Sometimes They Get It Right

Cautiously optimistic about this sudden pomopoli from all parties on EI, as reported by the Globe & Mail:

The four parties in the House of Commons are nearing a deal to fast track the government’s new employment-insurance legislation and put it to its first vote as early as Friday.

Government House Leader Jay Hill invited his Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois counterparts to a closed door meeting just after noon to discuss the government bill, which was officially introduced in the House of Commons Wednesday afternoon.

Meetings. Discussion. Issues. Laws. It doesn't make for great TV, but it's a pretty good way of getting things done. We'll see if they're serious...

We'll have ads! (just nothing to talk about in them)

--
Hate to pick on Jack and the Dippers, bless their perpetually aggrieved souls, but a news release they sent out today accidentally makes a not-so-uplifting point about where priorities lie in politics today.

Here is an excerpt of that release, touting their election readiness. See if you can spot what's missing:

Campaign manager: Ready. Last week, Jack Layton named current National Director and former Director of Strategic Communications Brad Lavigne as the party’s campaign manager.

Candidates: Ready. The party has 250 ridings with candidates lined up. (New Democrats prefer that local ridings run nomination meetings, which is a longer process than merely appointing candidates.)

Campaign plane: Ready. New Democrats have an agreement with Air Canada for an Airbus A-319 – the same plane as the party used in the 2008 election.

Advertising agencies: Ready. New Democrats have hired Toronto-based Wills and Co. Media Strategies for English and Montreal-based Amen Creation for French language advertising.

Campaign financing: Ready. New Democrats will be spending the legal maximum in this election – the first time the party has been able to make such a commitment two elections in a row.

So we know they have money, people, and even transportation. What they fail to deem necessary is a platform, or any mention of any policy ideas at all.

Apparently, an explanation of what you plan to do if elected and how you plan to do it is no longer considered an important step in preparing for an election. At least not as important as lining up that ad agency.

What the Hell is Wrong with Us?

I've found the perfect fodder for a first post, courtesy of political scientist Ned Franks, because it speaks to the uneasy feeling many have that there is something terribly wrong with Canadian politics.

If there is a point to this blog, it is to give context to that feeling, identify problems and their sources, and look for better ways of doing things.

Our politics is today mix of partisan bickering, toxic lack of cooperation, and the triumph of spin over substance. These things are wrong in and of themselves, but are double-whammies because they drain resources - time, brainpower, money - that could be used for other things. Like, say, running the country.

Franks's presentation last week during a Public Policy Forum gathering makes starkly clear the need for pomopoli in Canada.

If it seems to you like our politics have taken a turn for the absurd in recent years, you're right. Our parliamentarians play games, hurl insults, stage photo-ops, and bleat out pseudo-truthy talking points.

But are they governing (you know, the reason they're there)?

Turns out that No, they aren't.

In convenient PowerPoint slide form, Franks neatly illustrates how far we've fallen:

Table III: Success Rate on Government Bills, 1945-2009
Prime Minister	Years	% Royal Assent
King-St. Laurent	1945-1957	96.20%
Pearson	1963-68	90.80%
Trudeau	1968-1979	68.50%
Trudeau	1980-1984	78.10%
Mulroney	1984-1993	72.80%
Chretien	1993-2004	69.50%
Martin	2004-2005	60.81%
Harper	2006-2008	8.27%
Harper	2009	48.15%

Yup, you read right. Parliament used to pass laws in this country. Not anymore.

Question is: why?

Are minority governments to blame? Hardly. Pearson led two straight minorities, and never had a majority, yet his success rate speaks for itself.

Franks offers one semantic reason that's also cause for concern: the average number of days the House of Commons sits in a year has fallen from 163 in 1973 to 105 today. As I've hinted, I think the spike in partisanship and concurrent drop in cooperation also have something to do with it, as does the general tendency by all - politicians, media, us - to favor political sport over substantive policy discussion. These problems are not disconnected.

Point is, our parliamentarians are showing up to work less often than they used to, and when they do show up they're barely getting anything done.

Parliament resumes today. We can't be certain if an election is coming. We can be certain no work will get done, what with all those hours reserved for posturing over a possible election. Governing just isn't as important, I guess, or at least not as sexy.

Something is very wrong here. Time to look for better ways.