Friends are Electric

What is the purpose of an education?  Forget for a moment post-secondary education specifically.  Much more generally: Why do we go to school?

Well, early on we go to school because its the law.  Why is it the law?  Democracy does not function with an illiterate population.  Truly, one of the major reasons why the residents of what would become Canada pushed for self-government is because individual farmers lacked the resources to educate their children on their own.  They needed the whole of society to support the education of a child.

Did they want an education for their children so that they could work?  In part.  They wanted a better life for their children and wanted a better society to live in.  Work is part of that, but not even the most important part.  Educated masses were the goal, for educated people are more difficult to push around.  It was a way to preserve gains.

Fast forward.  Why do we go to university? To get work? Hardly.  Work is important, and many of us have deluded ourselves into thinking that the goal of our education is a job at the end of it.  Like those who believe they are voting for a party or prime minister, they are not exactly wrong, just confused.  With government, we elect someone to represent us and indirectly select a governing party and prime minister.  With school, the work which comes after is not the goal but a desirable side effect.  The goal is to make citizens of students.  Citizens who can think and question.

Thats how it is.  As for how I think it should be, I believe that the government should only concern themselves with citizenship. Specific technical skills should be left to vocational training, which itself should be handled by the industry or professional organizations.  For example, provincial professional engineering organizations should run engineering schools, which may be associated with universities or collages, but not necessarily.  Vocational training should feature apprenticeships, much like many collage vocational training programs already do.  The focus should be on the utilitarian technical skills rather than abstract knowledge, which belongs in the realm of citizenship focused schools.

The confusion of schooling for knowledge and schooling for technical skills is something I view as negative since it downplays the importance of citizenship in us all.  It is something we should focus on repairing.

While, at least in Ontario, the history curriculum is incredibly weak, I am fairly certain most of us are familiar with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.  A truly important point in the development of the Canadian nation.

While this was not the only important event in the Seven Years War, it can be seen as a pivotal one, the turning point in the Canadian theater of the conflict.  The battle itself predicted the outcome of the war and shall be considered one in the same for the sake of argument.

In broad terms, a global perspective, the battle itself and the war by extension was a defeat of the French Empire by the British Empire on a generally worldwide scale.   The French colony of New France was merely a pawn in negotiations at the end of the war.  It is well known that had the British seen more prestige or a larger profit to be made in sugar plantations than they had in the fur trade of what would become Canada, then perhaps France would have regained their colony.  However, the French Empire ceded New France, the colony of Quebec, to the British.

From a French nationalist perspective, the battle and the war were a humiliating loss.  The English were an oppressive, occupying power, not liberators.  While little attempt was made to assimilate the French Canadians, this perspective is not unreasonable.

From a British nationalist perspective, it was a victory.  The allowances made for the French Canadian people were seen as unreasonable, especially in the 13 American colonies.

Neither of these perspectives, however, represents what is needed from a Canadian perspective.  The forbearers of one segment of Canadians were defeated by the forbearers of another part of the population.  Since Canada is a multicultural experiment this poses some difficulties.  How, for example, does someone celebrate our shared history while some see it as a triumph and others as a defeat?

I am myself largely of British ancestry, while possessing some French as well.  I grew up in a French Canadian town outside of Quebec.  The battle and the war were treated as a victory.  I do not think this is the way to deal with the event.  It is too simplistic and I feel as though it places too much emphasis on our historical inclusion in the British Empire.  Certainly, we are members of the British commonwealth and have much shared history and culture, but we are an independent nation with our own complex and interesting history and culture separate from our partners in the commonwealth and it is time we embraced this.

The question is how do we interpret this battle, this war.  Canada was founded largely through an alliance between both French and English Canadians.  Their work together lead to confederation.  Without the other party, neither the French nor the English could have been successful.  Certainly other word events, such as the British actions towards the Confederate States of America, helped found the nation of Canada.  Without the work of the Canadian Fathers of Confederation, however, Canada as we know it would not have worked out.

There were a great many years between the 1763 end of the war and the formation of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in  1791, their unification in 1841 and the final creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867.  One cannot discount the numerous important events that took place in these intervening years.  However, these years, as well as all the years since 1867,  do lend something to our shared understanding of the battle and thus the war.

Since 1791, perhaps earlier, Canada and that which preceded it has had two European cultural groups living to a large degree peacefully side by side in the same place, and since 1841 under the same government.  For no less than 169 years this has gone on.  Aside from a brief American incursion during their War of Independence and during the War of 1812 and a few scattered and minor rebellions, Canada has been largely peaceful since the Seven Years War.

So how then do we interpret the Seven Years War and the pivotal Battle of the Plains of Abraham?  As a victory or a defeat?  As a victory and a defeat?

We interpret it as the event which put together, in the same place, two different but similar cultural groups and allowed them to act constructively together in the future to build the nation we now call Canada.   The result of the battle may have been a defeat for the French Empire, but French Canadians have been able to practice their culture and speak their language ever since.  The result may have been a victory for the British Empire, but that empire is no more.

The result for Canada was that the right people were able to work together to found a truly interesting experiment.   Not a perfect entity.  Not a static entity.  Not anything that had been tried yet.  An experiment.  The Canadian Experiment.  And while not all aspects of this grand experiment have been successful, overall the experiment has been successful and warrants further study.

I have never made direct mention of them before, yet I constantly have been discussing the foolishness of their ideology.  And of the many undesirable direct consequences of their ideology. And now a direct attack by those who seek to destroy what for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands, citizens of the world have fought for.

The right to self determination.

This is sparked by an exceptionally ignorant editorial in this week’s issue of Imprint, the University of Waterloo student newspaper.   The editorial was titled No government is good.

What, exactly, is so wrong headed about this argument?  The first and most important problem is the argument that a non-functioning government is the best form of government, as though the people we elected to govern our nation are not up to the task  of it.

This idea has its source in a couple of deeply flawed ideas.

The first is the confusion between self interest and disinterest.   The former being what modern economics demands we operate solely by.  The later which democracy functions by.  Certainly economics is an interesting field of the social sciences, as important as any other, but it alone does not have the rights and responsibilities to run government, or any type of government policy.  Human beings are not solely self-interested beings, they are an irreconcilable combination of self-interest and group-interest.

Irreconcilable.  Combination.  Digest what that means for a moment.

Both factors are important for a functional human being.  Leave self interest for where it is best, and leave government to disinterest.  Society functions not based on the wild swings of the market but rather on the interactions of the human beings that make it up.  Interactions which do involve the buyer-seller relations described by economics but also the family, friends, neighbour, etc. relations.   When determining government policy, we must not enter with the thought “How can I get the best deal for myself,” but rather “What policies and practices are going to benefit society as a whole most.”

Ethics.  Operating for the greater good rather than the personal good or the private good.  When I am done school, self interest says that I should no longer care about education (unless I have children).  Group interest tells me this is the highest level of foolishness.  For social reasons as well as economic.  Certianly the old adage that the youth are the future does hold true and influences this, as employees and future employers as an economic argument but, more importantly for the fabric of society, education is the process by whch we train the next generation of citizens to act in the ethical fashion.

The second source of this ignorant argument is the corporatist.  The cult of the professional.

The ideology, which I am unsure if the writer even knows he subscribes to, is the principle that any task should be left to professionals and that the untrained cannot have an opinion, or an opinion which has an effect on the final outcome, about any topic which they themselves have no professional training or knowledge in.  Corporatism has its place, having an MBA decide the direction of pure scientific research would be foolish, since the MBA has no skills to help them.  Where corporatism is most dangerous is in government.

In government, corporatism has two important outcomes.  The first is that government must be run by professionals.  The environment ministry must be run by environmental scientists, since science is unbiased and impartial.  But are the scientists themselves biased?  And since they are scientists, they have no right to discuss policy with the natural resource departments, since environmental science is not the same as earth science.  And neither are the same as human resources, or finance or transportation.  Never mind the fact that all of these departments can be horribly interrelated to such a degree that any single specialist would never be able to see the big picture, the possible outcomes for other departments.  No, if you are not a professional in the field then your opinion has no validity.

Of course, the parliament itself is dominated by nonprofessionals.  The people elect it, and the people are not professionals in the art of government.   This is either solved by having professionals select government or by having the people select from a list of certified professionals.

Either case, our right to self determination goes out the window.   Which is the second important outcome.  We lose our right to govern ourselves.

Which is what the article is all about.  We have no right to determine how we want our society to be governed.  We are to be reduced to a passive role where the only vote of any consequence is which brand of toothpaste we purchase and from which store.   A mere mockery of democracy where societies interest is confused with the interest of large companies.

This morning, in my mailbox, was this delightful message from our local Member of Parliament, Peter Braid.  Before I continue and, so to speak, remove the muzzle on myself, I should point out that in the grand scheme of things, Peter Braid has done a fine job here in Kitchener-Waterloo.  He is, as far as I can tell, not the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  However, it is difficult to really determine things for sure since Mr. Harper keeps all of his MPs quite quiet most of the time.  The problem with the CPC is Mr. Harper’s autocratic leadership style.  That, however, is a low hanging fruit for another time.

The main message reads:

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I found this to be a laughable piece, and will now take you through it, paragraph by paragraph.

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

While this is pure false populism and thus disgusting, there is technically nothing wrong with it.  It does, however, set the tone for this entire piece.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

I’d call both of these points entirely false.  The first is certianly, the second might be a matter of opinion.

Firstly, I recall Mr. Harper saying something to the effect that Canadians should be buying stock right now, since it is such a good deal.  He said this during an election campaign after the crisis had really struck.  An election campaign which he ran largely without a platform, and thus, without a plan.  The fact is that the crisis really started to strike noticably a few weeks earlier than this, and to the best of my knowledge nothing was done about it for quite a few months owing to a prorougeing of Parliament.

It has been pointed out to me that technically, from an economist’s standpoint, a recession starts after two quarter years of negative growth.  So the recession would not have started until later than when things went bad.  I call nonsense on this point, if this is the argument the CPC is using then they have failed at communication.  Use regular style english, not professional jargon, when communicating.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

Amature sports are definatly a middle-class past time.  This is good for the middle-class, who were hit rather hard in the ongoing depression.  The only negative comment one can say about this is that it will not benefit those hardest hit.  This is a trend in CPC policy, and by extension in this pamphlet.  Moving on to tax credits.  A tax credit will only benifit those who would be paying taxes, if you are unemployed, you probably do not pay taxes.  Again, hardly helping those who need it most.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Now, until I read this pamphlet I did not know what such a thing was.  Apparently, to use their slant on the matter, it is descrimination against single-earner households who pay higher tax rates than an even split between the two with the same overall total wage.  Certianly such descrimination, which is what it is, should not be encouraged.  There may be issues regarding which persons work in a household which this solution glosses over, and I intend to find out more myself, but for now, I’ll give the CPC this one.  Well done.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

Good policy, but those who need assistance most lack money to save and are statistically less likely to educate their children.  Neither of these issues are addressed, granted, the later is a permanent problem and one can hardly blame the CPC alone for it.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

This statement is true if you benefited from any of the above listed items.  If you were a middle-class family with money to invest and spend on leisure and had a single wage earner, you are benefiting greatly from these policies.  This does include a very large number of Canadians, and I will not take away from that.  However, one must remember that this is not everyone and that there are many Canadians who truly need assistance.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

Allowing people to use up any savings they may have to get the economy started up on the exact path that just lead to ruin, bravo.  Add more tax cuts which don’t help people who cannot afford a home or people who don’t pay taxes and you have more standard conservative policy.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

Again: inflated housing prices help no one.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

I’ve always disagreed that a home is an investment.  A home is the place you live and grow.  Perhaps it is idealistic of me, but I find it impossible to put a price on such a thing.  Much less allow it to cause intense inflation.  However, this does promote spending and does employ some tradespeople, so while I find this ideologically unpleasant, it may actually work.  Again, only if you already have money to spend and have any taxes left to pay after all these tax credits.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

I won’t bother repeating myself on all this again.  It may work, but it doesn’t assist everyone in the country equally.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

Time will tell, but I expect that it will have some benefits.  Just not equally across the board.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I won’t fault them on these last statements, this is just politician talk and any party would say the same.

In summation, the Conservative Party of Canada is behaving like a conservative party probably should.  I will not say that they do not have Canada’s best interest in their mind, since everything they have done does address the problems at hand, albeit in a round-a-bout and convoluted way which I find ideologically disagreeable.

I think my days of reading mail propaganda are over for a while.

To anyone who lives within Canada, resentment of Toronto is a known but potentially strange phenomenon.  If you are not aware of it then you are probably from Toronto.  You may also live near another major Canadian city, and resent it for much the same reason which I theorise.  I personally hail from Northern Ontario, which is important as we probably have the greatest resentment for Toronto in the entire country.

As the title suggests, I believe that colonialism is to blame for these feelings.  Toronto is the economic capital of Canada.  Any reasonable person would admit this fact.  It follows that many international companies have their Canadian head offices in Toronto, as well as many Canadian companies.  This means that a large percentage of the decision making power in the Canadian economy is located in Toronto.  When a factory, mine or mill is closed by the head office of a company, likely located in the city, it is other parts of the country which suffer.  So, by virtue of housing these companies, the city is seen as responsible.

Beyond this, companies tend to place all of the management positions in the city.  This makes sense from their perspective as it keeps their corperate headquarters localised.  But this has the effect of keeping many of the high paying, non-directly productive jobs in Toronto.  From the perspective of the rest of the country, however, it seems as though the city itself is parasitising the country, feeding off the success of others while contributing only to its own well being.

Both of these factors, the disconnect between control structures within the city and the front line elsewhere and the parasitic relationship the city has with the rest of the country feel very much like colonialism without the violent  physical oppression.  If you add the media control and the fact that the rest of the country routinely hears local news from Toronto as relevant to their own location, you start to get more of the cultural aspects of colonialism as well as the economic which have already been described.

People within Toronto are unlikely to have an idea about the goings on in the province outside their city.  This is akin to the way many Canadians feel when watching “Talking to Americans” or other such programs.  The cause is the same: the colonial power has no need to know of the goings on in the colonies.

Within Ontario itself, Toronto also plays the roll as political capital.   Again, the reasons why the city is so dominant is clear to anyone who pauses to examine the situation, especially with regard to population and distribution of population.  But, again, to those who exist elsewhere in the province, there is still a dictatorship from the city.  Unless Toronto splits party support quite evenly, the votes of Northern Ontario, for example, are mostly irrelevant.  Once again, the structure is logical but leads to issues.

Considering the above arguments, it is easy to see why the rest of Ontario has an antagonistic relationship with the city of Toronto.  It is a political, economic and cultural oppressor and colonial power.  Within confederation, the same problems can be extrapolated to how the rest of the provinces feel towards Ontario.  The same considerations apply.  As well, anyone living near a major Canadian city, especially a provincial capital, can feel themselves sweeped away by the domination of the city.

The situation, by pure reason, makes perfect sense.  However, this pure reason is not considering the effects this has on people who live in the country, both inside and outside these cities.  The people within are largely oblivious to the way the rest of the country views them, which is largely part of the problem.   This is ignorance, pure and simple, and ignorance is an attribute to be combated.  People living elsewhere have the problem of feeling less important or slighted by this ignorance.  The end result is further dysfunction within Canadian confederation.

For now, I present no solutions or recommendations to this issue.  Personal education would go a long way to mitigating these issues, but I refuse to hold my breath.  Just as Torontonians are blissfully unaware, the rest of Ontario takes joy from its resentment. It is a truly dysfunctional relationship, but it helps to define the cultural landscape in this province and country, and perhaps that is worthwhile.

Argument on the Public: the public good moderated by individual rights is the fitness function for public policy.  If and only if a set of choices have the same value of public good can other factors come into play.

Argument on Culture: culture belongs to the public and exists for the public. The public is served through the further development of culture.  Public domain culture is publicly owned and controlled.

Culture and the Public taken together mean that public ownership of culture is in the public good.  However, creation of culture is also in the public good.

So we have an equipotential.  Total public ownership of culture is in the public good, but if creators are not compensated then less culture may be produced.  Total private ownership may cause extra creation of culture, however this culture serves the public good less than publicly owned culture.

It is our government’s job to maximise public good.  It falls to governments to create laws which balance the need for compensation with the public good of public domain culture.

Copyright is the current mechanism for this.  Under current laws the public good is not served and creators are not protected, distributors are.  Distributors do not create culture, nor do they look after the public good.  Current law fail to maximise public good, which is the role of government.

Dead culture creators do not need to be encouraged to develop culture, they are incapable of doing so.  Excessive protection periods do not promote public good either.  Both of these harm the public by preventing material from entering the public domain.

Excessively short protection periods prevent a suitable livelihood from being derived from the creation of culture.  No protection in the case of sudden death are dangerous as well as the creation of culture often comes with no pension.  Dissuading the creation of culture is against the public good as culture is not created.

Reasonable protections for the creators of works maximise the public good by encouraging creation of works while moving works into the public domain within the lifetime of those  who are alive for the creation.

Since culture is shared and dynamic, it is important to ensure that people living within a culture are not punished or dissuaded from the use of their culture.  The use and transmission of culture is how it lives and develops.  A culture which does not change and is not shared is dead.

Governments must be reminded that they are accountable to the public and that their purpose is to serve the public, not any group.  Problems such as this, and many others, can be quickly worked out in principle and consultation with the public may begin to determine the form of the final solution.  Such is the way of an effective, responsible government.

A neoliberal will argue that they support decentralisation because local governments are better able to deal with the ‘facts on the ground’ than a more centralised government.

This may be the case.

Certainly a local government is more in tune with the particular concerns of the people living in a province, region, township, city.   And there is a lot of truth to this fact.  A strategy to deal with poverty in Toronto is going to look different than a strategy in Timmins, Ontario or Churchill, Manitoba.

But there is another reason.  I would argue the real reason.   Related to division and conquest.  Certainly, no party could ever successfully destroy something like medicare on the national level.  The country is too large and diverse for any regional power to get enough strength and will to do so.  If they did manage then they would suffer tremendously during any following elections.

But on a regional level, things are much more prone to wild shifts.  In Ontario, for instance,  Mike Harris was able to rule the province owing to the population distribution.  On a more local level, the lessened diversity of opinion results in the chance of dangerous change occuring much more easily and rapidly.

This is, in my opinion, why neoliberalism is so in favour of decentralisation.  It has nothing to do with imaginary gains in efficiency, since a functional democracy is highly inefficient by design and necessity.  It has everything to do with the increased effectiveness in destroying the public good to increase their own power.

All this is not to say that centralisation is best in every case.  Just that a ballance of powers is best.  Reason is best when determining these things.  It just must be remembered that we should all do what is in the public’s good, not  our own personal good.  We must act as citizens, not selfish individuals.

Just when I thought I was free I get dragged back into it.

So I keep hearing the arguments that people `did not vote for a coalition.’  This is true.  The fact is that they did not vote for the Conservative party either.

We vote for a person, not a party.  Now, most of us do vote based on the party of our choice, however we must realise that our perceptions will not change the reality of our electoral system.  You did not vote for a coalition.  You also did not vote for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Marxist-Leninist or the Bloc Quebecois.  You vote for a single person who is theoretically supposed to represent your ideas.

Of course, not even I do this.  But I am mature and reasonable enough to realise what my vote actually means.  Please people, stop pretending that intention colours the meaning of the vote.  No individual belief or thought changes that you vote for a person, not a party.

Now we must understand this.  Anyone saying that they did not vote for a coalition is stating a fact, yes, but it does not carry the meaning they wish it to.  They are only revealing their ignorance to our electoral system or, perhaps, merely stating the obvious.  No one voted for a coalition, no one voted for the Conservative Party, no one voted for the Liberals, just as no one voted for any party.

Its just the way our government works.

Now that Parliament has been suspended for a month, it is time to examine the entire crisis as a whole.

Rick Mercer had a number of intelligent things to say on the subject.  He is essentially saying that Harper screwed up and is now clinging to power, while Dion is hell-bent on having his revenge on the Conservative Leader.

Werner Patels is saying that the NDP and its supporters are the biggest losers in the crisis, since as a member of the coalition, no one cares what Mr. Layton has to say.

I have seen people on both sides of the debate call the opposite fascists.

And I’ve seen Americans trying to explain the crisis.

On the whole, I am glad we now have a break.  Although I wish that all parties would stop spewing lies all over the place.  I can now sit back and digest exactly what happened, and perhaps muse on the best way to solve it all.  I’m still hoping that everyone can work together, but I somehow doubt that will happen.

Its time to talk politics again.  This whole ‘crisis’ is really trying my patience.  Especially the ignorance of those who seem to speak the loudest.  So, it is now time to set the record straight.

For some reason, the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has been able to convince the masses that coalition governments are both immoral and illegal.  This is an utter fabrication.  Truthfully, Harper should have a coalition in Parliament at this very moment, since his party does not have a majority of the seats.  Furthermore, if a coalition wishes to form and have power, it is fully able to.  This is how our government is supposed to function.  Stephen Harper can behave as though he has a majority as much a he wishes, but in reality he has a minority government, and a weak one at that.

There has been talk that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe were in collusion prior to the election, and perhaps even the Liberal Party was involved.  I do not know if this is the case, however, judging by seat distribution, I can guess that this is not the case.  One merely has to look to Italy since the mid 1990s to understand why this is the case.

In Italy, they have a multitude of parties but two ‘cartels,’ organisations of multiple parties which run elections in such a way that their power base is maximised.  It works like this: In riding A, there are up to 6 parties which wish to be elected.  This is far too many parties for any to gain a clear advantage.  Parties 1-3 are some variant socialists, parties 4-6 are some conservative variant.  They all differ on the Left-Right and GAL-TAN axis, but they share similar ideals.  For instance, you could have a Communist, Socialist and Social Democratic party in one group, a Conservative, Christian Democrat and Neofascist/Neoconservative party in the other.  Riding A has a traditional (TAN) bias and favours economic conservatism, but there are a large number of Catholics and the youth are somewhat radicalised.  Parties 1-3 know that alone they will not ever win, so they form a coalition and run one candidate between them.  Although the right-tan bias nets parties 4-6 60% of the vote, they divide it equally, leaving the coalition of parties 1-3 with the seat.  This behaviour obviously necessitates the same kind of behaviour on the TAN-right, which forms its own cartel and, by these numbers, would win the seat.  If any party leaves either of the cartels, the vote splitting would reduce both the leaving party and the cartel by a significant number of seats.

Because the NDP ran against Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois in the Federal Election this October, I can be fairly sure that they were not talking to each other beforehand.  And even if they were, so what.  If GAL values would be better promoted by a single party group instead of multiple parties then so be it.  The difference in votes in many riding would mean a vastly different result if the Liberals and NDP were really working together to form a coalition in the ways which Plurality requires.

Conclusion thus far: by the methods which our Plurality functions, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals were not in collusion prior to the election, although they perhaps should have.  Even if they were talking before hand, this is entirely legitimate.  I can recall a day when there were two conservative parties in Canada, they went through similar motions before unifying to the much stronger and more functional party they have today.