Open letter

Dear student leaders:

For some reason, the people protesting with you seem to actually respect you. Validate them.

Two days ago, you accepted the government's overtures and agreed to opening dialogue. Do not use the scuffles with anti-protestors as an excuse to renege on this. The government had nothing to do with that, and you know it. These are people who are frustrated that Hong Kong has been brought to a standstill. And you know what? They, too, have a right to express their opinions.

I know, you believe that you were pushed to these drastic measures because of what the government has allegedly done (or failed to do, it's hard to know with you lot). But now that the government has offered to talk, Hong Kong's continued paralysis is as much your responsibility as the government's. Going back on your word like this is exactly what you have repeatedly accused the government of doing. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

Politics is a game of give and take. It also takes place in the real world, not whatever fantastical land you seem to think exists, where everything is exactly as you want. Take what you can get, certainly; otherwise, learn to cut your losses. You may think you're winning the PR battle right now, but dragging this out cannot possibly be in your interests. The frustration of the public will only grow, and at some point, it will become indiscriminate in its target.

You say you're doing this for the future of Hong Kong. You say you love Hong Kong. Well then, I challenge you this: lift your blockade on the daily lives of average, honest, hard-working people in Hong Kong. Show some real leadership, and walk up to the negotiating table.

Yours,

A disgruntled observer

The Hong Kong Question

Or, Why the Beijing Proposal is More Practical

Let me say, first of all, that in principle, I am in favour of holding general elections for the Chief Executive.

Let me also say, however, that I am NOT in favour of achieving this by means of Occupy Central, or boycotting school, or striking. Before you bring out the pitchforks, allow me to expound.

The current atmosphere of politics in Hong Kong is best described as fractious. If Beijing allowed open nominations, everybody and his uncle are going to run for office. The result of that will be a campaign of so many contrasting platforms, of such chaos, mudslinging, and extremes that the reputation of any candidate is going to be irreparably tarnished.

At this point, even the eventual winner will be so damaged that he will have lost his mandate to govern before he even takes office. Open nominations for the top job in a city-state is a recipe for perpetual lame duck Chief Executives. Each one will have no political capital to push the often necessary but bitter pills through for the betterment of Hong Kong. What the citizens want and what the citizens need are not always the same things.

What follows is a vicious cycle of incompetency and "quick fix" candidates; winners by virtue of being against the government, and not their own solid plan for the future. Hong Kong will descend into a death spiral, at the end of which lies the cesspool of the failed state.

Occupy Central will not convince Beijing that this will not happen. In fact, it will only strengthen this view, and Beijing's resolve to prevent this fate. If Hong Kong grinds to a halt in protest, it alone will suffer. Its economy will stall, the markets will fall, the entire city will be poorer, and Occupiers will be no closer to their goal.

If they hope to bring Beijing down with them, they are misguided. Hong Kong is but a drop in the bucket to Beijing. They will not be affected, they will not have to back down, and they will not back down, especially with much of the populace also against Occupying. Not only will Occupy Central be ineffective, it will ultimately be self-defeating.

On the topic of police brutality, there were likely faults on both sides. When protestors continue to attempt rushing government buildings and police barriers after repeated warnings, the police are going to react. Do I believe the protestors were mostly peaceful? Yes. But not all of them were, and unfortunately, violence begets violence. It only takes one spark.

At the end of the day, the police are only there to do their jobs. However, they are the easiest to vilify with media, especially social media, for perceived brutality. Were they slightly heavy-handed? Probably. But a violent suppression of the completely innocent? It was not.

Political reform is a complex issue requiring mutual compromise. You wanted the right to choose your own Chief Executive. You were afforded this right. You don't need 5, 6, or 10 candidates. Even the Americans usually only have 2 choices.

Let it not be said that Beijing chooses incompetent people. They may be corrupt, but even democracy is not without corruption. They may be friendlier to Beijing than you like, but do you really think a Chief Executive openly hostile to Beijing can get anything done?

If you grab a handful of cookies, your hand might get caught at the neck of the jar. If you let go of a couple, you might just find you can have your cookie and eat it too.

PEI aftermath, Manitoba, and how to win the vote but lose the election

Turns out the polls underestimated Conservative support again, so instead of 25-2, it was 22-5. This is becoming habitual. However, at least the call for a Liberal landslide was right. And anyways, having more Conservatives is always a good thing. One semi-shocker from last night: the Greens beat the New Democrats.

Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:

NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%

Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.

You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?

What a week it was!

We're just over 2 weeks away from the United Kingdom general election. This time, the Brits did something they never did before - hold a leaders debate. Up until February, it was nearly certain that the unpopular Labour government would be ousted by the Conservatives, and quite possibly in a landslide. Then, the polls narrowed, but the picture was still the same - the Conservatives would win.

But then the debate happened and turned the entire campaign on its head. Immediately after the debate last week, it was evident that third party Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had scored a decisive victory. So we thought, it probably might let him hold on to the votes he had last time, and maybe snag a bit more. What followed in the week to come was beyond even the wildest imagination. The Lib-Dems didn't just rise in the polls; they soared. While Labour and Conservative faltered, the Lib-Dems surge propelled them first into second ahead of Labour, then at times into first place. When the dust settled, there was no clear election winner anymore. The only thing that was certain: Labour is now embarassingly in third place. But only in vote share. Thanks to the quirks in first past the post (FPTP), Labour would still be ahead of the Lib-Dems in terms of seats, and could even "win" the election, as conventional wisdom tells us.

This brings another dimension into the campaign: electoral reform. With such blatant unfairness in the current political system, should the current situation unfold on election night, it would be pretty darn hard for anybody to defend FPTP, and the Lib-Dems have had electoral reform on their plank for ages. Doubtless, a strengthened Lib-Dem caucus, or perhaps even a shock Lib-Dem government, would push for change to a more equitable electoral system.

There are still 2 more leaders debates to follow in the coming weeks until election day on May 6, and as this week has shown us, anything can happen. What started off as a formality with a foregone conclusion has turned into a three-way race, and may well end up as the most exciting British election of the 21st century. On the 7th of May, what sort of Parliament might we be waking up to?