Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Saskatchewan Riding Hulabaloo

There has been recent silliness coming from the Conservative Party, as well as partly from the Liberal Party, over the new riding boundaries being debated and drawn up for Saskatchewan.

The main issue stems over robocalls, now confirmed to have come from the Conservative Party in this statement from Fred DeLorey, that bombarded residents with anti-redistribution material.

The basic gist of the Conservative problem with the boundaries is that the eight rurban ridings that split Regina and Saskatoon before are now gone, to be replaced by five urban ridings and one rurban riding. To take a better look at these ridings, check out my post on the redistribution here.

The bullshit - er, sorry, spin - coming from the Cons is that Saskatchewan's urban population centres are now going to be less represented in the House of Commons, assuming that you could claim these huge, sprawling rurban ridings could be called "representative" of Saskatchewan's two major cities. DeLorey's statement said that, because of how much Saskatchewan's rural portions support the urban centres, it just totally makes sense that we combine the two.

Uh, yeah. Whatever he may be saying, it is utter bullshit; the Conservatives want to keep these ridings rurban because it gives them an advantage. There is a reason why Saskatchewan's House of Commons delegation is 13 Conservatives and one Liberal, despite almost a third of Saskatchewan voters supporting the NDP in 2011 - its because these ridings are pretty much gerrymandered.

There is something to the argument that there will be less representation for the cities now, but I would remind residents that you're trading quantity for quality. The eight MPs representing Regina and Saskatoon have to balance urban and rural issues, meaning they're stuck between two worlds. The concerns of a grain farmer outside of Batoche are not the same concerns of a service sector worker in downtown Saskatoon.

In my opinion, it would serve the residents of both of these worlds if they had MPs that represented their areas specifically. Having urban-focused MPs where we can and rural-focused MPs where we can is a much better idea than splitting everything down the middle. I understand that there are certain areas that make this impossible, but where its possible, do it.

But that is just me.


  1. I'm having trouble identifying any Conservative MP's in Ottawa that actually represent or defend the needs or wishes of the electorate or citizens in their ridings. They are either strong silent sleepy types in Commons or lurch to their feet in Question Period and read repetitive prepared paragraphs that repeat the phrase 'NDP job killing carbon tax' 2 or 3 times within every sentence.

    Thanks goodness none of them really represent a majority of eligible voters within their ridings.. because if they did, one would have to assume the majority of the electorate were as dull witted, pedantic and willing to let Stephen Harper tell them he can do their thinking for them.. and do it better.

    All those Conservative Saskatchewan MP's.. Now either they haven't an inkling of what The Mother Ship Reform Conservative Party brain trust operatives are up to.. cuz they can't be trusted to keep a secret..

    Or .. they all knew in advance about the robocall campaign.. and think that's just dandy.. democratic .. and warm n fuzzy wonderful.. and chipped in to pay that Alberta service bureau to do it.

    They look like idiots either way.. are idiots either way ..

  2. No matter what urban and rural interests will be represented in one body, whether that body be corporeal or parliamentary. In the end I find the debate trivial, 100,000 people in a riding are as different from each other (at least to themselves and that's all that is relevant) as any other, whether half live in a city or not.