BC Premier Clark Dumps Early Election Promise

Christy Clark made a few significant promises during her run for the leadership of the BC Liberal Party, and the premiership of BC. Among these was a promise to seek a mandate as an elected premier:

"I think two and a half years in government as an unelected premier is an awful long time," Clark said in Victoria. "I think British Columbians might be right to say, by the time 2013 rolls around … 'We want to get a chance to vote for you under the basic principles of democracy.'"

Sounds pretty laudable. Today we learn that commitment to democracy is out the window.

“I was really clear about [seeking an early mandate] when I ran, but I've had enough citizens tell me that they don't think it's the right time for an election,” she said.

I get it. You pledged to do one thing during your campaign, then when the political context shifts immediately after you're confirmed, you decide to renege on your pledge. That seems really familiar...where have I seen that scenario before? Oh yes, it was your immediate predecessor, Premier Campbell. His broken promise was the reason for his abrupt departure.

So, how does this play out? It'll take eighteen months to restore the PST, apparently. Before that time, the fight will have gone out of Vander Zalm's army of canvassers, and a new preoccupation will emerge. Then you can campaign on a new mandate that includes maintaining the HST. Lo and behold, no change in the tax, and the 'people' will have endorsed keeping the tax.

Maybe I'm wrong.

The Paradox of the Populist Shift to the Right

On Fareed Zakaria GPS today, Zakaria's panel discussed the debt ceiling, the deficit, and the downgrade. One thing that caught my eye was this exchange Zakaria had with Ariana Huffington:

FZ: Ariana, how can you explain this: that you have had the biggest financial crisis and recession one would argue, in some part caused by the irresponsibility of the private sector, and the response not just in the United States but across Europe, has been that the right has been strengthened and the left has been discredited?

AH: I think the reason is that the public mistrusts government because government has bailed out major financial institutions that brought us to the brink of collapse, that basically government now is providing welfare for many entrenched interests. Government is not there any longer to support the weakest among us or the most vulnerable. I mean, you see this sort of intersection of lobbyists, big corporations, and Washington is really what people are turning against. If somebody--

FZ: And they think of the left as the party of government, so--

AH: Exactly, even though, in truth, government has bailed out many more powerful [financial] institutions...

I think the exchange encapsulates the paradox of the populist shift to the right and its underlying cause:

- The government reduced oversight of the financial industry

- Deregulated financial institutions destabilized the economy and caused the recession

- The recession dispossessed citizens of their homes, jobs, and wealth

- Government bailed out financial institutions with taxpayer money

- Government can't be trusted with our money

- Government must be smaller: Vote Conservative!

- Smaller government will lead to reduced oversight of industry

- Repeat democratic death spiral

Harper Selects Senators Alone In His Shower

Mike Duffy on Senate reform, speaking on CBC's The House, June 25, 2011:

"If you get a process whereby a Prime Minister by convention respects the democratic rules set out in this legislation, and only appoints people who have been elected, it'll be very hard in the future for any other Prime Minister to go back to the stand-in-the-shower-and-consider-who-you-want-to-appoint method of democracy, which is what we have now."

Maybe this statement has more to do with Mike Duffy's fantasy of his own Senate appointment process than with how the Prime Minister actually select senators.

Duffy gave more insights into the current process as he explained the value of a nine year senate term.

"The nice thing about a nine-year non-renewable term is that if you gain election, you do have independence because you're not going to run for office again, you're not trying to curry the favour of the Prime Minister to get some sort of event for yourself in the future, you can be brutally independent in fighting for what's right, both for your province and for the public, and I think that is a very good mix."

A nine-year non-renewable term also ensures that the senators are beyond the reach of their electorate. Pretty nice gig in theory: get elected, do whatever you want for nine years, receive pension and don't look back.