The election has been called so I am going to go out on a limb and make a guess on who will win the the election.
My assumptions:
1. The desire for change will become strong enough that the Conservatives will lose the election.
2. While Canadians will want change they will not want the radical change represented by the NDP. Canadians will stick to their habit of alternating between Liberal and Conservative governments.
3. Justin Trudeau will perform better than many expect. He is likable, approachable and without fear and that will come through during this long campaign.
4. The Conservatives will grow increasingly desperate as the campaign goes on and it will add to the extent of their defeat.
5. A man very wise to election once told me that long campaigns always benefit the Liberal Party the most. It seems to take them awhile to find their stride but when they do they become all but unstoppable and a longer campaign allows them more time to hit that stride.
So the final result of the election will surprise everyone as it will be a Liberal majority government.
The resurgence of the Liberals will begin in the East where they will win at least 25 seats.
It will continue in Quebec where Montreal and Western Quebec will go red. The NDP wave will recede considerably during this campaign. Although Mr. Mulcair will win his seat it will be by the thinnest margin of all of the party leaders.
Ontario will see the largest resurgence. The Liberals will win a large majority of seats in that province, particularly within the cities and their suburbs. The NDP will steadily lose relevance in that province as the campaign unfolds.
In the Prairies the Liberals will double their seat count in Manitoba and maintain their one seat in Saskatchewan.
The Liberals will breakthrough in Calgary, while the NDP does the same in Edmonton. That will be a contributing factor in the Conservative loss.
The Liberals will meet their historical high water mark in BC.
The Liberals will sweep the North.
None of the above is based on any science. It is based on my gut, which I find has been rather reliable in the past.
If anybody actually reads this feel free to guffaw if you like. I really do not care. In the fullness of time if I am proven wrong sobeit. It is not like I have not been wrong before but I believe the next few weeks are going to surprise alot of political observers in this country.
Sunday, August 02, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Who is going to win the October 19 election?
This post is inspired by a conversation I had with a colleague who also happens to be a Liberal supporter. We had a good noon hour conversation.
The short answer to the question is ask me the same question on October 20.
However, the key question between now and then is whether the desire for a change of government will hit "critical mass".
If no, then the Conservatives will probably win the election, possibly winning a majority mandate considering the apparent split in the anti-Conservative vote.
If yes, then the Conservatives lose, by how much being the only mystery.
However, that then begs the question of which party Canadians will choose to replace the Conservatives.
Will Canadians stick to their 150 year old habit of alternating between a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party? Or will they take the historic step of electing an NDP federal government for the first time?
We will know for certain on October 20 but my sense is the "throw-the-bums-out" sentiment is not as strong as it needs to be, at the present time, for me to be convinced that the Conservatives will lose the election. That could change during the campaign but as of now they have a reasonable shot at winning a fourth election.
If they do not then I would say the Liberals would be their replacement. The NDP certainly are having a good couple of months but I have serious doubts that those who are telling pollsters that they support the NDP are saying so with the degree of conviction necessary to essentially change a 150 year old political dynamic. Further, I am not sensing a real enthusiasm with the idea of an NDP government. In fact, from the people I speak to, and this is by no means scientific, there seems to be some trepidation at the prospect of an federal NDP government.
Considering that, I find it doubtful that if Canadians want a change in government that they will opt for such a radical change.
But like I said at the beginning we will know for certain on October 20.
The short answer to the question is ask me the same question on October 20.
However, the key question between now and then is whether the desire for a change of government will hit "critical mass".
If no, then the Conservatives will probably win the election, possibly winning a majority mandate considering the apparent split in the anti-Conservative vote.
If yes, then the Conservatives lose, by how much being the only mystery.
However, that then begs the question of which party Canadians will choose to replace the Conservatives.
Will Canadians stick to their 150 year old habit of alternating between a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party? Or will they take the historic step of electing an NDP federal government for the first time?
We will know for certain on October 20 but my sense is the "throw-the-bums-out" sentiment is not as strong as it needs to be, at the present time, for me to be convinced that the Conservatives will lose the election. That could change during the campaign but as of now they have a reasonable shot at winning a fourth election.
If they do not then I would say the Liberals would be their replacement. The NDP certainly are having a good couple of months but I have serious doubts that those who are telling pollsters that they support the NDP are saying so with the degree of conviction necessary to essentially change a 150 year old political dynamic. Further, I am not sensing a real enthusiasm with the idea of an NDP government. In fact, from the people I speak to, and this is by no means scientific, there seems to be some trepidation at the prospect of an federal NDP government.
Considering that, I find it doubtful that if Canadians want a change in government that they will opt for such a radical change.
But like I said at the beginning we will know for certain on October 20.
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Greece
A Greek debt default and its exit from the Eurozone is probably inevitable now. Indeed it was probably inevitable when the economic crisis first hit.
When it happens there will be alot of blame being thrown around by the various parties but really the lion's share can be place squarely on the EU, the IMF and Greece's creditors. They are the ones with the greatest room to maneuver in this crisis but due to their stubbornness they are refusing to use it.
By no means is Greece innocent in all of this. They spent beyond their means expecting the EU to bail them out when the proverbial other shoe dropped but on the other hand Greece's creditors kept lending them money because they expected the same thing.
The current crisis could have been avoided if the EU and the IMF would have taken a different approach to Greece's debt situation than their default position of demanding austerity before providing for bail-outs. In order for Greece to get out from under its debts it needs to positive economic growth. Austerity creates the exact opposite. In fact since the crisis first materialized the Greek economy contracted 25%.
So the Greeks run into debt trouble. They seek help and their helpers demand they take steps which reduces economic activity within Greece, which, of course, prevents the Greeks from being able to meet their new debt obligations, which leads to more demands for austerity from the EU and the IMF, which reduced economic activity some more and so on in a nice little vicious circle.
It is an untenable situation and something drastic will have to change in order to break the circle.
There are probably two choices, neither one of which is a good one.
The first choice is the EU and the IMF forgive some of Greece's debt and reschedule the rest of it, without imposing any more tough austerity measures on Greece, in order to allow that country to begin realizing positive economic growth again and give it the ability to repay its debts without having to take out new loans to pay off old loans. This choice will not fly of course. Internal EU politics will prevent that since other EU countries besides Greece have spent beyond their means and have been suffering the same austerity being imposed on them in order to receive EU bailouts. If Greece gets a different deal they will demand the same and that will not just do for the movers and shakers in the EU.
So that leaves us with a Greek default and exit from the Eurozone. Certainly it would have an economic impact in the broader EU but that would pale in comparison to what would happen in Greece itself. The Greeks would suffer that is for certain and the EU and IMF would point to that suffering to keep the other countries going through EU/IMF imposed austerity in line.
However, the Greeks are already suffering and this choice would eventually allow them to get off the treadmill they currently find themselves on.
The current situation has pretty much run its course. Neither side wants to continue down the current path. Their reasons for not wanting to are markedly different but the final conclusion is identical. Since the chances of the EU and the IMF relenting on their austerity demands are nil it will be up to the Greeks to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to break the current vicious circle they find themselves in.
When it happens there will be alot of blame being thrown around by the various parties but really the lion's share can be place squarely on the EU, the IMF and Greece's creditors. They are the ones with the greatest room to maneuver in this crisis but due to their stubbornness they are refusing to use it.
By no means is Greece innocent in all of this. They spent beyond their means expecting the EU to bail them out when the proverbial other shoe dropped but on the other hand Greece's creditors kept lending them money because they expected the same thing.
The current crisis could have been avoided if the EU and the IMF would have taken a different approach to Greece's debt situation than their default position of demanding austerity before providing for bail-outs. In order for Greece to get out from under its debts it needs to positive economic growth. Austerity creates the exact opposite. In fact since the crisis first materialized the Greek economy contracted 25%.
So the Greeks run into debt trouble. They seek help and their helpers demand they take steps which reduces economic activity within Greece, which, of course, prevents the Greeks from being able to meet their new debt obligations, which leads to more demands for austerity from the EU and the IMF, which reduced economic activity some more and so on in a nice little vicious circle.
It is an untenable situation and something drastic will have to change in order to break the circle.
There are probably two choices, neither one of which is a good one.
The first choice is the EU and the IMF forgive some of Greece's debt and reschedule the rest of it, without imposing any more tough austerity measures on Greece, in order to allow that country to begin realizing positive economic growth again and give it the ability to repay its debts without having to take out new loans to pay off old loans. This choice will not fly of course. Internal EU politics will prevent that since other EU countries besides Greece have spent beyond their means and have been suffering the same austerity being imposed on them in order to receive EU bailouts. If Greece gets a different deal they will demand the same and that will not just do for the movers and shakers in the EU.
So that leaves us with a Greek default and exit from the Eurozone. Certainly it would have an economic impact in the broader EU but that would pale in comparison to what would happen in Greece itself. The Greeks would suffer that is for certain and the EU and IMF would point to that suffering to keep the other countries going through EU/IMF imposed austerity in line.
However, the Greeks are already suffering and this choice would eventually allow them to get off the treadmill they currently find themselves on.
The current situation has pretty much run its course. Neither side wants to continue down the current path. Their reasons for not wanting to are markedly different but the final conclusion is identical. Since the chances of the EU and the IMF relenting on their austerity demands are nil it will be up to the Greeks to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to break the current vicious circle they find themselves in.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
You would almost think and election is coming up
There has been alot of ink, wind and bandwidth expended in the last little while regarding politics in this country and some of it has been rather interesting.
Polls: It would seem the NDP is on a bit of an upswing while the Liberals are in a bit of slump and the Conservatives just seem to be moribund.
As usual the punditry in this country just focuses on what is in front of their faces without looking past the present to draw their instant conclusions. For two solid years the Liberals were ahead in the polls and they made huge gains in the half-a-dozen or so by-elections since 2011. To read too much into these two facts is a mistake but to totally ignore them is also a mistake. This is particularly true given the fact that an incumbent government has never trailed in the polls for that length of time in between elections. Do the polls of the last few weeks totally erase what transpired in the last two years? Maybe, we are talking politics but I would not bank on it if you are a supporter of either the NDP or the Conservatives. For two years the Liberals were considered the alternative to the Conservatives and it is highly questionable whether that has really permanently changed based on a few weeks of polling.
I would say this is backed up if you look at the most likely reasons for the changes. Some pundits point to the Liberal's stance on Bill C-51 but many of these same pundits like to point out that Canadians really do not care that much about policy when it suits the narrative they are trying to push. Others like to point to the "gaffes" committed by Mr. Trudeau but I find that rather dubious.
Opinions usually change as a result of something more visceral and you only have to look at what occurred since the fall to see the most likely cause of the current Liberal slump.
The slide began in October, after the attack on Parliament Hill. That kind of event is right in the Conservative wheelhouse. They were able make all sorts of noises about being tough on terror, just when Canadians wanted to hear exactly that. Then ISIS began acting up and they figured prominently in the news for weeks and months. Again, the Conservatives took the opportunity to appear tough. They took a simple position of sending F-18s to the Middle East while the NDP took the exact opposite view and as is the wont of the Liberal Party they took a more nuanced approach. Personally, I thought the Liberal approach was the right one but at the same time someone in the Liberal establishment should realize that today's media does not do nuance. They gave up reporting real news a along time ago in favour of presenting a "hook" to get you to click on a link on the many websites they place their stories on. If you do not give them that hook they will create one and since negativity sells it will not be good news for you. This focus on ISIS and terrorism allowed the Conservatives enjoy a bit of a bounce while the Liberals slowly sank. That bounce had pretty much run its course though by the beginning of spring.
Then the election of an NDP government in Alberta happened. That was a truly historic occasion and it deserved all of the attention it received in the media but is anybody surprised that all of that positive coverage did not impact the national polling estimates for the federal NDP? By golly, a national poll came out 7 days after the NDP election in Alberta, which means the poll was taken right in the middle of all of that positive coverage, and not surprisingly it showed an NDP "surge". Pundits who should know better then grasped at the "surge" narrative which gave the sudden good fortune of the NDP some legs. However, it should be noted that the NDP topped out in the polls about two weeks after the Alberta election and have since stayed there while the Liberals have bottomed out. In other words the NDP "surge" already appears to have dissipated and the question in the coming months will be whether they will be able to maintain and grow their current levels or begin to sink back to where they were for the past two-and-a-half years.
The Conservatives: I cannot get a read on them right now. While I believe they are in tough I am not feeling that "kick the bums out" vibe I have felt that last few times we had changes in government. Further it appears they still believe the Liberals are the threat to them more than the NDP as evidenced by the latest round of attack ads directed at Mr. Trudeau. A divided progressive vote is vital to them retaining power so you would think, if the Liberals are truly in trouble, that they would be subtly trying to build up the Liberals a little bit instead of trying to bring them down. After all, if we are to believe the polls it appears the NDP are now their greatest threat. Maybe the Conservatives are seeing something that is not showing up in the national media.
The NDP: It is interesting to see Mr. Mulcair trying to convince a business audience that an NDP government would not run deficits and that they would be good for business. What is wrong with that strategy is the business community does not give a damn whether the government runs deficits. Witness the thundering silence from them when the Conservatives ran them for most of their term. What the business community cares about is what they can get from the government and it is a hard sell to convince them that a party that has promoted soaking corporations and the rich, for the last six decades, have suddenly had a change of heart just months from an election. Further the NDP seems to be trying to out Liberal the Liberals. Ms. Horvath unsuccessfully tried that in Ontario so you have to wonder why the federal party would pursue an identical strategy. In addition, the base for the NDP is Quebec, which contains the most fickle voters in the country. They have been known to turn on a dime. It will be interesting to see how they act on October. Finally, Mr. Mulcair is not Jack Layton. The reason for the NDP success in 2011 can be placed squarely at his feet. Those are big shoes to fill and it is an open question whether Mr. Mulcair can do so.
The Liberals: This is not the Liberal Party of 2011. They have created a much better election machine at the riding level, they have resolved the fundraising issues they were having a few years ago. They are still not up to the Conservatives but they have raised more than enough for the pre-campaign and actual campaign. They are coming out with well thought out policies, although I have to admit to some reservations regarding their pledge to eliminate the first-past-the-post system. They have a leader that still has that rock-star persona who packs them in at rallies and who people still want to be seen with.
It is going to be an interesting few months.
Polls: It would seem the NDP is on a bit of an upswing while the Liberals are in a bit of slump and the Conservatives just seem to be moribund.
As usual the punditry in this country just focuses on what is in front of their faces without looking past the present to draw their instant conclusions. For two solid years the Liberals were ahead in the polls and they made huge gains in the half-a-dozen or so by-elections since 2011. To read too much into these two facts is a mistake but to totally ignore them is also a mistake. This is particularly true given the fact that an incumbent government has never trailed in the polls for that length of time in between elections. Do the polls of the last few weeks totally erase what transpired in the last two years? Maybe, we are talking politics but I would not bank on it if you are a supporter of either the NDP or the Conservatives. For two years the Liberals were considered the alternative to the Conservatives and it is highly questionable whether that has really permanently changed based on a few weeks of polling.
I would say this is backed up if you look at the most likely reasons for the changes. Some pundits point to the Liberal's stance on Bill C-51 but many of these same pundits like to point out that Canadians really do not care that much about policy when it suits the narrative they are trying to push. Others like to point to the "gaffes" committed by Mr. Trudeau but I find that rather dubious.
Opinions usually change as a result of something more visceral and you only have to look at what occurred since the fall to see the most likely cause of the current Liberal slump.
The slide began in October, after the attack on Parliament Hill. That kind of event is right in the Conservative wheelhouse. They were able make all sorts of noises about being tough on terror, just when Canadians wanted to hear exactly that. Then ISIS began acting up and they figured prominently in the news for weeks and months. Again, the Conservatives took the opportunity to appear tough. They took a simple position of sending F-18s to the Middle East while the NDP took the exact opposite view and as is the wont of the Liberal Party they took a more nuanced approach. Personally, I thought the Liberal approach was the right one but at the same time someone in the Liberal establishment should realize that today's media does not do nuance. They gave up reporting real news a along time ago in favour of presenting a "hook" to get you to click on a link on the many websites they place their stories on. If you do not give them that hook they will create one and since negativity sells it will not be good news for you. This focus on ISIS and terrorism allowed the Conservatives enjoy a bit of a bounce while the Liberals slowly sank. That bounce had pretty much run its course though by the beginning of spring.
Then the election of an NDP government in Alberta happened. That was a truly historic occasion and it deserved all of the attention it received in the media but is anybody surprised that all of that positive coverage did not impact the national polling estimates for the federal NDP? By golly, a national poll came out 7 days after the NDP election in Alberta, which means the poll was taken right in the middle of all of that positive coverage, and not surprisingly it showed an NDP "surge". Pundits who should know better then grasped at the "surge" narrative which gave the sudden good fortune of the NDP some legs. However, it should be noted that the NDP topped out in the polls about two weeks after the Alberta election and have since stayed there while the Liberals have bottomed out. In other words the NDP "surge" already appears to have dissipated and the question in the coming months will be whether they will be able to maintain and grow their current levels or begin to sink back to where they were for the past two-and-a-half years.
The Conservatives: I cannot get a read on them right now. While I believe they are in tough I am not feeling that "kick the bums out" vibe I have felt that last few times we had changes in government. Further it appears they still believe the Liberals are the threat to them more than the NDP as evidenced by the latest round of attack ads directed at Mr. Trudeau. A divided progressive vote is vital to them retaining power so you would think, if the Liberals are truly in trouble, that they would be subtly trying to build up the Liberals a little bit instead of trying to bring them down. After all, if we are to believe the polls it appears the NDP are now their greatest threat. Maybe the Conservatives are seeing something that is not showing up in the national media.
The NDP: It is interesting to see Mr. Mulcair trying to convince a business audience that an NDP government would not run deficits and that they would be good for business. What is wrong with that strategy is the business community does not give a damn whether the government runs deficits. Witness the thundering silence from them when the Conservatives ran them for most of their term. What the business community cares about is what they can get from the government and it is a hard sell to convince them that a party that has promoted soaking corporations and the rich, for the last six decades, have suddenly had a change of heart just months from an election. Further the NDP seems to be trying to out Liberal the Liberals. Ms. Horvath unsuccessfully tried that in Ontario so you have to wonder why the federal party would pursue an identical strategy. In addition, the base for the NDP is Quebec, which contains the most fickle voters in the country. They have been known to turn on a dime. It will be interesting to see how they act on October. Finally, Mr. Mulcair is not Jack Layton. The reason for the NDP success in 2011 can be placed squarely at his feet. Those are big shoes to fill and it is an open question whether Mr. Mulcair can do so.
The Liberals: This is not the Liberal Party of 2011. They have created a much better election machine at the riding level, they have resolved the fundraising issues they were having a few years ago. They are still not up to the Conservatives but they have raised more than enough for the pre-campaign and actual campaign. They are coming out with well thought out policies, although I have to admit to some reservations regarding their pledge to eliminate the first-past-the-post system. They have a leader that still has that rock-star persona who packs them in at rallies and who people still want to be seen with.
It is going to be an interesting few months.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Likability and politics
In politics it helps to be liked. It is not essential but it certainly helps and in some cases it can be the difference.
We should be reminded of this by the two surprise election results in Ontario and Alberta this year. In both cases the eventual winners were not given much chance of victory at the beginning of the election campaign but both triumphed. Other factors went into the victories to be certain but the fact that both Ms. Wynne and Ms. Notley were generally liked played an important role in their eventual victories.
We see this phenomenon alot in politics. Part of the reason Jean Chretien was so successful was people liked him. Jack Layton lead the NDP to Official Opposition status partly because people liked him.
Part of what held back Mr. Harper in 2006 and 2008 was the fact people generally did not like him and that included some of his supporters. I have seen that personally among some of my friends and family who generally support the Conservatives. Many of them support the Party but think Mr. Harper is a prick. They genuinely mean that. They are not giving him a backhanded compliment. They really do believe he is an asshole.
In the upcoming election Canadians are going to decide whether they want a change of government or not. If they decide that they do there is not much the Conservatives will be able to do about that. History has made that abundantly clear. In that case Canadians will be looking to find an alternative for the current government. In that situation being liked by the electorate more than the other guys will not be an advantage to sneeze at. As we have seen twice this year it can make a difference.
We should be reminded of this by the two surprise election results in Ontario and Alberta this year. In both cases the eventual winners were not given much chance of victory at the beginning of the election campaign but both triumphed. Other factors went into the victories to be certain but the fact that both Ms. Wynne and Ms. Notley were generally liked played an important role in their eventual victories.
We see this phenomenon alot in politics. Part of the reason Jean Chretien was so successful was people liked him. Jack Layton lead the NDP to Official Opposition status partly because people liked him.
Part of what held back Mr. Harper in 2006 and 2008 was the fact people generally did not like him and that included some of his supporters. I have seen that personally among some of my friends and family who generally support the Conservatives. Many of them support the Party but think Mr. Harper is a prick. They genuinely mean that. They are not giving him a backhanded compliment. They really do believe he is an asshole.
In the upcoming election Canadians are going to decide whether they want a change of government or not. If they decide that they do there is not much the Conservatives will be able to do about that. History has made that abundantly clear. In that case Canadians will be looking to find an alternative for the current government. In that situation being liked by the electorate more than the other guys will not be an advantage to sneeze at. As we have seen twice this year it can make a difference.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Senator Duffy
My fearless prediction about the upcoming trial of Senator Duffy. It will not happen.
The Harper government will not want to have any of Mr. Harper's inner circle having to testify under oath during any trial regarding the Senate Expense Scandal.
Mark my words, a prosecutor very friendly to the Conservative government will be appointed. He will offer Senator Duffy's lawyer a sweet plea bargain to get a guilty verdict to a couple of the charges the Senator is facing, with the remainder being dropped and this whole thing will be swept under a rug.
It will leave Mr. Harper open to further accusations of a cover up but they will blow over and he will be spared the alternative.
The Harper government will not want to have any of Mr. Harper's inner circle having to testify under oath during any trial regarding the Senate Expense Scandal.
Mark my words, a prosecutor very friendly to the Conservative government will be appointed. He will offer Senator Duffy's lawyer a sweet plea bargain to get a guilty verdict to a couple of the charges the Senator is facing, with the remainder being dropped and this whole thing will be swept under a rug.
It will leave Mr. Harper open to further accusations of a cover up but they will blow over and he will be spared the alternative.
To all of the Bond Rating Agencies
And all of the other Conservative minded commentators bitching at Premier Wynne.
The guy that espoused your approach to the finances of Ontario lost and lost big.
So, stop trying to force Premier Wynne to follow that approach. That is not what Ontario voters voted for.
The guy that espoused your approach to the finances of Ontario lost and lost big.
So, stop trying to force Premier Wynne to follow that approach. That is not what Ontario voters voted for.
Friday, July 11, 2014
The Prostitution Hearings
I have been paying some attention to the hearings currently taking place regarding the new Prostitution Bill before Parliament and it has come as no surprise that much of the testimony has been against it. Most of that testimony asserts that the new Bill would make it very unsafe for sex workers and their customers.
Of course the Conservative government does not care. It is often forgotten because he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian. His caucus is dominated by them and the Reform wing of the Party, which currently holds sway over the whole of the CPC, is also dominated by them.
One thing that can be said about evangelical Christians is they are obsessed with sex. They are particularly obsessed with people having sex that is not approved by their very narrow view of morality. Same sex, premarital sex and sex for sale are anathema to them and they have no time for people who commit any of those "sins".
So of course they do not give a damn about the safety of sex workers or their customers. As far as they are concerned any harm that comes to them is a result of their immorality and they deserve whatever happens to them.
As well, the politics is pretty obvious. The Supreme Court decision was ideal for firing up the base and it gave the Harper government an opportunity to enhance its social conservative bonafides without opening up any big debates on more controversial issues such as abortion.
So will the new Bill survive the Supreme Court when it reaches there? No, but the Conservatives do not care. By the time it gets their an election will have happened so this issue can be safely punted into the future.
Governing for your base is a lousy way to govern but it has been the MO of this government so it should come as no surprise that they did it this time too.
Of course the Conservative government does not care. It is often forgotten because he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian. His caucus is dominated by them and the Reform wing of the Party, which currently holds sway over the whole of the CPC, is also dominated by them.
One thing that can be said about evangelical Christians is they are obsessed with sex. They are particularly obsessed with people having sex that is not approved by their very narrow view of morality. Same sex, premarital sex and sex for sale are anathema to them and they have no time for people who commit any of those "sins".
So of course they do not give a damn about the safety of sex workers or their customers. As far as they are concerned any harm that comes to them is a result of their immorality and they deserve whatever happens to them.
As well, the politics is pretty obvious. The Supreme Court decision was ideal for firing up the base and it gave the Harper government an opportunity to enhance its social conservative bonafides without opening up any big debates on more controversial issues such as abortion.
So will the new Bill survive the Supreme Court when it reaches there? No, but the Conservatives do not care. By the time it gets their an election will have happened so this issue can be safely punted into the future.
Governing for your base is a lousy way to govern but it has been the MO of this government so it should come as no surprise that they did it this time too.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
The Ontario Election
When the Ontario election was called I believed that it was Tim Hudak's to lose.
Up to this point it appears he is doing just that.
The sense that the people of Ontario want a change is palpable. It was not just evident in the recent polls saying as much it was evident in many other ways as well. So it is unexpected that such a sentiment has not become evident by manifesting itself as ever decreasing support for the Ontario Liberals. In fact, all of the polls that have been published in the last couple of weeks show the Liberals gaining strength not losing it. Even Ipsos, which has consistently indicated that the PCPO leads the OLP has shown that lead shrink from a substantial one to one that is within the margin of error. Other polls that showed the Liberals leading are indicating they are holding steady or even increasing the gap.
Incidentally, that is how you interpret the polls. Ignore the actual estimates as they are all over the place due to different polling methodologies. Instead look at the delta between polls from the same company to discern a trend. When you do that you see what I described above.
This is remarkable with only 10 days left in the campaign. Some would say that the reason is the voters are not paying attention but considering the desire for change that seems apparent that should not matter. If a pollster calls me and asks me who I am going to vote for and I happen to be one of those people who want change I have a perfect opportunity to tell someone what kind of change I am looking for. If 75% of Ontarians are indicating they want change it stands to reason that a pollster is going to have a proportional number of respondents who feel that way in their polling sample. Therefore, we should be seeing that manifest itself in the horse race numbers by now.
That has not happened yet so either the high desire for change that polls have been indicating since before the election call are wrong or people are looking at what kind of change is available and not liking it. That is not without precedent in the recent past, as the recent BC election demonstrates.
There are still 10 days before e-day so we could see that shift yet but it is interesting that it has not yet happened and that in fact there may be some evidence that the opposite is happening
Up to this point it appears he is doing just that.
The sense that the people of Ontario want a change is palpable. It was not just evident in the recent polls saying as much it was evident in many other ways as well. So it is unexpected that such a sentiment has not become evident by manifesting itself as ever decreasing support for the Ontario Liberals. In fact, all of the polls that have been published in the last couple of weeks show the Liberals gaining strength not losing it. Even Ipsos, which has consistently indicated that the PCPO leads the OLP has shown that lead shrink from a substantial one to one that is within the margin of error. Other polls that showed the Liberals leading are indicating they are holding steady or even increasing the gap.
Incidentally, that is how you interpret the polls. Ignore the actual estimates as they are all over the place due to different polling methodologies. Instead look at the delta between polls from the same company to discern a trend. When you do that you see what I described above.
This is remarkable with only 10 days left in the campaign. Some would say that the reason is the voters are not paying attention but considering the desire for change that seems apparent that should not matter. If a pollster calls me and asks me who I am going to vote for and I happen to be one of those people who want change I have a perfect opportunity to tell someone what kind of change I am looking for. If 75% of Ontarians are indicating they want change it stands to reason that a pollster is going to have a proportional number of respondents who feel that way in their polling sample. Therefore, we should be seeing that manifest itself in the horse race numbers by now.
That has not happened yet so either the high desire for change that polls have been indicating since before the election call are wrong or people are looking at what kind of change is available and not liking it. That is not without precedent in the recent past, as the recent BC election demonstrates.
There are still 10 days before e-day so we could see that shift yet but it is interesting that it has not yet happened and that in fact there may be some evidence that the opposite is happening
Monday, May 26, 2014
Want to win the next election Mr. Trudeau?
Then promise to work to make the Turks and Caicos Islands part of Canada in some way. Maybe not a province but a protectorate or a territory perhaps.
The idea of warm destination where Canadians can travel without worrying about Customs or converting their currency to the Yankee dollar would be welcome by many and it would put the Liberals over the top I believe.
There are only 30,000 of them and they are relatively wealthy so the economic burden on Canada would be light. Let them keep their open banking system but require them to give Canada a piece of that action and it would be a wash.
The advantages for them are incalculable.
Make it happen Mr. Trudeau!
The idea of warm destination where Canadians can travel without worrying about Customs or converting their currency to the Yankee dollar would be welcome by many and it would put the Liberals over the top I believe.
There are only 30,000 of them and they are relatively wealthy so the economic burden on Canada would be light. Let them keep their open banking system but require them to give Canada a piece of that action and it would be a wash.
The advantages for them are incalculable.
Make it happen Mr. Trudeau!
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Some form of Senate reform is still possible
In a decision that surprised no one the Supreme Court of Canada has essentially stated that no fundamental changes to the Senate can be made without the agreement of the provinces. That means no abolition, no changes to a Triple E Senate not even term limits and elected senators without an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, which is not going to happen.
So we are stuck with the Senate in its present form at least until Hell freezes over and the Toronto Maple Leafs win another Stanley Cup.
In an indication of just how shallow and desiccated our politics have become most of the reaction of the media to this news were the political implications of the decision on the Federal scene. Predictably, as I watched the "analysis" last night it shook out along partisan lines so it was pointless. The only interesting point was some statements by Conservative friendly groups demanding a referendum. That bears watching.
Much of the coverage indicated the Stephen Harper had "thrown in the towel" on Senate Reform and my watching of his reaction was they seem to be correct.
Does it really have to be that way?
Although there is no way to fundamentally change the Senate there is still leeway to make substantive changes around the conventions and practices of the Senate that are not covered by the Constitution, and there are a great many of them.
Not to be partisan but Mr. Trudeau did show us some ways of doing just that. Certainly the changes he made were for partisan purposes but they are examples of what can be done within the Constitution.
Could there not be a way of expanding on them?
Here is a thought, there is a broad consensus in this country that the Senate as it is now is broken. Would it be too much to ask for our political leaders to put aside their petty partisan concerns and actually sit down together with some of the more thoughtful Senators to come up with ways to improve the Senate in its current form?
There are many aspects that could be changed. For example:
So we are stuck with the Senate in its present form at least until Hell freezes over and the Toronto Maple Leafs win another Stanley Cup.
In an indication of just how shallow and desiccated our politics have become most of the reaction of the media to this news were the political implications of the decision on the Federal scene. Predictably, as I watched the "analysis" last night it shook out along partisan lines so it was pointless. The only interesting point was some statements by Conservative friendly groups demanding a referendum. That bears watching.
Much of the coverage indicated the Stephen Harper had "thrown in the towel" on Senate Reform and my watching of his reaction was they seem to be correct.
Does it really have to be that way?
Although there is no way to fundamentally change the Senate there is still leeway to make substantive changes around the conventions and practices of the Senate that are not covered by the Constitution, and there are a great many of them.
Not to be partisan but Mr. Trudeau did show us some ways of doing just that. Certainly the changes he made were for partisan purposes but they are examples of what can be done within the Constitution.
Could there not be a way of expanding on them?
Here is a thought, there is a broad consensus in this country that the Senate as it is now is broken. Would it be too much to ask for our political leaders to put aside their petty partisan concerns and actually sit down together with some of the more thoughtful Senators to come up with ways to improve the Senate in its current form?
There are many aspects that could be changed. For example:
- Developing a appointment process that reduces or even eliminates patronage.
- Measures to reduce the partisanship of the Senate.
- Mechanisms in place to ensure that Senators, once they are appointed, actually do the job.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
I was wrong
When the Quebec election began I truly believed that the PQ would win it and most likely a majority government. I even believed that after what was a rather bad first 7 days of the campaign. The reason was simple. I did not believe that Quebecers would elect another Liberal government just 18 months after turfing the scandal ridden Liberal government of Mr. Charest.
Of course this was all before the PQ conducted an election campaign which will appear in political science textbooks as a case study of how NOT to run an election campaign.
I watched some of the coverage on the CBC last night and after all of the drama was sucked out of evening they naturally turned to how this election would impact the federal scene. I do not believe any of them said anything of value on that issue because we just do not know. It was nice for them to speculate but they really did not add much to the understanding of what was happening last night.
About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Mr. Trudeau stated awhile ago that Quebecers would reject the Quebec Values Charter and they did. Then again, it could have been they just rejected Madame Marois and the Charter just went down with her.
At any rate Canada and Canadians benefitted the most from last night's results and I really do not care how they might have been politically beneficial to the federal leaders.
Of course this was all before the PQ conducted an election campaign which will appear in political science textbooks as a case study of how NOT to run an election campaign.
I watched some of the coverage on the CBC last night and after all of the drama was sucked out of evening they naturally turned to how this election would impact the federal scene. I do not believe any of them said anything of value on that issue because we just do not know. It was nice for them to speculate but they really did not add much to the understanding of what was happening last night.
About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Mr. Trudeau stated awhile ago that Quebecers would reject the Quebec Values Charter and they did. Then again, it could have been they just rejected Madame Marois and the Charter just went down with her.
At any rate Canada and Canadians benefitted the most from last night's results and I really do not care how they might have been politically beneficial to the federal leaders.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Some thoughts
Resignation of Mr. Flaherty: This is a man who inherited a $13 billion surplus from the last Liberal government and managed to turn it into a $20 billion dollar deficit in two years, during good economic times and before the 2008 recession. Squandering $33 billions in that amount of time takes talent, hard work and dedication. That fact should put everything else he did as Finance Minister into perspective.
Resignation of Alison Redford: She was probably the reason for the surprise win of the Alberta PCP a couple of years ago. Such a feat should have earned her some loyalty from her caucus and other bigwigs in the party but that was not the case. That might be why some of the statements from the announcement of her resignation was her giving the rhetorical middle finger to her former colleagues. I would not be surprised to see the PCPofA relegated to the Opposition benches next time, which really is where they should have gone the last time.
Stephen Harper: Just got owned by the SCC.
Quebec election: Still a lot of time to go but the election is not unfolding as Ms. Marois would have liked. She is still going to win, maybe even a majority government, but I imagine there is a fair amount of angst amongst the PQ election team at the moment. As well, it is probably becoming safer to say that the leader of the PLQ does not have to worry about his job after April 7. He has done a pretty good job for someone that has only been a party leader for about a year.
Liberal nomination battles: It always amazes me what Liberals fight each other about. They tie themselves in knots and make themselves look stupid for the most trivial of reasons. Here is a free piece of information for Liberals. None one cares how political parties pick their candidates. Really they don't, so why some Liberals have chosen this particular hill to die on just leaves me shaking my head. As well, to the Liberals of T-S you have no hope of winning that riding in any by-election anyway. There is no way the NDP is going to allow the riding last held by the wife of Jack Layton to get away from them. The amount of resources they will pour into that riding will be ridiculous.
Resignation of Alison Redford: She was probably the reason for the surprise win of the Alberta PCP a couple of years ago. Such a feat should have earned her some loyalty from her caucus and other bigwigs in the party but that was not the case. That might be why some of the statements from the announcement of her resignation was her giving the rhetorical middle finger to her former colleagues. I would not be surprised to see the PCPofA relegated to the Opposition benches next time, which really is where they should have gone the last time.
Stephen Harper: Just got owned by the SCC.
Quebec election: Still a lot of time to go but the election is not unfolding as Ms. Marois would have liked. She is still going to win, maybe even a majority government, but I imagine there is a fair amount of angst amongst the PQ election team at the moment. As well, it is probably becoming safer to say that the leader of the PLQ does not have to worry about his job after April 7. He has done a pretty good job for someone that has only been a party leader for about a year.
Liberal nomination battles: It always amazes me what Liberals fight each other about. They tie themselves in knots and make themselves look stupid for the most trivial of reasons. Here is a free piece of information for Liberals. None one cares how political parties pick their candidates. Really they don't, so why some Liberals have chosen this particular hill to die on just leaves me shaking my head. As well, to the Liberals of T-S you have no hope of winning that riding in any by-election anyway. There is no way the NDP is going to allow the riding last held by the wife of Jack Layton to get away from them. The amount of resources they will pour into that riding will be ridiculous.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Quel Surprise!
Well that did not take long. Early in the first week of the Quebec election campaign Ms. Marois had to give the usual non-answer to the question of whether she will hold a referendum if she wins a majority government. This has been a pattern for leaders of the PQ since the 1995 referendum loss.
You really cannot blame her.
There is an aging and shrinking minority of Quebecers who support independence as a matter of principle and they expect a PQ premier to make it happen. If Ms. Marois actually came out and stated that she would not hold a referendum because it is likely that she could not manufacture the "winning conditions" during a four year term there is a real threat that these people would stay home on election day and without them Ms. Marois loses.
Unfortunately for her, the broader Quebec society does not want another referendum and I would even say that at the moment they have no interest in independence. This applies not just to federalists but to many of those Quebecers who would describe themselves as Quebec nationalists. These folks care more about such things as the economy and other issues not having to do with independence and they do not want another round of divisive, acidic independence debates to divert attention away from those issues.
Hence the waffling on the referendum question from Ms. Marois.
Ms. Marois will probably win the election for the simple reason that Quebecers are probably not ready to hand the government back to the Quebec Liberals so soon after turfing them out. Enough Quebecers probably still believe that the Liberals have not had a sufficient enough time out from government yet.
So will Ms. Marois call a referendum if she wins a majority government? Probably not.
As I stated in my last post the next referendum, if it happens, will be the last regardless of the outcome and the PQ has to win it or they pretty much lose their reason for existence. In addition they will have to win a decisive enough victory in any referendum to prevent those who lost from using the Clarity Act to fight results
How can they do that? Pick a fight with the Feds? On what issue? Others before her tried but really there is just no issue out there that has the ability to fire up the passions of Quebecers enough for them to consider independence.
In addition, for any referendum to succeed the PQ must convince some of the ethnic groups around Montreal to back independence as the 1995 referendum demonstrated. There are just not enough Fracophone Quebecers willing to take the chance on independence to carry the day on their own. They need to convince some francophone ethnic groups as well.
That will be hard to do when the PQ is fighting an election on a Charter that essentially makes new Quebecers, particularly of non-European stock, second class citizens. If that Charter is passed the PQ can kiss any chance of these people supporting their pet project during a referendum.
Which is why I believe that if the PQ wins a majority government they will water down the Values Charter so much as to make it meaningless while Ms. Marois appoints her version of Jason Kenney to go out and woo the very people she is currently alienating.
Not that such measures will actually work to build enough support for independence within a useful enough time frame for the PQ.
Ms. Marois is trying to win a majority government, not because she particularly wants to have a referendum any time soon, but because that is what governments do in this country. If she is successful she will try to build a coalition of Quebecers who support independence but I would not bet too much money on her chances of success. Unfortunately, unless she can find an issue to fire the passions of Quebecers and she can convince enough new Quebecers to support independence she does not have much of a chance of succeeding.
You really cannot blame her.
There is an aging and shrinking minority of Quebecers who support independence as a matter of principle and they expect a PQ premier to make it happen. If Ms. Marois actually came out and stated that she would not hold a referendum because it is likely that she could not manufacture the "winning conditions" during a four year term there is a real threat that these people would stay home on election day and without them Ms. Marois loses.
Unfortunately for her, the broader Quebec society does not want another referendum and I would even say that at the moment they have no interest in independence. This applies not just to federalists but to many of those Quebecers who would describe themselves as Quebec nationalists. These folks care more about such things as the economy and other issues not having to do with independence and they do not want another round of divisive, acidic independence debates to divert attention away from those issues.
Hence the waffling on the referendum question from Ms. Marois.
Ms. Marois will probably win the election for the simple reason that Quebecers are probably not ready to hand the government back to the Quebec Liberals so soon after turfing them out. Enough Quebecers probably still believe that the Liberals have not had a sufficient enough time out from government yet.
So will Ms. Marois call a referendum if she wins a majority government? Probably not.
As I stated in my last post the next referendum, if it happens, will be the last regardless of the outcome and the PQ has to win it or they pretty much lose their reason for existence. In addition they will have to win a decisive enough victory in any referendum to prevent those who lost from using the Clarity Act to fight results
How can they do that? Pick a fight with the Feds? On what issue? Others before her tried but really there is just no issue out there that has the ability to fire up the passions of Quebecers enough for them to consider independence.
In addition, for any referendum to succeed the PQ must convince some of the ethnic groups around Montreal to back independence as the 1995 referendum demonstrated. There are just not enough Fracophone Quebecers willing to take the chance on independence to carry the day on their own. They need to convince some francophone ethnic groups as well.
That will be hard to do when the PQ is fighting an election on a Charter that essentially makes new Quebecers, particularly of non-European stock, second class citizens. If that Charter is passed the PQ can kiss any chance of these people supporting their pet project during a referendum.
Which is why I believe that if the PQ wins a majority government they will water down the Values Charter so much as to make it meaningless while Ms. Marois appoints her version of Jason Kenney to go out and woo the very people she is currently alienating.
Not that such measures will actually work to build enough support for independence within a useful enough time frame for the PQ.
Ms. Marois is trying to win a majority government, not because she particularly wants to have a referendum any time soon, but because that is what governments do in this country. If she is successful she will try to build a coalition of Quebecers who support independence but I would not bet too much money on her chances of success. Unfortunately, unless she can find an issue to fire the passions of Quebecers and she can convince enough new Quebecers to support independence she does not have much of a chance of succeeding.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Relax Folks, a Referendum has not been called
Since the PQ government in Quebec called the long anticipated election in that province commentators, both the ones who get paid to do it and the ones who do it just for fun, have been having conniptions at the prospect of a PQ majority government and a subsequent referendum. Many of these commentators put forward "analysis" on how this will impact the current players at the Federal level and they lament the fact that they cannot see any current federal leader who can really defend Canada.
They are getting way ahead of themselves.
First, the PQ has not won a majority government. Government is theirs to lose for certain but it is an open question whether the Quebec Charter can be sustained as the focus of the election for the whole of the campaign or whether some other issue, such as the dismal performance of the Quebec economy, crowds out that issue and thwarts their attempt at winning a majority government.
But let's say for the sake of argument that the PQ does win a majority of the seats on April 7. What then? Will we be looking at another referendum?
Not very soon if at all.
The next referendum, if it happens, will likely be the last regardless of the outcome. Most Quebecers, including that aging and dwindling cohort of Quebec society that supports Quebec independence as a matter of principle, knows that if they fail to win the next referendum that will be it. There will be no more after that. It will be a case of "three strikes and your out" because most Quebecers, of any language, will finally say enough is enough.
So, the next referendum, if it happens, has to be as sure of a thing as you can get in politics. It cannot be entered into on a whim or without a solid foundation of support for independence at the beginning of a campaign.
That solid foundation is nowhere near to be had. In fact, the appetite for independence is the lowest it has been in decades. It is going to take years to build that up to a tenable level of support, if it can be done at all.
So how does the PQ build this foundation? What issue does it use to do so?
In 1976 the PQ government had a century of anger and resentment at the English domination of Quebec to work with and they also had St. René to fight for it. The result was a dismal failure. In 1995 the PQ government had the recent memories of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords to work with and Mr. Bouchard. They came closer but they still failed.
What issue would the current PQ government have? The Quebec Charter? Some future fight they pick with the Federal government? The resentment of Quebec towards Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? Do any of these issues have what is necessary to build a solid and enduring foundation of support for independence? I do not think so and that is even before taking into account the fact that the one leading the independence side would be Pauline Marois.
One reason is the message from the 1995 referendum that taking Quebec out of Canada would be neither cheap nor easy has sunk in with Quebecers. Many Quebecers ignored this message in the heat of the 1995 campaign but after the fires cooled from that and they had some time for some sober second thought they realized the verity of those arguments. That is one of the reasons why support for independence plummeted so sharply in the years after 1995. It will take a very hot issue to convince Quebecers to endure the economic and societal disruptions an independence process will cause.
Then we have to consider the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference that preceded it.
Certainly, if they could a PQ government would ignore both after a successful campaign but if it is close and/or the referendum question is not that clear it will give those in Quebec ammunition to fight the result. As well, one unintended consequence of the Quebec Charter could be to convince those it targets to fight such a result because they have essentially been told that they are second class citizens in their home province.
In short, in order for the PQ to be truly successful they need to be able to go into another referendum with a rock solid majority of Quebecers supporting independence at the beginning of the campaign. That is probably a nearly impossible task and even if they can do it the task will take a great deal of time, certainly more time than the life of the current Federal government.
Who the current leaders of Federal parties are is not relevant to a future referendum. If we have one at all, it will be far enough into the future that the federal scene will be greatly changed.
We all need to take a deep breath and consider the great obstacles standing in the way of a PQ government intent of moving towards Quebec independence. Those obstacles could be insurmountable and even if they somehow succeed in doing so it is going to take a very long time. A Quebec referendum is not imminent so there is no need to become all freaked out.
They are getting way ahead of themselves.
First, the PQ has not won a majority government. Government is theirs to lose for certain but it is an open question whether the Quebec Charter can be sustained as the focus of the election for the whole of the campaign or whether some other issue, such as the dismal performance of the Quebec economy, crowds out that issue and thwarts their attempt at winning a majority government.
But let's say for the sake of argument that the PQ does win a majority of the seats on April 7. What then? Will we be looking at another referendum?
Not very soon if at all.
The next referendum, if it happens, will likely be the last regardless of the outcome. Most Quebecers, including that aging and dwindling cohort of Quebec society that supports Quebec independence as a matter of principle, knows that if they fail to win the next referendum that will be it. There will be no more after that. It will be a case of "three strikes and your out" because most Quebecers, of any language, will finally say enough is enough.
So, the next referendum, if it happens, has to be as sure of a thing as you can get in politics. It cannot be entered into on a whim or without a solid foundation of support for independence at the beginning of a campaign.
That solid foundation is nowhere near to be had. In fact, the appetite for independence is the lowest it has been in decades. It is going to take years to build that up to a tenable level of support, if it can be done at all.
So how does the PQ build this foundation? What issue does it use to do so?
In 1976 the PQ government had a century of anger and resentment at the English domination of Quebec to work with and they also had St. René to fight for it. The result was a dismal failure. In 1995 the PQ government had the recent memories of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords to work with and Mr. Bouchard. They came closer but they still failed.
What issue would the current PQ government have? The Quebec Charter? Some future fight they pick with the Federal government? The resentment of Quebec towards Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? Do any of these issues have what is necessary to build a solid and enduring foundation of support for independence? I do not think so and that is even before taking into account the fact that the one leading the independence side would be Pauline Marois.
One reason is the message from the 1995 referendum that taking Quebec out of Canada would be neither cheap nor easy has sunk in with Quebecers. Many Quebecers ignored this message in the heat of the 1995 campaign but after the fires cooled from that and they had some time for some sober second thought they realized the verity of those arguments. That is one of the reasons why support for independence plummeted so sharply in the years after 1995. It will take a very hot issue to convince Quebecers to endure the economic and societal disruptions an independence process will cause.
Then we have to consider the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference that preceded it.
Certainly, if they could a PQ government would ignore both after a successful campaign but if it is close and/or the referendum question is not that clear it will give those in Quebec ammunition to fight the result. As well, one unintended consequence of the Quebec Charter could be to convince those it targets to fight such a result because they have essentially been told that they are second class citizens in their home province.
In short, in order for the PQ to be truly successful they need to be able to go into another referendum with a rock solid majority of Quebecers supporting independence at the beginning of the campaign. That is probably a nearly impossible task and even if they can do it the task will take a great deal of time, certainly more time than the life of the current Federal government.
Who the current leaders of Federal parties are is not relevant to a future referendum. If we have one at all, it will be far enough into the future that the federal scene will be greatly changed.
We all need to take a deep breath and consider the great obstacles standing in the way of a PQ government intent of moving towards Quebec independence. Those obstacles could be insurmountable and even if they somehow succeed in doing so it is going to take a very long time. A Quebec referendum is not imminent so there is no need to become all freaked out.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Senators are already independent (At least they are supposed to be)
So Mr. Trudeau's words and actions to assert what is already supposed to be a reality is remarkable.
When I read my copy of the Canadian Constitution it is plain to see that the Senate of Canada is an independent Chamber of the Canadian Parliament. It is not an extension of the House of Commons. It does not answer to the House of Commons and it certainly does not answer to the government of the day. It has its own rules and conventions. The House of Commons cannot interfere with how the Senate is run and vice versa.
Of course almost a century of Parliamentary Convention has blurred those lines somewhat as successive Prime Ministers have used the Chamber as a place to reward loyal foot soldiers for their respective political parties who in turn looked out for the interests of those political parties while sitting in the Red Chamber. As well, the Parliamentary Caucuses for the Conservatives and Liberals have included the Senators of the day and in several cases Senators have been appointed to substantive Cabinet Posts. However, despite that the fundamental relationship between the two Chamber has not changed and Senators are still independent of their colleagues in the House.
Of course with the Conservative government those lines seems to have been blurred some more.
What really struck me about the Senate Expense Scandal was the level of involvement of the PMO in it. If the available documentation is to be believed the PMO was actually involved with the minutiae of a Senator's expense claims and the audit called to investigate them. As well, the PMOs fingerprints were all over the efforts to suspend Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin. It is remarkable that senior aides to the Prime Minister immersed themselves so deeply into the details of this whole affair.
As well, I was surprised that the Conservative leadership of the Senate allowed this to happen. Why they did not politely but firmly tell the PMO staff to get bent the first time they attempted to interfere with Senate business is beyond me. Incidentally, if they had done so Mr. Wright might still have a job in the PMO and Mr. Harper might not have had such a gruesome 2013 and probably an equally gruesome 2014.
As for the announcement itself the spin has been interesting.
Claims that it has been done because of an AG Report is deeply cynical because they assume that Canadians are idiots. This report is probably going to be bloody for both the Liberals and the Conservatives and Canadians are not going to forget that just a short time ago many of these Liberal Senators were members of the Liberal Caucus. This action will not insulate the Liberals from any political fallout of that report.
Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's actions did not change anything. The obvious response to that is of course it did not change anything. In order to actually change the Senate a constitutional amendment would be needed and leaving aside the lack of appetite for such actions the last time I looked the Leader of the Third Party cannot initiate actions to bring about that amendment. He is just doing what is in his power to do, which is not really that much in the grand scheme of things.
Related to that is the accusation that former Liberal Senators are still Senators that are Liberals and that they are still forming a Liberal Caucus. Of course they are. They were appointed as Liberals and they are members of the Liberal Party. Cutting ties with the Commons Liberal Caucus will not change that. As well, Senators are allowed to form any kinds of groups they want. If the wanted they could form all sorts of Caucuses. A Maritimes Caucus, a Western Caucus, a women's Caucus, whatever. Now Parliament has two Liberal Caucuses independent of each other. One in the House the other in the Senate. Big deal.
Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's plan to change how to select Senators will lead to gridlock. This claim is usually made by the same people who claim that Mr. Trudeau did not really change anything. Which just goes to show that in politics you can suck and blow at the same time. As stated earlier the fundamental relationship between the two Chambers has not changed and that means unelected Senators will not break with Parliamentary convention and defy the will of the elected House of Commons. They will do their job but in the end they will approve Commons bills. A new way of appointing unelected Senators will not change that.
Mr. Trudeau's actions are only extraordinary in the fact that he felt compelled to do them.
When I read my copy of the Canadian Constitution it is plain to see that the Senate of Canada is an independent Chamber of the Canadian Parliament. It is not an extension of the House of Commons. It does not answer to the House of Commons and it certainly does not answer to the government of the day. It has its own rules and conventions. The House of Commons cannot interfere with how the Senate is run and vice versa.
Of course almost a century of Parliamentary Convention has blurred those lines somewhat as successive Prime Ministers have used the Chamber as a place to reward loyal foot soldiers for their respective political parties who in turn looked out for the interests of those political parties while sitting in the Red Chamber. As well, the Parliamentary Caucuses for the Conservatives and Liberals have included the Senators of the day and in several cases Senators have been appointed to substantive Cabinet Posts. However, despite that the fundamental relationship between the two Chamber has not changed and Senators are still independent of their colleagues in the House.
Of course with the Conservative government those lines seems to have been blurred some more.
What really struck me about the Senate Expense Scandal was the level of involvement of the PMO in it. If the available documentation is to be believed the PMO was actually involved with the minutiae of a Senator's expense claims and the audit called to investigate them. As well, the PMOs fingerprints were all over the efforts to suspend Senators Brazeau, Duffy and Wallin. It is remarkable that senior aides to the Prime Minister immersed themselves so deeply into the details of this whole affair.
As well, I was surprised that the Conservative leadership of the Senate allowed this to happen. Why they did not politely but firmly tell the PMO staff to get bent the first time they attempted to interfere with Senate business is beyond me. Incidentally, if they had done so Mr. Wright might still have a job in the PMO and Mr. Harper might not have had such a gruesome 2013 and probably an equally gruesome 2014.
As for the announcement itself the spin has been interesting.
Claims that it has been done because of an AG Report is deeply cynical because they assume that Canadians are idiots. This report is probably going to be bloody for both the Liberals and the Conservatives and Canadians are not going to forget that just a short time ago many of these Liberal Senators were members of the Liberal Caucus. This action will not insulate the Liberals from any political fallout of that report.
Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's actions did not change anything. The obvious response to that is of course it did not change anything. In order to actually change the Senate a constitutional amendment would be needed and leaving aside the lack of appetite for such actions the last time I looked the Leader of the Third Party cannot initiate actions to bring about that amendment. He is just doing what is in his power to do, which is not really that much in the grand scheme of things.
Related to that is the accusation that former Liberal Senators are still Senators that are Liberals and that they are still forming a Liberal Caucus. Of course they are. They were appointed as Liberals and they are members of the Liberal Party. Cutting ties with the Commons Liberal Caucus will not change that. As well, Senators are allowed to form any kinds of groups they want. If the wanted they could form all sorts of Caucuses. A Maritimes Caucus, a Western Caucus, a women's Caucus, whatever. Now Parliament has two Liberal Caucuses independent of each other. One in the House the other in the Senate. Big deal.
Then there is the claim that Mr. Trudeau's plan to change how to select Senators will lead to gridlock. This claim is usually made by the same people who claim that Mr. Trudeau did not really change anything. Which just goes to show that in politics you can suck and blow at the same time. As stated earlier the fundamental relationship between the two Chambers has not changed and that means unelected Senators will not break with Parliamentary convention and defy the will of the elected House of Commons. They will do their job but in the end they will approve Commons bills. A new way of appointing unelected Senators will not change that.
Mr. Trudeau's actions are only extraordinary in the fact that he felt compelled to do them.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Remember when Canada supported nuclear disarmament?
The reaction of the Harper government to the nuclear deal with Iran is astounding.
A government that was under suspicion of developing nuclear weapons has agreed not to do so and it has also agreed to greater oversight than what is already required as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Further the deal was made with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, which is a great deal of diplomatic firepower.
The Canadian government should be happy about this agreement. Instead they pretty much came about against it. Why? Because they apparently do not trust Iran to live up to it. That for them is a reason not to support with the agreement.
You know the same concerns were voiced by many about the different SALT agreements in the 1970s and '80s. The Soviets could not be trusted they said but wiser heads prevailed and agreements to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world were agreed to, enacted and implemented. The confidence building measures between the two superpowers worked and they probably contributed to the rise of Mr. Gorbachev to the leadership of the Soviet Union instead of someone more reactionary. In short, those two agreements contributed to the world stepping away from the nuclear brink.
Of course the agreement with Iran is only a first step and it will probably not lead to a greater thaw in and of itself but it could be a step towards that. As well, Iran will need to be watched to make certain it lives up to its side of the agreement but you only need to look at their negotiating partners to see that they will have a great deal of difficulty hiding any move to cheat. Most of those powers are not new at negotiated and enforcing nuclear deals.
This agreement should be greeted with cautious optimism from any country that strives for peace, which should include Canada, as a middle power watching its influence in the world steadily drain away. Instead we get the stupidity that was demonstrated by Mr. Baird and by extension Mr. Harper on the weekend.
A government that was under suspicion of developing nuclear weapons has agreed not to do so and it has also agreed to greater oversight than what is already required as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Further the deal was made with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, which is a great deal of diplomatic firepower.
The Canadian government should be happy about this agreement. Instead they pretty much came about against it. Why? Because they apparently do not trust Iran to live up to it. That for them is a reason not to support with the agreement.
You know the same concerns were voiced by many about the different SALT agreements in the 1970s and '80s. The Soviets could not be trusted they said but wiser heads prevailed and agreements to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world were agreed to, enacted and implemented. The confidence building measures between the two superpowers worked and they probably contributed to the rise of Mr. Gorbachev to the leadership of the Soviet Union instead of someone more reactionary. In short, those two agreements contributed to the world stepping away from the nuclear brink.
Of course the agreement with Iran is only a first step and it will probably not lead to a greater thaw in and of itself but it could be a step towards that. As well, Iran will need to be watched to make certain it lives up to its side of the agreement but you only need to look at their negotiating partners to see that they will have a great deal of difficulty hiding any move to cheat. Most of those powers are not new at negotiated and enforcing nuclear deals.
This agreement should be greeted with cautious optimism from any country that strives for peace, which should include Canada, as a middle power watching its influence in the world steadily drain away. Instead we get the stupidity that was demonstrated by Mr. Baird and by extension Mr. Harper on the weekend.
By-elections
I know it is great fun to talk about them but tonight's by-elections will not decide any great political questions in this country.
When it is all over Stephen Harper will still be leading a majority Conservative government. Mr. Mulclair will still be the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals will still be the Third Party.
All will have more or less the same seat count as right now.
That of course will not stop commentators, professional or otherwise, from spinning them like a tornado but that is all it will be.
2015 will be the real deal and we will see what happens then.
When it is all over Stephen Harper will still be leading a majority Conservative government. Mr. Mulclair will still be the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals will still be the Third Party.
All will have more or less the same seat count as right now.
That of course will not stop commentators, professional or otherwise, from spinning them like a tornado but that is all it will be.
2015 will be the real deal and we will see what happens then.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Admired no, be impressed with, absolutely
So the Conservatives and their supporters in the media are making a little political hay from a statement Mr. Trudeau made a few days ago about China. His remarks seemed innocuous enough but you would think by the reaction from the Conservatives that Mr. Trudeau suggested Canada follow the Chinese model.
Of course that is BS and all the reaction does is demonstrate that the Conservatives' internal polling is telling them what the public polls have been saying for months. Mr. Trudeau is a real threat to win the next election.
Buried by all of the Conservative hyper-ventilating is a real assessment of the country of China.
Let's remember that 20 years ago China was a poor country. The size of its economy was not even in the top ten. Now it is the second largest economy in the world and it is on a trajectory to overtake the largest economy by the end of this decade.
To put that in perspective, the Communist dictatorship in China is beating the entire capitalist democratic world at their own game.
That is a remarkable achievement.
No one can admire a government that slaughtered 100s or even 1000s of its citizens for the temerity of demanding democratic reforms but objectively speaking one can be impressed with how they have guided one of the fastest economic expansions in history and how that expansion shows little sign of abating any time soon.
As well, with economic power comes political power so Canada and other democratic countries better begin to come to grips with some of the implications of that. In all likelihood the Chinese government will frown upon any western government that makes any comments they do not like and with political power will come the ability to demonstrate that dislike in tangible ways against the offending government. Very soon, gone will be the days that Canada or any other western government will be able to lecture the Chinese government on its human rights record without suffering a heavy price for it, one that would probably have a significant economic impact in the offending country.
Mr. Trudeau's statement was questionable but it could have elicited a reaction from his opponents that could have advanced the understanding of the new dynamic that is shaping up in the international community. Imagine, if the Conservatives would have made nuanced statements that caused debate on how to handle that and informed Canadians of the pending new reality. It would have been in the public interest.
Instead they went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and that moment was lost. Not that I was expecting anything different.
Of course that is BS and all the reaction does is demonstrate that the Conservatives' internal polling is telling them what the public polls have been saying for months. Mr. Trudeau is a real threat to win the next election.
Buried by all of the Conservative hyper-ventilating is a real assessment of the country of China.
Let's remember that 20 years ago China was a poor country. The size of its economy was not even in the top ten. Now it is the second largest economy in the world and it is on a trajectory to overtake the largest economy by the end of this decade.
To put that in perspective, the Communist dictatorship in China is beating the entire capitalist democratic world at their own game.
That is a remarkable achievement.
No one can admire a government that slaughtered 100s or even 1000s of its citizens for the temerity of demanding democratic reforms but objectively speaking one can be impressed with how they have guided one of the fastest economic expansions in history and how that expansion shows little sign of abating any time soon.
As well, with economic power comes political power so Canada and other democratic countries better begin to come to grips with some of the implications of that. In all likelihood the Chinese government will frown upon any western government that makes any comments they do not like and with political power will come the ability to demonstrate that dislike in tangible ways against the offending government. Very soon, gone will be the days that Canada or any other western government will be able to lecture the Chinese government on its human rights record without suffering a heavy price for it, one that would probably have a significant economic impact in the offending country.
Mr. Trudeau's statement was questionable but it could have elicited a reaction from his opponents that could have advanced the understanding of the new dynamic that is shaping up in the international community. Imagine, if the Conservatives would have made nuanced statements that caused debate on how to handle that and informed Canadians of the pending new reality. It would have been in the public interest.
Instead they went for the cheap "gotcha" moment and that moment was lost. Not that I was expecting anything different.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Stephen Harper is becoming unglued
I have argued in this space before that the best way for the Liberals to defeat Mr. Harper was to cause him to go off script.
Mr. Harper does not ad lib worth a damn. He always gets himself into deeper and deeper trouble when he does. That has been proven in the past and it is being proven with Harper Senate Scandal.
Of course, since 2006 the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP have utterly failed to make Mr. Harper ad lib. They barely ruffled his feathers.
So it is ironic that he who has caused Mr. Harper to go so far off script recently is a Conservative and one of Mr. Harper's chosen men.
Mr. Harper does not ad lib worth a damn. He always gets himself into deeper and deeper trouble when he does. That has been proven in the past and it is being proven with Harper Senate Scandal.
Of course, since 2006 the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP have utterly failed to make Mr. Harper ad lib. They barely ruffled his feathers.
So it is ironic that he who has caused Mr. Harper to go so far off script recently is a Conservative and one of Mr. Harper's chosen men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)