Friday, August 26, 2011

Friday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to end your week.

- John Moore points out why the Canadian public is mourning Jack Layton with as much sincerity and energy as we've seen over the past week:
He wasn’t the only nice guy in politics, but he was one of the few to ever achieve such heights. He was on a permanent charge fuelled by an eternal optimism. At the core of the public’s reaction to his death is the recognition that he had a vision of Canada and of a society, and he was unwavering in his advocacy for it. Other politicians might pander with foolish and populist policies, or denounce things they actually believe in for political gain. Jack stayed the course. Is principal (sic) now so rare that a man who stands firm for those things he believes in is seen as vainglorious, self-serving and stubborn?
...
People liked Jack as a man and his sunny celebration of our country was infectious. The Prime Minister has recognized this unique bond by making the unprecedented offer of a state funeral. There’s a reason why Canadians mourn this week. It’s the appreciation of personal qualities and uncompromised political vision that they wish all politicians drew on.
- And Nick Taylor-Vaisey notes that politicians of all political stripes who have participated in keeping Layton on the front pages can largely been to have done so as a result of the public outpouring of grief:
At some point, someone suggested a candlelight vigil that evening, so it happened. Ottawans weren't alone. People across Canada coalesced around similar vigils.

Layton's other home, Toronto, reacted similarly. Its people flooded Nathan Phillips Square with a chalk memorial, and when rain washed it away, they wrote even more tributes. No one choreographed that routine. Later, a Facebook group popped up that urged the CN Tower to beam out orange light on the night following Layton's funeral. Soon enough, Gord McIvor, the vicepresident of Canada Lands Corp., said the tower would go orange for the night.

Even the lights on Niagara Falls, more than an hour's drive from Toronto, will shine orange that evening - another response to public wishes.

Each of these campaigns was driven by the crowd, and each memorial, or tribute, saw authorities of some kind reacting to that crowd. It's not what we're used to. Often, when we hear news about crowds doing things, it skews negative. They're rioting in Vancouver or, more recently, some parts of the United Kingdom. They're irrational, or at least ill-meaning. Left to their own devices, they're not to be trusted. They're why we have authority figures, elected or otherwise, in the first place, right? Don't we need them at times like these? Isn't that why we have protocol? So that people can follow direction?

The last few days at least make the case that it doesn't have to be so. The crowd that lined up on Parliament Hill to pay respects to Layton was sombre, and patient. They joined hundreds of strangers in that line, and advanced forward in unison. The sea of people set the tone. They took control of their Parliament, peacefully and respectfully, and then gave it back.

Next month, the people we elected will again take their seats. Let's hope they're as respectful as those who mourned the only MP who won't be back.
- There's been plenty of fabricated outrage over the NDP's work in making sure that Canadians can live up to the Layton family's last request for donations to the Broadbent Institute.

But it's worth pointing out how the workaround to run donations through the party first - while perhaps necessary when the institute still has some structural decisions to make - may serve to limit how much seed money it has to work with. After all, the direction of donations through the party also makes them subject to the annual individual limits under the Canada Elections Act - while donations directly to the institute wouldn't face any caps at all.

- Finally, Jay Rosen's take on how media coverage of politics should work is well worth a read.

1 comment:

  1. What? People who donate are able to get up to 75% cash back in government dollars when they donate to a political party? This is way more than most donors would get if they donated to a non-profit directly?

    But what about all the successful shouting and moral outrage from the Conservatives?  I thought they got rid of the party subsidies!!! That's what they told us they were going to do! It's almost as if they were sneakily trying to keep this type of windfall of cash all to themselves...

    In an update to that article, Elections Canada says "Section 405.21 of the Act prohibits a political party from soliciting or accepting a contribution if it has told the contributor that the money would be transferred to a body other than the party, a candidate, a leadership contestant or electoral district association." Do any of the other parties donate cash to organizations like the Manning Centre and Fraser Institute?

    ReplyDelete