Stephane and Elizabeth

Nothing like politics to burn off a delicious dinner. (Of course steak and frites with truffle oil for me and this amazing cider-braised pork chop with savoy cabbage and potatoes for my dining sidekick...) I just heard that Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, have brokered a deal: the Liberals will not run a candidate in May's riding and the Greens will not run a candidate in Dion's. Dion's not in any danger of losing his seat but May can concentrate her efforts, that are now considerably, significantly improved against Peter Mackay, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the 2nd in command with the Conservatives.

I think this is good for both parties. For the Greens, it means they may actually topple Mackay and win their first seat in Parliament (and for their leader, too). Im not a fan of the Green Party (still scratching my head at the scant kind of work theyve done, in the past and now, with non-white, working class communities that would demonstrate environmental issues isnt the hobby of the leisure class and the well-heeled) but I do think they deserve representation in the House what with getting (what?) 4-6% of the popular vote in federal elections (and a couple of ticks higher in provincial elections). Democracy is about more choice and Parliament should represent the views of as many Canadians as possible.

Some Liberal party members are apparently angered by this deal, claiming that Dion is still acting like he's on the leadership convention floor brokering deals and he should realize the Liberals are a national party which runs candidates in every single riding in the country. I think Stephane's a good strategist (he wasnt suppose to win the Liberal leadership race, remember? Wasnt even on the radar screen.) and this deal shows some sign of life in an otherwise lethargic performance since the December leadership race. (Maybe he's channeling the scrappy spirit of Jean Chretien?) By supporting the Greens and Elizabeth May, he gives the impression hes a man of values and action. A few months ago, he was the most vocal proponent of including May in the party leader's debate eventhough she doesnt have a seat in the House. Now, he actively supports her bid for a seat by bowing out of her riding. His deal with the Greens show that the Liberals are Canada's "real" green party, "real" as in committed enough to substantial environmental policies that even the Green Party is willing to work with them and "real" in the sense that the Liberals are the only green party that has a "real" chance of becoming the government to enact substantial environmental policies. This is a fine strategy what with the Conservatives all of a sudden painting themselves in all shades of green to give the impression theyre not anti-Kyoto holdouts spewing carbon emissions out of all the holes in their head who are nearing that magic 40% in the polls thats the general threshold for getting a majority government.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been terrible for Canada. There's no doubt that Canada has moved more and more to the right in the last few years and especially since January 2006 when the Conservatives were elected. From rising post secondary education fees to the general erosion of universal social programs to, most damningly, Canada's misguided, ill-conceived involvement in Afghanistan and Bush's war on terror thats given birth to a mutated form of Canadian militarism and patriotism, Canada has moved in the wrong direction. These Conservatives are not your grandfather's Progressive Conservatives. They're not your grandmother's red Tories. There's no David Orchard's amongst any of them. They're mean spirited, small minded isolationists. 5 years of a Conservative majority government would be heinous.

Now, as much as Im glad the Greens and the Liberals are strategizing to embarass and defeat a high ranking Tory minister while improving the chances of the Green leader to get into the House, I think this is a one-time, piecemeal deal. While most of 1993-2005 was spent with Reformers and Progressive Conservatives hand wringing about how to "unite the right" and prevent vote splitting, I dont think "uniting the left" is the answer nor is it a reality. It was inevitable that the vote-splitting worries would swing over to the left of the political spectrum. In the 2004 elections, there was already talk about how in quite a few ridings, the difference between the Conservative winner and the Liberal loser was smaller than the vote given to the New Democratic candidate so, the mathematical thinking went, had there been no NDP, these voters would have gone to the Liberals. Maybe. Maybe not. There's data about how, for example, the traditional union vote that collapsed for the New Democrats in the 1993 elections that dropped them from something like 43 to 9 seats in the House went to...the Reform Party on the extreme opposite of the political spectrum and *not* to the Liberals who are, theoretically and on paper, closer to the New Democrats. The populist rhetoric of the Reform Party, including keeping jobs in Canada and protecting them from being shipped overseas, struck a chord with GM workers. From taxes to healthcare, from post-seconary education to the military, there are pronounced differences between Canada's left of centre parties, from the Liberals to the New Democrats and the Greens.

I'll say it again cause I believe it that much: democracy's about more choices, not less. One of the great things about Canadian parliamentary democracy is the existence of several different national parties that are represented in Parliament. These parties should continue to argue and debate and expand their support rather than running into a corner to morph into one big bad party. Look at what's happened to the right. They have no choice other than Stephen's Conservatives.