Playing Chess

One of the more overused metaphors out there is for someone to describe something as a 'chess game', or to describe someone in politics or business as 'playing chess'.

You often get this in sports, where the commentator will refer to a showdown involving 2 or 3 options (will the player go left or right?, will the coach put in the checking line or the scoring line?) as a 'chess match.' I suppose it is understandable that they avoid a more accurate assessment, since referring to these showdowns as a 'simplified tic tac toe match' might seem demeaning to the million dollar athletes involved. At least I've yet to hear a commentator suggest that the eternal fastball-curveball dilemma represents a game of Go played between pitcher and batter...

In politics, Canada's right-leaning media spent so much time trying to polish up the years of ineffectiveness from the Stephen Harper government by describing Harper as playing 'chess' rather than 'checkers' that it became a comedy line for blog commentators - with each screw-up, mis-step, boneheaded decision, defeat and failure being greeted by queries as to whether this was really another humiliating setback for the government or just another clever move by Harper the 'chessmaster'.

I bring this up, since we had a recent situation where I think a little insight from the world of chess might actually be helpful. As you may have heard, the United Arab Emirates recently evicted Canada from a military base that Canada had operated on their soil for many years. The UAE had been using the threat of kicking Canada out to try and gain more airspace rights for its domestic airline.

Most of the commentary I've read on the issue has focussed on the question of whether it was better to give up our military base or better to give in to the UAE's airspace demands. In chess terms, this is like debating which of your pawns you should let your opponent take without taking anything in return. Seen from this perspective, the question of which pawn to sacrifice is not the real strategic question. The real question is why did we allow ourselves to get into a situation where we had to sacrifice any pawns? Why were our pawns not supported with other pieces on the board? Why were we not in a position to take one of our opponents pawns, or better, a knight or a bishop, if one of our pawns was taken? But looking at it from this angle makes it obvious that the Conservative government has failed Canada yet again, so I can see why some people might not want to think about it this way.

You know, maybe Harper is playing chess, but he's just not very good at it. It would be nice if Canadian voters sent him packing while we still have some pieces left on the board.

From the Archives: Why 3 parties are better than 2

Note: This is another old post that was languishing in the draft folder for many years, intended as a follow-up to this post about the highly partisan nature of American politics, it was first drafted on November 24, 2004 and it is possible that the reason I never posted it to the blog was not that it was incomplete, simply that it was very dull:

---
I am thankful for the fact that Canada has more than 2 parties, so that if one party takes a marginal, extreme viewpoint (like the Conservatives saying that Global Warming isn't a serious issue in the last election campaign), then that is at least partly reflected by the fact that there are 3 other parties that disagree with them.

Also, the presence of at least 3 parties in most of Canada makes possible the practice of moderation, something which Ontarians are discovering the value of after swinging first one way and then the other, but something which isn't even an option for folks in B.C. on many issues.

What Now?

What's the difference between China and Canada? China keeps its currency down vs. the American dollar by legislative fiat, while Canada does it by making the markets nervous with endless political shenanigans.

More seriously, in the aftermath of yesterday's dress rehearsal for a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons, I thought the clearest commentary came from Chantal Hebert in the Star who wrote,

"This morning, more than ever, Canadians are presented with two competing narratives.

The first, put forward by the Liberals, depicts the Conservatives as a power-hungry, opportunistic opposition willing to make a pact with the devil - in this case the sovereignist Bloc Québécois - to precipitate a premature election before all the facts on the sponsorship scandals are in.

The second, put forward by the Tories and the Bloc, features a Prime Minister so desperate to cling to power and escape the wrath of voters that he is willing to milk the public treasury and subvert the democratic will of Parliament to do so."

It seems pretty clear to me that both narratives are true, which doesn't speak too well of any of the major political parties.

I guess the question now is, what's next? Prime Minister Paul Martin has committed to having a vote on the budget next Thursday (the 19th), no doubt out of a desire to let the B.C. election get completed before the Federal government steal the spotlight.

So one of two things will happen:

1) If the vote on the budget is defeated then we'll have an election this summer. This would be good for political junkies like me, and (hopefully) also for the Green Party which should benefit simply by virtue of not being a part of the current parliament, but I'm not sure it would lead to a government any less dysfunctional than the current one.

2) If the budget passes then it's not so clear what happens next. Will the Conservatives/Bloc admit defeat and stop trying to bring down the government, or will they continue to try to topple the government at every opportunity hoping to sway the one or two MP's whose support they need to get a vote of non-confidence passed? It seems as though, even if the Liberals get the budget passed, the government is not likely to make it too much further or accomplish too much between now and the fall (when Martin has already promised to hold an election after the Gomery Inquiry wraps up), but I'm no political insider so your guess is probably better than mine.

Here's Hoping

Well after Paul Martin's little speech tonight, it looks like an election this year (sooner or later) is a sure thing. With that in mind, here are a few of my hopes for the coming year in federal politics:

Here's hoping that at the end of the Gomery inquiry and the subsequent criminal investigations we will be able to sort through all the accusations and denials and blame passing so that those who were innocent will have their names cleared and those who betrayed the public trust will get the punishment they deserve.

Here's hoping that all parties take from this mess a clear message that Canadians have no tolerance for the corruption of our political processes.

Here's hoping that they don't take the message that it's better to sweep this kind of thing under the rug rather than hold an inquiry to find out the truth.

Here's hoping that the damage done to relations between Québec and the federal government can be repaired. While I only lived in Québec briefly, I have a lot of respect for Québec and Quebecers and this country would be much the poorer for their absence.

Here's hoping that people don't read into this affair that all politicians and civil servants are crooks and liars. I'm certainly no insider but I've held a few jobs in both the Federal and Provincial civil service and, in my experience, the vast majority of both politicians and civil servants are people of sincerity and integrity. In fact, one of the drawbacks of working in government for me is that there is so much concern for accountability and transparency that sometimes it's hard to get things done (i.e. you have to have an open competitive bidding process to buy a stapler). Having said that...

Here's hoping that every party comes into the next campaign with a platform which includes clear, sensible changes to the rules and procedures of government to ensure that this kind of thing can't happen again - and that nobody asks us to just trust them because they're not the Chrétien Liberals and they wouldn't do that kind of thing. Maybe Andrew Coyne could be put in charge of this.

Here's hoping that if the Liberals win the next election they don't take it to mean that they can get away with just about anything and still get elected.

Here's hoping that if the Conservatives win the next election they stick to policies like clean government, good financial management, effective environmental stewardship, and care for the less fortunate members of society - policies that a majority of Canadians support - and that they don't go down the fiscally reckless, corporate giveaway, scapegoating of the poor and minority road like other right wing governments have done in the last 10 years in North America.

Here's hoping that if the NDP gains power from an election that they use it to bring in proportional representation so we no longer have to worry about people elected by 40% of the population governing like they got 100% of the votes.

Here's hoping that our unelected network executives will bow to the will of the people and allow the Green Party leader to participate in the televised debates. Now more than ever Canadians need to be informed that they have more options than a choice between the ghosts of corruption present and corruption past.

But most of all, here's hoping that among all the politicking and maneuvering for position and breathless horserace reporting, people and politicians actually manage to find some time to debate some issues and to move forward on legislation to make the lives of Canadians better which, last time I checked, was what government was supposed to be about.

Programming Note

Well it's the holidays so perhaps it's time for something less serious. With 'The Greatest Canadian' completed, and still no hockey, I figure the CBC still has a few holes in their schedule.

So, just like CTV held the Canadian 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' and 'Canadian Idol', it's time for CBC to develop 'The Amazing Canadian Race'.

This will be the same as the CBS show except the entire race will take place within Canada and to generate extra interest, we will have 11 teams of Canadian celebrities competing rather than just everyday Canadians.¹

Picking the pairs of celebrities who will race together will be easy (see below for my suggestions) - the hard part will be negotiating a route. CBC will have to make sure the race visits each province at least once. Quebec will probably only agree to participate if at least 25% of the race takes place there and will insist on having complete control over every aspect of the race while it is in Quebec. The West is likely to complain but go along no matter what happens so it's probably a good area to go light on. In the same vein, Ontarians are used to sacrificing a little for the sake of their smaller provincial siblings so they'll probably accept a smaller share of the race as well.

Assuming an appropriate route can be found, here are my suggestions for the teams:

1. Don Cherry / Ron MacLean - the obvious choice, they can be expected to do well, and will benefit from the all-Canadian course since a trip to Sweden could lead to fatal bickering. Quebec is likely to be the toughest province to navigate for this pair.

2. Frank and Belinda Stronach - every Amazing race needs a parent/child team and this is a pretty high-powered one. While other teams are having pointless disagreements, decision making will run smoothly for these two since all decisions will be put to a vote².

3. Leslie Nielsen and Paul Gross - this team is primarily here to pull in the female viewers. While Nielsen's advancing years could prove a liability these two will excel at any challenge that involves deadpan humour or pretending to be an RCMP officer.

4. Shania Twain and Celine Dion - this team should have the broadest cross-country support and could do well - if they can avoid the accidents that can arise from always driving down the middle of the road.

5. David Suzuki and David Frum - Perhaps the smartest team in the race, but not likely to perform well due to endless arguments about whether to turn left or right or just stay straight. With luck Bruce McCulloch can be talked into writing a team song for this pair.

6. Elisha Cuthbert and Sarah Polley - this isn't Fear Factor or some show on Fox so we don't have to worry that Elisha will be locked in a cage and need to be rescued by Sarah every episode. While I don't really like this team's chances in any eating challenges they should have youthful energy on their side (plus if any zombies need to be dealt with...)

7. Adrienne Clarkson and John Ralston Saul - Well, we know they like to travel. There are those who would question whether they will be able to manage roughing it during the arduous race, but I'm guessing they can take it. A pretty tough team to beat most likely.

8. Alanis Morissette and Avril Lavigne - This team will tell it like it is and should be entertaining as a result. Ironically, they could end up getting eliminated because they take simple tasks and make them too complicated. Or they could just get lost because they're paying more attention to how they feel than they are to the road.

9. Julie Snyder and Pierre Karl Péladeau - As creator & marketer of one of the most successful reality TV shows ever made, these two are a must have - even if it means giving the Quebec rights to TVA instead of Radio-Canada. (Not from Quebec and wondering who are these people? - here is some background).

10. David Pelletier and Jamie Salé - Perhaps no two Canadians have shown a greater ability to work together flawlessly than these two. Of course that can be pretty intimidating so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other teams made a deal with the race organizers to, you know, level the playing field a little bit.

11. Paul Martin & Sheila Copps - Now some would say this team could never work together, but I think if you let Paul do the driving and have Sheila tell him where to go, they could go far.

Suggestions?

-----
¹ Credit to Greg for the idea of picking favourite celebrity Amazing Race pairings.
² Frank gets two votes.

What's Better Than a List?

So as the House of Commons shuts down for Christmas, I have to say that the minority government is going pretty well so far. They managed to sneak in a stocking stuffer for Canadians before they wrapped up, re-introducing into the house a proposal to create a 'Do-Not-Call' list which would allow people to tell telemarketers to leave them alone.

Apparently the only big hangup remaining (besides the usual public consultations) is the decision on whether or not to include charities and surveyors (especially political ones) on the list.

As John Ibbitson says in his globe article(for willing to be gouged subscribers only):

...there is no important obstacle, apart from figuring out the exemptions, to the swift passage of this legislation and the creation of the registry. Even with the obligatory round of public hearings, with any kind of luck, the registry should be up and running by early 2006. For every Canadian who has risen from the dinner table to answer the phone, only to slam it down in wrath, the day cannot come too soon.

Now don't get me wrong, the list is great - a no-brainer really - but I don't really see any reason why instead of a list we can't have a table (i.e. a spreadsheet for you computerized folks out there).

In the first column would be your name, just like on the list. Then in the second column you could have a check box for telemarketers (Y = telemarketers can call me, N means they can't). Then in the third column, you have a check box for surveyors, possibly a separate one for political surveyors. Finally in the last column you have a check box for charitable organizations.

Seems simple enough to me. Problems?

Now a really ambitious plan (I analyze data for a living, so I tend to be a bit of a geek about this stuff, so bear with me) would be to add a column with an hourly rate.

People would be able to call you, but they would have to pay you your going rate for your time. Because really in the end this is all about power. Should people have the power to invade your home life at any moment for their own selfish purposes - of course not. Should we have the power to define in detail the terms on which we are willing to participate? Sounds good to me.

today's moral: One column good, four columns better.


----
As an aside, I loved the name of the bill, "Bill C-37, an Act to Establish a Do-Not-Call List for Telemarketing" I think a general rule in politics is that when the names of the bills are such a clear straightforward description of what the new law will actually do, the government is on the right track. And vice-versa.

I remember when the Harris government in Ontario introduced the 'Tenant Protection Act'. Now, if the government wants to shift the balance of power from tenants to landlords a little bit, I am not necessarily opposed to that. (Trust me, I could tell you some horror stories about the rules here in B.C. and how they can unreasonably tie a landlord's hands to the detriment of some of their tenants, but that's another story). If the Harris and co. bill had been called the "Landlord Relief Act" I still would have opposed many of its more poorly thought out provisions, but I would have respected the government's integrity. But to introduce that bill and to call it the 'Tenant Protection Act' was a clear declaration that they knew the people of the province wanted Tenant Protection, while at the same time they were giving them something else. That I can't respect.