Jack Layton, the Video Professor?

Ever see commercials for the Video Professor?

I caught the commercial while following the election live video stream from CTV.

I think the guy looks like Jack Layton, and vice-versa.


Also, between these two, former Liberal Party Revenue Minister John McCallum and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent.

I suppose that last photo kinda looks like John McCallum in front of the Video Professor! Ha!
"This video will show you how we intend to lower Child Poverty, using Windows on your PC! No obligation!"

Finished at the Po Leung Kuk

My contract at the Po Leung Kuk has come to an end. A year later, and it's sad to finally leave.

It was a difficult year - aggravating at times if not physically painful otherwise (the children bite, kick, and throw things at your head). I have photos - even video, that, unfortunately for legal reasons I cannot post (these are protected children due to their background of being orphans).

I also will not go too much into details about the discussions that went on before my employment or after, except to say that those too were aggravating. But more than anything, they were certainly great lessons on managerial style. Understanding that this was the first year of this ambitious project built at a crossroads between organisations with completely different cultures and perhaps different goals, I'm happy to have been involved and overjoyed at the opportunity to have done something important for the community with two organisations that do vital work in the Hong Kong community. I got a reference letter!

Canadian Politics

Politics is my sport.

Others watch the game. They follow their team and support them in words, banners and beer discussions. Then they watch their team go for the crown. The Stanley cup game, the Grey Cup, the - other stuff with a shiny piece awarded at the end.

Me, I follow politics. And I watch the crown game - the election. And today, Canada had an election.

Election day is like Christmas. Hype is raised as banners and signs are in place for Christmas lights and Santa cut-outs. This year they competed for attention.

There is a weary feeling over the land - you can feel something is changing, though you haven't an interest.

It's like Christmas - and New Year's all in one. Like a parade and telethon and specials - all at once.

I get excited, as the news raise in excitement up to the climax.

My mind holds visions of Medieval fights as knights fall in battle, princes rise, soldiers falling victim to attrition in ridings while others struggle to raise the flag.

It's a romantic view, I know. But it's a view that I hold in common with Sport afficionados. I have had my bouts with interests in sports - the year was 1993 and the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. In hindsight, the result is much to simplistic. Leading up to that point, I was drawn in, every game providing more insight into the history of the team, the struggles of the players, and the strength of the rival. Common political pundits and sports fans - they discuss and debate alike - substitute players for members, teams for parties, and you'd have to do a double-take. On TV political pundits and reporters analyse the results much like sports anchors give stats in between play-by-plays, in lead-up games and follow-up games.

It's a shame sports has nothing to do with reality. To quote Chomsky, it's "irrational jingoism". "[Sports] is a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism."

Not to say talking about sports is pointless. It's the common language of strangers. How else can you be honest and jabbing without being overly unfriendly, even partake in a few beer drinks. I've enjoyed my drunken times after (and during) my Montreal Canadiens games (thanks Tim!) enjoyed with strangers and peers alike.

I just wish the same could be done with politics. Spectator sports as a hobby can be healthy. A devotion to spectator sports is damaging. It distracts, marginalises and is a waste of time and money. Participatory politics is relevant, unifying, and as important as ever.

In HK
But I can't follow the politics as closely as I like. The Canadians here don't care about Canadian politics. It logically follows: Apart from those I gather who work at the Can'n Consulate, if they cared all that much about, they wouldn't be here.

I do regularly find myself glued to the TV switching between the CBC and CTV and even RDS (French CBC) and, when I'm up for some chuckles, I'll switch to TQS.

This year, I was prepared. The newscasts started at 10pm in Canada due to vote count reporting blackouts (By law, on election night, Canadian news organizations aren't allowed to publish results to any part of the country in which the polls are still open. - CBC)

I was pleased to see Live video feeds from both CTV and CBC, with commentary and live updates of the results. This satisfied my appetite.

I don't know what the live feed technology was like last year, but it was great - better than having a TV switching channels, I had both feeds open on my laptop - here on the other side of the world.

I've been following the election during the weeks leading up to the election - and I have my opinions, views and so on. I could go into a few now, but I won't echo what I have read already. That's useless. Or throw my voice to merely echo what I support - that's equally useless. But I would like to mention and touch on what I haven't seen discussed.

Am I the only one to be surprised that with all the hours of following the election (and many news items) I'm left with questions. Many questions. Questions I feel are important (I think this has been the underlying strength of blogs - to fill the void of Media reporting and coverage).

If you don't know that the leader of Canada (if like everybody else you forget about the queen) is called the Prime Minister, you're not going to understand more. Nor if you know that his name was Paul Martin and is stepping down as leader of the former-reigning party the Liberal Party of Canada. Now, to continue.

I do think it is interesting that Paul Martin, since taking the reigns of the Liberal Party has only led it downward in power and popularity. Jean Chrétien handed him a majority government, and with it he formed a minority leading government, and now a minority opposition party. He had to resign. Sure Canada had enough with Chrétien after 3 consecutive leads - but he was a powerful force - of change and influence. So much so that it rubbed off on Martin. Martin was a soldier - not a leader. He was a great soldier, but never a leader. His managerial style was subordinate to the leadership style of Chretien.

During the news reporting, I've heard historical references to John Turner, making comparisons to Paul Martin. On CTV there was even an interview with former Prime Minister and Conservative leader Brian Mulroney...which in an ironic twist caused bigger corruption scandals than that which dethroned the Liberal Party...

But there was nothing about Jean Chrétien! No commentary, few references... Yes, it is interesting to note that Paul Martin compromised the Liberal Party and that it "all came crashing down (Tom Clark - CTV News)" but how about a commentary of the pure force and power that was Jean Chrétien? Is it taken for granted? Is the former right honourable MP and Prime Minister of Canada's name Mud, that now it can't even be mentioned alongside John Turner (a failure in his own right as short-term Prime Minister as leader of the Liberals).

The Liberals could do with a reflection to the Chrétien era - of power, of influence and, most importantly, of unbeatable majority government. So unbeatable that there was enough momentum to lead into a minority government beyond the era. The Conservative party did not take down the Liberals. The Liberals did. Leaders lead. Leaders like (gasp!) Chrétien and Trudeau lead governments. Leaders like Martin and even, (gasp!) Turner lead opposition governments.

Let's play Minority Arithmetic!

308 seats - 155 makes majority.

• 124 for Conservatives,
• 103 for Liberals
• 51 for BQ
• 29 for NDP

• Liberals + NDP is not enough (132 seats).
• Conservatives + NDP: Not enough (153 seats)..but that would have been funny.
• Liberals + BQ: Almost Enough:(154 seats).
• Conservatives + Liberals: Enough - but useless (227 seats).
• Conservatives + BQ: Enough (175) - A comfortable majority, albeit sensitive one. They would be united to compromise the Liberals, but they don't need any more defeating for the time-being. The Conservatives cut into BQ support - it'll be tough to keep their support, but the Conservatives will need it to stay in power.
  

Also: a seat:
1 for a loud-mouthed former radio host "André Arthur" in Quebec. I hope he'll get back his show, or get another. And I'll hope hell host his show from the bench. Think about it, he could be the strongest push for democracy - at least from Quebec. Imagine being able to call into his show and speak to an MP and perhaps get the views some voice. Meh, I'm just daydreaming.
But there is commentary that this guy is the new Chuck Cadman - the fulcrum of change, the one who makes or breaks. He is not a seasoned MP, but instead a former shock-jock. Ooo...this could be exciting.

Conservatives
Of course the Conservatives are going to find things very difficult. With a minority government and little in common with the other parties - wow is this going to be interesting. Perhaps a failure in making, which will be very welcome to those who do not count the Conservative Party among their favorites..but equally dangerous. If they do manage to weather the challenges and make it work - they will become a stronger party with even greater momentum. Be wary.

I see a parallel here to Brian Mulroney's Conservative leadership era. Look at it. Strong Trudeau, followed by weak Turner, taken over by strong Mulroney. Now; Strong Chretien, followed by weak Martin, taken over by a strong-to-be Harper. In Mulroney's era, the BQ and PQ in Québec became overwhelmingly strong. Mulroney, although still strong in Québec, ignored the rising tide of power and influence by the Separatist/Sovereignist parties. Harper will do the same. Conservatives have little to offer the progressive climate of Quebec - except as a means for anti-separatists to punish the Liberals. Conservatives can both lure Quebec votes (through payoffs and ignorance) while fuelling Sovereignist sympathies inter-provincially.

I should also throw caution against the wind as to what I see will become of Liberal Party. It's much too early to tell what the results will be. But a lot revolves around who the new leader will be, in the wake of Paul Martin's departure. Who is in the wings? No one is at people's lips, not like Chretien was at the helms of Trudeau or Martin at the helms of Chretien. Hindsight may remind us there is - let's get into that.

My predictions
Those going for the Liberal leadership:

• Belinda Stronach (Liberal party, formerly Conservative party), that power-hungry CEO turned politician. She'll cause problems. But there is a new and stronger influence in the House - women. More than ever before - mostly a change brought forward from NDP. A female Prime Minister? Not so unthinkable - we've had (a disastrous) one before of the likes of Kim Campbell (Conservative Party) who wasn't elected and courageously scapegoated for the corrupting misdeeds of Mulroney. However the new 'balanced' atmosphere may change the tone to be more respective to Belinda. She'll get far in the leadership - so far people might actually think she's got a shot. She's a backstabber with limited devotion that is outweighed by her ambition. If you give up an inherited million-dollar position as CEO of an auto-parts company - only power can replace the influence of money.
  
  
• Ujjal Dosanjh: (Also a former Liberal Cabinet - Minister of Health, Industry, and apparently big parties) Didn't say yes, but didn't say no.
  
  
• Brian Tobin - far later only after testing the waters with careful comments. He won't go on the record to say he won't.
  
  
• And there's also that Michael Ignatieff guy - This guy would be a long-shot if only the Liberals weren't in trouble. Who is this guy? The hope of the Liberal Party for charisma, or a ticking timebomb?
  
  
• Perhaps:John Manley - He's been on the pundit trail among the newscasts - even giving public not-needed advice for Paul Martin for his life after political life as a last jab from the forgotten Chrétien camp.

NDP
I should say something about the NDP.
Ummm...the expectations on this party are so low that when they don't disappoint, they make headlines. They're like the rebel black sheep in the family in that good news about them is great news. Their levels this election is like 50 or 60% higher than the last election - oh that's wonderful. Still less than 30 (less than 10% of the house) seats and a whole lot less than under Broadbent's term as leader. Oh but 10 seats more? Oh isn't that wonderful...

The party has the Green party cutting away votes, and Unions like Buzz Hargrove's pulling away support - the relevance of the NDP in common politics is surprising. But people will continue to throw support behind them, hoping something will come out of it, and the marginal success is wonderful news, because no bad news is good news. "Oh, a husband and wife team? Oh isn't that wonderful."

I heard a commentary that gave insight to what may be in the future for the NDP; a Worker's Union-type party like they have in the UK. With an embattled Liberal Party, this may be jumping point for the NDP to move into the center. Can they do it? Well the Liberals have been spread thin, trying to be the center, moving even right at times too during the Chrétien era. Without a clear direction, they've been at best trying to represent the people without leading them anywhere. The opportunity may be with the NDP to lead change into Center-Left politics, as what was the beacon of Trudeau-politics within the Liberals. But this is just hypothetical.

BQ
The BQ reminds us about the way a constituency system works. The BQ only seeks votes in Quebec - and they come up almost twice as strong as the NDP. They focus support in a limited area, and have become party #2 (official opposition) and caller number 9 (taking home the prize). This is a party to reckon with. At the debates, and on the polls.

Other issue:
Voter turnout
At a surprising low of 60%. A shame, and a step in the direction of a US style political atmosphere. We have strong two parties that ping-pong leadership back and forth. Negative US-style campaign ads that foster distaste in elections for marginal gains in votes. Apathy is replacing responsibility among the electorate. I hate to see where this goes.

Ping Pong minority governments
Hey, with 4 parties vying for votes, it'll be tough for any party to have a majority of the votes. And a minority government is a fragile one. The other 3 parties keep close tabs - letting you work as long as they don't want to, but keep you from being succesful and take too much credit. This could lead no parties from getting a majority government. We may be in for a real doozy.

We need direction now more than ever. More than that, we need a reason and answers. Hopefully if I can find enough, I don't need to type so much.