It is an invaluable review of healthcare options in light of the Supreme Court's decision in its Chaoulli decision.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Smith: Iron Fist within a Velvet Glove or Wingnuts and Whackos?
Kim Campbell once said that an election is no time to debate serious
issues. There is no better example of this axiom than the current
Wildrose election campaign in Alberta. Frankly, the four main planks in
the Danielle Smith's election platform raise more questions than the
answer and set a new standard for vagueness and political double speak.
And if you are one of the undecided voters in Alberta, then questioning
what Smith and the Wildrose really stand for and what their promises
mean is the most important thing you can do before you vote on Monday.
Why critique Smith and the Wildrose and not Redford and the Progressive Conservatives? Redford and the PCs are a known quantity; the Wildrose are not and the media have largely given Smith and her party a free ride.
I reside in Alberta but have never voted for the Progressive Conservatives. Nor have I voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. What follows are a series of comments on Wildrose promises.
2. Danielle Smith and Caucus Management
Danielle Smith will tell anyone who listens that she will be a different type of premier for Alberta, one that listens to her caucus rather than a premier who runs roughshod over her MLA and party colleagues. In fact, Smith cites Ed Stelmach's poor treatment of caucus and his failure to take MLA interests into account as a key reason she joined the Wildrose Alliance.
According to a profile published in the Globe & Mail, Smith claims she decided to leave the Progressive Conservative party "after a meeting with PC MLA Rob Anderson in which he related how 55 members of Mr. Stelmach’s caucus had supported a particular policy position. Their unified voice was cut down when the premier overrode their decision." This is what Smith means when she says that she didn't leave the party, the party left her.
Smith and the Wildrose goes even further, promising to make every vote in the legislature a free vote. Specifically, Wildrose promises to "(r)estore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public (emphasis added).
In short, Smith and Wildrose are serious about giving their MLA's a voice in government. Moreover, we can expect a Premier Smith to take her caucus seriously when she and her team craft policy. This is how it's supposed to work in a parliamentary democracy right?
Well, here's the rub.
Smith also claims that a Wildrose government will not reopen debates or introduce policy changes on contentious public issues like abortion, race or sexual orientation. She considers these questions settled.
But what if her caucus decides differently? Wildrose already has one candidate that has said he's the most logical choice for voters because he's white and can best represent all ethnic groups in the Legislature (the Whites for Wildrose campaign) and another who's published anti-gay sentiments online. Are these isolated events or will there be a push by some members of a Wildrose caucus to reopen debate on contentious issues?
Every political party has its share of wingnuts and whackos and, in this regard, Wildrose is no different than the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals. In fact, the current Liberal leader is former PC wingnut. What does make Smith and the Wildrose different is the party's roots in the Reform movement and social conservative politics.
Abortion, immigration, gay rights, women's rights and other social policy questions are important points of contention for social conservatives and it is ludicrous to believe that Smith will allow the social conservative members of her caucus to have free reign or to heavily influence her agenda and embroil her new government in open-ended debates. Free votes sound great in theory - and especially during elections - but they are not conducive to sound legislative management.
Smith can't have it both ways. She cannot pretend to allow for an open management system, more caucus input and free votes and NOT allow her MLA's to raise objections and policy changes highly contentious questions.
Here is where a direct comparison of Smith and Stephen Harper is most relevant. Like Smith, Harper's politics are Libertarian, not Social Conservative. On most issues, Harper believes individuals have the right to choose their own destinies. Yet Harper, as prime minister and as one of the most controlling political managers in Canadian history, has been unable to eliminate or fully control the influence of the social conservatives within his ranks. What Harper has done is vectored the social conservative agenda to non-core policy areas, or at least areas that will not greatly affect electoral outcomes.
For example, Harper has allowed social conservatives to heavily influence Canadian foreign policy in regards to Israel and how Canada funds maternal health (the federal Tories eliminated funding for International Planned Parenthood and other NGOs that assist women with abortions, for example). Historically, foreign policy is not a factor in voter decision making in Canada. Social conservatives have also influenced immigration and justice policies, but not to any significant extent.
In short, Harper has managed the social conservatives but not eliminated their demands.The one exception is the vote on gay marriage which Harper allowed as a means of silencing the issue once and for all.
If Smith becomes premier she will have two key management decisions to make, to either allow her collection of wingnuts and whackos and control over her agenda through free votes in caucus and the legislature or to wield an iron fist inside of a velvet glove and ensure a Wildrose government stays on track and remains electable in what is becoming a very progressive and very urban province.
The latter is more likely than the former.
Why critique Smith and the Wildrose and not Redford and the Progressive Conservatives? Redford and the PCs are a known quantity; the Wildrose are not and the media have largely given Smith and her party a free ride.
I reside in Alberta but have never voted for the Progressive Conservatives. Nor have I voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. What follows are a series of comments on Wildrose promises.
2. Danielle Smith and Caucus Management
Danielle Smith will tell anyone who listens that she will be a different type of premier for Alberta, one that listens to her caucus rather than a premier who runs roughshod over her MLA and party colleagues. In fact, Smith cites Ed Stelmach's poor treatment of caucus and his failure to take MLA interests into account as a key reason she joined the Wildrose Alliance.
According to a profile published in the Globe & Mail, Smith claims she decided to leave the Progressive Conservative party "after a meeting with PC MLA Rob Anderson in which he related how 55 members of Mr. Stelmach’s caucus had supported a particular policy position. Their unified voice was cut down when the premier overrode their decision." This is what Smith means when she says that she didn't leave the party, the party left her.
Smith and the Wildrose goes even further, promising to make every vote in the legislature a free vote. Specifically, Wildrose promises to "(r)estore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public (emphasis added).
In short, Smith and Wildrose are serious about giving their MLA's a voice in government. Moreover, we can expect a Premier Smith to take her caucus seriously when she and her team craft policy. This is how it's supposed to work in a parliamentary democracy right?
Well, here's the rub.
Smith also claims that a Wildrose government will not reopen debates or introduce policy changes on contentious public issues like abortion, race or sexual orientation. She considers these questions settled.
But what if her caucus decides differently? Wildrose already has one candidate that has said he's the most logical choice for voters because he's white and can best represent all ethnic groups in the Legislature (the Whites for Wildrose campaign) and another who's published anti-gay sentiments online. Are these isolated events or will there be a push by some members of a Wildrose caucus to reopen debate on contentious issues?
Every political party has its share of wingnuts and whackos and, in this regard, Wildrose is no different than the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals. In fact, the current Liberal leader is former PC wingnut. What does make Smith and the Wildrose different is the party's roots in the Reform movement and social conservative politics.
Abortion, immigration, gay rights, women's rights and other social policy questions are important points of contention for social conservatives and it is ludicrous to believe that Smith will allow the social conservative members of her caucus to have free reign or to heavily influence her agenda and embroil her new government in open-ended debates. Free votes sound great in theory - and especially during elections - but they are not conducive to sound legislative management.
Smith can't have it both ways. She cannot pretend to allow for an open management system, more caucus input and free votes and NOT allow her MLA's to raise objections and policy changes highly contentious questions.
Here is where a direct comparison of Smith and Stephen Harper is most relevant. Like Smith, Harper's politics are Libertarian, not Social Conservative. On most issues, Harper believes individuals have the right to choose their own destinies. Yet Harper, as prime minister and as one of the most controlling political managers in Canadian history, has been unable to eliminate or fully control the influence of the social conservatives within his ranks. What Harper has done is vectored the social conservative agenda to non-core policy areas, or at least areas that will not greatly affect electoral outcomes.
For example, Harper has allowed social conservatives to heavily influence Canadian foreign policy in regards to Israel and how Canada funds maternal health (the federal Tories eliminated funding for International Planned Parenthood and other NGOs that assist women with abortions, for example). Historically, foreign policy is not a factor in voter decision making in Canada. Social conservatives have also influenced immigration and justice policies, but not to any significant extent.
In short, Harper has managed the social conservatives but not eliminated their demands.The one exception is the vote on gay marriage which Harper allowed as a means of silencing the issue once and for all.
If Smith becomes premier she will have two key management decisions to make, to either allow her collection of wingnuts and whackos and control over her agenda through free votes in caucus and the legislature or to wield an iron fist inside of a velvet glove and ensure a Wildrose government stays on track and remains electable in what is becoming a very progressive and very urban province.
The latter is more likely than the former.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Harper and Condoms for Africa
According to the G&M, Harper said "...the government is seeking to get the G8 countries to act to save lives, mothers and children, throughout the world….We are not closing doors against any options including contraception. But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion.”----------
G&M link
There's no questioning the positive link between maternal health, contraceptives, access to obstetrics and other medical care, including abortion.. However, if we take Hippo at his word - commence shock, horror and guffaws - and the plan is to engage the G8 in an international effort to improve the lives of African mothers, then not including contraceptives in Canada's proposal does make some tactical sense (queue more shock, horror and guffaws).
Here's why.
International agreements typically involved agreeing on the lowest common denominators between states, that is, agreement on those issues that politicians can sell to voters and legislators back home. If including controversial proposals lessens the likelihood of the overall proposal being adopted by the G8, and no one argues that contraception, family planning and abortion are not controversial, then eliminating such issues makes sense if it gets a deal done. In other words, if a deal involves 10 proposals for Africa, two of which are controversial and threaten to scuttle the deal, then it is better diplomatically and politically to get a deal for the remaining eight proposals than none at all.
It does not matter how liberal or open minded Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton are; it matters much more how liberal and open minded the US Congress is since that body must ratify any international deal Obama signs. Any international proposal that includes abortion is considerably less likely to pass the US Congress then proposals that do not. This issue plays out the same way with different outcomes in all of the G8 states. (Earlier this week, the UK foreign minister agreed with Clinton that abortion should be on the table for any proposal aimed at improving maternal health in Africa.)
In simple terms, this is what occurred with the much ballyhooed Millennium Goals adopted by the UN. The Millennium Goals identify maternal health as a key component but are silent on contraception, family planning and abortion. The Millennium Goals would never have been adopted by the Security Council and the UN Assembly had the deal included abortion.
The corollary is also true; any G8 agreement to provided maternal aid in Africa would be self-limiting insofar as not all African states accept programs where contraception is included. African states are as divided over these types of programs as Western states are, perhaps more so. If the goal is aid as many mothers and children as possible in Africa, does it make sense to include clauses that many African states would reject outright?
The science on contraception and maternal health is crystal clear. There is a positive relationship between contraception choices and maternal health. Even more simply, as goes the health of African mothers, so goes the health of their children.
It is illogical, however, to presume that every international aid programme for Africa must automatically include options for contraception. Maternal health is improved by contraception but it is also improved by a myriad of other factors, access to health care and obstetrics, neo-natal and peri-natal care, food, vitamins, clean water, safety, education and more. It should also be kept in mind that Canada and many other states already provide funding for contraception, family planning, abortion, condoms and safe sex education through CIDA and NGOs
Does this particular proposal for the G8 need it as well if it would impair getting the deal done and reduce its appeal in Africa?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
