My first comment is the source of hope and consolation; after reviewing the Liberal, NDP and Green positions, I found that I’m pleased with the majority of all three platforms. Should we end up with Liberal or NPD government (or, I suppose, in theory a Green government), I’ll be content with the election. That said, even though there are major overlaps, I do believe there are real differentiators between the three opposition parties.
The differentiator for the Liberals, as far as I can see, is that they are the only opposition party with a comfortable, cooperative relationship with corporate Canada. Their trade policy, which focuses on continued liberalization of trade through agreements, is a stark contract with the NDP/Green skepticism towards such agreements. I’m of the opinion that the natural stance of a government should be in opposition to corporate interests, purely from a perspective of power: corporations have substantial power and the best interest of the public is served by an attitude of opposition (though not necessarily antagonism). I feel the Liberals are the least likely (of the opposition parties) to take this stance. I do not expect the Liberals to make major changes to the oil sands or pipeline projects, even with their fairly strong focus on environmentalism. I also feel their environmentalism is the most technocratic of the three opposition parties, a position that I’m very skeptical about. To their possible benefit, the Liberals seem like the most pragmatic and least ideological party. This is unsurprising, since they’ve tried to embody that central, large-tent pragmatism frequently in their political history.
The differentiator for the NDP is their ideological commitment to labour and social democratic principles. While I can’t always point it out directly, I sensed this ideological bent all through their lengthy policy document. I’m mostly happy about this, since I tend to philosophically agree with many planks of such an ideology. Keeping with my comments in the previous paragraph, a reasonable part of an attitude of opposition to corporate power involve the support of labour. I’m not at all certain what labour movements should realistically look like in the 21st century, but I would be happy to have a government with more sympathies towards such movements. I do worry that the NDP’s ideological commitments make it a less flexible governing party, particularly when there are strong reasons with good evidence to act counter to that ideological tradition. Choices in energy and industrial development, for example, need to be motivated by good science and economic analysis as well as the interests of generally (small-c) conservative labour movements.
The differentiator for the Greens is their audacity. Whether consciously or subconsciously, I think an effect of their status as a somewhat fringe party is that they are much less afraid of presenting the more extreme version of a political position. In the news today, for example, Green positions were announced in support of completely removing tuition from public universities and cancelling vast portions of existing student debt. Their economic and environmental policies are similar to the NPD (and, to a lesser extent, to the Liberals), but more extreme; the GLI (Guaranteed Livable Income) is an stronger version of the social welfare position of the NDP. In general, I’m happy that they exist to voice these ideas. I think we desperately need parties with more ambitious vision — hopefully, the better and more feasible of their ideas percolate into the political mainstream. However, I’m not sure it makes them a good choice for actually forming a government.
All that said, my inclination is to vote NDP. I admit, it’s not a particularly strong preference over the other two opposition parties. It’s also somewhat informed by the electoral reality of my riding, which nicely leads into a discussion of strategic voting.
I’m in favour of strategic voting, but always with great dismay that is it necessary in our political system. My riding, in particular, is a riding where historically Liberals, NDP and Conservatives have all had significant support. If the goal of defeating the conservatives is stronger than my preference between the Liberals and the NDP, then it behooves me to vote strategically. The NDP came second in the previous election (the Conservatives won the seat) and the provincial election likely indicates some increased willingness to support the NDP, so that seems like the strategic vote. As it happens, this coincides with my likely choice, as stated above; if I’d decided that I had a small preference for the Greens or the Liberals, I likely would still be voting NDP for strategic reasons.
Some other random comments on the election and the campaign:
First, something positive. At least in the cross-section I made, this campaign is a huge improvement over the two previous in terms of vision. In the 2008 and 2011 elections, I felt that almost no party was presenting any kind of holistic vision for what kind of country we want Canada to be; instead, the campaign was a serious of unrelated special-interest announcements. While the news does seem to still be driven by such announcements, I was able to find a much stronger sense of purpose behind the opposition campaigns. My guess is that this is partly driven by reaction to the conservative record, which has been very minimal on vision. In particular, the indifference and/or hostility of the conservative government towards the workings of democracy (prorogation, omnibus bills, dominance of the PM’s office, onerous voting legislation) seems to have inspired the opposition parties to sound the call for democracy. This is a positive development. Similarly, I expected to be more frustrated about a tax code/tax cuts focused campaign, as I was in 2011. I was pleasantly surprised to find relatively little in the way of tax code campaigning in my search through websites and platform.
In contrast, something negative. At all the party websites (though only marginally at the Green’s), I was shocked by how much the election is driven by the identity politics of the leaders. Vast portions of the websites are devoted to bios of the leaders and even the policy is introduced as “Tom’s plan” or “Justin’s vision”. Throughout these three parts, I’ve intentionally referred to the parties instead of metonymically using the leader’s names. I really don’t want my election to be about the personality of the next PM — I want it to be about the style of government and legislative agenda of the next governing party.
The websites also seem very focused on social media. Aside from this blog (and I really have no idea how much readership it has), I don’t participate in much social interaction on the internet. I’m curious how important social media is to the campaign. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if it is the most important avenue of communication (which which explain the website focus).
I find the length of the campaign entirely unnecessary. I’m not sure what the strategic reasoning was behind the timing of the call; perhaps it was just the conservatives hoping to outspend the opposition over 11 weeks. In any case, as with most people I’ve talked to, I don’t feel the length of the campaign serves the interests of citizens at all. I intentionally ignored the campaign as much as I could during August and have only returned to it in order to write these posts.
I’m trying not to follow polls, for two reasons. First, I don’t want to obsess for weeks and weeks about the polling trends. I don’t feel such an attitude towards the campaign is particularly healthy for me — I would much rather simply read the platforms, write these posts, rethink my positions in response to feedback from my friends, and make a voting decision. Second, I don’t trust the polls at all. In particular, I’m very curious how pollsters are collecting their data. I’m not sure how available cell-phone lists are to phone pollsters. (I haven’t received a single polling call to my cell, for example). If phone polls are still limited to land-lines, that is a ridiculous sampling bias. Even if polls are using cell-phone data and/or social media, I have great doubts about their ability to consistently find reasonable cross-sectional samples.
Lastly, I’m pleased about the likely prospect of a minority government of some kind. Given that I see a lot of overlap between the Liberal and NDP positions, I’m very hopeful that a minority parliament would lead to development of these overlap priorities, most of which meet with my approval. I also like the style of minority parliaments, even with the risk of collapse and earlier elections. Should any kind of proportional representation legislation be tabled and pass, I imagine that minority parliaments might become the norm; I would be quite content with that reality.