The great debate

What an interesting Canadian Federal election debate. I must admit I am of two minds.

Firstly, it is difficult weeding through the media coverage to find what the politicos have concluded, as differs from how they think the politicians performed. The real race happens on October 14th, and I would prefer less information from journalists, who confuse editorials with news reports, since they don't seem to interview experts in politics.

For example, Keith Boag, on CBC Newsworld, explained that while one leader spouts off about huge job losses (correct: 95,000), another leader claims we have gained in other sectors (87,000 to date while the Conservative have been in power). That is analysis.

When Mr. Mandsbridge interviews his panel (Chant Hébert, a Quebec-centric journalist; Andrew Coyne, small 'c' conservative; Allan Gregg, Chairman of Decima Research: Pollster) and they discuss the debate, where is the objective analysis? Most journalists toe the party line of their respective media outlets. A pollster ought to be neutral and should not even be on a panel.

Once of the last questions in the debate was from someone who wondered how we can count on the politicians to do as they say they are going to do?
I heard someone say that if politicians do not do as they said during electioneering, they ought to be forced to resign, except for extreme circumstances that make this morally impossible.

A question I heard from a constituent member was, "How do I decide for whom I should vote?"
This, too, is a dilemma. We have spoken about strategic voting in my household.
I have concluded that with a local vote that might not make a difference, I must vote for the party that best promote my views of our world, the environment, and what is best for people's wellbeing, no matter their socioeconomic status.

The Conservatives ran a platform, in 2004, which they did not uphold: declined any Senate reform(a useless institution IMHO). They they lowered taxes (GST), which had little impact on my peers, with huge cut backs in services, ignored Native issues, and demonstrated leadership that cares little for the proletariat . (i.e., bourgeoisie-Harper said last night: "people aren't worried about losing jobs" shows the workers do not factor in the Conservative's mindest.) For them to cut Arts funding was an insult to every actor, audience member and artist, but if we do not have the cash to support it, should we rethink tax-based support vs. tax deductions? On the other hand, the government funds Bombardier, who also donates money to Shaw Festival. Where is the justice in that?

I think that the Arts community, big business, sports teams, all should be based on a market economy. If there is a market for it; if they build it, they will come. Tax breaks for those making a difference is another kettle of fish. But to allow corporations to take with one hand and then walk away, as they have done with the auto industry, is a terrible disservice to the people who depend upon it. Jobs are being outsourced to other countries. (If you phone a credit card company or IT department for service, you likely will talk to someone in India). Deregulation has not worked in the Airline Industry, it didn't work for the American mortgage-lending industry, and it requires further examination here. It is time to tighten up regulations that will protect Canadians, not financiers.

The Liberals & Greens want to institute a carbon tax to enforce big business to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, this will effect those who cannot live and work in the same place. It will impact our food, our heat, and the lives of ordinary Canadians. I simply cannot vote for a party that promotes this notion. It is said to work well in Scandinavian countries, but they are smaller countries, with less diverse geography and populations. I resent those making big bucks off this topic promoting a cause in such a subjective way. By what right do those with position and power advocate for one issue, and ignore all the others facing Canadians? We should not be "making polluters pay", we should be stopping them from wanting to or being allowed to pollute. For Global TV to justify travelling around the country in an airplane to talk to the 'man in the street' (The People's Express) five nights in a row, and dismissing its carbon effects by buying carbon credits, is absurd. This is a mindset that must be changed.

Mr. Layton want to increase taxes for big business, which means they will leave our country tout de suite. Big business is here for profit. The government should be here for the people. I know that corporations, like WalMart, have totally screwed our economy (see the WalMart effect) and allowed investors, speculators and profits, to undermine small business owners world-wide. The lowest price merchandise and the highest returning dividends do not a strong economy make.

My dilemma is how to vote locally. I must vote for the person, but must keep in mind the party that best represents a plan that presents me and my philosophy. How do I ensure that my region (Muskoka) has a voice? There are Federal issues (Day Care, Health Care delivery and access, the environment) and having seen the impact of local town residents (who have NIMBY syndrome), local councillors decisions and actions, as well as the navel gazing of local media (who do not demonstrate unbiased reporting), and local debates which are not well-attended. There are people in my riding, as in many others, whose parents voted (pick one: Conservative, Liberal, NDP) all their lives but in this day and age we are seeing an upturn. The Green Party (Green Party Rally in Parry Sound), and according to the buzz I hear, is attracting young people who care about the environment above all else. This is good as young people have not turned out in great numbers.

My local vote will be based on which party best exemplifies my perception of the role of government in protecting people, the environment and my tax dollars. I cannot vote for the person who demonstrated the best potential leadership skills in my riding, as perceived by their performance during local debates, since I do not embrace all of their party values. My conscience weighs heavily. I do think we need electoral reform as the 'first past the post' does not work. I think, as a friend suggested, that we ought to be electing our Prime Minister in a seperate election.

BTW
I really wish that someone would teach M. Dion how to say the word environment en englaise! It would really help his campaign and his performance!