I've been seeing a lot of the same attitude, on Facebook, in the Globe and Mail, and on the Blog roundup. People who are unsatisfied with Mr Harper, particularly on the environmental file, say basically the same thing: "The Conservatives don't have a majority of the vote, how dare they act this way?!"
No offense, but despite your good intentions, you are wrong, and desperately so.
You see, the Canadian political system is not based on having a simple majority. The system is based on having a plurality. For example, in individual elections, candidates need only achieve a plurality as calculated based on census data and how many candidates there are to win. Example: riding North Nowhere has 8 thousand registered voters. Elections Canada generally leaves some fudge factor to allow for unregistered, and yet valid, voters. There are 3 candidates. Thus, the first candidate to achieve more than 1/3 of the vote wins. By the estimate, even with a little fudge, the first candidate to get 3000 votes wins. The others generally concede at this point. Hence the colloquial term "First past the Post".
As translated to the national system, the party that forms the Government is the party with the plurality of seats. Whether or not it is Minority or Majority depends on whether that plurality actually is a majority. In Mr Harper's case, he has what we call a Strong Minority because he only needs 10 or so people to vote with him from outside his party. This is ridiculously easy to achieve, because there are enough at-risk seats on the outskirts of Toronto and in Québec that certain MPs cannot afford to upset their electorates, nor can they afford to force an election.
Here's where it gets interesting. Let's go with estimates of current polling data, and apply them to the Environment. A lot of very well meaning people I know are very upset because the new budget doesn't include green measures, and in fact passes some of the responsibility away from the federal government to arms-length Crown corporations. Outrage ensues. After all, only 30 percent of people agree with the Conservative position, so 70 percent disagree, right?
Wrong. The Liberals and Conservatives are neck-and-neck at about 30 percent. The Liberal position, after the fiasco that was the Green Shift, is identical to the Conservative position, with the exception of the Tar Sands. Factor in about 5 percent for 1/5th of Liberals being more to the extreme left, and you still get about 55% of polled Canadians who are OK with the current plan. This is assuming that EVERYONE who votes NDP, Green, and BQ are on side with the environmentalists. A reasonable assumption in the case of the NDP and Greens, but not so in the case of the BQ. You see, Québec already has the greenest emission standards in Canada, and it is causing all kinds of problems for BQ heartland ridings. You need only examine the agonizing contortions the Charest Government put itself through over the Abitibi-Bowater plant closure issue to see that in Québec, the domestic is all that matters. While Québeckers love to be seen as "progressive and green", the minute you tell them that you're going to have to cut a favourite entitlement or close a factory because of a green policy, you can bet your ass there's going to be voter backlash. Not to mention the BQ just lost Rivière-du-Loup(!) to the Conservatives, so Mr. Duceppe is clearly playing defence.
So, as regards the more accurate estimate of polling data, what you get is something like this.
Conservatives- 30/30 do not consider the environment a priority.(-)
Liberals- 20/30 do not consider the environment no. 1(-)
NDP- 15/15 Consider the Environment no.1 (+)
BQ- 7/10 (Again, pretty generous) Consider the Environment no. 1(+)
Green 10/10 Consider the Environment no. 1(+)
Other- (just to be generous) 5/5 Consider the Environment no. 1(+)
So, even with me being generous to the Environmentalist side, you still get a (-)53/47(+) split in favour of Mr Harper's position. And this is without even considering the degree to which people agree or disagree with the policy. Factoring for that, Liberal voters care more about winning elections than they do about policy specifics, and Mr Harper has been teaching the Conservatives to play the same way. Given the degree to which Green measures are becoming unpopular in the US, especially California, as the supposed "Green Jobs" fail to materialize in the current economic climate, it should be a surprise to no one that neither of the serious contenders for Canadian government are choosing the Green Hill as the one on which to die. The Liberals did it once already, and it plummeted them to historic low standings.
The final lesson on this whole thing is this: just because you don't have 50 percent of people in agreement with you doesn't mean you don't get to make policy. To use an invented example, let's say that the Conservatives introduced a measure to declare the Pumpkin as Canada's National Vegetable (or whatever pumpkins are. I'm not a botanist).
30/30 conservatives agree.
10/30 liberals agree
20/30 liberals want the apple
5/10 BQ agree
5/10 BQ want the apple.
15/15 NDP want the mango (because we all know NDP voters don't make any sense at all)
2/10 Green want the strawberry
2/10 green want the apple
6/10 green want the mango
5/5 other don't care.
End result? 45/100 want the pumpkin! HOW DARE THEY?! THEY AREN'T THE MAJORITY!
Right, but they are the plurality because the other 55 percent can't agree. And they aren't going to force an election over it. Thus, Canada's national vegetable...fruit...gourd, whatever, is now the Pumpkin.
Moral of the story? If the "Majority" of Canadians really want something, politicians are willing to go to the polls over it. Mr Ignatieff just isn't convinced that the environmental issue translates to votes. And as it stands, the Liberal Party's horse and carriage tends to get rodent-powered, orange, and very eco-friendly when the electoral clock strikes midnight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Understood. Our system allows a party with a minority of electoral support (38% of vote or 22% of Canadians) to get a near majority of seats (46%), and then need minimal support from other parties to pass laws and budgets. You're right, Harper has every right. There's nothing illegal about it.
ReplyDeleteDoes this extremely low importance of the environment represent the views of Canadians? That's a different issue all together. I think that most Canadians care at least somewhat about our impact on the environment, be it smog, species extinction, destruction of natural spaces (your Wilderness?), or contaminated water, to name just a few issues.
Also, please don't compare "a priority" for one party vs. "no. 1 priority" for another. Apples vs. oranges.
The budget bothers me more because it seems to go out of it's way to dismantle environmental regulations rather than simply ignore them (being a low priority). In my opinion, the National Energy Board and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should NOT be having anything to do with environmental assessments around new energy projects. I think it's simply irresponsible.
How so? They're governmental bodies specifically designed to oversee energy projects. Environmental assessments aren't just about how eco-friendly something is. It also has to do with whether or not the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable. And if you're worried about bias, I'll remind you that it's environmental groups like the Sierra Club that have prevented us from building new Can-Du reactors (which produce significantly less depleted uranium and are ludicrously eco-friendly).
ReplyDeleteNo one on the energy issue is unbiased. You'll have to forgive me if I'm going to side with the group that has Parliamentary oversight rather than the one that attends protests.
And as an aside, even if it isn't the number one priority, the priority of a party able to collect the plurality still trumps the number one priority of a party that cannot. So comparing apples to oranges when deciding what gets eaten isnt really inappropriate
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that an organization without the environmental expertise in assessment with interests in the success of the project in question is vulnerable to do a much more poor job than the Environmental Assessment Agency whom have the necessary expertise and no conflict of interest. And by 'poor' I mean oversights that could critically compromise people's safety or local ecosystems.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside: I think it's a stretch to call a Can-Du reactor "ludicrously eco-friendly." They may do a better job than the enriched alternatives (btw proposed Advanced Candu reactors will used enriched fuel), but there's nothing eco-friendly about mining, transporting, and using radioactive fuel; not to mention warehousing spent fuel and low level waste for thousands of years. (Interestingly 95% of nuclear waste is 'low level' including floor sweepings and protective clothing.)
Regardless, as a Conservative, aren't you concerned about the huge costs associated with nuclear plants? I believe we in Ontario are still paying for these plants built over 20 years ago. Regardless of how safe or green it could be made, nuclear is simply unfeasible.
Josh, you inadvertently strike the winning blow. The reason that nuclear power plants will not proliferate has nothing to do with the environment; they are economically unsustainable. They NEVER offer a financial return on investment. If they did, the world would have rushed to build thousands of them. Germany, the world's most nuclear powered nation, built them in the days when they had fat bank accounts and no other way to produce electricity. They have not built one since, nor will they.
ReplyDeleteGreen is good; but economics rules the marketplace.
Anonymous, you're a little off on that. Nuclear reactors have prohibitive costs BECAUSE of the environmental movement. The cost-returns are so high because the cost of uranium is so high, despite the fact that uranium is frighteningly plentiful. Nuclear power has been made "unfeasable" by the anti-nuke hysteria of the 60s, facilitated by sensationalist media.
ReplyDeleteUranium mining is prohibitively expensive, not because mining the stuff is actually difficult or dangerous, but because as soon as you say the word "uranium" people start panicking. You can walk into an open uranium mine with no more protection than a dust mask and some rubber boots and be fine, but because of the optics of it, completely unnecessary standards are applied. Despite the fact that Canada has some of the richest uranium deposits in the world, it is completely unprofitable to mine for them due to the costs and delays of report after commission after inspection, not to mention the protests.
It isn't that the reactors are expensive. India runs many Candu reactors as an essential part of their energy infrastructure. It's that the fuel is so damn expensive. It's all a question of optics- just as bioethanol was touted as a good fuel solution despite its many flaws (not least of which was the causing of food riots), nuclear power has been labeled as scary and bad. Storing nuclear waste is as easy as building a concrete shell. Spent uranium doesn't emit much gamma radiation- it's mostly alpha and beta. 6 inches of wood will block all alpha and beta, and 2 feet of concrete is overkill as far as the gamma is concerned. There are research reactors that are less well shielded than spent fuel storage sites. Also, depleted uranium is of use to the arms industry for producing armour-piercing sabot rounds, as well as being a component in advanced armour alloys.
As for the market cost? Markets are consumer driven. Consumers have been persuaded that nuclear energy is bad and scary. Canadians have the easy alternative of hydroelectric energy, so there was never any real need to encourage a healthy uranium-based market. It was easy political points to say we weren't going to build scary reactors, because we didn't need the energy. You'll see, probably in the next 20 years, the Americans take the lead on this.
You, too, are off on that. I do not dispute any of the radiation facts that you cite but I think you miss the point. It would certainly be possible to build a reactor much more cheaply than we do but the cost of cleaning up after an error would bankrupt even a government. Ask Dow what the cost of cleaning up a chemical accident like the one in Bophal costs. The death count ranges from 3,000 to more than 10,000. That was India. Consider what the costs would be to the Ontario government if Pickering accidentally killed even 1,000 people.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that our society expects certain safety features and every added feature costs money. The reason that even the cheapest mercedes costs twice what a hyundai does is because the owner is confident that he and his precious cargo will walk away from a high-speed collision. Has there been fear-mongering? Yes, of course there has but even if there were not nuclear power remains financially questionable. Both Germany and France are quite fond of their nuclear power plants and the locals do not fear them; in spite of that, they are run not because they are economical. They are run because there is no viable alternative in most cases.
I am not anti-nuclear; like you; I just think that, our decisions should be based on facts more than emotion.