At this time last year Stephen Harper was a global warming/climate change denier. He did not equivocate, he believed it did not exist. In fact, during his end-of-year interviews he used that lovely phrase "so called global warming". All of that changed when polls showed Canadians did believe in it and they indicated that it was the most important issue to them. Suddenly Mr. Harper was a believer.
Of course, that is not the case. He is still a denier and his actions and the actions of his government over the last 9 months have proven that. It has become politically expedient to believe and his government is not one to let principle trump expediency.
So with this in mind what are we to make of Mr. Harper's strategy of demanding developing countries be treated as equals in any agreement to reduce ghg emissions?
Let us look at India and Canada.
Currently India's annual ghg output is 1343 megatonnes. Canada's output is 639 megatonnes.
Worked out as a function of total population India produces 1.1 tonnes of ghg for every man, woman and child on the subcontinent. For Canada it works out to 20 tonnes.
Looking at those numbers it is obvious that India is nowhere near Canada's equal in the ghg emissions. Indeed, it demonstrates just how much of a laggard Canada is in the fight to reduce ghg emissions.
India is a developing country that is still developing its industrial base. Canada is a developed country with a well established industrial base. For India to reduce its ghg emissions by any sigificant amount it would have to stop or even reverse its industrialization. In other words it would have to stop or reverse its development.
Of course, any demand by the developed world to that effect would be soundly rejected by India and the rest of the developing world possibly leading to a breakdown in the global effort to fight global warming/climate change. Does Stephen Harper know this? Is this his ultimate goal in demanding the developing world be treated as equals in the fight to reduce ghg emissions?
For a denier like himself, who has lost the argument about the need to fight global warming, derailing the global effort to fight it would get the job done. The belief in global warming would not be reduced but he could claim that Canada cannot fight it alone and such a message would probably resonate with Canadians.
I do not believe he is that clever. I believe he has chosen that approach because on its face it sounds reasonable. That is the MO of this government. Put forward ideas that sound good on the surface but do not stand up under close scrutiny.
However, could he still inadvertenly derail the process? Thankfully, the answer is no. With the exceptions of Canada and the United States the rest of the developed world is committed to reducing ghg emissions and fighting global warming. They are acknowledging that it was the developed world that created this problem and that they are going to have to provide leadership in solving it. They will be able to keep the process going until George Bush is finally thrown into the dustbin of history and Stephen Harper is forced by circumstances to finally join the rest of the developed world or he is replaced by someone who is a believer of global warming.
So I expect the Bali conference will end with the planet marking time in finding a new agreement on fighting global warming. The process will not be advanced but it will not be damaged either.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
No Mr. Harper you can not give Mr. Khan back
I guess Liberals can be happy that Wajid Khan decided to take that walk across the House of Commons floor.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mr. Khan's new troubles with the law would be trumpeted from the rooftops by the Conservatives and their media cheerleaders if he were still a Liberal.
As it stands they will still probably find a way to blame the Liberals for this. It would mean righting off Mr. Khan in the process but they have pretty much written off all of Toronto anyway so what is the harm?
I am certain taking him into the Conservative caucus seemed like a good idea at the time. I wonder what Stephen Harper is thinking now?
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mr. Khan's new troubles with the law would be trumpeted from the rooftops by the Conservatives and their media cheerleaders if he were still a Liberal.
As it stands they will still probably find a way to blame the Liberals for this. It would mean righting off Mr. Khan in the process but they have pretty much written off all of Toronto anyway so what is the harm?
I am certain taking him into the Conservative caucus seemed like a good idea at the time. I wonder what Stephen Harper is thinking now?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bill C-22 is a very bad idea
I have had problems with this bill from the very beginning and I am happy that the Liberals will not be supporting it. My only concern is they are taking that stance for the wrong reason.
I do not see the problem with this bill being the lack of representation for Ontario.
The problem is politicians should have absolutely no say in how the seats of Parliament are distributed. They all have a vested interest in it so they cannot be trusted to make their own self-interest subordinate to that of the nation.
The only thing Parliament should do is pass a law that sets out the broad prinicples and parameters that would be used to determine representation in The House. It should then hand over those principles to an independent agency to implement. That agency would report to Parliament.
Bill C-22 does not do this. It opens up the possibility of politicians gerrymandering provincial representation for their own interests and for that reason this bill needs to die.
I do not see the problem with this bill being the lack of representation for Ontario.
The problem is politicians should have absolutely no say in how the seats of Parliament are distributed. They all have a vested interest in it so they cannot be trusted to make their own self-interest subordinate to that of the nation.
The only thing Parliament should do is pass a law that sets out the broad prinicples and parameters that would be used to determine representation in The House. It should then hand over those principles to an independent agency to implement. That agency would report to Parliament.
Bill C-22 does not do this. It opens up the possibility of politicians gerrymandering provincial representation for their own interests and for that reason this bill needs to die.
What the...!?
Brian Mulroney and his backers must really think Canadians are not very bright to use this defence of him taking money from Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Mulroney was wealthy before he became PM and then he took a job with a salary of 250K and perks that equal more than 150K a year. How could anybody who spends eight years earning that salary with no mortgage, with no need to pay for gas, groceries, commercial airfare, work cloths, haircuts, utilities and a whole host of other perks be broke at the end of his term?
There were persistant rumours that Mila Mulroney loved her shoes but could she seriously have spent $2 million dollars on shoes?
This issue had pretty much migrated to the back burner. It boggles my mind that Mr. Mulroney and his backers would revive it by making such silly claims.
Mr. Mulroney was wealthy before he became PM and then he took a job with a salary of 250K and perks that equal more than 150K a year. How could anybody who spends eight years earning that salary with no mortgage, with no need to pay for gas, groceries, commercial airfare, work cloths, haircuts, utilities and a whole host of other perks be broke at the end of his term?
There were persistant rumours that Mila Mulroney loved her shoes but could she seriously have spent $2 million dollars on shoes?
This issue had pretty much migrated to the back burner. It boggles my mind that Mr. Mulroney and his backers would revive it by making such silly claims.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The opinions of media pundits and a dollar will buy you a coffee
This is why I have absolutely no respect for media in general and media pundits in particular.
When the Gomery Inquiry began Mr. Travers had no qualms about its effectiveness or whether the political parties trying to benefit from it were hurting themselves or the government. He also did not have too many complaints about the issues that were taking a back seat as a result of the focus on that inquiry.
Now we are talking about an inquiry that may find out about a former PM accepting cash payments from one shady character while that former PM was still in office. So how does Mr. Travers react? It is a non-issue, he implies.
I would really love to know if he would say the same thing if, in this affair, the name Mulroney was replaced with the name Chretien? Would he have a different opinion about the inquiry's effectiveness and its impact on the political scene? You are fucking right he would.
Before the Sponsorship Scandal broke the media narrative was Paul Martin would roll over the Conservatives and win one of the biggest majorities in Canadian history. Mr. Travers was one of those who said as much. When the Sponsorship Scandal broke the media narrative changed to Mr. Martin would be lucky to hang onto power. Again Mr. Travers agreed with that narrative.
When the Mulroney-Schreiber affair broke I was wondering if the current media narrative would change as well. This pundit and others that I have read would seem to indicate that it will not.
Ah for the days when the media actually told us what was happening in the world, a narrative was something you only found in a novel and spin was something you did on a midway ride at the local summer fair.
When the Gomery Inquiry began Mr. Travers had no qualms about its effectiveness or whether the political parties trying to benefit from it were hurting themselves or the government. He also did not have too many complaints about the issues that were taking a back seat as a result of the focus on that inquiry.
Now we are talking about an inquiry that may find out about a former PM accepting cash payments from one shady character while that former PM was still in office. So how does Mr. Travers react? It is a non-issue, he implies.
I would really love to know if he would say the same thing if, in this affair, the name Mulroney was replaced with the name Chretien? Would he have a different opinion about the inquiry's effectiveness and its impact on the political scene? You are fucking right he would.
Before the Sponsorship Scandal broke the media narrative was Paul Martin would roll over the Conservatives and win one of the biggest majorities in Canadian history. Mr. Travers was one of those who said as much. When the Sponsorship Scandal broke the media narrative changed to Mr. Martin would be lucky to hang onto power. Again Mr. Travers agreed with that narrative.
When the Mulroney-Schreiber affair broke I was wondering if the current media narrative would change as well. This pundit and others that I have read would seem to indicate that it will not.
Ah for the days when the media actually told us what was happening in the world, a narrative was something you only found in a novel and spin was something you did on a midway ride at the local summer fair.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
What a terrible week in the Afgan war
Canadian soldiers are dying both in Afghanistan and at home.
Canadian soldiers could have made a terrible mistake.
The Canadian government could have broken international law and known all about it.
The Taliban is not only sticking around but they appear to be getting stronger and more dug in.
One of the key allies in the Afghan war could be knocked out of the war or at the very least be too distracted to be of much use.
The countries that should be leading the efforts in Afghanistan seem to want to do this on the cheap, which of course, never works.
Finally, the probable deadline for the end of the mission is fast approaching.
I have always been a supporter of the Afghan mission. I believe that Canada can do good work there. Unfortunately, the prosecution of the mission has gone off the rails, as this week demonstrates, and unless it gets back on track it will fail.
Canadian soldiers could have made a terrible mistake.
The Canadian government could have broken international law and known all about it.
The Taliban is not only sticking around but they appear to be getting stronger and more dug in.
One of the key allies in the Afghan war could be knocked out of the war or at the very least be too distracted to be of much use.
The countries that should be leading the efforts in Afghanistan seem to want to do this on the cheap, which of course, never works.
Finally, the probable deadline for the end of the mission is fast approaching.
I have always been a supporter of the Afghan mission. I believe that Canada can do good work there. Unfortunately, the prosecution of the mission has gone off the rails, as this week demonstrates, and unless it gets back on track it will fail.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Why can't the Conservatives put some space between them and the Liberals?
That must be a question being asked by a great number of Conservative supporters. I would say the same about the punditocracy as well, since they have been proven wrong over and over again, but doing so would mean I have to assume they have some scruples.
This question is also becoming more relevant as a result of Mr. Mulroney and the impending public inquiry into his actions. Although much of that same punditocracy is arguing that there is no link between Mr. Mulroney's actions and the Conservative Party I argued in my previous post that ordinary Canadians will not necessarily buy that line. So, the problems that Conservatives have been having in gaining consistent breathing room on the Liberals may just become more difficult.
So, that does beg the question as to why, even before The Mulroney Affair, the Conservatives have not been able to grow their support beyond what they achieved in the 2006 election.
Here are some ideas.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Harper is about as cuddley as a porcupine and as charismatic as a turnip. This in itself would not be that bad but he combines those features with a petty, vindictive and mean-spirited style of running the government. I do not say governance because he is not governing. The two together makes him very unappealing to large swaths of Canadians.
Make no mistake, Jean Chretien had the very same petty and vindictive streak but he also had the political instincts to know when to suppress those urges. Mr. Harper either does not have those instincts or he just chooses to ignore them.
The Conservative Party: Since the creation of the new Conservative Party they have lacked any real sense of identity. They have certainly tried to cultivate a brand, as I stated in my previous post and as has been pointed out by knb at Liberal Arts and Minds. However, I think if you ask anybody what is the identity of the Conservative Party you would receive different answers or blank stares.
The Conservatives have now found themselves in the unhappy situation of having a large number of Canadians who do not trust them because they still do not really know what they stand for. As well, they now have the potential problem of Mr. Mulroney reminding a great deal of folks of just why the "Tory" brand has been tainted over the years. A Party with a tainted brand and no sense of its own identity is rarely successful in the medium to long-term.
The healthy Canadian economy: This one would seem to be counter-intuitive. After all it is convention wisdom that a healthy economy is good news for the government. However, we need to understand that we have now witnessed over a decade of uninterrupted economic good times. Therefore, I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns is rearing its head.
In the period between the late 1960s and the early 1990s the North American economy rarely had economic "booms" that lasted more than 5 years. That meant that just as people were getting comfortable and confident in the economy something would come along and muck it up. That has not been the case in the last 10-12 years. As the economic good times continue so does the sense that they will never end so the electorate is not looking to the government to "fix" the economy. Of course, when the economy does finally hit a bump in the road the party in power at that time will find themselves in some trouble.
As well, despite the Conservatives efforts to convince them otherwise, I believe Canadians do realize that the Liberals had a hand in these good times so they are not necessarily going to give the Conservatives all of the credit for them.
I believe that these three factors are the key factors that explain why the Conservatives are still in the duldrums despite a struggling Liberal Party and a rather satisfied electorate. Unfortunately for them there is not much they will be able to do about any of them in the short-term so they have a cause to be concerned. This is particularly true if The Mulroney Affair takes enough attention off of the Liberals to allow them to get their act together without the distraction of constantly being under the media microscope.
This question is also becoming more relevant as a result of Mr. Mulroney and the impending public inquiry into his actions. Although much of that same punditocracy is arguing that there is no link between Mr. Mulroney's actions and the Conservative Party I argued in my previous post that ordinary Canadians will not necessarily buy that line. So, the problems that Conservatives have been having in gaining consistent breathing room on the Liberals may just become more difficult.
So, that does beg the question as to why, even before The Mulroney Affair, the Conservatives have not been able to grow their support beyond what they achieved in the 2006 election.
Here are some ideas.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Harper is about as cuddley as a porcupine and as charismatic as a turnip. This in itself would not be that bad but he combines those features with a petty, vindictive and mean-spirited style of running the government. I do not say governance because he is not governing. The two together makes him very unappealing to large swaths of Canadians.
Make no mistake, Jean Chretien had the very same petty and vindictive streak but he also had the political instincts to know when to suppress those urges. Mr. Harper either does not have those instincts or he just chooses to ignore them.
The Conservative Party: Since the creation of the new Conservative Party they have lacked any real sense of identity. They have certainly tried to cultivate a brand, as I stated in my previous post and as has been pointed out by knb at Liberal Arts and Minds. However, I think if you ask anybody what is the identity of the Conservative Party you would receive different answers or blank stares.
The Conservatives have now found themselves in the unhappy situation of having a large number of Canadians who do not trust them because they still do not really know what they stand for. As well, they now have the potential problem of Mr. Mulroney reminding a great deal of folks of just why the "Tory" brand has been tainted over the years. A Party with a tainted brand and no sense of its own identity is rarely successful in the medium to long-term.
The healthy Canadian economy: This one would seem to be counter-intuitive. After all it is convention wisdom that a healthy economy is good news for the government. However, we need to understand that we have now witnessed over a decade of uninterrupted economic good times. Therefore, I believe the Law of Diminishing Returns is rearing its head.
In the period between the late 1960s and the early 1990s the North American economy rarely had economic "booms" that lasted more than 5 years. That meant that just as people were getting comfortable and confident in the economy something would come along and muck it up. That has not been the case in the last 10-12 years. As the economic good times continue so does the sense that they will never end so the electorate is not looking to the government to "fix" the economy. Of course, when the economy does finally hit a bump in the road the party in power at that time will find themselves in some trouble.
As well, despite the Conservatives efforts to convince them otherwise, I believe Canadians do realize that the Liberals had a hand in these good times so they are not necessarily going to give the Conservatives all of the credit for them.
I believe that these three factors are the key factors that explain why the Conservatives are still in the duldrums despite a struggling Liberal Party and a rather satisfied electorate. Unfortunately for them there is not much they will be able to do about any of them in the short-term so they have a cause to be concerned. This is particularly true if The Mulroney Affair takes enough attention off of the Liberals to allow them to get their act together without the distraction of constantly being under the media microscope.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Is Stephen Harper going to have a brown envelope moment?
One of the most enduring and most damning images from the Gomery Inquiry was the testimony about Liberal operatives taking cash payments "in plain brown envelopes" from people who left those envelopes on the table while they went to the bathroom.
Now we have another inquiry where we could have similar imagery. It has already been admitted by Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schriber that Mr. Schriber gave Mr. Mulroney $300,000 in cash in three installments. Could we hear testimony from Mr. Schriber that he handed over these payments by giving Mr. Mulroney briefcases full of cash?
Brown envelopes and cash filled brief cases both have the image of being underhanded ways to pay off people. They have the image of being methods used by dishonest folks to hide payments for goods and services that are illegal, unethical or immoral. Mr. Schriber's testimony could be interesting to say the least.
There is also the issue of whether the revelations of this inquiry will impact the current government. After all these events took place over a decade ago, where one of the key players was the leader of a now defunct party.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives they and their apologists in the media have been assiduously cultivating, with some success, the image of a Party that is not much different from the old PCPC since the creation of the CPC. They even took on the old party's nickname "Tories". Does anybody think that Canadians that do not follow politics on a daily basis will make the distinction between the former Tory PM and the current "Tory" government?
As well, it is no secret that Mr. Harper's mentor for the past three or four years was Mr. Mulroney. It is not going to take much for Mr. Harper's opponents to remind Canadians of that fact. Hostility to Mr. Mulroney amongst all but his most ardent supporters is never very far below the surface. That can be witnessed by the fact that the GST cuts are so popular amongst Canadians. They know who gave it to them and they have still not forgiven. Having Mr. Mulroney back in the spotlight would be bad enough for the Conservatives. Having him back in the spotlight and being linked personally to Mr. Harper is even worse.
There is no predicting how this inquiry will go. It could turn out to be a boring exercise. However, there is a strong possibility for some fireworks that could burn the current government very badly. And if that imagery of cash filled brief cases comes to pass then the Conservatives will be in big trouble.
As an aside, it would be unfair to link Mr. Harper to the actions of Mr. Mulroney, as many Conservatives are now arguing. However, I would point out to the arguments Conservatives are using to defend Mr. Harper are the very same arguments Liberals used to defend Mr. Martin during the sponsorship scandal.
Payback is a bitch isn't it?
Now we have another inquiry where we could have similar imagery. It has already been admitted by Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schriber that Mr. Schriber gave Mr. Mulroney $300,000 in cash in three installments. Could we hear testimony from Mr. Schriber that he handed over these payments by giving Mr. Mulroney briefcases full of cash?
Brown envelopes and cash filled brief cases both have the image of being underhanded ways to pay off people. They have the image of being methods used by dishonest folks to hide payments for goods and services that are illegal, unethical or immoral. Mr. Schriber's testimony could be interesting to say the least.
There is also the issue of whether the revelations of this inquiry will impact the current government. After all these events took place over a decade ago, where one of the key players was the leader of a now defunct party.
Unfortunately for the Conservatives they and their apologists in the media have been assiduously cultivating, with some success, the image of a Party that is not much different from the old PCPC since the creation of the CPC. They even took on the old party's nickname "Tories". Does anybody think that Canadians that do not follow politics on a daily basis will make the distinction between the former Tory PM and the current "Tory" government?
As well, it is no secret that Mr. Harper's mentor for the past three or four years was Mr. Mulroney. It is not going to take much for Mr. Harper's opponents to remind Canadians of that fact. Hostility to Mr. Mulroney amongst all but his most ardent supporters is never very far below the surface. That can be witnessed by the fact that the GST cuts are so popular amongst Canadians. They know who gave it to them and they have still not forgiven. Having Mr. Mulroney back in the spotlight would be bad enough for the Conservatives. Having him back in the spotlight and being linked personally to Mr. Harper is even worse.
There is no predicting how this inquiry will go. It could turn out to be a boring exercise. However, there is a strong possibility for some fireworks that could burn the current government very badly. And if that imagery of cash filled brief cases comes to pass then the Conservatives will be in big trouble.
As an aside, it would be unfair to link Mr. Harper to the actions of Mr. Mulroney, as many Conservatives are now arguing. However, I would point out to the arguments Conservatives are using to defend Mr. Harper are the very same arguments Liberals used to defend Mr. Martin during the sponsorship scandal.
Payback is a bitch isn't it?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Liberals are to blame for the current Liberal Party troubles
Warning: This a rant against my fellow Liberals who I have found more and more to be undermining the very Party they all claim to support.
If you are not prepared to look inward to see your own culpability in the creation of the current troubles of the Liberal Party leave now. If you are then read on.
The current media narrative is Stephane Dion is a weak leader. This narrative was started by Stephen Harper and it was picked up by the media. The interesting thing about media narratives is they quickly change when they are no longer considered credible. So if in the last few months the only people saying Mr. Dion was a weak leader were the media and the Conservatives the narrative would have begun changing months ago. Unfortunately many Liberals in the blogsphere and those who have media contacts gave credibility to the narrative by agreeing with it. Canadians are smart enough to realize that Stephen Harper is not going to find anything nice to say about Stephane Dion. They are also smart enough to know when they are being fed a bill of goods by the media. However, when they hear Liberals actually buying that bill of goods they begin to believe it. So, if Liberals would have put the kibosh on this narrative months ago things would probably be better for the Liberals. Of course that did not happen. Instead Liberals have given the narrative legs and a life of its own by their own actions.
And keep in mind I am not talking about the "Liberal Party". I am talking about its supporters. The Party has been doing what it can with the limited resources at its disposal to move the Party forward but they are being held back by many in the Liberal blogsphere and by those Liberals who have media contacts.
I can only imagine what the last two months would have been like if Liberals would have rallied around the Party and Mr. Dion after the first installment of the Conservative "Not a leader" advertizement and in the aftermath of the Outrement loss. They would certainly be in a much stronger position and they might just have triggered an election over the economic statement. But you have to forgive a leader of a political party for not doing so when his own supporters are undermining him at every turn. It is bad enough to face your political opponents but when your own supporters attack you as well then you are in a truly unwinnable situation.
Mr. Dion certainly has to take some of the responsibility for the current troubles of the Party but the lion's share of the blame lies with his erstwhile supporters and all of this is beside the point in the final analysis.
That is in the past. Now Liberals must prepare themselves to battle Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, probably in about 4-6 months. So Liberals had better begin focusing on them instead of Mr. Dion if you want to see the Liberal Party regain the government.
If you are not prepared to look inward to see your own culpability in the creation of the current troubles of the Liberal Party leave now. If you are then read on.
The current media narrative is Stephane Dion is a weak leader. This narrative was started by Stephen Harper and it was picked up by the media. The interesting thing about media narratives is they quickly change when they are no longer considered credible. So if in the last few months the only people saying Mr. Dion was a weak leader were the media and the Conservatives the narrative would have begun changing months ago. Unfortunately many Liberals in the blogsphere and those who have media contacts gave credibility to the narrative by agreeing with it. Canadians are smart enough to realize that Stephen Harper is not going to find anything nice to say about Stephane Dion. They are also smart enough to know when they are being fed a bill of goods by the media. However, when they hear Liberals actually buying that bill of goods they begin to believe it. So, if Liberals would have put the kibosh on this narrative months ago things would probably be better for the Liberals. Of course that did not happen. Instead Liberals have given the narrative legs and a life of its own by their own actions.
And keep in mind I am not talking about the "Liberal Party". I am talking about its supporters. The Party has been doing what it can with the limited resources at its disposal to move the Party forward but they are being held back by many in the Liberal blogsphere and by those Liberals who have media contacts.
I can only imagine what the last two months would have been like if Liberals would have rallied around the Party and Mr. Dion after the first installment of the Conservative "Not a leader" advertizement and in the aftermath of the Outrement loss. They would certainly be in a much stronger position and they might just have triggered an election over the economic statement. But you have to forgive a leader of a political party for not doing so when his own supporters are undermining him at every turn. It is bad enough to face your political opponents but when your own supporters attack you as well then you are in a truly unwinnable situation.
Mr. Dion certainly has to take some of the responsibility for the current troubles of the Party but the lion's share of the blame lies with his erstwhile supporters and all of this is beside the point in the final analysis.
That is in the past. Now Liberals must prepare themselves to battle Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, probably in about 4-6 months. So Liberals had better begin focusing on them instead of Mr. Dion if you want to see the Liberal Party regain the government.
The Senate is not going anywhere soon
The blogsphere is all atwitter about the latest alliance between the NDP and the Conservatives to abolish the Senate. It all sounds very important.
The biggest line of bull I have heard is the NDP motion will pass the House because of the NDP and the Conservatives will join forces together and then the Liberals will be embarrassed because the Liberal dominated Senate will vote against it.
Nice theory but it is wrong!!!
The Senate only considers Bills that have been passed by the House of Commons. What the NDP is proposing is a non-binding motion delivered on its Opposition Day. It will never see the inside of the Senate Chamber regardless of its fate in The House.
When Stephen Harper tables an actual Bill to abolish the Senate then we can all worry but that will not happen because he has stated that his preferred choice is to retain it and have the Senators elected.
So calm the f*** down. Like all of these motions it will be a one day story and then disappear.
The biggest line of bull I have heard is the NDP motion will pass the House because of the NDP and the Conservatives will join forces together and then the Liberals will be embarrassed because the Liberal dominated Senate will vote against it.
Nice theory but it is wrong!!!
The Senate only considers Bills that have been passed by the House of Commons. What the NDP is proposing is a non-binding motion delivered on its Opposition Day. It will never see the inside of the Senate Chamber regardless of its fate in The House.
When Stephen Harper tables an actual Bill to abolish the Senate then we can all worry but that will not happen because he has stated that his preferred choice is to retain it and have the Senators elected.
So calm the f*** down. Like all of these motions it will be a one day story and then disappear.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Thankfully Mr. Dion does not listen to bloggers and the media about election timing
I have seen more than one suggestion by Liberal bloggers and by a newspaper widely regarded as being friendly to the Liberals demand that Mr. Dion bring down the government.
The arguments are that this government should be brought down on a matter of principle as they are taking the country in the wrong direction and/or it makes the Liberals look week. Although I share their concern about the direction of the country I unequivocally disagree with their suggestion that Mr. Dion bring down the government.
The simple truth is the Liberals are not prepared to fight an election at this time. So having an election right now would probably lead to a Liberal defeat. For me that defeats the purpose of bringing down the government based on principles. If the Conservatives were to win a minority government they would have at least 2 years free reign to continue taking the country in its current direction because there would be no way any opposition party would plunge the country into its 4th election in 4 years. Of course, if the Conservatives were to win a majority then we would have four years of watching helplessly as the Conservatives take full advantage of unfettered power. If you believe that the Conservatives are taking the country in the wrong direction now, when they are held back by their minority government status, just imagine what would happen if they did not have that anchor.
Mr. Dion has made the right decisions in the past couple of weeks. The Throne Speech was designed to trigger an election but it did not. If you look at that Speech you will note that the parts that do not threaten the Conservatives can be accomplished in about 6 months, if the Opposition were to put a fight. Of course, the Liberals are not so those parts should be done by Christmas. Then the Conservatives have a choice. Bring forward legislation and votes on the issues where they are on the wrong side of public opinion or go back to drifting as they were doing last Spring.
Either way they will not be able to build their support during that period and they will eventually have to bring forward measures that will allow the opposition to defeat them on their terms and not Mr. Harper's. The Harper government has been denied its preferred method of suicide so now they will have to await their fate from the opposition.
In politics, as in life, people of good conscience sometimes have to make the difficult decision of delaying the right course of action in the short-term because to wait will bring greater benefits in the medium and long-term.
That is the decision Mr. Dion has made and it is the right one.
The arguments are that this government should be brought down on a matter of principle as they are taking the country in the wrong direction and/or it makes the Liberals look week. Although I share their concern about the direction of the country I unequivocally disagree with their suggestion that Mr. Dion bring down the government.
The simple truth is the Liberals are not prepared to fight an election at this time. So having an election right now would probably lead to a Liberal defeat. For me that defeats the purpose of bringing down the government based on principles. If the Conservatives were to win a minority government they would have at least 2 years free reign to continue taking the country in its current direction because there would be no way any opposition party would plunge the country into its 4th election in 4 years. Of course, if the Conservatives were to win a majority then we would have four years of watching helplessly as the Conservatives take full advantage of unfettered power. If you believe that the Conservatives are taking the country in the wrong direction now, when they are held back by their minority government status, just imagine what would happen if they did not have that anchor.
Mr. Dion has made the right decisions in the past couple of weeks. The Throne Speech was designed to trigger an election but it did not. If you look at that Speech you will note that the parts that do not threaten the Conservatives can be accomplished in about 6 months, if the Opposition were to put a fight. Of course, the Liberals are not so those parts should be done by Christmas. Then the Conservatives have a choice. Bring forward legislation and votes on the issues where they are on the wrong side of public opinion or go back to drifting as they were doing last Spring.
Either way they will not be able to build their support during that period and they will eventually have to bring forward measures that will allow the opposition to defeat them on their terms and not Mr. Harper's. The Harper government has been denied its preferred method of suicide so now they will have to await their fate from the opposition.
In politics, as in life, people of good conscience sometimes have to make the difficult decision of delaying the right course of action in the short-term because to wait will bring greater benefits in the medium and long-term.
That is the decision Mr. Dion has made and it is the right one.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Dion blog idea is gathering steam
Just go to Red Tory's place to see the Stephane Dion blog bandwagon begin to roll.
Of course there are some issues that have been brought up by many people who have commented at Red's place.
One is the idea of what Mr. Dion would do about comments. My answer is nothing. Mr. Dion should write the original post and then let the comments fly. He should respond only sparingly if at all. His very first post should explain that he is using the blog to let people know about his ideas and opinions on a whole host of issues and then he will let Canadians use his blog to debate those ideas and opinions. As well, he can state that he will use the blog to explain some of the decisions he makes and let Canadians debate the merits of those decisions.
Such an approach has many advantages, not least of which maybe some actual debates amongst Canadians about issues that are important to them. It would certainly be a change from the nonsense that currently passes for "debating the issues".
Another advantage is such debates always bring out the trolls. Such a situation would be advantageous as ordinary Canadians, and much of the MSM, may actually visit the blog of the Leader of the Official Opposition and they might actually see some of the BS that the Blogging Tories and their ilk spew on the Internet. Some of the hate filled, bigoted and loony opinions of these cementheads would be very difficult to take for most Canadians and very difficult to ignore for the MSM. After a very short while, I would wager, the trolls would stay away in droves, on orders from Conservative Party HQ.
Another question is what would he blog about? Well, what do we blog about? I stated in my first post on this idea that Mr. Dion should blog about whatever topic strikes him that day. Politics, sports, literature, whatever. The idea is to let Canadians see a side of Mr. Dion that is denied them by the many filters in the media world. Of course, being a politician he has to be careful and choose his words carefully.
A third question is how often should he blog? It should be a semi-regular blog I would think. At least three times a week. One of the things that would create some buzz about the blog is if he lets out some juicy details about some of the things he sees around him on a daily basis. I wonder how things might have been different if he would have used a blog instead of the MSM to announce his decision on whether to support the mini-budget along with the explanation of his decision. The MSM would have no choice but to visit the site, acknowledge that they got the information from the site and not spin the reasons for the decision because they are all there for anybody with a computer and an Internet connection to see, straight from the horse's mouth.
In my first post about this topic I suggested that any Liberal blogger who might have some contacts in Mr. Dions office (Jason Cheriak I am looking in your direction) might reach out to those contacts to pass along this suggestion. I am making that suggestion again.
Of course there are some issues that have been brought up by many people who have commented at Red's place.
One is the idea of what Mr. Dion would do about comments. My answer is nothing. Mr. Dion should write the original post and then let the comments fly. He should respond only sparingly if at all. His very first post should explain that he is using the blog to let people know about his ideas and opinions on a whole host of issues and then he will let Canadians use his blog to debate those ideas and opinions. As well, he can state that he will use the blog to explain some of the decisions he makes and let Canadians debate the merits of those decisions.
Such an approach has many advantages, not least of which maybe some actual debates amongst Canadians about issues that are important to them. It would certainly be a change from the nonsense that currently passes for "debating the issues".
Another advantage is such debates always bring out the trolls. Such a situation would be advantageous as ordinary Canadians, and much of the MSM, may actually visit the blog of the Leader of the Official Opposition and they might actually see some of the BS that the Blogging Tories and their ilk spew on the Internet. Some of the hate filled, bigoted and loony opinions of these cementheads would be very difficult to take for most Canadians and very difficult to ignore for the MSM. After a very short while, I would wager, the trolls would stay away in droves, on orders from Conservative Party HQ.
Another question is what would he blog about? Well, what do we blog about? I stated in my first post on this idea that Mr. Dion should blog about whatever topic strikes him that day. Politics, sports, literature, whatever. The idea is to let Canadians see a side of Mr. Dion that is denied them by the many filters in the media world. Of course, being a politician he has to be careful and choose his words carefully.
A third question is how often should he blog? It should be a semi-regular blog I would think. At least three times a week. One of the things that would create some buzz about the blog is if he lets out some juicy details about some of the things he sees around him on a daily basis. I wonder how things might have been different if he would have used a blog instead of the MSM to announce his decision on whether to support the mini-budget along with the explanation of his decision. The MSM would have no choice but to visit the site, acknowledge that they got the information from the site and not spin the reasons for the decision because they are all there for anybody with a computer and an Internet connection to see, straight from the horse's mouth.
In my first post about this topic I suggested that any Liberal blogger who might have some contacts in Mr. Dions office (Jason Cheriak I am looking in your direction) might reach out to those contacts to pass along this suggestion. I am making that suggestion again.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Hillier and Harper are both wrong
Yesterday I blogged about the "contradiction" between what General Hillier said regarding the length of the Afghan mission and what is the government line on its length. Of course, it was just politics as usual.
However, I believe that both of their lines are wrong. My guess is Canada will return home from Afghanistan before 2011, mainly because the NATO mission will end before then.
The reason is the Americans and the Iraqi insurgency.
It is widely expected that the new President of the United States will begin pulling troops out of Iraq very soon after being sworn into the White House. Everybody but George Bush knows that the Americans have lost the war in Iraq and they are going to want to cut their losses.
The fallout from that event is going to shape what happens in Afghanistan.
First, there is American public opinion. It is very likely that Americans will not be in any mood to continue fighting any kind of war in that region of the world for the foreseeable future so pressure will begin to mount on the new President to remove all American troops from Middle East and South Asian hotspots. That opinion will only be hardened by the other big event that will follow the US withdrawel from Iraq, the movement of Iraqi insurgents to Afghanistan.
There is a significant segment of the Iraqi insurgency that does not give a damn about Iraq. All it cares about is fighting the Americans and the other western militaries occupying Muslim countries. Once the American leave Iraq, these "soldiers of Islam" will move towards Afganistan to do there what they did in Iraq. Such a move will be facilitated by Iran, which will probably be looking for ways to punish the US for bombing them.
Once these battle hardened insurgents get to Afghanistan the war there will degenerate into the same situation we are currently seeing in Iraq. The American people will not tolerate any more casualties so if the Americans did not already remove their troops from Afghanistan soon after they removed them from Iraq, pressure would grow on the President to do so.
The War on Terror is a Bush war and the new President will not be as committed to it.
Once the US begins to remove its troops from Afghanistan, NATO will not be too far behind. My guess is the NATO withdrawal will begin late in 2009 and be completed by mid-2010.
Incidentally, President Karzai knows this, which is why he has begun talking to the Taliban. He knows what happens to Afghan leaders who are installed and supported by foreign troops after those foreign troops finally leave Afghanistan. He want to escape the same fate.
However, I believe that both of their lines are wrong. My guess is Canada will return home from Afghanistan before 2011, mainly because the NATO mission will end before then.
The reason is the Americans and the Iraqi insurgency.
It is widely expected that the new President of the United States will begin pulling troops out of Iraq very soon after being sworn into the White House. Everybody but George Bush knows that the Americans have lost the war in Iraq and they are going to want to cut their losses.
The fallout from that event is going to shape what happens in Afghanistan.
First, there is American public opinion. It is very likely that Americans will not be in any mood to continue fighting any kind of war in that region of the world for the foreseeable future so pressure will begin to mount on the new President to remove all American troops from Middle East and South Asian hotspots. That opinion will only be hardened by the other big event that will follow the US withdrawel from Iraq, the movement of Iraqi insurgents to Afghanistan.
There is a significant segment of the Iraqi insurgency that does not give a damn about Iraq. All it cares about is fighting the Americans and the other western militaries occupying Muslim countries. Once the American leave Iraq, these "soldiers of Islam" will move towards Afganistan to do there what they did in Iraq. Such a move will be facilitated by Iran, which will probably be looking for ways to punish the US for bombing them.
Once these battle hardened insurgents get to Afghanistan the war there will degenerate into the same situation we are currently seeing in Iraq. The American people will not tolerate any more casualties so if the Americans did not already remove their troops from Afghanistan soon after they removed them from Iraq, pressure would grow on the President to do so.
The War on Terror is a Bush war and the new President will not be as committed to it.
Once the US begins to remove its troops from Afghanistan, NATO will not be too far behind. My guess is the NATO withdrawal will begin late in 2009 and be completed by mid-2010.
Incidentally, President Karzai knows this, which is why he has begun talking to the Taliban. He knows what happens to Afghan leaders who are installed and supported by foreign troops after those foreign troops finally leave Afghanistan. He want to escape the same fate.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
General Hillier sent Mr. Harper a message this week
One does not attain the highest ranked position in any Western armed forces without having highly honed political instincts and the ability to play the political game on a high level.
So, it is highly unlikely that General Hillier made statements that contradict the government line by mistake. He did it deliberately and with intent.
General Hillier is correct that he is on the same page as Mr. Harper in the sense that both men want to extend the miliary presence in Afghanistan into the foreseeable future. So, General Hillier was telling the truth during his exercise in damage control after he returned from Afghanistan.
So why did he contradict the government line and what message was he trying to convey?
He did it because he wants the government to make a decision on the fate of the Afghan mission sooner rather than later. He understands the political need for Mr. Harper to be ambiguous but those needs are interfering with his own needs and goals and he wants Mr. Harper to know it.
General Hillier has both long-term and short-term goals. He would like to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for the next decade or so because it will guarantee his element of the Canadian Forces will continue to receive the lion's share of scarce military resources. Make no mistake there is still alot of sometimes bitter conflict between the Army, Navy and Airforce on how to divide the budgetary pie and a land war in Asia virtually guarantees the Army will come out on top in such conflicts. So if General Hillier can secure a long-term commitment to Afghanistan from Mr. Harper he will have the legacy of making the Army the supreme element of the CF for years to come.
In the short term the end of the current mission in Afghanistan is coming to a close. General Hillier is smart enough to know that the nature of the mission is going to change. So there is an ever pressing need for the ladies and gentlemen... Oh who am I kidding? There is an ever pressing need for the men who plan and implement the missions to learn what the new parameters of the mission will be. The longer the lead time in receiving this information the better the planning and the more likely the success of the mission.
General Hillier was playing the age old game of politics this week with his surprise visit to Afghanistan and his statements that contradicted the government line. He did it to send a clear message to Mr. Harper that he needs a decision on the nature of the mission very soon and to send Mr. Harper his ideas of what the nature of the mission should be when the decision is finally taken.
The really intriguing thing about all of this was the way he decided to send the message. General Hillier has a direct line to the Minister of Defence, who has the responsibility to listen to the Chief of Defence Staff and forward any concerns he might have to the Prime Minister. In short, there are channels General Hillier can follow to get his point across. The fact he felt the need to take the risk of stepping outside of those channels speaks volumes.
So, it is highly unlikely that General Hillier made statements that contradict the government line by mistake. He did it deliberately and with intent.
General Hillier is correct that he is on the same page as Mr. Harper in the sense that both men want to extend the miliary presence in Afghanistan into the foreseeable future. So, General Hillier was telling the truth during his exercise in damage control after he returned from Afghanistan.
So why did he contradict the government line and what message was he trying to convey?
He did it because he wants the government to make a decision on the fate of the Afghan mission sooner rather than later. He understands the political need for Mr. Harper to be ambiguous but those needs are interfering with his own needs and goals and he wants Mr. Harper to know it.
General Hillier has both long-term and short-term goals. He would like to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for the next decade or so because it will guarantee his element of the Canadian Forces will continue to receive the lion's share of scarce military resources. Make no mistake there is still alot of sometimes bitter conflict between the Army, Navy and Airforce on how to divide the budgetary pie and a land war in Asia virtually guarantees the Army will come out on top in such conflicts. So if General Hillier can secure a long-term commitment to Afghanistan from Mr. Harper he will have the legacy of making the Army the supreme element of the CF for years to come.
In the short term the end of the current mission in Afghanistan is coming to a close. General Hillier is smart enough to know that the nature of the mission is going to change. So there is an ever pressing need for the ladies and gentlemen... Oh who am I kidding? There is an ever pressing need for the men who plan and implement the missions to learn what the new parameters of the mission will be. The longer the lead time in receiving this information the better the planning and the more likely the success of the mission.
General Hillier was playing the age old game of politics this week with his surprise visit to Afghanistan and his statements that contradicted the government line. He did it to send a clear message to Mr. Harper that he needs a decision on the nature of the mission very soon and to send Mr. Harper his ideas of what the nature of the mission should be when the decision is finally taken.
The really intriguing thing about all of this was the way he decided to send the message. General Hillier has a direct line to the Minister of Defence, who has the responsibility to listen to the Chief of Defence Staff and forward any concerns he might have to the Prime Minister. In short, there are channels General Hillier can follow to get his point across. The fact he felt the need to take the risk of stepping outside of those channels speaks volumes.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
I am going to keep flogging that Dion blog horse
This is why. Thanks "WDIK" Grit.
When I worked for the Liberals on Parliament Hill, Mr. Dion was taking on Lucien Bouchard and the separatists after the 1995 Referendum. He was doing it by doing just what he did in La Presse. Writing great articles that appealed both to the logic and to the hearts of Quebecers.
It was well known on The Hill that he wrote his own material. He did not have an assistant do it for him and if he needed to write a version of an article in both languages, he did it himself.
The man can write and write well and the Liberals should let him do so on a more casual medium, such as a blog.
In most of the country the Liberal "Brand" is still held in high regard. The problem is the Conservatives, with the assistance of some of its cheerleaders in the media, have successfully defined Mr. Dion as not being a leader. Of course that is not true but that is irrelevent at this time. There will be very few opportunities for him to counter that meme and waiting until an election to do so will be too late.
A 36 day campaign is not enough time to change things around, particularly when most accounts say the Conservatives will be running a campaign focusing on leadership. It is a strategy that makes for great sound bites and pithy quotes and it will be much easier to report than Liberal policy ideas. So, the Liberals have to begin countering that meme now. If they neutralize it before a campaign, or at least make progress in doing so, their strategy of focusing on the team approach and on policy will have a better chance of being effective.
Unfortunately, the opportunities for countering that meme are few and far between. The Liberals cannot count on major newspapers in the country to publish everything Mr. Dion wants to publish all of the time.
That is why I am promoting the idea of Mr. Dion establishing a blog. It will give him an opportunity to put his ideas out there without having to depend on the MSM to do it. Of course, he cannot produce blog entries like the article in La Presse. It take too much time and effort but he does not have to either. A blog where he posts short and concise entries, on issues facing Canadians, 3 or 4 times a week would be more than enough.
As I have stated before, the Liberals are going to have to think outside of the box to improve their fortunes and one way of doing so is to find ways for Mr. Dion to exploit his strength of being able to write well more often.
When I worked for the Liberals on Parliament Hill, Mr. Dion was taking on Lucien Bouchard and the separatists after the 1995 Referendum. He was doing it by doing just what he did in La Presse. Writing great articles that appealed both to the logic and to the hearts of Quebecers.
It was well known on The Hill that he wrote his own material. He did not have an assistant do it for him and if he needed to write a version of an article in both languages, he did it himself.
The man can write and write well and the Liberals should let him do so on a more casual medium, such as a blog.
In most of the country the Liberal "Brand" is still held in high regard. The problem is the Conservatives, with the assistance of some of its cheerleaders in the media, have successfully defined Mr. Dion as not being a leader. Of course that is not true but that is irrelevent at this time. There will be very few opportunities for him to counter that meme and waiting until an election to do so will be too late.
A 36 day campaign is not enough time to change things around, particularly when most accounts say the Conservatives will be running a campaign focusing on leadership. It is a strategy that makes for great sound bites and pithy quotes and it will be much easier to report than Liberal policy ideas. So, the Liberals have to begin countering that meme now. If they neutralize it before a campaign, or at least make progress in doing so, their strategy of focusing on the team approach and on policy will have a better chance of being effective.
Unfortunately, the opportunities for countering that meme are few and far between. The Liberals cannot count on major newspapers in the country to publish everything Mr. Dion wants to publish all of the time.
That is why I am promoting the idea of Mr. Dion establishing a blog. It will give him an opportunity to put his ideas out there without having to depend on the MSM to do it. Of course, he cannot produce blog entries like the article in La Presse. It take too much time and effort but he does not have to either. A blog where he posts short and concise entries, on issues facing Canadians, 3 or 4 times a week would be more than enough.
As I have stated before, the Liberals are going to have to think outside of the box to improve their fortunes and one way of doing so is to find ways for Mr. Dion to exploit his strength of being able to write well more often.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
So, where is the Stephane Dion blog?
I am not quite ready to let the idea of Mr. Dion creating a blog go just yet.
Jeff over at BCer in Toronto wrote this post a few days ago where he states that Mr. Dion is best in small groups or one-on-one. Jeff then laments that it was too bad that Mr. Dion cannot knock on the doors of the 30 million Canadians. A blog may be a way for Mr. Dion to make that personal connection.
Imagine if he would have written a blog on the night of the Quebec by-elections, which he could have titled "Well, that sucks", where he wrote a candid, honest and personal assessment of the night's events. Do you not think it might have blunted the following media spin a little bit?
Of course, the Conservatives and the media would pounce upon such a blog and ridicule it, at least at the beginning. However, as I said in my previous post Liberals should ignore anything Conservatives say about the actions of the Liberal Party and Mr. Dion on spec. The Conservatives do not have interests of the Liberal Party at heart so there is no use listening to their opinions about it. And it is even worse if you not only listen to those opinions but you actually buy into them as many Liberals have been doing over the last few months.
As for the media they have not had anything good to say about the Liberals for months either so we might just as well accept that and find a way to go around them. A case in point is their spin of the Throne Speech. They began to spin the idea that Mr. Dion allowing the the Throne Speech to pass would be a sign of weakness weeks before the Speech was even delivered. So when he did just that it just allowed them to reinforced that narrative.
Now the question is if Mr. Dion would have stuck his "principles" and voted against the Speech would the media have waxed eloquently about Mr. Dion's courage, determination and integrity in the face of long odds? Of course not, they would have ridiculed him, labeling him a panic stricken, desperate bonehead for triggering an election he could not win.
In short Mr. Dion cannot win in the current media environment. So starve the bastards. As I stated yesterday Mr. Harper has treated them like something he found in a litter box and they are falling over themselves to gain his approval. So Mr. Dion should do something similar only he should approach if from a different direction. A personal blog would be a great way for Mr. Dion to show Canadians what kind of man he is while showing the media that he will not be pushed around by their BS.
And any publicity from the media, whether good or bad, would generate curiosity about the blog and might even create a little bit of a buzz about it.
Of course there are risks and VW points some of them out in a comment on my previous post. However, I do not see these as obstacles to creating a blog. I see them more as challenges that need to be overcome.
Garth Turner has demonstrated the power of a blog and he is just one Member of Parliament. Just imagine the potential impact of a blog written by a Party Leader, especially if he is the first Party Leader to do it.
Jeff over at BCer in Toronto wrote this post a few days ago where he states that Mr. Dion is best in small groups or one-on-one. Jeff then laments that it was too bad that Mr. Dion cannot knock on the doors of the 30 million Canadians. A blog may be a way for Mr. Dion to make that personal connection.
Imagine if he would have written a blog on the night of the Quebec by-elections, which he could have titled "Well, that sucks", where he wrote a candid, honest and personal assessment of the night's events. Do you not think it might have blunted the following media spin a little bit?
Of course, the Conservatives and the media would pounce upon such a blog and ridicule it, at least at the beginning. However, as I said in my previous post Liberals should ignore anything Conservatives say about the actions of the Liberal Party and Mr. Dion on spec. The Conservatives do not have interests of the Liberal Party at heart so there is no use listening to their opinions about it. And it is even worse if you not only listen to those opinions but you actually buy into them as many Liberals have been doing over the last few months.
As for the media they have not had anything good to say about the Liberals for months either so we might just as well accept that and find a way to go around them. A case in point is their spin of the Throne Speech. They began to spin the idea that Mr. Dion allowing the the Throne Speech to pass would be a sign of weakness weeks before the Speech was even delivered. So when he did just that it just allowed them to reinforced that narrative.
Now the question is if Mr. Dion would have stuck his "principles" and voted against the Speech would the media have waxed eloquently about Mr. Dion's courage, determination and integrity in the face of long odds? Of course not, they would have ridiculed him, labeling him a panic stricken, desperate bonehead for triggering an election he could not win.
In short Mr. Dion cannot win in the current media environment. So starve the bastards. As I stated yesterday Mr. Harper has treated them like something he found in a litter box and they are falling over themselves to gain his approval. So Mr. Dion should do something similar only he should approach if from a different direction. A personal blog would be a great way for Mr. Dion to show Canadians what kind of man he is while showing the media that he will not be pushed around by their BS.
And any publicity from the media, whether good or bad, would generate curiosity about the blog and might even create a little bit of a buzz about it.
Of course there are risks and VW points some of them out in a comment on my previous post. However, I do not see these as obstacles to creating a blog. I see them more as challenges that need to be overcome.
Garth Turner has demonstrated the power of a blog and he is just one Member of Parliament. Just imagine the potential impact of a blog written by a Party Leader, especially if he is the first Party Leader to do it.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Let Mr. Dion loose!!
Over at Red Tory's place I made a comment that Mr. Dion should create his own blog. It was just an off the cuff remark but the more I think about it the more I think it is a good idea.
I will not re-create that comment. If you want to see it just follow the link to RT's place. I make the suggestion at around comment number 50.
Anyway, I believe that the Liberals and Mr. Dion have nothing else to lose in the current political climate. They have reached rock bottom and they have nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, they are not going to do that any time soon unless they begin to think outside of the box.
It does not take a rocket scientist doing brain surgery to realize that the MSM has written off both the Liberals and Mr. Dion. So they should take a page out of Mr. Harper's book and ignore them until they come around. Mr. Harper has frozen the MSM out and they have kissed his ass for it, so maybe the Liberals should do the same thing.
However, they should do it differently. Instead of trying to keep everything a secret they should be much more candid with Canadians but they should bypass the MSM while doing it.
The internet is still a very under-utilized medium for political messaging. This would be a great opportunity for reaching Canadians directly with the message the Liberals want to propogate without the filter of the MSM.
My idea is it would be a blog, not just another venue for releasing Liberal Party media releases. Allow Mr. Dion to speak candidly about what is going on in the Liberal Party and the Country. Or for that matter if he wants to comment on how the Ottawa Senators are doing then go for it. As well, it must be his blog not some site for his speech writer to write on. Mr. Dion must author all of the blogs. He has proven over and over again that he is a great communicator in writing and I believe if he is given this venue for communicating with Canadians they will see just what kind of a man he is and what kind of a leader he can be. Of course, he would have to be careful but he has to be that anyway.
The blog would not be an alternative to the other ways of communicating with Canadians, such as speeches and such but I believe it would compliment those other methods and it may even cause people to pay closer attention to them.
So, I am going to make a suggestion and take it any way you like. I would encourage any Liberal to lobby the party to allow Mr. Dion loose in the blogsphere. In particular I would ask Jason Cherniak and any other Liberal in the blogsphere who has the ear of Mr. Dion and his people to pass this suggestion along to him.
I will not re-create that comment. If you want to see it just follow the link to RT's place. I make the suggestion at around comment number 50.
Anyway, I believe that the Liberals and Mr. Dion have nothing else to lose in the current political climate. They have reached rock bottom and they have nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, they are not going to do that any time soon unless they begin to think outside of the box.
It does not take a rocket scientist doing brain surgery to realize that the MSM has written off both the Liberals and Mr. Dion. So they should take a page out of Mr. Harper's book and ignore them until they come around. Mr. Harper has frozen the MSM out and they have kissed his ass for it, so maybe the Liberals should do the same thing.
However, they should do it differently. Instead of trying to keep everything a secret they should be much more candid with Canadians but they should bypass the MSM while doing it.
The internet is still a very under-utilized medium for political messaging. This would be a great opportunity for reaching Canadians directly with the message the Liberals want to propogate without the filter of the MSM.
My idea is it would be a blog, not just another venue for releasing Liberal Party media releases. Allow Mr. Dion to speak candidly about what is going on in the Liberal Party and the Country. Or for that matter if he wants to comment on how the Ottawa Senators are doing then go for it. As well, it must be his blog not some site for his speech writer to write on. Mr. Dion must author all of the blogs. He has proven over and over again that he is a great communicator in writing and I believe if he is given this venue for communicating with Canadians they will see just what kind of a man he is and what kind of a leader he can be. Of course, he would have to be careful but he has to be that anyway.
The blog would not be an alternative to the other ways of communicating with Canadians, such as speeches and such but I believe it would compliment those other methods and it may even cause people to pay closer attention to them.
So, I am going to make a suggestion and take it any way you like. I would encourage any Liberal to lobby the party to allow Mr. Dion loose in the blogsphere. In particular I would ask Jason Cherniak and any other Liberal in the blogsphere who has the ear of Mr. Dion and his people to pass this suggestion along to him.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Will we see a change in the media narrative soon?
As we all know the media has been pretty relentless with the current narrative that the Liberals are in trouble and that Mr. Dion is a weak leader. Yet despite this we continue to see polls that show the Conservatives are mired in the low to mid-30 range with the Liberals either tied with them or rarely more than a half-a-dozen points behind. The latest poll and some pretty good analysis of it can be found here.
So when are the media going to begin asking why the Conservatives cannot sustain a rise in support, particularly when they are up against a political opponent that is apparently a dead party walking?
I would argue that the MSM will eventually have to change the narrative in order to maintain its own credibility. You can only say that a party consistently maintaining a support level below what they acheived in the last election, and only a few points ahead of an apparently moribund opposition, as being in a good political position, for so long, before someone begins to ask them some embarrassing questions.
There have been a few voices out there who have begun to wonder about this situation but they are still few and far between. Are they voices in the wilderness or are they the vanguard to change?
If they are the vanguard, the Conservatives are in deep trouble. The narrative that Paul Martin could not open up a substantial lead on Mr. Harper in 2005 was one contributing factor to the Liberal loss in 2006. Stay tuned.
On a somewhat related note it was revealed that the Conservatives were building a brand new "Shoe Box Media Centre" with the intention of further controlling the government's message, even to the point of having the media use footage shot by operatives of the PMO.
What was interesting is as a story broke that indicated that the government wanted to make the media just a propaganda arm of the government that media still lavished praise on that very same government when it used Parliamentary protocol to arrange to have its election platform read by the Governor General.
When is the media in the country going to grow a pair?
Update: I guess when the media narrative does not fit the facts you can always change the facts. A good example of that is here. You have to wonder about a poll that is so out of whack with every other one do you not? Then you just have to see that the poll was commissioned by the very same news chain that is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Conservatives and the news chain that almost single handedly created the Canadian Alliance to understand.
So when are the media going to begin asking why the Conservatives cannot sustain a rise in support, particularly when they are up against a political opponent that is apparently a dead party walking?
I would argue that the MSM will eventually have to change the narrative in order to maintain its own credibility. You can only say that a party consistently maintaining a support level below what they acheived in the last election, and only a few points ahead of an apparently moribund opposition, as being in a good political position, for so long, before someone begins to ask them some embarrassing questions.
There have been a few voices out there who have begun to wonder about this situation but they are still few and far between. Are they voices in the wilderness or are they the vanguard to change?
If they are the vanguard, the Conservatives are in deep trouble. The narrative that Paul Martin could not open up a substantial lead on Mr. Harper in 2005 was one contributing factor to the Liberal loss in 2006. Stay tuned.
On a somewhat related note it was revealed that the Conservatives were building a brand new "Shoe Box Media Centre" with the intention of further controlling the government's message, even to the point of having the media use footage shot by operatives of the PMO.
What was interesting is as a story broke that indicated that the government wanted to make the media just a propaganda arm of the government that media still lavished praise on that very same government when it used Parliamentary protocol to arrange to have its election platform read by the Governor General.
When is the media in the country going to grow a pair?
Update: I guess when the media narrative does not fit the facts you can always change the facts. A good example of that is here. You have to wonder about a poll that is so out of whack with every other one do you not? Then you just have to see that the poll was commissioned by the very same news chain that is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Conservatives and the news chain that almost single handedly created the Canadian Alliance to understand.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Stephen Harper's Challenge
With election fever in the air, at least until next week when all of those pesky confidence motions are out of the way and Stephen Harper has been denied an election he desperately wants, for a second time in less than a year, I thought I would comment on some of the challenges he faces in the next election.
He will be fighting the election as the government: This may seem like a small thing but I believe that it is the most important challenge he will face. Being the governing party during an election sucks because everybody is out to knock you off of the mountain. Although, Jack Layton can be counted on to give him an easy ride I believe.
An opposition party has the freedom to do nothing but attack because they do not need to defend a record. Look at Stephen Harper during the last election. Many of his more explosive statements from the past surfaced during that election but they did not go anywhere because he was the leader of the opposition. No one really cared because they were focused on the actual record of the government. As the leader of the governing party he will be very busy defending his flanks from attacks from four different party leaders and in all likelihood his counterattacks will not be as effective as they were when he was the leader of the opposition.
In addition, I wonder how he is going to react to these attacks? Mr. Harper is famous for being thinned skin when he or his policies are criticized, tending to become petty and personal. Will he be able to keep himself under control during 36 days of constant and relentless attacks from his political rivals?
The Bloc Quebecois: Watching Mr. Harper it is quite obvious that he is trying to rebuild the old Mulroney coalition of Alberta, Quebec nationalists and Rural Ontario. The problem is the Bloc. The Bloc will be going after the same voters that the Conservatives will be in Quebec. In addition news of the Bloc's imminent demise is highly overstated. One thing about the last two polls that was missed was a resurgence of the Bloc in Quebec. Both showed the Liberals down but both also showed the Bloc with close to double digit leads over the Conservatives. Of the 75 seats in Quebec around 40 of them are dominated by separatists and Quebec Nationalists. If the current numbers hold in Quebec the Conservatives will be lucky to hang on to the seats they have and would probably only have a chance at picking up another 5 to 10 seats. Not enough to replace all of the seats he will probably lose in the Maritimes and Saskatchewan.
There is an opportunity for the Liberals in this dynamic. The other 35 seats in Quebec are dominated by Federalists or have very large federalist populations. If the Conservatives stick to the strategy of pursuing the nationalist vote they will be ceding much of that federalist vote to the Liberals. Sorry NDP supporters, Quebecers might vote for the NDP during by-elections but they vote for a party that at least has a chance to form the government during general elections. There is a possibility that the Conservatives and the Bloc could split the nationalist vote in many of these 35 ridings giving the Liberals an opportunity to secure the federalist vote and come up the middle.
Governments always lose support after their first election: That phenomenon was just demonstrated in the Ontario election. The McGuinty Liberals share of the popular vote in the election just past was two points lower than the 2003 election. Of course, it did not matter in this case because the Ontario Liberals were at a high enough level of popular support they could afford to lose a couple of points. Mr. Harper cannot.
It is extremely rare for a governing party to consistently grow its support beyond what it achieved in its first election. It may impress some people enough to vote for them but it usually pisses a larger number of people off in the process. So although the Conservatives are flirting with majority territory at the present time there will be inevitable erosion of that support over the course of an election campaign as the challenges of point number one above take their toll.
The Canadian electorate is in a bad mood: I have the feeling the electorate is not too impressed with any politician right now. In fact they are downright miffed at them. Such a situation tends to put the governing party at the disadvantage because, well, they are the governing party. One advantage of being the government is you get to take credit for when things go well but one disadvantage is you cannot escape blame for all of the real or perceived errors, slights, injustices, etc. that some of the electorate may feel is being visited upon them, no matter how much that government tries to shift that blame elsewhere.
Recent events would seem to suggest that the Conservatives would have the advantage if an election were held in the very near future. However, it would, by no means, be a cakewalk and there is a real danger that that advantage could evaporate in an eye blink if they are unable to overcome the challenges I have outlined in this post.
In a day or two I will create a similar post outlining what I find will be the challenges facing Stephane Dion. Yes, some of them will be obvious but others not so much.
He will be fighting the election as the government: This may seem like a small thing but I believe that it is the most important challenge he will face. Being the governing party during an election sucks because everybody is out to knock you off of the mountain. Although, Jack Layton can be counted on to give him an easy ride I believe.
An opposition party has the freedom to do nothing but attack because they do not need to defend a record. Look at Stephen Harper during the last election. Many of his more explosive statements from the past surfaced during that election but they did not go anywhere because he was the leader of the opposition. No one really cared because they were focused on the actual record of the government. As the leader of the governing party he will be very busy defending his flanks from attacks from four different party leaders and in all likelihood his counterattacks will not be as effective as they were when he was the leader of the opposition.
In addition, I wonder how he is going to react to these attacks? Mr. Harper is famous for being thinned skin when he or his policies are criticized, tending to become petty and personal. Will he be able to keep himself under control during 36 days of constant and relentless attacks from his political rivals?
The Bloc Quebecois: Watching Mr. Harper it is quite obvious that he is trying to rebuild the old Mulroney coalition of Alberta, Quebec nationalists and Rural Ontario. The problem is the Bloc. The Bloc will be going after the same voters that the Conservatives will be in Quebec. In addition news of the Bloc's imminent demise is highly overstated. One thing about the last two polls that was missed was a resurgence of the Bloc in Quebec. Both showed the Liberals down but both also showed the Bloc with close to double digit leads over the Conservatives. Of the 75 seats in Quebec around 40 of them are dominated by separatists and Quebec Nationalists. If the current numbers hold in Quebec the Conservatives will be lucky to hang on to the seats they have and would probably only have a chance at picking up another 5 to 10 seats. Not enough to replace all of the seats he will probably lose in the Maritimes and Saskatchewan.
There is an opportunity for the Liberals in this dynamic. The other 35 seats in Quebec are dominated by Federalists or have very large federalist populations. If the Conservatives stick to the strategy of pursuing the nationalist vote they will be ceding much of that federalist vote to the Liberals. Sorry NDP supporters, Quebecers might vote for the NDP during by-elections but they vote for a party that at least has a chance to form the government during general elections. There is a possibility that the Conservatives and the Bloc could split the nationalist vote in many of these 35 ridings giving the Liberals an opportunity to secure the federalist vote and come up the middle.
Governments always lose support after their first election: That phenomenon was just demonstrated in the Ontario election. The McGuinty Liberals share of the popular vote in the election just past was two points lower than the 2003 election. Of course, it did not matter in this case because the Ontario Liberals were at a high enough level of popular support they could afford to lose a couple of points. Mr. Harper cannot.
It is extremely rare for a governing party to consistently grow its support beyond what it achieved in its first election. It may impress some people enough to vote for them but it usually pisses a larger number of people off in the process. So although the Conservatives are flirting with majority territory at the present time there will be inevitable erosion of that support over the course of an election campaign as the challenges of point number one above take their toll.
The Canadian electorate is in a bad mood: I have the feeling the electorate is not too impressed with any politician right now. In fact they are downright miffed at them. Such a situation tends to put the governing party at the disadvantage because, well, they are the governing party. One advantage of being the government is you get to take credit for when things go well but one disadvantage is you cannot escape blame for all of the real or perceived errors, slights, injustices, etc. that some of the electorate may feel is being visited upon them, no matter how much that government tries to shift that blame elsewhere.
Recent events would seem to suggest that the Conservatives would have the advantage if an election were held in the very near future. However, it would, by no means, be a cakewalk and there is a real danger that that advantage could evaporate in an eye blink if they are unable to overcome the challenges I have outlined in this post.
In a day or two I will create a similar post outlining what I find will be the challenges facing Stephane Dion. Yes, some of them will be obvious but others not so much.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
There is no sure thing in politics
You know to be a political pundit is one hell of a gig. You get to throw your opinion out there, usually without any real facts to back it up and when you are proven wrong by events you can be certain that no one will remember what you said a few weeks ago. Throw in the fact that most of them make good six figure salaries and all I can say is where do I sign up?
This train of thought has come about because I have been seeing alot of the pundits already calling the next election a sure win for the Conservatives. They really should know better. There really is no sure thing in politics.
My favourate example this week was put forward by James Travers of The Star in a couple of columns. (Sorry no link. I have still not figured out how to insert them into the text of my posts.) In two columns he states that there is a disconnect between Stephen Harper's Conservatives and Canadians on two issues that he states will be ballot box questions if an election is held this fall - Afghanistan and the Environment. He then goes on to argue that despite this the Conservatives will probably win an easy victory and maybe even a majority government.
Huh? Is he really arguing that a government that is on the wrong side of two issues that will be ballot questions will have an easy time of winning an election?
Part of his argument of course is the troubles that Mr. Dion is having. To which I ask, how can someone be so cynical that he would believe Canadians would care more about the internal machinations of a political party over issues like the Afghan mission and climate change? Is he really implying Canadians will care less about these issues in the next election than the settlement Jamie Carroll will finally receive?
He must have a really low opinion of the Canadians electorate.
As well, he is assuming that the Liberals will not get their act together for an election and that Mr. Dion will not perform well during that election. One or both are possibilities but to draw conclusions on unproven possibilities is just silly.
The last two elections were predictable. It was pretty obvious that the Liberals would probably scrape out a victory in 2004 and lose the next one, although there was still a question of by how much.
This election is going to be extremely unpredictable. Despite what the pundits say the Conservatives' disadvantages are just as heavy as their advantages and the same is true for the Liberals. Mr. Harper will be in the position of fighting this campaign as the government which has different requirements and is a different dynamic to fighting a campaign as an opposition party. It will be interesting to see how he reacts to 5-6 weeks of criticisms of his government's record from three different perspectives. ( I have another post running around in my head which will expand on this idea. Stay tuned.)
If we have an election this fall it is going to be one of the most interesting ones we have seen in a couple of decades and I would not even hazard a guess on how it is going to turn out.
This train of thought has come about because I have been seeing alot of the pundits already calling the next election a sure win for the Conservatives. They really should know better. There really is no sure thing in politics.
My favourate example this week was put forward by James Travers of The Star in a couple of columns. (Sorry no link. I have still not figured out how to insert them into the text of my posts.) In two columns he states that there is a disconnect between Stephen Harper's Conservatives and Canadians on two issues that he states will be ballot box questions if an election is held this fall - Afghanistan and the Environment. He then goes on to argue that despite this the Conservatives will probably win an easy victory and maybe even a majority government.
Huh? Is he really arguing that a government that is on the wrong side of two issues that will be ballot questions will have an easy time of winning an election?
Part of his argument of course is the troubles that Mr. Dion is having. To which I ask, how can someone be so cynical that he would believe Canadians would care more about the internal machinations of a political party over issues like the Afghan mission and climate change? Is he really implying Canadians will care less about these issues in the next election than the settlement Jamie Carroll will finally receive?
He must have a really low opinion of the Canadians electorate.
As well, he is assuming that the Liberals will not get their act together for an election and that Mr. Dion will not perform well during that election. One or both are possibilities but to draw conclusions on unproven possibilities is just silly.
The last two elections were predictable. It was pretty obvious that the Liberals would probably scrape out a victory in 2004 and lose the next one, although there was still a question of by how much.
This election is going to be extremely unpredictable. Despite what the pundits say the Conservatives' disadvantages are just as heavy as their advantages and the same is true for the Liberals. Mr. Harper will be in the position of fighting this campaign as the government which has different requirements and is a different dynamic to fighting a campaign as an opposition party. It will be interesting to see how he reacts to 5-6 weeks of criticisms of his government's record from three different perspectives. ( I have another post running around in my head which will expand on this idea. Stay tuned.)
If we have an election this fall it is going to be one of the most interesting ones we have seen in a couple of decades and I would not even hazard a guess on how it is going to turn out.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Why I won't support MMP: Governments should not be chosen by backroom negotiations
"If I wanted Jack Layton to be part of the government I would have voted for him."
I am certain if the last Federal Election would have been fought using the MMP electoral system that statement would have been uttered by many Canadians a few weeks after the election results rolled in.
The greatest argument that proponents of MMP make is such a system would eliminate the result of a party that wins less than a majority of the popular vote from receiving the majority of seats in the Legislature. Part of that argument is "the majority of the electorate rejected the governing party so why is it allowed to govern with a majority?" What they seem to forget, or at least they hope others will forget is larger majorities of the electorate reject the parties that lose an election. So my question is, why should they have any say in government at all?
During the last federal election the NDP received about 20% of the popular vote. That means around 80% of the electorate rejected the NDP as an option to form the government. It is probably not a stretch to believe that a sizable number of those voters did so because they did not want Mr. Layton or the NDP anywhere near the levers of power. Yet with an MMP system those desires would be ignored as the various parties engaged in horsetrading to secure enough votes in The House to win a confidence motion.
For me one of the weaknesses of MMP is the need for the winner of an election to enter into negotiations with the losers of the election to find a coalition partner, because with MMP coalitions would become the norm. Of course all of those negotiations would be behind closed doors. So in the end the voters will not know what their government will look like after they have cast their vote.
So imagine you are a Conservative supporter who supported them because you liked their economic policies. Further imagine your reaction if you were to wake up a few weeks after the election to the banner headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail: "Jack Layton to be named Finance Minister". Although my personal nighmare would have been the headline: "Gilles Duceppe to be named National Unity Minister".
An interesting feature of most MMP systems is if the winner of an election cannot cobble together a working coalition the second place winner is given a chance.
So again, imagine the last Federal election. The Conservatives are unable to convince the NDP to join them and after a set period the Governor General says to Stephen Harper: "You have had your shot and failed so now I am going to give Paul Martin a chance." Of course during that time period both the Liberals and the Conservatives would have been wooing Jack Layton with all sorts of goodies to convince him to join their coalition.
So it is conceivable with the MMP system that the loser of an election can still form the government. Even in the case were polls were showing that over 60% of the electorate desired a change in government. Yep, that certainly is a more democratic system.
Proponents of MMP argue that the FPTP system results in those votes that did not go to the eventual winner of a riding being wasted. MMP will not fix that problem. If I voted for one party because it put forward a set of policies I agreed with and that party would have to change those policies to convince another party to join a coalition my vote is just a wasted. If I would have wanted the policies and the programme of the "junior partner" in a coalition to be enacted I would have voted for that party.
The greatest strength of MMP, according to its proponents, is actually its greatest weakness. Instead of voters choosing their government they are only choosing the sides that will eventually move to the back rooms to hammer out a government that will not look anything like what the electorate voted for. MMP will actually take the decision on who governs Canada or Ontario out of the hands of voters and put it into the hands of the unelected, often unaccountable political operatives that are employed by all political parties.
That is not enhancing democracy.
I am certain if the last Federal Election would have been fought using the MMP electoral system that statement would have been uttered by many Canadians a few weeks after the election results rolled in.
The greatest argument that proponents of MMP make is such a system would eliminate the result of a party that wins less than a majority of the popular vote from receiving the majority of seats in the Legislature. Part of that argument is "the majority of the electorate rejected the governing party so why is it allowed to govern with a majority?" What they seem to forget, or at least they hope others will forget is larger majorities of the electorate reject the parties that lose an election. So my question is, why should they have any say in government at all?
During the last federal election the NDP received about 20% of the popular vote. That means around 80% of the electorate rejected the NDP as an option to form the government. It is probably not a stretch to believe that a sizable number of those voters did so because they did not want Mr. Layton or the NDP anywhere near the levers of power. Yet with an MMP system those desires would be ignored as the various parties engaged in horsetrading to secure enough votes in The House to win a confidence motion.
For me one of the weaknesses of MMP is the need for the winner of an election to enter into negotiations with the losers of the election to find a coalition partner, because with MMP coalitions would become the norm. Of course all of those negotiations would be behind closed doors. So in the end the voters will not know what their government will look like after they have cast their vote.
So imagine you are a Conservative supporter who supported them because you liked their economic policies. Further imagine your reaction if you were to wake up a few weeks after the election to the banner headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail: "Jack Layton to be named Finance Minister". Although my personal nighmare would have been the headline: "Gilles Duceppe to be named National Unity Minister".
An interesting feature of most MMP systems is if the winner of an election cannot cobble together a working coalition the second place winner is given a chance.
So again, imagine the last Federal election. The Conservatives are unable to convince the NDP to join them and after a set period the Governor General says to Stephen Harper: "You have had your shot and failed so now I am going to give Paul Martin a chance." Of course during that time period both the Liberals and the Conservatives would have been wooing Jack Layton with all sorts of goodies to convince him to join their coalition.
So it is conceivable with the MMP system that the loser of an election can still form the government. Even in the case were polls were showing that over 60% of the electorate desired a change in government. Yep, that certainly is a more democratic system.
Proponents of MMP argue that the FPTP system results in those votes that did not go to the eventual winner of a riding being wasted. MMP will not fix that problem. If I voted for one party because it put forward a set of policies I agreed with and that party would have to change those policies to convince another party to join a coalition my vote is just a wasted. If I would have wanted the policies and the programme of the "junior partner" in a coalition to be enacted I would have voted for that party.
The greatest strength of MMP, according to its proponents, is actually its greatest weakness. Instead of voters choosing their government they are only choosing the sides that will eventually move to the back rooms to hammer out a government that will not look anything like what the electorate voted for. MMP will actually take the decision on who governs Canada or Ontario out of the hands of voters and put it into the hands of the unelected, often unaccountable political operatives that are employed by all political parties.
That is not enhancing democracy.
Why I won't support MMP: Political Glaciation
There is no democratic electoral system that is "more" or "less" democratic that any other. First-past-the-post, some form of Proporational Representation or even the American Electoral College are all democratic systems with their strengths and weaknesses. You can argue at length about those but no conclusions can be made about which one is democratically superior. All of them are designed to allow citizens to choose who they want to govern and all of them are effective at getting that job done.
Proponents of MMP like to point to Germany and New Zealand as prime examples of that kind of electoral system. They are certainly good examples of both and they are both great examples of one of the greatest weaknesses of MMP, namely, lack of action on fundemental issues facing their countries.
In Germany the politics stays the same and only the personalities change. The Christian Democrats, with their Bavarian allies, and the Socialist Party are the same parties now as they were 20 years ago. Certainly their leaders have changed but there policy ideas and their political programmes are the same now as they were in the '80s. When one of them loses an election this does not change, only the leader of the party changes. The reason for this is both parties know that they just need to bide their time until a very small portion of the German electorate gets tired of the government and then they will be in power again.
The result of this is much needed reforms to the German economy are not getting done and that has been the case for over a decade. As well, there is no sign that this situation will change in the foreseeable future.
New Zealand only recently switched to an MMP system. The reason for the switch was a long standing government that brought in extremely painful economic reforms about 20 years ago. These reforms were made possible by a government that won successive elections using the FPTP system. After that government was finally defeated the country switched to MMP so that this could never be done again. The people of New Zealand chose this system because they wanted to prevent future governments from putting them through the same gut wrenching change again.
Contrast that to the FPTP system. This system forces political parties to renew themselves on a regular basis because they know that they cannot just wait for a small portion of the electorate to grow tired of the government.
We have seen that more times than I can count at both the Federal and Provincial level. Those parties that make the effort to renew themselves, come up with new ideas on how to deal with the issues that matter to Canadians are successful. Those that do not are not. That is the reason why the Liberals and the Conservatives have been the dominant federal parties in this country for so long and why the NDP can never get out of third party status. The NDP is the same party today as it was under Ed Broadbent. The only thing that has changed is its leaders.
As an aside, that is the reason why I believe the NDP will eventually be usurped as the third party by the Greens. The Greens have shown more willingness to adapt its policies and programmes to the desires of Canadians and it is only a matter of time before the overtake the NDP. After that, who knows.
You can see the results. Many of the programmes that we have come to take for granted in this country would not have come to pass with an MMP system.
Countries and provinces change and the people of those political entities need to be able to choose governments that are willing and able to deal with that change. The FPTP electoral system is more effective at allowing them to do so.
Proponents of MMP like to point to Germany and New Zealand as prime examples of that kind of electoral system. They are certainly good examples of both and they are both great examples of one of the greatest weaknesses of MMP, namely, lack of action on fundemental issues facing their countries.
In Germany the politics stays the same and only the personalities change. The Christian Democrats, with their Bavarian allies, and the Socialist Party are the same parties now as they were 20 years ago. Certainly their leaders have changed but there policy ideas and their political programmes are the same now as they were in the '80s. When one of them loses an election this does not change, only the leader of the party changes. The reason for this is both parties know that they just need to bide their time until a very small portion of the German electorate gets tired of the government and then they will be in power again.
The result of this is much needed reforms to the German economy are not getting done and that has been the case for over a decade. As well, there is no sign that this situation will change in the foreseeable future.
New Zealand only recently switched to an MMP system. The reason for the switch was a long standing government that brought in extremely painful economic reforms about 20 years ago. These reforms were made possible by a government that won successive elections using the FPTP system. After that government was finally defeated the country switched to MMP so that this could never be done again. The people of New Zealand chose this system because they wanted to prevent future governments from putting them through the same gut wrenching change again.
Contrast that to the FPTP system. This system forces political parties to renew themselves on a regular basis because they know that they cannot just wait for a small portion of the electorate to grow tired of the government.
We have seen that more times than I can count at both the Federal and Provincial level. Those parties that make the effort to renew themselves, come up with new ideas on how to deal with the issues that matter to Canadians are successful. Those that do not are not. That is the reason why the Liberals and the Conservatives have been the dominant federal parties in this country for so long and why the NDP can never get out of third party status. The NDP is the same party today as it was under Ed Broadbent. The only thing that has changed is its leaders.
As an aside, that is the reason why I believe the NDP will eventually be usurped as the third party by the Greens. The Greens have shown more willingness to adapt its policies and programmes to the desires of Canadians and it is only a matter of time before the overtake the NDP. After that, who knows.
You can see the results. Many of the programmes that we have come to take for granted in this country would not have come to pass with an MMP system.
Countries and provinces change and the people of those political entities need to be able to choose governments that are willing and able to deal with that change. The FPTP electoral system is more effective at allowing them to do so.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Have you ever had that feeling of deja vu?
Looking at the recent troubles of Stephane Dion I cannot help but think I have been here before.
I really do not need to go into all of the problems as they have been well discussed.
What strikes me are the similarities of his situation with that of Stephen Harper after he won the leadership of the Conservative Party. At the time, the takeover of the PCPC by the CA created all sorts of problems. New announcements by prominent Progressive Conservatives that they were leaving the new Conservative Party were rampant and it all culminated in Scott Brison switching sides to the Liberals.
The pundits at the time had written off Mr. Harper. The Conservatives were moribund in Quebec, Mr. Harper was seen as an uncharismatic policy wonk who could not connect with voters, the Party was having difficulty raising money and Mr. Harper was having great difficulties organizing the Party. The pundits all believed that Mr. Harper would be crushed by the Big Red Machine and that the end of his political career was just an election away. Sound familiar?
Of course there are differences. Stephen Harper was saved by the Sponsorship Scandal which was a three year cancer that ate away at the Liberals and their support. I doubt that the Liberals can expect such a gift from the Conservatives.
However, there are other very important differences that need to be kept in mind. During Mr. Harper's time of troubles the Conservatives were sitting in the low 20s in the polls while the Liberals were in the mid to high 40s. As well, this was the period when Paul Martin could still do no wrong. He was the golden boy of politics, respected, LIKED, and popular in every part of the country. (Indeed, there was even talk that the Liberals would actually pick up seats in Alberta.) Can the same be said of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?
As well, during this period the Conservatives were sitting at single digits in Quebec and they had absolutely no organization there. The Liberals on the other hand have a base in Quebec and they do have an organization even if it is in some disarray at the moment.
Yet despite those realities Stephen Harper was a few badly timed comments, from some of his candidates, away from winning the 2004 election and he won the 2006 election.
Compared to Mr. Harper, Mr Dion is in great shape. I do not know when the next election will be but as things stand now the Liberals do have a realistic shot at winning it.
I really do not need to go into all of the problems as they have been well discussed.
What strikes me are the similarities of his situation with that of Stephen Harper after he won the leadership of the Conservative Party. At the time, the takeover of the PCPC by the CA created all sorts of problems. New announcements by prominent Progressive Conservatives that they were leaving the new Conservative Party were rampant and it all culminated in Scott Brison switching sides to the Liberals.
The pundits at the time had written off Mr. Harper. The Conservatives were moribund in Quebec, Mr. Harper was seen as an uncharismatic policy wonk who could not connect with voters, the Party was having difficulty raising money and Mr. Harper was having great difficulties organizing the Party. The pundits all believed that Mr. Harper would be crushed by the Big Red Machine and that the end of his political career was just an election away. Sound familiar?
Of course there are differences. Stephen Harper was saved by the Sponsorship Scandal which was a three year cancer that ate away at the Liberals and their support. I doubt that the Liberals can expect such a gift from the Conservatives.
However, there are other very important differences that need to be kept in mind. During Mr. Harper's time of troubles the Conservatives were sitting in the low 20s in the polls while the Liberals were in the mid to high 40s. As well, this was the period when Paul Martin could still do no wrong. He was the golden boy of politics, respected, LIKED, and popular in every part of the country. (Indeed, there was even talk that the Liberals would actually pick up seats in Alberta.) Can the same be said of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?
As well, during this period the Conservatives were sitting at single digits in Quebec and they had absolutely no organization there. The Liberals on the other hand have a base in Quebec and they do have an organization even if it is in some disarray at the moment.
Yet despite those realities Stephen Harper was a few badly timed comments, from some of his candidates, away from winning the 2004 election and he won the 2006 election.
Compared to Mr. Harper, Mr Dion is in great shape. I do not know when the next election will be but as things stand now the Liberals do have a realistic shot at winning it.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A Fall Election is Unlikely
There has been a great deal of time and effort spent talking about what the Liberals are going to do with the Throne Speech. Are they going to vote against it and trigger an election while they are in their weakened position? Are they going to do something else to prevent the government from falling, thus making themselves look weaker?
Both questions are irrelevent because the Bloc will probaby prop up the government in October. The reason is simple. By most accounts Stephen Harper is going to put something in the Throne Speech about limiting the spending powers of the Federal Government in areas of provincial responsibility.
There is no way the Bloc will vote against such an idea. Nationalists in Quebec have been demanding that for years and a Party that purports to have the interests of the Nationalists in mind will not take any actions to deny it to them. If it did it would be handing the Conservatives a very convenient bat with which to beat the Bloc in any election that immediately followed.
In short, voting against limiting Federals spending powers in Quebec is a short-cut to political oblivion for the Bloc so they will find a way to support a Throne Speech that contains any announcements of such limits.
Both questions are irrelevent because the Bloc will probaby prop up the government in October. The reason is simple. By most accounts Stephen Harper is going to put something in the Throne Speech about limiting the spending powers of the Federal Government in areas of provincial responsibility.
There is no way the Bloc will vote against such an idea. Nationalists in Quebec have been demanding that for years and a Party that purports to have the interests of the Nationalists in mind will not take any actions to deny it to them. If it did it would be handing the Conservatives a very convenient bat with which to beat the Bloc in any election that immediately followed.
In short, voting against limiting Federals spending powers in Quebec is a short-cut to political oblivion for the Bloc so they will find a way to support a Throne Speech that contains any announcements of such limits.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Case for Stephane Dion
My two previous posts were about the need for Liberals to continue to support Stephane Dion because to do otherwise is to invite a certain thumping in the next general election and the possibility that they would not recover enough to win the one after that. Revolting against Stephane Dion now raises the spectre of Stephen Harper being PM for as long as Jean Chretien was PM. If any Liberal thinks that is a good prospect I would say that you have just not been paying attention.
However, there are more positive reasons why Liberals should support Stephane Dion and that is because for a brand new leader, of a political party that is still trying to wash away the stains of the Sponsorship Scandal and the Chretien/Martin schism, he has done reasonably well.
If you need a demonstration of that you just need to look at the Harris-Decima poll from yesterday. I have lost count of the number of polls that have indicated the Liberals and the Conservatives have been tied in public support for the last 6 months or so. That is a major accomplishment for an Opposition Party at this stage in an election cycle with a leader who is still working to put his stamp on the Party. This is a great contrast to how Opposition Parties have fared, in similar circumstances, in the past as I will demonstrate later.
I would argue that one of the contributing factors to this reasonably happy state of affairs is Mr. Dion's leadership. True, Mr. Harper has certainly contributed to it as well but the current state of support for the two big parties cannot be placed just on one party or one leader.
Going back over the last 10 months Mr. Dion has made some shrewd moves that have wrong footed the Conservatives on a number of issues that are of great importance to Canadians and placed the Liberal Party on the right side of those issues.
It is Mr. Dion who put the environment and climate change on the radar screen of Canadians. His use of the green scarves at the convention and his use of his honeymoon after his election to push the Government on this issue planted the seed with Canadians and the unusually mild January that followed caused that issue to become the most important one for Canadians. A situation that is still true. That caused the Conservatives to scramble to neutralize the issue and it lead to the fall of a Cabinet Minister. And you just have to see that the environment and climate change is still the most important issue to Canadians to see that the Conservatives have failed to neutralize it as an issue, which means Canadians still do not believe the Conservatives have done enough on this file.
Part of the reason for the Conservative ad campaign against Mr. Dion was because they bungled this file so badly and Mr. Dion was showing that he was a real threat to the Conservatives because of his credibility on the issue. Indeed, the Conservative ad campaign and the reason why they launched it could have been lifted directly from Karl Rove's playbook.
It still boggles my mind that many Liberals not only buy into the Conservative line that Stephane Dion is not a leader but some actually embrace it . All I can say is that if you are one of those Liberals you are not very bright. But I digress.
With regard to Afghanistan, it was Stephane Dion that brokered the Liberal proposal that Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat by the 2009 deadline with the possibility of their continued presence in Afghanistan in another role. That proposal predates polls that show that is the preferred option of Canadians and it certainly predates the Conservatives making rumblings about "changing the configuration" of the mission.
It was Stephane Dion that lead the charge against the government regarding the Afghan detainee issue and he did not back off when Stephen Harper accused him of being a "Taliban lover". The Liberals relentless pressure on this issue lead to yet another loss of a Conservative cabinet minister and the Conservatives are still feeling its fallout months after.
The Liberals under Stephane Dion have identified the economy as a potential soft spot for the Conservatives. They are correct. The climbing dollar, the hollowing out of Central Canadian industry, job losses in Ontario and Quebec and the looming recession in the US are causing dark clouds to appear on the economic horizon. By getting out in front of this issue now the Liberals will be in a very good position to offer an alternative to a government that has all but ignored the plight of the Central Canadian economy.
As I stated earlier in my post all of these factors have contributed to the Conservatives and the Liberals being tied in popular support for months. To show how significant this situation is you just have to remember that the Liberals under Mr. Chretien were about a dozen points behind Mr. Mulroney 10 months after his election as Liberal leader. Then there is Stephen Harper who was a whopping 20 points behind the Liberals 10 months after his election as Conservative Party leader. As well, it should be remembered that Mr. Harper was 8 points behind Mr. Martin at the beginning of the last election so for the Liberals to be where they are now in popular support in relation to the government is very good news.
It is very true that Mr. Dion must improve both as a leader and he must improve the Liberal organization but it is also very true that the Liberal Party under his leadership has been in more than just striking distance of winning the next election for most of his short tenure as leader of the Liberal Party.
However, there are more positive reasons why Liberals should support Stephane Dion and that is because for a brand new leader, of a political party that is still trying to wash away the stains of the Sponsorship Scandal and the Chretien/Martin schism, he has done reasonably well.
If you need a demonstration of that you just need to look at the Harris-Decima poll from yesterday. I have lost count of the number of polls that have indicated the Liberals and the Conservatives have been tied in public support for the last 6 months or so. That is a major accomplishment for an Opposition Party at this stage in an election cycle with a leader who is still working to put his stamp on the Party. This is a great contrast to how Opposition Parties have fared, in similar circumstances, in the past as I will demonstrate later.
I would argue that one of the contributing factors to this reasonably happy state of affairs is Mr. Dion's leadership. True, Mr. Harper has certainly contributed to it as well but the current state of support for the two big parties cannot be placed just on one party or one leader.
Going back over the last 10 months Mr. Dion has made some shrewd moves that have wrong footed the Conservatives on a number of issues that are of great importance to Canadians and placed the Liberal Party on the right side of those issues.
It is Mr. Dion who put the environment and climate change on the radar screen of Canadians. His use of the green scarves at the convention and his use of his honeymoon after his election to push the Government on this issue planted the seed with Canadians and the unusually mild January that followed caused that issue to become the most important one for Canadians. A situation that is still true. That caused the Conservatives to scramble to neutralize the issue and it lead to the fall of a Cabinet Minister. And you just have to see that the environment and climate change is still the most important issue to Canadians to see that the Conservatives have failed to neutralize it as an issue, which means Canadians still do not believe the Conservatives have done enough on this file.
Part of the reason for the Conservative ad campaign against Mr. Dion was because they bungled this file so badly and Mr. Dion was showing that he was a real threat to the Conservatives because of his credibility on the issue. Indeed, the Conservative ad campaign and the reason why they launched it could have been lifted directly from Karl Rove's playbook.
It still boggles my mind that many Liberals not only buy into the Conservative line that Stephane Dion is not a leader but some actually embrace it . All I can say is that if you are one of those Liberals you are not very bright. But I digress.
With regard to Afghanistan, it was Stephane Dion that brokered the Liberal proposal that Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat by the 2009 deadline with the possibility of their continued presence in Afghanistan in another role. That proposal predates polls that show that is the preferred option of Canadians and it certainly predates the Conservatives making rumblings about "changing the configuration" of the mission.
It was Stephane Dion that lead the charge against the government regarding the Afghan detainee issue and he did not back off when Stephen Harper accused him of being a "Taliban lover". The Liberals relentless pressure on this issue lead to yet another loss of a Conservative cabinet minister and the Conservatives are still feeling its fallout months after.
The Liberals under Stephane Dion have identified the economy as a potential soft spot for the Conservatives. They are correct. The climbing dollar, the hollowing out of Central Canadian industry, job losses in Ontario and Quebec and the looming recession in the US are causing dark clouds to appear on the economic horizon. By getting out in front of this issue now the Liberals will be in a very good position to offer an alternative to a government that has all but ignored the plight of the Central Canadian economy.
As I stated earlier in my post all of these factors have contributed to the Conservatives and the Liberals being tied in popular support for months. To show how significant this situation is you just have to remember that the Liberals under Mr. Chretien were about a dozen points behind Mr. Mulroney 10 months after his election as Liberal leader. Then there is Stephen Harper who was a whopping 20 points behind the Liberals 10 months after his election as Conservative Party leader. As well, it should be remembered that Mr. Harper was 8 points behind Mr. Martin at the beginning of the last election so for the Liberals to be where they are now in popular support in relation to the government is very good news.
It is very true that Mr. Dion must improve both as a leader and he must improve the Liberal organization but it is also very true that the Liberal Party under his leadership has been in more than just striking distance of winning the next election for most of his short tenure as leader of the Liberal Party.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
So, what now?
The Liberals lost the by-election in Outrement (Oh the horror, THE HORROR!) so what do they do now?
If Liberals were smart they would do a calm assessment of what happened in Outrement. They would suppress the desire the cast blame and instead seek to find what errors were made so that they could avoid them the next time.
If Liberals were really smart they would put the loss in perspective and minmize any damage the loss will cause. One truism of life is people will often make a bad situation much worse by overreacting to it.
If Liberals were smart they would use this setback to rally around the Party leadership and to firm up their resolve to refocus their efforts on the real opponent of the Liberal Party, namely the Conservative government.
If Liberals were really smart they would realize that it has only been 10 months since Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership. Any open revolt against him, whether it lead to his ouster or not, would destroy any chance of the Liberals winning the next election and it would hamstring the Party for the following one, which will probably be in 2012. By then the ages of the erstwhile front runners to replace Mr. Dion (Iggy and Rae) would be an issue.
If Liberals were smart they would realize that the Conservative government has demonstrated that, despite 20 months of constant campaigning, using honourable and underhanded methods, they have been utterly incapable of consistently lifting their level of support above the minority government level.
If Liberals were really smart they would realize that they hold the future of the Conservative government in their hands. It is their actions over the next few months that will determine whether the Conservative government goes down to defeat or whether they achieve their much coveted majority. In other words, the Conservatives need help from the Liberals to achieve their electoral ends and it is up to Liberals to deny them that help.
If Liberals were smart they would realize that all things in politics are temporary. Nothing stays the same and one bad week will not make or break a Party's fortune, unless that Party's reaction causes the bad week to become a bad month, a bad quarter and/or a bad year.
If Liberals were really smart they would remember that as late as Christmas 2005, the Conservative Party was polling in the mid-teens in Quebec and most pundits had written them off in that province. They would also remember that in three straight elections those very same pundits did not give Jean Chretien much of a chance in his home province and really smart Liberals should be able to figure out how those elections turned out.
Now the big question is, how many smart and really smart Liberals are out there?
If Liberals were smart they would do a calm assessment of what happened in Outrement. They would suppress the desire the cast blame and instead seek to find what errors were made so that they could avoid them the next time.
If Liberals were really smart they would put the loss in perspective and minmize any damage the loss will cause. One truism of life is people will often make a bad situation much worse by overreacting to it.
If Liberals were smart they would use this setback to rally around the Party leadership and to firm up their resolve to refocus their efforts on the real opponent of the Liberal Party, namely the Conservative government.
If Liberals were really smart they would realize that it has only been 10 months since Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership. Any open revolt against him, whether it lead to his ouster or not, would destroy any chance of the Liberals winning the next election and it would hamstring the Party for the following one, which will probably be in 2012. By then the ages of the erstwhile front runners to replace Mr. Dion (Iggy and Rae) would be an issue.
If Liberals were smart they would realize that the Conservative government has demonstrated that, despite 20 months of constant campaigning, using honourable and underhanded methods, they have been utterly incapable of consistently lifting their level of support above the minority government level.
If Liberals were really smart they would realize that they hold the future of the Conservative government in their hands. It is their actions over the next few months that will determine whether the Conservative government goes down to defeat or whether they achieve their much coveted majority. In other words, the Conservatives need help from the Liberals to achieve their electoral ends and it is up to Liberals to deny them that help.
If Liberals were smart they would realize that all things in politics are temporary. Nothing stays the same and one bad week will not make or break a Party's fortune, unless that Party's reaction causes the bad week to become a bad month, a bad quarter and/or a bad year.
If Liberals were really smart they would remember that as late as Christmas 2005, the Conservative Party was polling in the mid-teens in Quebec and most pundits had written them off in that province. They would also remember that in three straight elections those very same pundits did not give Jean Chretien much of a chance in his home province and really smart Liberals should be able to figure out how those elections turned out.
Now the big question is, how many smart and really smart Liberals are out there?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Will the Liberals hand Stephen Harper a majority?
On the existing evidence I would say the answer is yes.
The reason is simple. They are not united. That has become increasingly apparent as the fallout of the Outrement by-election unfolds. The fissures in the party are becoming wider and more obvious and in all likelihood it will just get worse.
In all honesty I believe the reason for this is there are a significant number of Liberals out there with their heads so far up their asses they could give themselves root canals. (Assuming they knew how to do so in the first place.)
Liberals of all people should realize the price of disunity. It was the disunity on the right that made the Chretien era a virtual golden age for Liberal fortunes. If it was not for that disunity the Chretien era probably would have ended in 2000.
Then there are those supporters of the losing leadership candidates from last December. It has become increasingly obvious that many of them have not been able to accept the result.
Some of these folks have a hard time with it because they truly believe that their guy would do a better job. My advice to you is to get over it, you lost. That is how it is sometimes. Then there are those who supported their candidate because they thought they would get a nice back-room job with the Party along with influence when it won the next election. Dream on. If Stephane Dion is replaced just a short time after he won the leadership the Liberals have no hope of winning the next general election as whatever credibility they have will be in tatters. So you folks are looking forward to at least 5 years before the Liberals will even have A CHANCE of winning an election, and such a victory will certainly not be guaranteed. My guess is many of you who are in this group are not interested in putting your careers on hold for that length of time or longer.
Then there is the meme that Stephane Dion is not a leader. I would remind everybody that it was the Conservatives who first made this assertion and the media took up the call. Such was bad enough as it started to stick with those Canadians that do not live and breath politics on a daily basis. However, the Conservative advertizements that started that whole ball rolling were supposed to be a prelude to an election. When that election did not come to pass the damage should have faded. Unfortunately, Liberals began to buy that line as well. Say what you will about Conservatives they would not be caught dead buying into a line about them put forward by the Liberals.
The irony in all of this is the Conservatives are vulnerable.
The reason is simple. They are not united. That has become increasingly apparent as the fallout of the Outrement by-election unfolds. The fissures in the party are becoming wider and more obvious and in all likelihood it will just get worse.
In all honesty I believe the reason for this is there are a significant number of Liberals out there with their heads so far up their asses they could give themselves root canals. (Assuming they knew how to do so in the first place.)
Liberals of all people should realize the price of disunity. It was the disunity on the right that made the Chretien era a virtual golden age for Liberal fortunes. If it was not for that disunity the Chretien era probably would have ended in 2000.
Then there are those supporters of the losing leadership candidates from last December. It has become increasingly obvious that many of them have not been able to accept the result.
Some of these folks have a hard time with it because they truly believe that their guy would do a better job. My advice to you is to get over it, you lost. That is how it is sometimes. Then there are those who supported their candidate because they thought they would get a nice back-room job with the Party along with influence when it won the next election. Dream on. If Stephane Dion is replaced just a short time after he won the leadership the Liberals have no hope of winning the next general election as whatever credibility they have will be in tatters. So you folks are looking forward to at least 5 years before the Liberals will even have A CHANCE of winning an election, and such a victory will certainly not be guaranteed. My guess is many of you who are in this group are not interested in putting your careers on hold for that length of time or longer.
Then there is the meme that Stephane Dion is not a leader. I would remind everybody that it was the Conservatives who first made this assertion and the media took up the call. Such was bad enough as it started to stick with those Canadians that do not live and breath politics on a daily basis. However, the Conservative advertizements that started that whole ball rolling were supposed to be a prelude to an election. When that election did not come to pass the damage should have faded. Unfortunately, Liberals began to buy that line as well. Say what you will about Conservatives they would not be caught dead buying into a line about them put forward by the Liberals.
The irony in all of this is the Conservatives are vulnerable.
- They have not connected with the Canadian public in any meaningful way.
- They are on the wrong side of the issues with regard to Afghanistan and the environment.
- They have virtually ignored the hollowing out of Central Canadian industry, with its resulting job losses. (That is around 180 seats right there folks.)
- They have broken some high profile election promises.
- They put 20 seats in play, 12 Conservative seats in Saskatchewan and 8 in the Maritimes, with their breaking of the Atlantic Accords.
- They have had some high profile run-ins with Elections Canada about highly suspect election spending practices.
In short, when the next election rolls around Canadians may be seriously looking at alternatives to the Conservatives. Unfortunately, a disjointed Liberal Party will not be a viable alternative for most and they will probably go for the Party that looks united and coherent.
Or to put it another way, regardless of their unease with the Conservatives Canadians will not vote for an alternative that is disjointed, incoherent and disunited. They will hold their nose, vote for the Party that seems to have its shit together and hope for the best.
You know if it were not for the fact Stephen Harper would be PM of a majority government I would have no problem with the Liberals wondering the political wilderness for the next half decade or so. There is nothing like spending long periods of time in the opposition for getting rid of the dead wood and hangers on in a political party. What is usually left over are those folks who are dedicated to the Party and its ideals.
Unfortunately, I do not think Canada can afford a Harper majority government so the Liberals are going to have to get their act together very quickly if Canadians hope to avoid such a fate.
And I will openly state right now that if the Liberals do not get past their navel gazing very soon they will not be able to count on my vote during the next election.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
When Did Peter Donolo become a Conservative?
I read with interest the polling results in today's Globe and Mail and I will talk about it and its "analysis" later.
However, what really surprised me about this was the companion piece that Mr. Donolo helped to write. I could not believe that a man who worked as Mr. Chretien's communications chief could put his name on such an obvious piece of Conservative friendly spin. I realize that everybody needs to make a living but he is one of the reasons why Canadians are so cynical about politics and the political class in this country. Too many of them seem to be available to the highest bidder.
As for the poll itself I was surprised to see the Conservative numbers where they were. SES published a poll last week that put them in the mid-30s in support so I expected subsequent polls from other organizations to do the same.
The Liberals are exactly where I expected them to be because they have been hovering around the 32% mark since the last election. And contrary to what the pollsters say their support is rock solid while the Conservative support is fluid. The proof is in the trends and they are more credible than a poll question asking the respondent a hypothetical question regarding whether they would switch their vote. I have already mentioned the trend for the Liberals and the other trend is the Conservatives have been bouncing around like a basketball for months. One month they are up, the next they are down. They cannot seem to find a level and stay there. That indicates fluidity in support and that makes the life of political strategists for the Conservatives very complicated.
The Globe and Mail spin had me chuckling. The writers and editors must have been feeling rather queazy after writing the story as they were spinning rather quickly. I certainly hope they all took cabs home last night because they would not have been in any shape to drive home after writing that BS.
I have never bought into the idea of the G&M being a mouthpiece for any political party so it begs the question as to why they went to such lengths to take a poll that is bad news for the Conservatives and spin it into good news.
Part of the answer lies with their editorial from yesterday about Kyoto. It is no secret that the G&M is very pro-business and it is very against implementing the Kyoto Protocol because it has bought into the argument that doing so would be bad for the economy. It has dismissed the positive economic offsets of its implementation, which I think is wrong, but that is an argument for another post.
Today's poll indicates that the next election could be anybody's race and that the Liberals probably have as much of a shot at forming the next government as the Conservatives. Mr. Dion has committed to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. They know that he means what he says and that he is not just posturing. So they do not want him anywhere near the levers of power. Hence, the spin on the SC poll.
No Liberal should be happy with the spin of the poll but they should take heart that the G&M felt they needed to do so because they are beginning to see the fact the Liberals are back in the game, there are as many negatives on the Conservative record as positive (and we all know that negative tends to have a greater impact than positive during elections) and Stephen Harper has not connected with Canadians even after all of this time in the spot-light.
If the Conservatives continue to langish in a tie with the Liberals expect the G&M to continue to write Conservative friendly articles. If it actually looks like the Liberals may consistantly overtake the Conservatives expect that Conservative friendliness to be more strident.
However, what really surprised me about this was the companion piece that Mr. Donolo helped to write. I could not believe that a man who worked as Mr. Chretien's communications chief could put his name on such an obvious piece of Conservative friendly spin. I realize that everybody needs to make a living but he is one of the reasons why Canadians are so cynical about politics and the political class in this country. Too many of them seem to be available to the highest bidder.
As for the poll itself I was surprised to see the Conservative numbers where they were. SES published a poll last week that put them in the mid-30s in support so I expected subsequent polls from other organizations to do the same.
The Liberals are exactly where I expected them to be because they have been hovering around the 32% mark since the last election. And contrary to what the pollsters say their support is rock solid while the Conservative support is fluid. The proof is in the trends and they are more credible than a poll question asking the respondent a hypothetical question regarding whether they would switch their vote. I have already mentioned the trend for the Liberals and the other trend is the Conservatives have been bouncing around like a basketball for months. One month they are up, the next they are down. They cannot seem to find a level and stay there. That indicates fluidity in support and that makes the life of political strategists for the Conservatives very complicated.
The Globe and Mail spin had me chuckling. The writers and editors must have been feeling rather queazy after writing the story as they were spinning rather quickly. I certainly hope they all took cabs home last night because they would not have been in any shape to drive home after writing that BS.
I have never bought into the idea of the G&M being a mouthpiece for any political party so it begs the question as to why they went to such lengths to take a poll that is bad news for the Conservatives and spin it into good news.
Part of the answer lies with their editorial from yesterday about Kyoto. It is no secret that the G&M is very pro-business and it is very against implementing the Kyoto Protocol because it has bought into the argument that doing so would be bad for the economy. It has dismissed the positive economic offsets of its implementation, which I think is wrong, but that is an argument for another post.
Today's poll indicates that the next election could be anybody's race and that the Liberals probably have as much of a shot at forming the next government as the Conservatives. Mr. Dion has committed to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. They know that he means what he says and that he is not just posturing. So they do not want him anywhere near the levers of power. Hence, the spin on the SC poll.
No Liberal should be happy with the spin of the poll but they should take heart that the G&M felt they needed to do so because they are beginning to see the fact the Liberals are back in the game, there are as many negatives on the Conservative record as positive (and we all know that negative tends to have a greater impact than positive during elections) and Stephen Harper has not connected with Canadians even after all of this time in the spot-light.
If the Conservatives continue to langish in a tie with the Liberals expect the G&M to continue to write Conservative friendly articles. If it actually looks like the Liberals may consistantly overtake the Conservatives expect that Conservative friendliness to be more strident.
Monday, August 20, 2007
What a boring political summer it has been
For the last two months or so I have found that not much has really happened on the Canadian political scene that I could write about in an indepth fashion. Certainly, there have been a few issues and events but none of them has really gripped my imagination.
So I decided to put them all in one post.
1. The Cabinet Shuffle: There is not much more to be said on it that has not already been said. The only thing I would add is that Stephen Harper has twice failed to build a cabinet that created the conditions for achieving his much coveted majority government. Indeed, his second cabinet did worse that his first. Kind of makes me wonder why he bothered with another shuffle. I guess he believes that the third times the charm.
2. Latest SES Poll: Speaking of the government's failure to grow its support into majority territory there is the SES poll from last week. It was not very surprising. The Conservatives got a bit of a boost, the result of the incumbent advantage. The only really remarkable thing about it was that advantage did not kick in until August. Usually a government enjoys that advantage soon after the House rises so I would have expected to see it occur in July. Its delay could indicate that the damage from the Afgan detainee controversy in the Spring could have caused more lasting damage to the Conservatives than originally thought.
3. Michael Ignatieff's mea culpa on Iraq: During the Liberal leadership race he was crucified by many of his critics for supporting that war. Then he admits he is wrong and many of those same critics claims he did it so that he could make a run at Mr. Dion. What partisan rubbish. If you are like me and you have ever wondered why politicians do not admit error or apologize then you just have to look at this event to see why in living colour. As well, if you are wondering why we always seem to be saddled with a large surplus of sub-par career politicians, many of whom have never held down or could find a real job, you can also look to this situation for your answers. I am certain that anybody with the abilities to offer real leadership and vision would avoid politics like the plague so that they can avoid all of the dickless, microbrained, scabrous trolls that infest our politics.
4. Karl Rove resigns: Speaking of dickless, microbrained, scabrous trolls. Considering how the Bush Administration seems to be sinking like a stone it is difficult not to use that old cliche about rats deserting a sinking ship. My only wish is that some of his kind that live in this country would follow his lead and bugger off.
5. The Bush Administration declares the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization: Is this a pretext for a military strike? If so the ramifications of such a strike are incalculable. At the very least oil prices going above the $100/barrel level for sustained periods is not out of the question. In fact it is a certainty I believe. I still find it amazing that a government with as many checks and balances as the US government would be powerless to stop the most unpopular president in recent memory from such folly.
6. The sub-par mortgage market in the US is collapsing: The North American economy has been growing continually for about 15 years. Over that period there have been periods where it looked like it would come to an end but we have always dodged the bullet. Could this be the one that ends the good times? We are due and there is a strong possibility that the malaise in the sub-prime market will spread into the general real estate market in the US. If that happens the NA economy will be in for a rough time. Interestingly, the impact of the current troubles will probably not really be felt until next Spring, which could very well correspond with a US attack on Iran. Considering the general incompetence of the Bush Administration they would be capable of taking an action that would cause energy prices to spike just as the NA economy was heading into a recession.
7. The lumber industry in the US is gearing up for another fight: And they are using the money that the Harper government gave them as part of the Softwood Lumber Deal to finance the new fight. I bet no one saw that coming.
8. Mr. Harper announces the building of a new northern port and new patrol ships for the Arctic: Right, I will believe that when I see it.
So I decided to put them all in one post.
1. The Cabinet Shuffle: There is not much more to be said on it that has not already been said. The only thing I would add is that Stephen Harper has twice failed to build a cabinet that created the conditions for achieving his much coveted majority government. Indeed, his second cabinet did worse that his first. Kind of makes me wonder why he bothered with another shuffle. I guess he believes that the third times the charm.
2. Latest SES Poll: Speaking of the government's failure to grow its support into majority territory there is the SES poll from last week. It was not very surprising. The Conservatives got a bit of a boost, the result of the incumbent advantage. The only really remarkable thing about it was that advantage did not kick in until August. Usually a government enjoys that advantage soon after the House rises so I would have expected to see it occur in July. Its delay could indicate that the damage from the Afgan detainee controversy in the Spring could have caused more lasting damage to the Conservatives than originally thought.
3. Michael Ignatieff's mea culpa on Iraq: During the Liberal leadership race he was crucified by many of his critics for supporting that war. Then he admits he is wrong and many of those same critics claims he did it so that he could make a run at Mr. Dion. What partisan rubbish. If you are like me and you have ever wondered why politicians do not admit error or apologize then you just have to look at this event to see why in living colour. As well, if you are wondering why we always seem to be saddled with a large surplus of sub-par career politicians, many of whom have never held down or could find a real job, you can also look to this situation for your answers. I am certain that anybody with the abilities to offer real leadership and vision would avoid politics like the plague so that they can avoid all of the dickless, microbrained, scabrous trolls that infest our politics.
4. Karl Rove resigns: Speaking of dickless, microbrained, scabrous trolls. Considering how the Bush Administration seems to be sinking like a stone it is difficult not to use that old cliche about rats deserting a sinking ship. My only wish is that some of his kind that live in this country would follow his lead and bugger off.
5. The Bush Administration declares the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organization: Is this a pretext for a military strike? If so the ramifications of such a strike are incalculable. At the very least oil prices going above the $100/barrel level for sustained periods is not out of the question. In fact it is a certainty I believe. I still find it amazing that a government with as many checks and balances as the US government would be powerless to stop the most unpopular president in recent memory from such folly.
6. The sub-par mortgage market in the US is collapsing: The North American economy has been growing continually for about 15 years. Over that period there have been periods where it looked like it would come to an end but we have always dodged the bullet. Could this be the one that ends the good times? We are due and there is a strong possibility that the malaise in the sub-prime market will spread into the general real estate market in the US. If that happens the NA economy will be in for a rough time. Interestingly, the impact of the current troubles will probably not really be felt until next Spring, which could very well correspond with a US attack on Iran. Considering the general incompetence of the Bush Administration they would be capable of taking an action that would cause energy prices to spike just as the NA economy was heading into a recession.
7. The lumber industry in the US is gearing up for another fight: And they are using the money that the Harper government gave them as part of the Softwood Lumber Deal to finance the new fight. I bet no one saw that coming.
8. Mr. Harper announces the building of a new northern port and new patrol ships for the Arctic: Right, I will believe that when I see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)