Michael Harris writes that a choice between Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer is a lousy choice. Trudeau has proved to be a remarkable blunderer. The list of his mistakes keeps getting longer:
Trudeau overpays for a pipeline carrying dirty oil through pristine rivers and forests in British Columbia;
He exempts certain tarsands projects from new environmental assessment rules in a crude trade-off with Alberta;
He considers loosening restrictions on the pollution of major rivers with toxic effluent from tarsands tailing ponds;
He allows the unregulated use of seismic blasting to explore for oil and gas on Canada’s east coast, right whales be damned;
That serial incompetence and hubris cost the PM two star cabinet ministers, his principal secretary, and his clerk of the privy council. And it is why he stands at a miserable 27 per cent in the most recent Leger poll conducted between April 18 and 22 for the Canadian Press — 13 points behind Scheer and the Conservatives.
Scheer, on the other hand, is worse:
But here’s the rub. As disappointing as Trudeau has been to many voters, the traditional alternative, the official Opposition, is far, far worse.
The government-in-waiting led by Andrew Scheer is a collection of Harper era re-treads peddling the same populist Republican policies Canadians vigorously rejected in 2015. As a group, the Conservatives’ favourite driving gear is reverse.
When the Tories had a chance to take the party in a new direction with a new leader, a step or two perhaps toward the values of the old Progressive Conservatives, they rejected someone like Michael Chong and chose Harper-clone Scheer. That was the declaration that, at least ideologically, this is still Harper’s party.
That could be why the Conservatives have never rejected the trademark policies of the Harper years that cost them government in 2015.
If you want to vote Green, your best hope is for a minority government with Elizabeth May holding the balance of power. So, here's the question. How do you arrange that without electing Scheer as the next prime minister?
I ask that from a province where Doug Ford is now the premier.
Image: Flipkart
10 comments:
I’ve said it before but I think it’s worth mentioning again. Think local. If the Green candidate in my district has the solid chance, he or she will get my vote and possibly my volunteer effort. If it’s a waste of a vote, I’ll trust my attention span to know it. Should the numbers change substantially throughout the course of the campaign or should I determine that my initial inclination had been incorrect, it may turn out that the guy who gets my help may not turn out to be the guy to get my vote. Meanwhile, I’ll keep whatever E-Day commitment I’ve made. I’ll watch the national numbers, but not to the extent that they take my focus off the locals, and I’ll take as little as possible on faith.
Don’t cloud your thinking by dwelling on the overall result with respect to minority vice majority and balances of power. If you want to help in avoiding the worst result, depending on your local circumstances you may have to bite it and vote for the candidate of a party you don’t prefer, in this case even if it’s a Liberal. Don’t get carried away by the moment and count on anybody else in the county to join your one-man rush to a three-man groundswell. It isn’t much fun, but when you go with your gut don’t ignore what your brain should be telling you.
I've wrestled with this for a while, Owen. I've had my fill of the standard Liberal tripe about how a vote for anyone but Junior is a vote for Scheer. If that is the case the blame for that lies squarely at the Liberals' and their leader's feet, not me.
I asked myself if I could support another four years like the last four and the answer is easy - no.
Neither Scheer nor Trudeau acknowledges the need to cut GHG emissions by half by 2030. Neither has any intention much less any plan to do that. Yet Canada, tiny Canada, is still in the Top Ten for total greenhouse gas emissions and in the Top Three for per capita emissions. That 50% by 2030 is not an option for us, it's not a target, it's a moral imperative and I won't vote for any party that won't commit to that. I can no longer condone this utter dereliction of our patent responsibility to our young people, our future generations and to humanity.
What I have chosen to vote for is the future, our grandkids, Greta Thunberg and all her inspiring followers. I'm going to vote for their future because voting for Trudeau or Scheer is voting against their future. Like it or not, that is the point we have come to today.
That last sentence is good advice -- not only during elections, but for life in general, John.
I truly understand your position, Mound. But I fear that, with our first past the post system, we may wind up with the worst of all possible worlds. Perhaps I'm hyperventilating.
The choice for me is easy. In my riding the Conservatives will win, full stop. Many of my acquaintances simply avoid voting at all. I want to send a message. I'll vote Green.
Well, perhaps you'll get people to think a little bit, Toby. Voting, after all, is supposed to require careful thought.
Not to be unduly argumentative, Owen, or so I hope, this election is like no other in our experience. In terms of governmental action to slash greenhouse gas emissions, the somewhat less than 12 years remaining is a heartbeat. If government remains in the hands of Trudeau or passes to Scheer the result is the same. By the time of the subsequent election it will be too late, over, done. As Harris writes, Scheer is bad but Trudeau is barely better. Remember that Trudeau has done more than any predecessor to make Trans-Mountain a reality.
I think weighing them against each other is missing the point. What we need to consider is which side of the line they're on. If they're both on the wrong side of that line, and they are, you know what you're voting for no matter whether your ballot is marked Liberal or Conservative.
I don't think we have had any real choice in this country for the last thirty five years and that seems to be the case provincially as well. I am inclined to believe the same flawed situation exists globally. When you consider the leadership throughout the world from Egypt, Phillipines, Turkey, Brazil, Britain, United States... the amount of vitriol and garbage spewed by "experts" is overwhelming. I think for the first time ever I can now ignore all the screeching , keep my blood pressure low and vote Green. No more strategic crap to clutter my brain. I hope my quiet space is not compromised by having to consider the J.W.R./ Philpott bandwagon on Monday
I wouldn't be surprised if JWR and Dr. Jane joint the Green Party, zoombats. Perhaps that might be the spark to get the revolution going. But -- at the moment -- the revolution has a long way to go.
I understand your argument, Mound. We'd be much better off if we elected a Green government. But that would be revolutionary. My experience is that revolutions don't happen very often. And they only happen when a significant number of people feel oppressed. My sense is that most Canadians aren't there. Perhaps it's willful ignorance. In fact -- let's be frank -- it is.
So my question is, if there's no revolution in the offing, what's the best -- as well as the right -- decision?
Post a Comment