International students face significant fee increases

By

-

January 27, 2014

International students, who already pay two to three times the tuition paid by local students, are going to see their tuition rise by a third over the next three years.

As approved by the SFU board of governors in the 2013/2014 Operating Budget and Financial Plan, over the next three years, undergraduate international students’ tuition fees will be raised by ten per cent each year — eight per cent more than Canadian and resident undergraduate tuition fees, which are increasing by the two per cent maximum allowed by BC government policy.

“I recognise that the university is between a rock and a hard place,” Julia Lane, coordinating and external relations officer for the Graduate Student Society, told The Peak. “Expenses are increasing all the time, space is not getting any bigger.”

Chardaye Bueckert, external relations officer for the SFSS, agreed with Lane, listing a number of expenses the university has to face: deferred maintenance, professors’ annual raises, increased operating costs, and inflation. “When you don’t receive any increased funding, it puts financial pressure on [the university].”

The issue comes from the stagnation of government funding and lack of financial support for post-secondary institutions. As explained by the administration in its operating budget and financial plan for the current academic year, “SFU has undertaken a number of cost savings initiatives over the last few years and these have largely been exhausted.” At the same time, “strong enrolment — particularly international enrolments — has helped to alleviate some of the financial pressures experienced in the past.”

A primary source of income for SFU, funding from BC’s government represents just less than half of its revenue ($218 million this year) with student fees almost matching that amount ($210 million). On the provincial government’s part, the foreseeable future for post-secondary funding looks grim: “For this upcoming year, there is going to be no increased funding for SFU, and then over the next two years there is going to be [an estimated 2.2] million dollars in cuts,” Bueckert said.

At the same time, the federal government recently set an objective to double the number of international students and researchers in Canada to 450,000 by 2022. According to British Columbia’s International Education Strategy, there were 28,000 international students attending public post-secondary institutions in BC in 2012. The government aims to add 14,000 to this number by 2016.

Despite the allocation of 25 per cent of international students’ extra tuition increase to improve international student support, it is yet unclear whether the raise in fees will hinder international enrolment.

Indeed, there is a risk that a specific population of international students is going to be hit very hard. Christa Ovenell told us that issues of cost will impact some students and their decision to choose Vancouver.

Ovenell, director and principal of Fraser International College (FIC), which offers international students a smoother path to entering SFU, added, “I do think that Vancouver and British Columbia will continue to be appealing to foreign students,” mentioning Vancouver’s healthy lifestyle and many outdoors activities, such as skiing, hiking, or going to the beaches.

According to Bueckert, the SFSS is opposed to differential fees, which only exist at the undergraduate level. “We went out in the summer to talk to the minister of advanced education, in conjunction with other student societies, and we did talk about tuition fees,” said Bueckert.

She continued, “We plan to go back over February, when the legislature starts to sit again, and we’d like to meet with the advanced education minister and MLAs,” adding that she was hoping to bring up the issue of international student tuition fees.

The SFSS is currently planning lobbying missions in addition to several sessions in Convocation Mall throughout the semester. “We plan to give information to students on various things we are working on: deferred maintenance, transit, and we hope to raise awareness about tuition increases . . . It is really hard to budget if you don’t know about those increases, so we need to educate students about that,” Bueckert said.

A plea for responsible journalism

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

Earlier this month, Grantland published a feature profile of Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt, the reclusive and eccentric scientist behind a scientifically advanced golf putter named the Oracle GXI. At least, that’s how the story begins — by the end of the article, Vanderbilt has committed suicide and been outed as a trans woman, all in the name of a good story.

To be clear, it is a good story; I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t. Caleb Hannan, the writer behind it, is clearly talented. His 8000 word piece is packed with unexpected twists and turns, including the revelation that most of Vanderbilt’s professional credentials were elaborate fabrications. Hannan digs deep into Vanderbilt’s past, uncovering a series of lies and deceits that make for what might be the most engaging article ever written about golf putters.

But Hannan and Grantland made the mistake of publishing an article that values storytelling over ethics — Vanderbilt is never considered as anything more than a weirdo and a con artist, and her ultimate suicide is treated as the climax of an elaborate fiction rather than the actual death of a human being.

Hannan calls it “an odd experience” to be writing a eulogy for a woman who by all accounts hated him, but he never considers the privilege he has in presenting the story from his point of view. His is the last word on Dr. V’s story; we’ll never hear her side of it.

Most of the controversy surrounding the article revolves around Hannan’s discovery that Vanderbilt is a trans woman; he describes a chill running up his spine upon learning this fact, and proceeds to treat the revelation as further evidence of Vanderbilt’s deceptive nature. Delving deeper into Vanderbilt’s past as Stephen, Hannan refers to her as “a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself.”

To publicly out Vanderbilt as trans on an international news platform is one thing; to refer to her by a male pronoun in any context is not only ignorant, but belittling to her identity as a trans woman. Hannan even outed Vanderbilt to one of her investors before her death, a move that would more accurately be described as witch hunting than journalism. He may not have been aware of the gravity of his actions, but that’s hardly an adequate excuse.

Vanderbilt’s suicide is treated as the climax of an elaborate fiction rather than the death of a human being.

Grantland’s editor in chief, Bill Simmons, recently published a 3000 word mea culpa explaining the editorial process behind the piece, apologizing both to his readers and to Hannan. He admitted that no trans people were consulted before running the piece, and admits that Grantland “made an indefensible mistake” in publishing the article.

Many have gone so far as to argue that Hannan murdered Vanderbilt, which is an indefensible accusation — it’s ludicrous to assume that the writer’s article was the sole factor, or even a contributing factor, in Dr. V’s suicide. But this doesn’t absolve Hannan of his guilt.

As an editor, I understand the challenges that come with working on a story like this one, but Hannan, along with Grantland’s editorial staff, had every opportunity to question whether the article was an acceptable one to publish. It wasn’t.

Journalists should do more than tell stories; they have a moral responsibility to treat their subjects with even-handedness and respect, and to tell their stories with that same level of respect. Hannan’s piece may be good writing, but it’s bad journalism — as soon as we begin to value stories above people, we lose touch with the world we’re attempting to reflect.

Spring concert in bloom

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

At the SFSS board of directors meeting on Jan. 20, the board voted to approve a budget for a spring concert.

As recommended by Financial and Administrative Services Committee (FASC) on Jan. 15, the board voted to reallocate the remaining amount from special events (e.g. the fall concert) towards the 2014 spring concert. The budget for the spring concert is approximately $39,000.

“We’ve got a really strong team,” said business representative, Brandon Chapman, who brought the motion to board. “We’ve done a lot of our homework in terms of making this thing realistic and achievable.”

Buzz around a potential second concert was generated during Burnaby Clubs Days, as the SFSS volunteers handed out flyers gauging interest, asking, “Do you want a part two?” As it turns out, FASC had already approved a budget for a spring concert that morning.

Chapman reported to the board that many students expressed interest in another concert at Clubs Days, signing the SFSS sheets for more information. He also described to the board the changes that the events committee had in mind for a spring concert, which included new areas for potential revenue. Chapman said the hope is to cover some of the costs of the fall kickoff concert, and at worst break even.

“Our goal is to have a beer garden this time around. Upon conversations with the university, this is achievable, and this will help offset some of our costs,” Chapman said.

However, not everyone was as optimistic as Chapman concerning the finances of the project. External relations officer, Chardaye Bueckert, expressed her reservations about committing the rest of the special events/large scale line item budget — totalling $39,214 — to a spring concert.

Bueckert reported that out of the 1800 people that are estimated to have attended the fall concert, only 977 tickets had been documented as sold. “Regarding the ticket revenue, in the tracking sheet there was $20,367 accounted for.” Bueckert told the board. “According to the financial ledger, the actual ticket revenue was $33,844.10. That means that we have $13,477.10 in ticket revenue which we don’t have a tracking sheet that corresponds to. So that’s obviously a pretty large concern.”

Bueckert was also hesitant to acknowledge the potential for breaking even. “Regarding the projected revenue for this concert, the fall concert was actually projected to have a $6000 revenue. So I’m wondering if there’s anything we can speak to in our plans to avoid that shortfall again.”

She continued, “If you have a loss of approximately $24,000 plus that $6,000 projected revenue, that means we’re actually off from the fall concert about $30,000 in our numbers.”

Board members also discussed the genre of music to be played but seemed split between hosting another electronic dance music concert and featuring a different style of music.

“Down the road it is something that we’ve talked about, in terms of varying up the genres of music, and I really want to see that as well,” Chapman said. “This time around, we are trying to reduce costs and not change too much about this at first. When you’re dealing with a conservative university who is not used to seeing these events run successfully, you don’t want to make too many changes at once, so the main change we’re trying to make for this event is to add a beer garden.”

To mitigate costs, Chapman also suggested hiring domestic headliners instead of the international artists who played at the fall concert.

In summary, Chapman said, “The kickoff concert was a very successful event, and . . . as a service organization, a not for profit here to serve our students, making money is not the goal of these events.”

After almost an hour of discussion, the motion was passed by a vote of seven to three. Bueckert and Clay Gray, at-large representative, asked that their opposition be noted in the minutes.

The SFSS is currently in discussions with the administration surrounding a date for the concert, but students can tentatively expect to party on Apr. 4 or 5.

How to Reform The Peak

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

7

The Peak, as we never tire of reminding you, was founded in 1965. Specifically, the first proper issue — which ran under the banner “Name Your Student Newspaper,” offering a case of beer to the person with the best suggestion — was published on October 13 of that year.

It should surprise no one that SFU’s campus life and student organizations were dominated by leftist political sentiment in those days. The first issue’s editorial, for instance, clearly considered the decision to accept advertising dollars to be the most controversial aspect of the paper’s founding. That editorial also included a quote that’s more relevant to the modern Peak: “It would be desirable that as many students as possible be given an opportunity to work on the paper.”

That’s still true today, and though I love The Peak and think it’s done great things recently, I can’t ignore that we face some fairly serious problems. Our publisher, the Peak Publications Society, is an independent non-profit whose most basic rules are laid down in a constitution.

The bulk of the most important problems can be traced back to that document, which was written before the Internet existed and seems to be designed more to safeguard the paper’s left-wing bonafides than to create an accountable and effective organization.

I am currently the society’s business manager, but I’ve previously been a volunteer, a board of directors member, and an editor, and I’ve been intimately familiar with this organization for more than five years. I’ve spent a couple of months hashing out how we can change the constitution to make The Peak more accountable, and to set it up for success in the future. My suggestions include some very radical departures from the status quo.

I’ve written this article because every fee-paying student at SFU is a member of the Peak Publications Society, and you deserve to know why I’m seeking the changes that I’ve chosen. In addition to this article, I wholeheartedly encourage all SFU students to head to the-peak.ca/constitution, where you will find the full text of the current and proposed constitutions, explanations of the changes, and venues to criticize and discuss the draft.

The Big Goals

Despite the slurs I’m casually directing at the political left, today’s Peak, like every other student group I’m aware of, is a deeply conservative organization. I mean this in terms of the deference they display to established power structures, and their intense resistance to change. This is a key difference between boomers and millennials — for the children of the sixties who founded this paper, challenging authority was an end unto itself, but today’s young people are too fearful of making the wrong decision to commit to large changes.

That’s a bad attitude to have, especially in disciplines like publishing that are in a state of particular turmoil. The first goal that I had in mind when writing the draft constitution was creating easy avenues to change. The current constitution mandates a lot of stagnant structures, and the fact that the day-to-day operational rules at The Peak are based more on oral traditions than written policy makes it tough to break with precedent.

“It would be desirable that as many students as possible be given an opportunity to work on the paper.”

Anyone that has kept track of our web site for the past five years will agree that The Peak needs to be capable of changing faster than it does.

The other priority that influenced this draft was the creation of meaningful accountability. That A-word has been reduced to a meaningless cliché by generations of lackluster student politicians, but it’s nevertheless a very important principle that is sorely lacking in today’s Peak, mostly because of the design of the constitution.

The draft emphasizes mechanisms to hold people accountable for the quality of their work, which is in opposition to the current system and its emphasis on complete freedom and independence for each editor.

A Return to Heirarchy

Even though the founders of The Peak were a bunch of dirty hippies, they understood that leadership is a desirable trait: that’s why we have a surviving photo of Sam Steenhuus, the first editor-in-chief, glowering at the camera over his sub-culturally mandated facial hair. Something terrible happened to the political left between his tenure and that of the architects of the current constitution, and his role was eliminated in the name of “structurelessness.”

Power in The Peak is concentrated in a body called the Peak Collective, which is comprised of the current editors and recent regular contributors. The two key powers of this body are the ability to set editorial policy and the right to vote in editor elections, which select the entire editorial staff once per semester.

As the name implies, Collective has no leader, and it elects editors that answer to no one except their voters. The current constitution even prevents the board from firing editors for anything short of theft; the only other methods of disciplining underperforming editors are defeating them in elections or holding a recall vote (which, to my knowledge, has never happened).

Like most damaging ideas, a “non-hierarchical decision making structure” such as this sounds great in theory. In practice, however, there is no such thing as a non-hierarchical organization of humans: there are only organizations where the hierarchy is explicit, and those where the hierarchy is hidden.

As no less a progressive authority than Jo Freeman has pointed out, even if an organization such as the Occupy movement or SFU’s own Simon Fraser Public Interest Research Group (SFPIRG) deny that they are governed by hierarchies, it’s clear that some members have informal leadership roles: their opinions are listened to more than others, and they are generally deferred to.

If power-holders can deny that there is any power structure to dominate, they can maintain power much more easily than people whose jobs are created by written rules, and who can be influenced or removed through written procedures.

For this reason, one of the key changes in the draft constitution is the resurrection of the editor-in-chief. While we have exploited loopholes in the constitution in order to have a coordinating editor for the past two years, their powers don’t go far enough. The draft empowers the EIC to alter editorial policies, approve or spike all content, distribute formal warnings to editors, fire editors if warnings accumulate, and to investigate and respond to complaints.

They’ll also keep track of the paper’s circulation, sit on the board of directors, hold a veto over changes to the editorial structure, and sit on the committee that hires editors. This position will be able to define a clear vision for the publication and make sweeping changes, and since they will still be elected by Collective, that vision will be open for criticism ahead of time.

Less Voting, More Democracy

The editor-in-chief is the only editorial position that will be elected under the new system, since the current editor elections are not meaningful tools of accountability. Sitting editors dominate all Peak elections because they are all friends and usually vote as a bloc; while volunteers might outnumber them, they usually defer to their own editors.

As a result, in the 150 or 250 individual editor elections that have occurred in the five years I’ve been watching, only once has an incumbent run for re-election and lost. Widespread understanding of this problem has bred apathy: not a single current editor at The Peak faced a challenger for their job this semester.

The new constitution establishes hiring panels staffed by one former editor, one member of the board of directors, and the editor-in-chief. This panel will have the opportunity to administer tests and perform detailed interviews. This is a clear improvement over elections in which everybody simply votes for the incumbent editor, or the person who has been around long enough to “deserve it.”

This system will especially benefit newcomers. Currently, editors are able to stick around for as long as they want, and they’ve taken advantage: three-year terms at The Peak are not unheard of. Hiring panels will have the resources and authority to decide to give someone new a chance, and newcomers who are especially well-suited to the job will be able to compete on equal footing with incumbents and heirs apparent, rather than relying on the chance that they will arrive just as an editor decides to leave.

The Membership Problem

The single part of the new constitution I’m most undecided on is how to deal with membership. Currently, every fee-paying student at SFU is a member of the Peak Publications Society; this system appeals to me politically, as it encourages everyone to feel they have a stake.

The problem is that our bylaws decree that all changes to the constitution require a vote of at least five per cent of the membership, which last semester was 1,504 people. I hardly need to explain the likelihood of that happening at our famous “commuter campus.”

We all have the opportunity to make The Peak the best student newspaper it can be.

I consider The Gateway, the University of Alberta’s student newspaper, to be the finest example of good governance at a Canadian student newspaper. Membership in their organization is restricted to directors, editors, and recent contributors who opt in; with this small pool of people, bylaws can be passed at a meeting of 30 per cent of members by a 75 per cent supermajority vote.

The goal of making The Peak easier to change would be served by such a rule, but I am very hesitant to remove people from our membership. On this issue, I would very much appreciate some debate.

So, what now?

These are just a couple of the major changes and their justifications in a very wide-ranging project. In a perfect world, everybody who has read this article this far will proceed at least to a brief summary of my proposed changes and leave their thoughts.

The Peak Publications Society will be holding a Special General Meeting in the Convocation Mall on February 25, where the final draft of the new constitution will come up for voting. If everyone who reads this brings 10 friends, we should easily surpass our 1,504-member target. In the more realistic case that we miss that goal, we will vote anyway in order to demonstrate the will of the membership, and we will seek other avenues for change, possibly including a referendum.

Replacing a constitution is a big job, and an important one. While I’ve done most of the heavy lifting so far, it would be profoundly wrong of me to insist on all of my ideas without considering the contributions of other members. Expressions of support are welcomed, but dissent is urgently needed.

We all have the opportunity to make The Peak the best student newspaper it can be. This constitution is intended to stand for decades, and if you see a problem with what’s being proposed, now is the time to speak up.

University Briefs

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

God, dead at UofM?

St. John’s College, affiliate of University of Manitoba, made the decision last year to temporarily shut down its theology department. Dropping numbers in theology students and church attendees forced the Anglican college to declare the faculty unsustainable.

Now, the entire faculty is going to be reviewed and potentially renewed. St. John’s alum, Donald McKenzie, who doubles as a priest at St. Phillips Anglican Church is a part of the renewal initiative. He says, “We just don’t have the people going through the program at the moment to run it in the way we have [in the past]. The program needs to be looked at and revamped, revitalized.”

With files from The Manitoban

Puff, puff, you shall not pass

UBC’s Hempology 101 club was recently suspended from their SUB for creating a pseudo vaporizer lounge in a space they had booked. While there will be no legal repercussions, the club is prohibited from reserving private space in the building for the remainder of the semester.

Student administrative commission vice-chair Nina Scott says that despite this unfortunate mistake, “We’re happy to work more closely with them … and help them make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.” The club’s cannabis convention will go ahead in March as planned, suspension aside.

With files from The Ubyssey

York makes controversial religious accommodation

York University is under scrutiny for standing by a decision to grant a student’s request not to work with women for religious reasons. The request was first made to the student’s professor, J. Paul Grayson, who refused to allow him to work in a group without women.

The university administration’s compliance with this request has generated an outcry of support for the professor, based on the belief that this compliance challenges the school’s gender equality. As reported in Excalibur, affiliate of Feminist Action at York, Danielle Carter, says this action clearly shows that “women’s rights are not a priority at York.”

With files from Excalibur

Around Town

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

Woodwards

“When you try to picture the future what do you see? A world bursting with human potential, and the technology that liberates it? Or one defined by hard limits to growth, and the rural ideals of earlier generations?”

This question was posited by panelists at the event, How Climate Change Is Reshaping Our Future, last Wednesday, Jan. 22 night. Four of Vancouver’s leading speakers on environmental change (Jim Hoggan, Keith Gillard, Carleen Thomas, and Christie Stephenson) spoke on how global warming is already remaking “our entire culture.”

Surrey

SFU brought its first ever Teen Café, a Philosopher’s Café event for adolescents, to Surrey students last Tuesday. The free session, entitled “The Evolution of Bullying”, was held in the Surrey Centre Library and was open to ages 13-18. The discussion topic covered bullying in all its forms and how it is perceived, with an emphasis on cyber-bullying. The sessions are scheduled to occur monthly and will treat a variety of subjects, the next of which will be “Is Technology the New Drug of the Century?” on Feb. 18.

Vancouver

Last Wednesday, Jan. 22, social media manager for the Vancouver Canucks, Nicole van Zanten, spoke with SFU students on how to build and maintain the relationships you create at networking events.

Hosted by the Communications Student Union at Take 5 Café, this event saw van Zanten share her personal experiences from working with the Canucks, where one of her most important jobs is ensuring the fans have “a truly unique and engaging time via the Vancouver Canucks’ social platforms.”

Rising tuition fees are a slap to the face

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

2

SFU, I hate your ridiculous international school fees!

SFU is yet again increasing tuition fees by an additional eight per cent, on top of the already basic two per cent increase per annum. I am not the only one growling at this injustice. As an international student, I already pay $595 per credit, almost four times the amount locals pay. SFU wants to increase that by another ten per cent each coming year? Pardon me while I scoff. And curl up in a corner.

But it isn’t just SFU. According to Statistics Canada, in 2013 fee increases for undergraduate international students ranged from 1.4 per cent in Alberta to 10.1 per cent in Ontario. Graduate fee increases were a tad bit better, ranging from 1.6 per cent in Manitoba to 6.7 per cent in Saskatchewan. But the trend appears to only be going up.

International students hang on to their existence in Canada by a thread; the only reason most of us are allowed to stay is because of a piece of paper permitting us to study here (terms and conditions apply). If we dislike our school fees, we can’t do anything but take it, or leave Canada. Honestly, what’s to stop a school from increasing international fees other than sheer conscience?

If our tuition fees really increase by 30 per cent over the next three years, international students will get fed up. Current students might have no choice but to finish our degrees to make sure all the money we’ve forked out so far gets us at least something in the end. Future students, though, will hopefully think twice about applying to SFU, and even other Canadian institutions. You can only push us so far before we push back.

Maybe Canadian universities think that they can raise our school fees because of the demand for Canadian education from international students, but exponentially capitalizing on this opportunity means that you are exploiting us.

If tuition fees were actually affordable, I would take classes left, right, and center. There are so many interesting, stimulating classes that I want to take but can’t because I don’t want to stretch my resources even more by going over the 120 credits needed to graduate. What happened to the spirit of education? We’ve lost it to the profiteering ways of business.

I like my experience in Canada enough. I just don’t think it has to come at such a high price.

Saudi Arabia Revolution

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

Starting in 2010, a wave of political protests swept across Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa, in what is now referred to as the Arab Spring.

Saudi Arabia was able to avoid regime change and ultimate turmoil; some believe that sizeable wage increases and promises of more public goods and services were largely responsible for keeping the royal family in power. However, this strategy of appeasing politically conscious citizens with increased public goods and services may not work so well in the near future.

One prevalent practice within this regime has been subsidizing a variety of daily needs, such as electricity, oil, etc. As a result, citizens pay below-market prices for gasoline and electricity, with the cost mainly shouldered by the government. In fact, according to Numbeo.com, as of 2014, gasoline in Saudi Arabia costs a mere 15 cents per litre on average!

The royal family’s popularity depends mainly on the subsidies it provides.

An article was published in Al-Monitor near the end of 2013 that highlights the impacts of Saudi Arabia’s energy subsidy program. Specifically, it estimated that the expenditures funding the program constitute approximately 10 per cent — a huge portion — of the kingdom’s GDP.

Unfortunately, the low prices these subsidies result in has lead to high rates of energy consumption, and a rapid increase of the country’s population within all of its sectors. To make matters worse, the country relies heavily on fossil fuels for the bulk of its energy needs.

Assuming that rapid population growth continues in Saudi Arabia, it is reasonable to suggest that underfunding of public services could become a critical problem for the survival of the royal family in the near future.

The royal family’s popularity depends mainly on the subsidies it provides; straining to deliver at least satisfactory levels of subsidies, as well as education, healthcare, housing, etc., to its citizens could lead to its ultimate downfall.

Consequently, I think the Saudi government will have to rely on different forms of taxation to provide public goods and services to the Saudi people. This could pressure the royal family to introduce a form of democracy to the country, as the people are likely to demand more say in government accountability with respect to government revenues.

Subsidization exemplifies poor financial management and bad economics, and is a critical bargaining tool between citizens and what I would consider an authoritarian government. External shocks to subsidy programs may break this fragile social contract and lead to political instability, which could result in similar revolutions to those in the Middle East’s near past.

Disco magazine blames decline in sales on ‘death of print’

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

TORONTO — The editors of the once very popular Disco Weekly Magazine, who have been facing increasingly low sales since 1979, believe that they have discovered the root cause of all their problems.

“People just aren’t buying magazines anymore, it’s obvious,” said DWM editor-in-chief Craig Shubert. “What else could possibly account for the lack of interest in a weekly disco periodical?”

Shubert has said that he is well aware of the recent “death of print” phenomenon and has no doubt in his mind that it is what is driving his business into the ground.

“Everybody knows that print is a thing of the past and I’m not blind to it,” he explained. “Print publications aren’t going to be around forever, it’s just like Disco Halls … halls were always doomed to fail!”

Despite the best efforts of Disco Weekly Magazine’s staff to rally the entire magazine industry, their calls have fallen on deaf ears of major publications like Rolling Stone, Time, GQ and National Geographic who all claim to be doing “just fine.”

“We got Pet Rock Aficionado and Penny-farthing Quarterly on board but to be honest with you they have more problems than just a decline in print popularity,” affirmed DWM vice-president Allan King. “I mean there’s no way either of those magazines can honestly believe that they can compete with the likes of Pet Rock Illustrated or the High-Wheeler Observer!”

While King and Shubert, along with the rest of the DWM staff, know that changes need to be made if they want their publication to stay in business, they claim that they have no idea what to do.

“I’ve heard from some people that we ‘need to get online’ but I really don’t think this whole Internet thing is going to catch on,” Shubert told The Peak.

“Instead we’ve been trying to talk to the people from Tamagotchi about getting some of our content on their devices, but they haven’t returned our phone calls . . . must be because they’re too popular!”

With no concrete solutions on the horizon, and even their almost non-existent sales numbers falling everyday, Disco Weekly is on the brink of shutting down for good. But despite their grim prospects, Shubert has still managed to find some consolation.

“At least disco music will never die,” he said, laughing at such a ridiculous notion. He then excused himself and left to wallow in despair at the nearest oxygen bar, an almost 30 kilometre drive, which he assumed must be due to the recent decline in interest in “bars”.

The man without a plan

By

EIC

-

January 27, 2014

0

The author Alan Lakein once said, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.” If this is the case, then it would appear that Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party are indeed planning to fail, with Trudeau having stated last year that the Liberal Party will not be announcing a platform until 2015, the year of the next federal election.

Trudeau has made a lot of noise about improving Canada’s middle class, but has so far been silent on how he intends to accomplish this. Even the Liberal Party website is full of wonderfully written phrases on what they believe, but no substance as to how they intend to accomplish the goals they have set for themselves.

This is a dangerous move on the part of a Liberal Party struggling to recover from its crushing defeat in the last federal election. With Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats targeting the same middle class audience, the Liberals run the risk of, once again, being left out in the cold.

It would seem that the Liberals have yet to learn an important lesson from 2011: that it is not enough to criticize the government; parties must present themselves as a clear, viable alternative. One of the reasons the Conservatives were able to gain a majority government in the last election is that the PM had a clearly defined plan, particularly with regards to the economy.

At the leaders’ debates, when asked about economic policy, all three leaders failed to present their plans for the nation, instead limiting themselves to attacking Conservative policy. When Canadians went to the polls on Election Day, they elected the Conservatives. I am willing to bet that many did so with one idea running through their heads: better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

Better the devil you know that the devil you don’t.

It seems that the Liberal Party is banking on the Trudeau name and their leader’s relative youth (Trudeau is 42, while Mulcair is 59 and Harper is 54). These two traits act as a double-edged sword, as they have also become the main avenue of attack from both other parties.

Both Conservatives and New Democrats have commented on Mr. Trudeau’s lack of experience in the political arena. It is hard to argue against that point, with Harper having been involved in politics since the 1980’s, Mulcair since the 90’s, and Trudeau only becoming significantly involved in the 2000’s. His name could be divisive in itself, as the late Pierre Trudeau was hardly a universally liked figure, especially out West.

While they still have a lot of time leading up to the next federal election, Liberals need to start getting their ideas out there, or else they risk giving an advantage to the other parties. By the time the election rolls around in October of next year, we will have had over nine years of experience with the Conservative platform and, with Mulcair starting the campaign early, Canadians will have an extra year of exposure to NDP ideas.

While Trudeau still holds the lead in Nanos Research polls, he is losing ground to both Mulcair and Harper. If he wants to be a contender next year, the man needs to come up with a plan and get it to the people. If he fails to do so, the 2015 federal election will be a case of NDP left vs. Conservative right, with the Liberal Party again relegated to third party status.