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. 

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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!

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:

• 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.

The Senate can be substantively changed but it would require true leadership from those who would call themselves our leaders.  I wonder if any of them will rise to the challenge.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Egypt's Non-Revolution

By staging a coup the military in Egypt crushed any hope of a democratic Egypt, a democratic Middle East.

There are many commentators in the West, both professional and amateur, who have put forth the opinion that the coup was necessary.  Their argument goes something like this.  Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, although they won a reasonably free and fair election, were not pursuing a democratic agenda.  Indeed, their actions were leading to a dictatorship and that Mr. Morsi would make certain that the election that made him president would be the last election Egypt would ever have.  Some even trotted out the old chestnut that Hitler was elected in free elections and we all know how that turned out.

This would have been a legitimate concern if Mr. Morsi had come to power after an actual revolution in Egypt.  However, no revolution took place.  A revolution always results in the old political order being destroyed to be replaced by a new political order.  That is, the old ruling class loses all or most of its political power and the power vacuum that creates is filled by a new ruling class.  That did not happen in Egypt.  The mass peaceful uprising of 2012 did not result in the replacement of the old and current Egyptian ruling class.  It did convince them that a change had to be made so they threw Hosni Mubarak and his son under a bus and held free elections to actually prevent a real revolution and to preserve themselves as the ruling elite in Egypt, not to have themselves replaced. 

They were successful.  We only need to see how the coup unfolded to see that.  In most revolutions the old ruling class tends to make one final attempt, a last gasp, to hang onto power but it always fails miserably and often spectacularly.  That did not happen in Egypt.  When the military moved they were so successful that the removal of Mr. Morsi and the installation of a new government was seamless.  It was only the aftermath that become messy.  The old ruling class still held all of the important levers of power and when they decided to use them Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were helpless to stop them.

So the argument that Mr. Morsi was setting himself up as a new dictator is flat wrong.  He never had that power and he would never have achieved the power necessary to do it.  He could have nibbled around the edges but the fundamental power structure of Egypt would not have changed.  Any attempt by him to prevent further elections would have been thwarted if he would have tried.

Oh yes, Hitler did win free elections in 1933.  However, the Germany of the 1930s was what was left over after a revolution that swept the old guard of the Kaiser and his ministers from political power and replaced it with not much.  There was a virtual power vacuum in that country when Hitler won his election so there was no state apparatus to prevent him from seizing absolute power a few years later.  There is no parallel between Germany in the 1930s and Egypt in 2013 so any comparison of them is specious.

It is true that Mr. Morsi was pursuing an agenda that was not very liberal or democratic but as the duly elected president of the country that was his right.  Just because many disagreed with it does not justify his forcible removal.  If that was a valid criteria for forcibly removing a duly elected government there would be no democracy on the planet let alone Egypt. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Morsi he was very inept at pursuing his agenda because he managed to alienate every ally that the Muslim Brotherhood had gained over the years in its struggle against the current ruling elite.  It is a tragic irony that if the Egyptian ruling class would have let things progress as they were progressing Mr. Morsi would have probably lost his job to an internal Muslim Brotherhood revolt as many in that party would have realized just what kind of damage he was doing to their political movement.  Democracy might have been preserved.  But then again, the current ruling elite in Egypt has much less interest in preserving democracy in that country than that which Mr. Morsi is accused of so they moved to crush it when the opportunity presented itself.

That is all a moot point now.  The Muslim Brotherhood feels that it has been betrayed.  Not just by the ruling class of Egypt but by the democrats and Coptic Christians that allied with them to bring down Hosni Mubarak.  They probably feel that those groups were more than happy to piggy back on the organizational strength of their movement but then quickly abandoned them when the military moved to replace them in government.

And there in lies the real tragedy of all of this.  Those that would bring democracy to Egypt are not of sufficient number and organization to do it themselves.  They need a partner.  The only other two sectors of Egyptian society with sufficient muscle they can partner with are the current ruling class or the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now neither will have any incentive to work with them.  The ruling class because they have no interest in changing a system that grants them great privilege and the Muslim Brotherhood because they will believe the liberal democrats cannot be trusted.

Indeed, in all likelihood the Muslim Brotherhood will probably resort of increased violence, not just against the rulers of Egypt but against those they believe betrayed them, which is going to force the liberal democrats into the sphere of the ruling class just to find protection from the Muslim Brotherhood. 

We are already seeing this.  If anybody really believes that the attacks on the Coptic Churches are just about religion they are mistaken.  That is one reason but the main reason is probably vengeance at the perceived betrayal by them of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The dream of a democratic Egypt is dead and it takes the dream of democracy spreading through the Arab world with it.  The fate of the Morsi government will not be lost on other Islamists in the broader Middle East so they will continue to try to gain power by other means.

It would only be fair

When it was alleged that an aide to Dalton McGuinty had deleted e-mails regarding the gas plant decision Conservative commentators howled and continue to howl in outrage over the allegations.  You would think that Mr. McGuinty had been revealed to be a reptilian kitten eater or something.

So can we now expect the same outrage from these Conservative commentators now that it has been alleged that Senator Wallin changed hundreds of entries regarding her travel schedule in her Outlook account during the audit of her travel expenses? 

Both could be construed as attempts to cover up wrong doing. 

My question is rhetorical of course.  I already know the answer. 

Full disclosure.  I do not believe that either Mr. McGuinty's aide or the Senator intentionally attempted to hide anything.  Their actions were not taken for some nefarious reason.  In all likelihood they probably did not really think that much about their actions at all.  I have read the explanations from the two of them and in both cases they are logical.  In the case of the McGuinty aide, he was out of a job so it made sense to clean out your e-mail before leaving your office.  I have had to do that on a number of occasions myself.  As for the Senator, cleaning up your schedule to facilitate an audit, seemingly at the request of the auditor and after being told that the original full schedule had been backed up and delivered to the auditor, seems reasonable. 

Some mid-summer thoughts

It has been a busy summer and blogging has been down on my list of priorities but I have been paying attention and I thought I would comment on some of the things that have been going on the past few months.

Ontario by-elections:  The reading of the entrails from last night has begun and the instant conclusions of the chattering class is falling along ideological/partisan lines a usual.  I am always amused at the attempt to read something bigger into by-elections than what is really there.  Cutting through all of the spin the political situation in Ontario has not changed.  The Liberals are the governing party, with a minority government, the PCs are the Official Opposition and the NDP are still the third party.  Beyond that, the rest is just spin.

The next Ontario General Election:  Will be lost by the Liberals.  Voter fatigue with them has just reach a level where it will take a miracle for them to win again.  This was true before the by-elections and it is still true.  The next premier of Ontario will be Mr. Hudak.  Ms. Horvath is popular but her party is not.  The Orange Wave that swept Quebec did not carry over into Ontario.  There are still enough centre and centre-right Ontarians who remember the Bob Rae government and who will pick whichever of the Liberals or the PCs they believe will prevent an NDP government if that threat materializes.  People say that Mr. Hudak is too unpopular to win an election but they said the same thing about Mr. Harper.  So the only question is whether Mr. Hudak wins a majority or a minority.  If progressives want to guarantee it is a minority they should begin hammering at his promise to pass "Right-to-Work" legislation.  The idea of adopting failed Republican policies in this province would probably not go down very well in many parts of the province and it may just hold Mr. Hudak to a minority.

Mr. Trudeau and Pot:  Agree or disagree with his position but the fact he took one on a controversial issue instead of obfuscating and generally trying to avoid saying anything is quite refreshing.  It has been a long time since I saw any politician take a clear stand on such a charged issue.

Eastern Pipeline:  All I can say is it is about freaking time!  There are countless pipelines heading south out of Alberta.  So much so that there is a glut of Alberta oil in the US driving down the price being paid for Alberta oil way below market value.  Meanwhile, us folks in the East are pumping gasoline that originated overseas into our gas tanks.  Or, perversely, importing gasoline that has been refined in the United States that started out as Alberta oil.  It is the height of stupidity that we export raw crude to the US only to import the refined fuels that are produced from those exports.  If this Eastern pipeline will allow us to process more of Canada's energy resources in Canada then let's do it, after a thorough and fair environmental impact assessment of course.

Egypt:  The ruling class of Egypt must be very grateful that Mr. Morsi was such an incompetent boob while in government.  He gave them the excuse they were looking for to reestablish control without too great of a political backlash.  I believed nothing would change in that country and sadly I was right.

The US snooping scandal:  The naiveté of Americans to be surprised that their government was snooping on them is astounding.  Really did they believe after the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that there would not be greater surveillance of American society?  The other consideration is the American people probably do not have any concept of just how much data is being produced out there now.  It is not called Big Data for nothing.  There is no way that all of that data can be examined by human eyes.  It is being examined and reexamined by computers and an extremely small percentage of it is making it to a computer monitor of a human being.  So no American has to worry about "Big Brother" finding out about their elicit affair with their administrative assistant or their plan to defraud their company investors.  The computers are not programmed to spit that kind of activity out to a human analyst.

Federal Cabinet Shuffle:  Yawn.  The most interesting part of that was the widely held view amongst the paid political punditry that the Cabinet Shuffle would be an opportunity for Stephen Harper to change the tone of his government.  Not hardly!  Mr. Harper has realized great success by being a prick and he is not going to change a winning formula just because a scandal and the political honeymoon of one of his political opponents have driven his polling numbers down, especially when it happens smack in the middle of a four year majority mandate.  He will continue to be a prick. He will begin 2015 by donning a sweater vest and showing off his so far unknown dancing skills and he will relentlessly attack his opponents. Meanwhile Mr. Flaherty will pull the same stunt he pulled in Ontario and misplace the Federal government deficit in 2015.  Mr. Harper will do all of this and hope that it can overcome the voter fatigue that is setting in towards his government and which should be well entrenched by the next election.     

The Myth of Free Trade

There is no such thing as free trade.  Real free trade would be the free flow of goods within and across borders with restrictions that only deal with health and safety. 

Instead what we get is what is known as managed trade where countries negotiate what goods can cross their borders.  In other words, countries negotiate deals that codify protectionism and then trumpet to those who have to live with the consequences that they achieved a great deal.

Although free trade proponents will claim that free trade agreements are good for the economies of the signing countries the empirical evidence to back that up is rather lacking.  However, the evidence that such deals can do harm to sectors of an economy or even the whole economy of a signatory is more compelling.  We only need to look at the hollowing out of the industrial capacity of North America to see that at work.

This line of thought came up because I read earlier this week that the Harper government has ordered its negotiators for the Canada-EU free trade talks to have a deal this month.  These talks have been stumbling along for months without a conclusion being close but now Mr. Harper would like to a deal in three weeks.

The reason for this, according to several commentators that I have read, is Mr. Harper is desperate to find something to change the channel on the Senate Expense Scandal.

If this is true I cannot think of anything more at odds with the interests of Canadians.  You have to wonder just what parts of the Canadian economy Canadian negotiators are selling out in order to provide Mr. Harper a way out of the mess created by his Senate appointees. 

Free Trade deals are usually not worth the paper they are written on but this next one presented by our government, I am certain with great fanfare, will require a greater than usual level of scrutiny than other deals of this nature.

Conservative Scandals

For political junkies like myself it has been fun to watch the scandals unfolding in Toronto and Ottawa in the past few weeks.

The Ford scandal has been surreal.  Who would have ever thought that a politician in Canada would get involved in a drug scandal?

The Senate scandal is much more mundane.  That just involves ordinary money and really not that much of it either.  It is true that when they get around to investigating the expense claims of Senator Wallin the amounts will be more substantial but considering I can fly Air Canada to Orlando for around $400 return but it will cost me almost $900 return to fly to Halifax her expense claims could very well be plausible.

Although I have tried I cannot get really worked up over these scandals.  I find them interesting case studies in political crisis management but on a more personal level my reaction has been "Meh".

The Ford scandal does not concern me because it is occurring in Toronto.  It does not effect me here in Ottawa.  I know some Torontonians like to think their city is the centre of the world but.... This is something the people of Toronto will have to figure out on their own.

The Senate scandal does not concern me that much either because the kind of behavior that caused it is part of the human condition.  People have been using their positions for personal gain ever since we, as a species, began to form civilizations.  This kind of behavior cuts across partisan lines.  It is a function of having power.

Of course, that does not mean that the partisan in me is not enjoying watching Stephen Harper and his government twisting in the wind over this.

So will these scandals have any political impacts?

In Toronto who knows.  This is the same city where a sizable number of its citizens have been supporting a hockey team despite nearly half-a-century of futility.  There is no telling how the people of Toronto will finally react to the Ford scandal.

As for the Senate scandal it can be stated that it is absolutely having an impact on the Conservatives.  Despite their relative insignificance in the grand scheme of things these kinds of scandals are the ones that convince non-partisan voters, who supported the governing party in the last election or two, to rethink that support.  These are the types of scandals that begin convincing those voters that it is time to change the government.  Combine that with the fact the Conservatives have been in power for seven years, usually a time when voter fatigue with governments begin to solidify, and you have a recipe for electoral disaster for the Conservatives.

Not that it is guaranteed that they are doomed.  There is nothing to prevent these non-partisan voters from deciding in two years to stick with the Conservatives.  There are too many variables to consider.  However, Conservatives do have to be concerned about the scandal.  It has the potential to become a tipping point and if that happens the Conservatives will likely lose the next election.

The Air Cadet Gliding Program

I fly gliders as a hobby.  I learned how to do so 30 years ago by attending the Gliding Scholarship Course offered by the Air Cadets.  That course is part of the Air Cadet Gliding Program, a program that has been awarding glider licences to about 300 kids a year for about 50 years.

Many of these kids then participate in the Spring and Fall programs of the ACGP to build time and nurture their passion for flying.  Many like me will devote years to the program during these seasons (30 years for me) taking young Air Cadets up in the air to introduce them to gliding and to encourage them to attend the Glider Scholarship Course when they reach their 16th birthday.

You may recall Rick Mercer did a segment on this in the Fall when he visited a gliding centre in Alberta. 

Did I mention that all of this is free of charge for the kids?

I mention this because on the weekend it was revealed that the military is considering cutting this wonderful program as a cost cutting exercise and I seek anybody's assistance to convince them that such action would be a colossal mistake.  Many of us who are either still participating in the program or who participated in it in the past have started a Facebook Page to save the program and it has grown to over 11,000 members since Saturday but we still need to find other ways to put pressure on the military and its political masters to realize the program is extremely valuable.  It only costs around $25 million dollars a year to run, which is a rounding error in an $18 billion dollar defence budget.

We have made a good start as Peter Mackey has received questions two days running about this issue during QP but that is just the beginning.  We need to launch a sustained effort to stop this decision if we are to be successful.

Many Canadians have benefited from it and Canada has as well.  Countless airline and military pilots discovered and nurtured their passion for flying in Air Cadet Gliders.  Many Snowbird pilots, the pilot who landed the 767 in Gimli Manitoba when it ran out of fuel a few years ago, Chris Hadfield and even Peter Mackay's wife have benefited from this program.  In short its cost is a pittance in the grand scheme of the Defence budget but its value is incalculable. 

I would urge anyone who cares about saving a youth program that has been a resounding success for half-a-century to take whatever steps you think would be appropriate to help us save it.

The Liberal Ads

No one likes a prick.

And from a political standpoint the Conservatives have been just that.  For years they have made politics personal.  In any other environment if Stephen Harper would have orchestrated the negative, personal campaigns against colleagues that he did against Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff he would have been in trouble.  He would have faced consequences at his job, he would have faced legal consequences and he might even have had to use his body to cash all of the cheques his mouth wrote.

However, politics is not the real world.  While it seemed counter-intuitive that these negative, personal attacks would be effective they were and the reason for that was the targets of these campaigns never effectively responded to them.  Both Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff waited weeks and months before responding to Conservative attacks on them and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that was perceived as weakness, which is a killer in politics.

I do not know of anyone who voted for the Conservatives because they liked them or Mr. Harper.  But they voted for them anyway.  The reason is evident.  In politics being seen as a prick is better than being seen as weak.

Unfortunately, that has a built in trap.  If very few people actually like you it does come back to bite you on the ass eventually.

That is the reason why I find the Liberal English ad rather clever.  The first few seconds of the ad reminds the viewer of why they do not like the Conservatives.  They are pricks.  Then the ad tries to demonstrate that Mr. Trudeau is much more likeable or to put it another way, he is not a prick.

It is an interesting strategy and I would think a good one at this stage of the game.  If, in the next few months, they can keep reminding Canadians of why they do not like the Conservatives in general and Mr. Harper in particular while showing Mr. Trudeau as being a likeable and affable kind of guy they could go a long way towards making the next election very interesting and competitive.

Only the fullness of time will tell us how effective the Liberal ads are but they are a rather clever opening salvo.

Justin Trudeau and Negative Advertizing

When Pierre Trudeau died Canadians waited in their 10s of thousands, for 3 to 4 hours at a time, for their chance to pay their respects during his time of lying in state.  I was one of them.  I decided to wait until closer to the end of the week thinking that the crowds would have thinned by then but I was wrong.  I still waited over three hours for my opportunity to stand for a few seconds before his flag draped coffin and pay my respects.

I mention this as it demonstrates that the Trudeau name is respected and to a certain extent revered, particularly amongst the 45+ set, who happen to be the one demographic that still votes regularly. 

With this in mind and the fact Justin Trudeau seems to be quite popular amongst the under 30 crowd I do not believe that the Conservatives negative ad campaign will have much of an impact in the short to medium term.  Most of those over 45 will probably give him the benefit of the doubt because of his name and those under 30 who already support him will not change their minds because of two or three Conservative ads. 

What Liberals have to worry about with regard to these ads is they could set up an "I told you so" moment in the future if Mr. Trudeau stumbles badly and/or often going forward. 

As well, Liberals are dreaming if they expect that these ads will cause a backlash against the Conservatives.  This is the Conservative MO.  Canadians are probably not going to react with a wave of revulsion or anger because they have seen it all before.  Instead we will probably see a collective shrug from Canadians.

Not that Conservatives can take too much solace from that.  It is inevitable that Canadians will turn on the Conservatives at some point.  It happens to every government and they will be no different.  When that happens the usual reaction is to "go negative".  Unfortunately, Canadians will be less likely to hear that message because they would have been hearing it since the Conservatives came to power and would dismiss it as more of the same.  Indeed, at some point such advertising could just fuel a "throw the bums out" sentiment as it reminds Canadians of one of the reasons they finally turned on the Conservatives.

If Justin Trudeau can keep his feet under him in the coming months these ads will be forgotten.  If not then the true impact of them will be felt long after they have gone off the air.

Falling to Second World Status

My last post was lamenting the decline of the Middle Class in the industrialized west, particularly within the old G7 states, which includes Canada.  I mentioned that such a situation existed because governments and corportations within those states made a conscious decision to reverse the policies and practices that lead to one of the greatest economic expansions in history and one the greatest expansions of the Middle Class in history.  I further stated that the reason for that economic expansion was the rise of the Middle Class and the decision to reverse it has great impliciations for the industrialized west.

This is particularly true since while the G7 countries have been allowing their middle classes to decline all of the emerging economies are taking steps to build theirs up.  It should come as no surprise that such countries as China, India, Brazil, and Mexico are seeing their economies grow and prosper.  They are essentially following in the footsteps that the G7 set down in the 30 years after the end of the Second World War.  They are pursuing policies that are allowing their citizens to take full advantage of the economic booms these countries are enjoying and that in turn is continuing to fuel those booms.

The result is the emerging economies and the economies of the G7 are heading in different directions and the gap between them is closing very fast.

This should be a concern to the ruling classes of the G7.  With economic power comes political power and it is only a matter of time before the newly dominent economies will begin using that power, probably to the detriment of the political interests of the old guard.  Once that power shift is complete alot of things will change in many place, such as, the Middle East, Korea, Africa, South and Latin America.  And no telling how things will change in such areas as trade, nuclear proliferation and climate change politics.

The business classes of the G7 should be very worried as well.  The world industrial capacity is shifting to the emerging economies and history has demonstrated that he who holds the advantage in industrial capacity holds the power to control the financial and economic levers of the world.  It remains to be seen if these new powers will be as liberal and as enlightened as the old guard was when it found itself in control of the global economy.

As I stated in my previous post corporations in the G7 are now dependant on the emerging economies for their business health.  The middle classes of the G7 countries have declined so much that they can no longer sustain those corporations on their own. 

That is a very precarious situation to be in because the emerging economies are building industries that are in direct competition to Western corporations.  For example both China and India are in the process of developing their own auto industries and Brazil has a civilian aerospace industry to rival that of any G7 country.  It is only a matter of time before these industries begin squeezing out the foreign industries in these countries, particularly since the new political power these countries are beginning to enjoy will insulate them from any backlash to policies that protect these domestic industries in their countries.  Once that happens the foreign markets that have been sustaining Western corporations will disappear and without domestic markets to take up the slack, that will be that.

During the Cold War we all heard about Second World countries.  These were wealthy countries that just were not on the same level as the G7.  The thing holding them back was a lack of a middle class.  They were countries that had very wealthy ruling elites, while their broader populations were poor, often desperately so.  As well, the key thing about all of these countries is they were powerless within the international economy.  They were wholly dependent on the good will of the First World for maintaining their status as wealthy countries.  If it were not for the liberal trade and economic policies pursued by the First World these Second World countries would have fallen to Third World status.

That is the direction the G7 countries are headed.  It is only a matter of time before they become the Second World countries if current trends continue.  We are already seeing the characteristics of that status manifest itself in these countries.  Wealth being more and more concentrated in a very small percentage of the population while more and more "ordinary people" slip into genteel destitution.  What industrial capacity that remains in these countries are now dependent on the economic decisions of countries where they do not have an effective voice so they are dependent on the goodwill of those countries to sustain that capacity.  The politics in these countries has become less about working for the greater good and more about keeping your "base" happy and motivated.

It is the shortsightedness of the current ruling classes in the G7 that have brought us to this point.  It has put us on a path that will lead to all but the very few and the very priviledged being much poorer and much more desperate.  The trend will not be reversed before it actually happens because too many people believe that it cannot happen to them until it actually does or worse they suffer under the delusion that they will be one of the lucky few so they keep agreeing with those that are destroying the middle class.

Eventually, people will wake up and realize what is happening but by then it will be too late.  At that point even if the ruling elites were willing to risk their wealth and priviledges they would be powerless to change the situation until the new economic powers begin their inevitable decline, which would probably not happen before the end of this century.