal obsession with politics, and as I’ve reassured some of my concerned friends during these past weeks: this is the call to battle for political geeks and if I’m my Blackberry becomes even more of an extension of my thumbs, do not worry, I will soon emerge to my “normal” state of following politics for only a few hours a day rather than full-time.

What is at the root of my attraction to politics? It’s a love of liberty, of this country and a love of the democratic system which undergirds it. The wisdom of the people and power and rights conferred to them — not by a constitution, Charter or any other political derivation, but from their very birthright as free persons — is at the core of the concept which defines our understanding of governance.

Election is war. In fact, battling factions called parties wage campaigns carefully considered from their war-rooms complete with psy-ops and black-ops, while pollsters provide reconnaissance for planners in the map room who send their lieutenants on tour. Foot soldiers are marshalled to the front lines by local commanders to knock on doors, make calls and at times good coffee. Communications officials are on the horn spinning their stories, boosting morale and deploying propaganda over enemy territory.

Some say that all is fair in love and war but in this war, there are rules. In a war for democracy — certainly a cause worth fighting for — all soldiers should fight fair lest something greater than their campaign is lost.

Elections Canada is the arbiter of the rules of electoral war. The agency, which could have been set up in The Hague, surveys the battlefield, tends to the wounded and at times runs its own carefully calculated raids. Elections Canada keeps civilians out of harm’s way and unlawful third party combatants at bay.

I have spent some time during this campaign pointing out various missteps and technical infractions of unfriendly parties in order to do my part to ensure that the battles fought during this campaign are fair and that the rules of combat are equally enforced. However, what is to be done when those that enforce the rules are ignorant of them?

In a spirit of a temporary armistice to protect the process and its ends that we fight for — no matter our stripe — from the protectors of this process themselves, I must call into question the occurrences reported in this dispatch from the field,

Landlords can order tenants to remove signs supporting federal election candidates, Elections Canada said Tuesday, after an Edmonton woman told CBC News she was threatened with eviction if she didn’t remove her sign.

Marilyn Dumont said she received a letter from her landlord saying she would be evicted within 14 days if she didn’t remove the sign from her apartment window by Wednesday.

“What I have is a signed letter from the landlord saying that I need to take the sign down and that we’re not allowed to post signs inside or outside of the premises,” she said.

The sign was for Linda Duncan, who is running for the NDP in Edmonton-Strathcona.

In Dumont’s lease, there is a prohibition against placing advertisements in apartment windows.

“Yes I do rent a space. And yes I did sign a lease that says, you know, I couldn’t put signs up for advertising. But I don’t feel this is advertising. It’s an election and it seems to me my democratic right to be able to express my opinion,” she said.

CBC could not reach Dumont’s landlord for comment.

But a spokeswoman for Elections Canada said while the agency has guidelines for the placement of signs on public land, it has no rules and takes no position about signage on private property, because its an issue between a landlord and a tenant.

“It’s a legal thing and has nothing to do with Elections Canada. It’s up to the tenant and the landlord to come to an agreement and follow up,” said Marie-France Kenny of Elections Canada in Alberta.

However, Elections Canada’s own rules state:

322. (1) No landlord or person acting on their behalf may prohibit a tenant from displaying election advertising posters on the premises to which the lease relates and no condominium corporation or any of its agents may prohibit the owner of a condominium unit from displaying election advertising posters on the premises of his or her unit.

Elections Canada should enforce the rules of this election fairly, no matter the fighting party. For if the rights that our troops fight to protect are victims of the process, all of us have lost the war.