He Shoots He Scores

Did anyone else notice this in Saturday's Toronto Star?

At first glance it appears to be an unsuspecting piece about the history of hockey in Toronto. In fact, I came across it only because I was checking for news on Mike Peca's injury from the previous night. I clicked on it because I, like other citizens of Leaf Nation, feel compelled to click on anything that contains the word "Leafs". (After all, the gramatically incorrect term applies to nothing other than our beloved hockey team). I read the article, found it quite interesting, and then noticed the author: Stephen Harper. The same one who, you know, runs the country.

Brilliant. Politically brilliant.

It's no secret that Harper has had trouble connecting with the average Torontonian. Perhaps they think of him as geographically too far removed in his Western home base, still too much of an unknown commodity, or not "Canadian enough" - at least in the stereotypical Ontario Tim-Horton's-drinking, backpack-flag-toting, Leafs-loving way. But what will they think when they discover that the Leafs-history piece they just read is written by none other than Harper himself? I can scarcely think of a better way to connect with middle-of-the-road voters who are uninterested in Harper out of unfamiliarity or mild reservation, yet would donate a kidney for the Stanley Cup, than to show them that underneath all the politics you share a common love of the game.

Of course, the best thing about this situation for the Conservatives is that it's not a ploy. Harper isn't pretending to like hockey just to win votes. He's been genuinely interested in it for years - long before running for leader of any party. He's even writing a book on it. This article is just Harper being himself.

Rural Mail Delivery

Accounced today:

Tories Order Rural Mail Delivery Restored

An excellent move, both practically and politically. Speaking as someone whose address growing up was essentially nothing more than "RR#1", having your mail brought to your house rather than having to drive 10 miles every day to get it is the kind of thing that makes an appreciable impact on people's lives.

A very conservative move as well. Even in a limited state, mail delivery is one of those core services (along with the usual "roads and wells" type things) that should be done. And done properly.

LSE Types

Took a break from essay-writing to head to London on Friday. Here's a couple pictues.

Sixty Minutes

I still haven't recovered yet:

New Talent on Sixty Minutes

Amsterdam Pictures

Last weekend I was in Amsterdam for my friend Emma's birthday. I promised some people I'd post a few pics. Here they are...

Random Thoughts, Reflections, Questions & Things That Make You Go 'Hmmm'

Thoughts of the Day:

• The leaders of Canada's two biggest political parties are now both academics. They are also both named Stephen (mais l'autre en francis bien sure). Hmmm.

• Checking today's headlines it seems that a Gallup Worldwide study finds that Canada shows up at number 15 in the rankings of least corrupt countries. Wonderful. To quote the article, "The inaugural Gallup Worldwide Corruption Index found that Canada ranked 15th, right behind Uruguay and Vietnam". What's that John Ibbitson, you think Harper needs to get over the whole corruption thing?

• Why do people eat marmite? It tastes terrible.

Convention vs. One-Member-One-Vote

I see that one of the first things Liberal delegates accomplished at the convention was to crush a proposal to move to a one-member-one-vote system for electing their leader.

It is beyond me how the Liberals can be so against this reform. Perhaps I am speaking more from conviction than anything, but it just seems intuitively obvious that every member of your party should have a direct say in choosing the leader. Not just because of the usual correlation between democracy and legitimacy; but, also because grassroots party members are the ones who win elections for you. They put up signs. They donate money. They volunteer. Their views and values form the basis for party policy. And ultimately they need to vote for the party on election day. Electing a leader with the broadest base of support from your party membership is the best way to make sure you've got someone your people will stand behind when it counts.

Conventions are great fun for delegates. There's drinking, socializing, networking, gladhanding - essentially a big, memorable party. But, it is crucial to recognize that a convention is all of these things only to those people who attend it. By electing a leader in this way a party essentially disenfranchises 90% of its members from the process. Why is this a problem? Because as a party you want all of your members to feel a sense of ownership in the leader selection. Even if their candidate doesn't win, you want them to know they were still there - they were involved in their party's ultimate decision.

I have heard several Liberals argue that conventions are a better method because delegates can get together, exchange ideas and come to a more informed consensus. Not only is that argument rubbish because there is no reason to believe delegates are any better at rationalizing their choice of leader than "other members", it oozes a political elitism that is particularly unpalatable to any grassroots member who has to be told "there's no need for you to get involved, the party elite know best". Not to mention, who are we kidding about "informed consenses". Half the time (or more), votes at conventions are dealt in strategic backroom deals between candidates - not decided upon through independent reflection - and certainly not based on what candidate the broader party membership (and voter) is going to stand behind.

Choosing a leader at a convention is a terrible system for so many reasons. Especially for a party that is struggling to shed an arrogant and elitist image.