Queenie’s flattened. And it’s only Tuesday.
Don’t know why. Can’t be the cold – the weather is great here at the moment. Like an Irish winter except with very little rain.
So it's better than an Irish winter.
She was up late last night, along with every other politico in Canada. Watching the second Leader’s Debate. There’s another one tonight, but it’s in French, so she doesn’t have to watch it as she hasn’t told anyone in work that she understands French.
It was very dull apart from Giles Duceppe, who rocked, and some kerfuffle that had something to do with the word notwithstanding, which had everyone up in a heap and shouting at the telly. (Queenie had been watching the debate with some people from the party, of which more later).
The Notwithstanding Clause
The Charter of Rights is the Canadian Constitution, as far as Queenie can make out. It has a notwithstanding clause, as follows:
Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality).
In the middle of the debate, Paul Martin, whom Queenie thought had been doing pretty well up till then (with the help of the CBC who were giving him a lot of very nice, tight camera shots and including him in shots of the other leaders so that they were being seen in profile, not that the CBC are biased at all after what Brian Mulroney did to them and most journalists being Liberals as far as Queenie can make out) waved his arms in the air a lot and said he’d abolish the notwithstanding clause if he won the election.
The reason he said it was to highlight the fact that Stephen Harper could use it to overturn same-sex marriage.
The real reason he said it was presumably to imply that Stephen Harper can’t be trusted with it, it conferring on him as it does the ability to turn Canada into a police state in emulation of the neo-Cons south of the border he’s supposed to be sucking up to.
Because Paulie never sucks up to our Great Yankee Overlords and didn’t spend the last ten years warning Canadians not to upset their biggest market. Or threaten to bring in swingeing anti-terrorist laws which would have trampled on quite a few rights outlined above.
Or maybe I am reading too much into it. We'll see. It usually takes journalists a couple of days to internalise what politicians really mean when they say things (and sometimes politicians are surprised at their own perspicacity when they read the paper on a Saturday).
Anyway, they spoke of nothing else in the corridors of power today.
Yawn.
All Queenie could see was a big red, scaly fish. But maybe she’s missing something really important. Maybe Stephen Harper is going to turn into a right-wing yankee bastard. Maybe he already is. Maybe Paulie is all that’s standing between us and Armageddon.
Jesus on a bicycle, Queenie is bored to death with all of this shouting and roaring. It’s an effing democracy. People can vote for Straight Steve if they like the cut of his jib. Or if they don’t like the cut of Paulie’s. Or they’re feeling reasonably prosperous and fancy a change. Or if they are inherently right-wing and conservative and feel that he represents their views. Or whatever.
Pulling cheap media stunts is not the correct way to show him up for the uncaring idealogue he is.
Unfortunately, it’s the way that seems to work the best.
But why is it that when you knock on doors and talk to decent people who take their civic duties seriously they ALWAYS tell you that cheap stunts drive them crazy? If it's not the electorate, then who is causing it to be the most effective method of getting elected?
The media?
The pollsters?
The bloggers?
They're always moaning about it too. Even though it pays the mortgage on the cottage.
The Third Way
So if nobody likes this, when is someone going to have the balls to try to get elected some other way?
This of course is the opportunity that presents itself most apparently to the Third Party. It's a good fit with basic Third Party strategy in the final two weeks of a campaign. When you’re the third party, the best thing to do is in the last couple of weeks of a campaign is to hunker down while the First and Second Party throw shapes at each other in the form of expensive negative advertising and cheap political stunts, and keep repeating over and over and over ‘if you want something different vote for us’.
Because you are going to get ignored by the media anyway, because they prefer two horse races.
Queenie has seen this up pretty close thirty eight times already and it's no different this time. The Greens used it to great effect in Europe in the eighties. The PDs use it in Ireland all the time (even though they're the fourth party/ or is it the fifth now?)
Did anyone hear Jack Layton in the midst of all the shenanigans last night?
Queenie couldn’t take her eyes off his makeup. The man with the swinger’s oobit will be forevermore known to her as ‘Rosebud’, and the person who did his blusher should be taken out and shot.
But apart from that, and apart from fluffing the question on swingers (the answer to which was the government should stay out of people’s bedrooms, not HealthCare is Important), that's what Rosebud did last night. Queenie would like to think that his debate strategy came about because the Third Party has listened carefully to the voice of the people and decided to be the headboy of schoolboy politics.
But she is almost too cynical to believe that.
Almost.
Presumably the rest of Canada feels the same as Queenie about The Clause. Himself wasn’t jumping up and down about it anyways, and thought Rosebud won the debate. But he’s a little biased.
But the media could speak of nothing else today of course.
Was it for this the boys burned down the White House in 1812?
The effing notwithstanding clause?
No comments:
Post a Comment