Far and Wide

The Dope On Marijuana

2012-02-01T08:30:00.001-05:00

Perhaps more interesting than the Liberals- at least their assembled delegates- advocating legalization of marijuana, has been the reaction to said passage. I sense some hostility, revolving around the notion that Liberals are misguided to highlight this issue, when so many other "top of mind" concerns exist with the electorate. That's your big idea Liberals, legalizing pot, really, that's all you've come up with? Fair in one sense, last time I checked legalizing pot doesn't register on the "top issues" front. However, rather than elevate this proposal to centerpiece status, why not look at it as merely a potential plank within a larger narrative, because the position does have tentacles.

Liberals will never best Conservatives on the "tough on crime" question, that's a bread and butter issue for their side. Liberals never win when put in reactive mode, they simply won't persuade voters trying to mirror Conservative approaches. It is here that marijuana legalization provides a clear stepping off point, rather than reacting to Conservative offensives, misinformations, we offer a decidedly different approach, one that actually has some popular appeal. The entire crime question will be debated on this point, on ground chosen by Liberals, this would be the lightning rod question. This debate puts down a clear Liberal marker, we say the war on drugs has failed and here's an alternative direction that addresses that failure in progressive fashion.

In addition, there is an economic argument to be made, one that attempts to take money out of the hands of criminals, into the hands of government, for the betterment of the citizenry. We are not talking about chump change, tax revenue in the billions, we can pivot off this legalization in a positive way. I would argue that marijuana taxation revenue be redirected into drug education campaigns, expenditures to focus on true scourges like crystal meth, rather than a tax grab, demonstrate how this additional money can still assist in dealing with drug related problems. With this type of proposal, you somewhat blunt "condone" criticism, because you use these additional revenues to attack certain problems. Use the tax revenue to further educate on the dangers of drugs, that avenue addresses society validating drug use through legalization. We accept that marijuana is here to stay, you can either continue with the futility approach or accept reality and use the industry to allow for greater focus on other drugs, rehab programs, education, etc. I see a fleshed out new tax revenue allocation proposal as a compelling pivot to completely reset our overall approach.

Philosophically, there is also a "liberty" argument to be made, this issue transfers responsibility to the individual, a notion which clearly has appeal within certain subsets. I think Liberals will be surprised who gets "turned on" by the legalization argument, rather than a sideline distraction, it is a motivating factor that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I predict a candidate for Liberal leadership(assuming we actually have a race, not a coronation)waves this legalization flag and in so doing shakes up the race on the "supporter" front. Legalization proponents from all corners would have little hesitation becoming supporters, I guarantee a few motivated individuals could sign up impressive numbers under this signature banner.

Rather than some trivial proposal that fails to address the real concerns of Canadians, I see this marijuana legalization idea as ONE starting off point that can bring true differentiation, as well as add fresh perspectives to an already well defined political entity. Yes, Liberals must craft a credible economic argument, ditto for health care, pensions, taxation, the deficit, etc, etc. Acknowledging this obvious fact doesn't mean the legalization question is a distraction or be abandoned, in fact it can be a demographic compliment that weaves within a greater, coherent direction. I see potentially fascinating days ahead...

New Nanos Poll

2012-01-29T08:22:00.005-05:00

The election is YEARS away. The NDP are without a leader. The Liberals just had a Convention, which generally brings about temporary bounces. The public isn't paying attention to federal politics. Don't get ahead of yourself. Polls are bullshit. Did I miss anything? Can we talk now?

The latest Nanos is actually quite interesting, for a number of reasons. Nanos confirms the NDP erosion in Quebec, as well as a bit of a startling decline in Ontario. Nanos also gives the Liberals a support level above the 2008 election result, actually within 8% of the Conservatives, quite amazing given RECENT events. That the Official Opposition is also in third place an unusual occurrence:

Support for the federal New Democrats continues to erode in Quebec and Ontario with the Liberals showing some gains, a new poll has found.

The Conservatives still lead nationally by eight percentage points, but the NDP and Liberals are now statistically tied among decided voters, the Nanos Research poll conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail shows.

The Tories have 35.7 per cent support, down slightly from December, followed by the Liberals at 27.6 per cent and the Opposition NDP at 25.2 per cent.

Did I mention it can all change suddenly, and we are over three years from an election? Okay good.

Another polls shows the NDP under 30% in Quebec, as well as some evidence that the Liberals are actually picking up some support at their expense. One wonders how the now cementing narrative of real softness in Quebec translates to the leadership race, does Muclair move some fence sitters who see shoring up Quebec as imperative? If the NDP Quebec numbers were stable, the viability of other candidates might not be such an immediate concern, but given worrying numbers, this emerging reality will seep into the leadership discussion, in a more pronounced way.

Isn't it sad that the once great "natural governing party" is now reduced to crowing about a poll that pegs them at Dion era levels? Check, alrighty then.

In recent weeks, I've heard more than one Liberal speak about Rae's future leadership prospects within a commentary that basically says "well, let's see how it goes". I would argue this mentality does exist within the Liberal ranks, which is why polling has practical relevance. Should Liberals continue to show signs of life, a sense of some rebound, it will strengthen the case for Rae as permanent leader, of that I have no doubt. There is also a dynamic of the polls feeding on themselves, a spate of good news, leading to more puff pieces, providing additional propellant.

At the very least, Peter C. Newman's phone isn't ringing off the hook for "insight"...

Social Media's First "Win"?

2012-01-28T08:59:00.002-05:00

My first exposure to the social media world was the Howard Dean campaign. Dean's website "Dean For America"- which later morphed into "Democracy For America"- became a buzzing hub for ordinary citizens to express their opinions in comments, meetups, fundraising. The now massive website Daily Kos was really a spinoff of the Dean campaign, "Deaniacs" moved to this site and it was here that it took off and cemented itself as the Democrats online beehive. I mention this ancient history, because I recall vividly the media wondering if this online expression, this impressive capacity to raise money, would translate to "boots on the ground". Alas, when push came to shove in Iowa, it was acknowledged, online hype wasn't necessarily real world organization, there was a clear disconnect between social media and real world influence. Since 2004, social media has evolved south of the border and here, wherein concrete impact is more and more apparent, it is really a question of scale of influence now.

Prior to the Liberal Convention I wondered if online perceptions would match real world manifestations:

Of interest to me, does the online "hype" surrounding my guy Crawley translate to real delegates, because I see his candidacy as very much social media driven, very much organic in momentum, does that "buzz" manifest into bodies or another example of the cyberworld overstating practical numbers.

I've had this running theory, that social media is still not a core electoral driver, while it has impact, for the general population, it still hasn't reached critical mass. That acknowledgement doesn't dissuade from an emerging influence, just a recognition that "social media" is still evolving, hasn't quite achieved it's potential. However, I do believe social media is quite important when dealing with a narrow, partisan audience of engaged citizens. Enter the Liberal president race, tailor made to see if social media could make a practical difference. Hard core partisans are delegates, these people are online and interconnected, this limited audience ripe for social media expressions.

Brian Klunder, who worked for the Crawley campaign, put up a piece, detailing how social media was a key player for the campaign:

However, the game has changed in the age of social media. The local MP or Senator is just one voice in a new sea of online opinions and recommendations. Watching Twitter at any given time during the campaign told me more about the amount of momentum the Crawley campaign was carrying than any conversation with “key influencers” in politics. With hashtags like #cdnpoli, #lpc, #lpc12 and #lpcprez the level of online engagement during the campaign was stunning. The goal then was to ensure material was being provided that could influence the social media conversation – whether it be through positive media, blogs, supportive tweets or a candidate that actively engaged conversation – each carried the potential of reaching thousands of people. As well, being aware of both the positive and negative issues being shared on Facebook and Twitter allowed us to fine-tune our messaging to address any concerns.

Much of my sense of how the campaign was going was monitoring social media interactions. I would routinely key in Crawley's name to access "buzz", how things were moving around the cyberworld, as stated earlier it was very organic and grassrooty. My impression was things were moving Mike's way, there was a definite online momentum and these people were delegates, a small, but powerful cadre of rank and file Liberals. Yes, Copps had much of the establishement, but Crawley was being propelled by bloggers, tweeters, facebook people, etc, within a narrow audience, it was quite relevant. As an aside, in the final days the media seemed to key in on a two person race, part of which a perception built by social media. I remained sceptical, because we've seen social media fail before, but if ever there was a situation wherein it could tip the balance, a small group of Liberal delegates seemed fertile ground.

I was stunned when Crawley won, rarely do "insurgents" actually win, but he did, and it was close. As someone said to me just after, it was so close, everyone could say they influenced the result, all these little interactions had impact, they actually changed the direction of the party, it mattered. I think it fair to say that, given the numbers, social media very well did "tip the balance" for Crawley, it manifested itself in a practical and important way. There are still challenges for the wider audience, but within this narrow audience, social media was more than just astroturf and "hype", it was real world, real time, momentum expressed in interconnected fashion, feeding itself and a real vehicle for perceived change.

The Failure Of Corporate Tax Cuts

2012-01-26T07:57:00.002-05:00

Corporate tax cut disciples will ridicule the messenger, Canadian Labour Congress just reeks "enemy of the state", but their study on corporate taxes is largely reliant on third party conclusions, ROCK SOLID empirical manifestations, that deserve consideration. What is presented is a clear and concise picture of the utter failure of corporate tax cuts to deliver the benefits as previously argued. That a large segment of economists and apologists can still play offence on corporate tax cuts is mystifying, given data which is supposed to be the underpinning of their arguments contradicts their entire rationale.

CLC finds the promised investments have never come, in fact we've seen an erosion on this front, DESPITE record profits and cash balances. I am pleased to see the CLC look into corporate dividends, a development I have argued is ripe for reform. The CLC report finds that corporations are simply redirecting their corporate tax cuts "savings" back into shareholder hands, rising dividends siphoning off the cash that was supposed to lead to more reinvestment, further EXACERBATING
the widening societal gaps:

As noted above, corporate tax cuts are not supposed to be an end in themselves. The tradeoff for lower corporate tax revenue was supposed to be higher capital investment leading to higher growth, more and better jobs, and improved productivity. Proponents argue that as companies make more money because tax rates are lower, they will invest more in capital stock. That is to say, they will buy more factories and more computers to make their companies more productive. Canada’s lagging productivity will be pulled up.

Given the significant drop in corporate tax rates since 2000, what effect can be seen? Figure 1 — based on the last column of Table 2 — shows the percentage of profits that have been simply paid out to investors as dividends instead of retained and reinvested in the company. In 2000, corporate Canada was paying out 30% of its profits to shareholders in the form of dividends.

While the effective tax rate has declined significantly since 2000, companies are doing the opposite of investing: they are paying an even larger share of their profits out as dividends. In 2010, for every dollar in after-tax profits, 49 cents was paid out directly to shareholders, and the share was even higher in the recession year of 2009. Much of the increase in after-tax profits coming from corporate tax cuts that corporations said would be invested to boost productivity is, instead, being paid out to those who own dividend-paying stocks in Canada’s largest companies. About one half of all dividends are paid to taxpayers earning more than $150,000 per year.

What you see is a clear regime, where elimination of corporate taxes has lead to increased cash balances which have been redirected to shareholders. Defenders of corporate tax cuts get quite upset when critics point to rising CEO salaries, there is no co-relation, simply a function of a job well done. HOWEVER, CEO's and high ranking corporate officials ALSO have huge stock options, holdings, so any increase in dividends is effectively a big increase in salary. Couple this fact with certain tax regimes on dividends, and it's a big win for corporate executives! Rather than invest, corporations are merely redistributing their riches to themselves and their friends, this fact is irrefutable.

The study finds a 13 billion dollar revenue shortfall in corporate taxes since this government took office. As an aside, I did support some corporate tax cuts- to a level which made us competitive with other nations- that seemed a sound goal given the global economy. CLC confirms what we already know, Canada is now incredibly competitive, perhaps the lowest corporate tax regime, depending on your metrics. What emerges is a policy which has gone too far, balance has been lost, in a irresponsible race to the bottom mentality. Given government's have also incorporated the HST, the entire thrust of which was business friendly, it is fair to ask when enough is enough. There is now a huge revenue shortfall which must be addressed, and unfortunately it looks to be achieved on the backs of ordinary Canadians.

All in the talk in Ottawa these days is about austerity, there WILL be massive public service job cuts. Given there is NO evidence of a private sector job creation offset, we will have a circumstance of NET job losses under this corporate tax cut regime. Proponents will say corporate tax cuts were never argued to create jobs. Accept that assertion as true- the evidence does show no job creation- and you are left with cutting taxes so you can layoff public service employees. That is the sorry bottom line, from which we find ourselves today, no investment, no jobs, job CUTS, the rich getting richer and services under attack. That isn't spin, that is a very coherent reality, supported by all the facts available, while proponents are left to economic theory and "you just wait" proclamations.

The biggest beneficiaries of corporate tax cuts are Canadian banks. Google "bank job cuts" and you will see a consistent pattern over the last decade. Then google "bank dividends" or "bank record profits" and you will see another clear picture. Not anti-bank, not resisting the idea that a strong banking system isn't imperative, merely a realization that BALANCE has been lost, we have lurched so dramatically to one side of the equation that we created an environment which is actually detrimental to the "greater good". Go back in time, review all the arguments for corporate tax cuts, and if you can find any scenario which foresaw record cash flows and profits, massive increases in dividends, at the same time as lagging investment and productivity, job losses, I'm ALL ears.

Red Wave Envelops Canada

2012-01-25T07:47:00.002-05:00

Well not quite, but since the name of the game in the short term is perceived viability, Liberals will take the recent spate of polling. Three polls out, all offer similar trends, Liberals will a slight uptick, NDP down, reinforcing recent narratives. Perhaps of biggest concern to the NDP, CROP now pegs support in Quebec at only 29%.

Harris Decima gives the Liberals a 3% rise since their last offering, a now noteworthy 6% rise since the election to 25%. Angus Reid also finds Liberal "gains", up 3% to 22%. Both pollsters also find the NDP support waning since the election. As well HD finds Conservatives support well down, while AR finds their support holding firm. The general trends suggest a Liberal party far from dead, and the NDP failing to solidify their election successes.

We've watched a steady decline in NDP Quebec support for a few months now, but CROP now finds the party below the psychological 30% barrier, which translates into no delusions that the orange wave is in danger of collapse. Much will depend on the next NDP leader, this could be a temporary wane, but these numbers reinforce the notion that Quebec remains a fluid province, the NDP "hold" precarious at best. CROP also finds the Liberals "benefiting most" from the NDP collapse, and while 19% isn't juggernaut status, it's a far cry better than 10% as CROP previously found. People might recall, this Liberal number is more in line with pre-election polling, we hovered within this low 20, high teen range for quite some time. It's all relative so a return to what was considered lowly at the time, is now a positive. Again, a sense of VIABILITY is of chief concern to the Liberals at the moment, just be part of the mix, that's the realistic short term goal in my mind.

Angus Reid also finds Rae doing well, and CROP sees Rae in a deadheat with Harper on the best PM question. Fair to say that Rae's performance is helping the Liberal bottomline and he deserves at least partial credit for the modest recovery. Of note, HD also finds the Liberals in a statistical tie with the Conservatives in Ontario, NDP third, another encouraging number, particularly with "Rae Day" at the helm.

Polls aren't of particular importance right now, as someone will surely point out, "the election is YEARS away", so fixation is meaningless. I agree completely, particularly with two parties yet to pick new leaders, the situation is in flux and no one knows what trends will hold long term. However, perceptions matter, so any indication of momentum is always welcome, as is a sense of eroding support unwelcome. I'm sure the NDP are pleased as punch to answer questions about the need to change strategy in the wake of falling polls. I'm sure the Liberals hate talking about Rae doing well, evidence that news of our death was greatly exaggerated. In other words, poll change, but polls speak to "point in time" discussions and can feed themselves with negative or positive reinforcement.

Liberals are feeling pretty good about themselves coming out of a relatively successful Convention. Numbers that blunt talk of death are welcome indeed, put into the soup and helpful in terms of attitude moving forward. Nothing more, nothing less, with full knowledge there is a LONG, LONG way to go.

What Is With Conservatism And Global Warming Deniers?

2012-01-24T08:10:00.000-05:00

Tom Flanagan will carry the Wildrose banner in the next provincial election, running alongside his leader, fellow climate change sceptic Danielle Smith. For a province fighting an intense public relations war over its emissions, having a upstart party riddled with global warming deniers doesn't exactly project a flattering image. Polls suggest Wildrose is at least poised to become the official opposition in Alberta, perhaps challenge the current government. Flanagan believes global warming is a "non problem", Smith thinks we all need to keep an open mind, remain "neutral" while the "robust debate" within the scientific community evolves, this party has become a haven for global warming deniers. How can emissions be taken seriously, if people actually believe there is no problem, concern is bunk?

On the federal scene, Harper uses political correct language now, but we should all remain suspicious. As well, Harper seems to have a penchant for appointing deniers to the Senate, just a random coincidence I'm sure, for a media that refuses to challenge beyond appeasing language. Move to the "grassroots" and you see deniers everywhere, if you challenge global warming, massive odds are come from the right of the spectrum, ditto down south, the correlation is incredibly strong and persistent. Why? Why would a particular perspective on science line up so neatly with political expression?

The right wing tends to support the idea of natural resource exploitation, whereas the traditional left tends to highlight environmental concerns. Part of the denier bent is tied to economic outlook, a natural resistance to anything presented which could curtail free activity. Somehow science has become a partisan consideration, rather than evidence based perspectives, apparently everyone has an angle they are trying to shove down our throats. Never mind that 98% of climate scientists see NO DEBATE, there is a heated debate, sound arguments irrelevant, all that is needed is incoherent counters, providing a warm cocoon for like-minded people.

In many respects the global warming debate has moved from physical science to human psychology, within that discussion at least something constructive. The real debate centers around the right wing and their hostility to objective science, as though a conspiracy created by enemy forces. That's the mentality, this bizarre paranoia that some untrustworthy entity is trying to trick the populous, as part of a deeper philosophical threat. Read the right wing blogs, read the commentary, listen to the code language, it's a freakish reality out there, almost chilling in its reaffirming bubble of denial, there is NOTHING you can present to dissuade, NOTHING. Wingers love to mock the global warming "religion", but really that is projection, their rigidity in the face of scientific retort offers an almost fanatical belief, incapable of incorporating new information, steadfast and stubborn.

Borrowing a John Stuart Mill quote, "conservatives are not necessarily deniers, but most deniers are conservatives". You could also use the real JSM quote, but then you consider that incredibly intelligent people like Flanagan have also joined the cause, and you are left with such a head scratching reality, you realize there is a deeper bias than simple ignorance. Danielle Smith's disarming smile doesn't distract from a dangerous reality, people ascending to positions of power with no grounding in the reality based community, should concern us all. That the global warming debate seems to have fragmented along partisan lines is an alarming development, because now science is just another human actor, it's relevance outside of personal slant in question, an amazing devolution.

Strange days indeed.

Kinsella Is Half Right

2012-01-22T09:41:00.002-05:00

Warren Kinsella knows more about politics on his little pinkie than I do on my entire body, so when he offers "advice" to Liberals, it's always worth consideration. In today's column Kinsella actually mirrors Bob Rae, Liberals need to fight back, stand up and respond to the Conservatives, their smear machine and their intellectually pedestrian minions like Taylor:

In politics, rule number one is define or be defined. Conservatives, small and large C, are doing precisely what some of us had warned they would do: They are unearthing unhelpful facts about Bob Rae’s ruinous reign and publicizing them.

They’re doing to Rae what they did, so successfully, to Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff: They’re shaping impressions about Rae before Rae does.

The best strategy, then, isn’t to call for yet more laws restricting legitimate political speech.

The best strategy is to hit first, and twice as hard. Be swift and brutal.

Remind people that Harper moved us from a surplus to a deficit. That he didn’t see the recession coming. That he wants to dismantle health care. That he favours Alberta over other provinces. That he has a far-right SoCon agenda. Whatever you do, progressives, do it now. Don’t wait.

Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff complained about how mean Stephen Harper is, and it got them precisely nowhere.

The best response to nasty attack ads then is simple: Make your own attack ads, fast, and make ’em nastier.

Define or be defined, Liberals are well aware how failure to adhere to Kinsella's rule has cost us DEARLY in the past. Perhaps the party gets it now, efforts to set up a contingency fund to help define the new leader on our own terms. However, that seems a long term strategy, in the immediate, it remains unclear how we do fight back, compete with a well armed opponent. I'm a bit surprised the party hasn't pivoted off the hardly seen NCC ad and used it as a fundraising plea for cash to do just what Kinsella argues, "fight back", send a message, offer a quick response. There is something to be said for the distant third party getting into a tit for tat with the government, this dynamic works on a host of levels.

I agree with everything Kinsella argues, except for the last sentence. "Make 'em nastier", that approach strikes me as potentially outdated. Hear me out. Attack ads do work, I don't dispute that for one second. However, it is also true that voter turnout is on the wane, part of this equation is the "turnoff" factor, the discourse so sullied, nasty, petty, that people are simply tuning out the process. Is a race to the bottom really the best option for the Liberals? In the last election, the one party that attempted to offer positivity seemed to get traction, any Conservative movement really a reaction to the NDP ascension. In the last Ontario election, the PC's were full of piss and vinegar, but the seminal moment for me was Hudak offering an attack instead of "vision" as requested in debate, it highlighted the notion of requiring something more than nastiness.

Liberals need to hit back, we can't just sit back and take shots from ankle biters without a returning kick to the chops coming from our side. That said, I'm not sure the traditional retort is the best option anymore, if one believes in some evolution within the electorate. It's important that any response avoid becoming such a turnoff that the whole affair resembles a mutual destruction society. The best response to cookie cutter attack ads- that offer ZERO imagination- is perhaps a whimsical response, humour, clever without the vitriol. I'm not sure nastier works anymore, if you take the electorate as a whole, clearly they seem unimpressed by the level of discourse. A successful brand moving forward unlocks the new theorem that speaks to want, while simultaneously addressing your opponents shortfalls.

I see the race to the bottom appealling to an ever narrowing audience. It doesn't mean the attack ad isn't effective, necessary, only that people aspire to more than mud slinging, at a certain point it all gets lost in a haze of negativity and disinterest takes hold. I would argue we are in the phase now where apathy and that disinterest needs to be addressed, so the successful parties of the future will be the one's that figure out how to make their arguments, blunt criticisms, without mirroring the familiar opponent techniques. Perhaps that view is naive, but there is empirical underpinning to suggest a new approach could find fertile ground.

Take "Third Party" Advocacy Out Of Canadian Politics

2012-01-21T09:30:00.002-05:00

Andrew Coyne's thoughtful piece on political contributions, third party inputs, offers a compromise solution between a purely libertarian view and the interventionist, managed model. I see a disconnect between the philosophy and practical, which challenges the equality Coyne seeks:

In terms of the present argument, they should each be able to spend roughly the same amount on it. That suggests a system based on individual contributions - no union, corporate or government money - and individual contribution limits, much as we have now.

How each chooses to participate, however, should be up to the individual. In particular, whether he chooses to contribute to a political party, or to an advocacy group, or to spend his money directly, it should be no business of the state. Rather than have one system of contribution limits for political parties and another for advocacy groups or individuals, that suggests they should all come under the same umbrella: a global, annual ceiling of, say, $10,000, on the amount an individual could spend on political advocacy - through whatever vehicle. Ideally, you'd donate via the income tax return; even more ideally, anonymously.

I would argue a cap of this form amounts to institutionalizing unfair advantage toward the wealthy. This system wouldn't be an extension of "one person, one vote", it would create tiers, in that those with resources could exact influence on our system, which others simply couldn't leverage in the same capacity. A $10000 cap gives advantage to the wealthy, those without sufficient disposable income simply don't have the luxury to maximize their political contribution under this system. Rather than achieving the fairness sought, what is created is a regime which marginalizes some, at the same time providing disproportionate influence to the affluent.

The libertarian notion strikes me as the ideal, like most tenets within that philosophy it offers simplistic solutions, but in the practical world, becomes so bastardized and exploited, the initial spirit buried to the point of unrecognizable. Coyne tries to square this libertarian want with the other extreme, a total ban on many forms of monetary expression, but the compromise doesn't find equality, it finds more room for uneven influence over our political process.

I see the evolution of political contributions, third party input, leading to one educated place, a learned political existence. A total ban on all third party players, a hard cap on individual donations set at a rate which strives for optimal inclusively, complete disclosure of donors, transparency and heavily scrutinized. Coyne mentions the situation in Ontario, where certain groups have gone after the Progressive Conservatives, I would support a total ban on these activities, no matter your partisan persuasion, set limits from the parties themselves and no augmentation from any third party. It sounds draconian, perhaps it does, perhaps it steps all over individual liberty and free expression, but a full on ban and strict regimes are the only way to ENSURE the true equality other models try to achieve.

Human beings cheat, not all of us live under equal terms, this circumstance leads to certain advantages. As soon as money is allowed into a process- beyond campaign limits, moderate individual contributions- the notion of voter equality is undermined, eroded by those with greater means, creating an uneven discussion and debate. Under the Coyne model, you would have a circumstance wherein ten people could have the power of another hundred, thousand, unless the cap is quite low, you are left with money as power, a situation which ultimately betrays the notion of equality for all, "one person, one vote". The only way to ensure this equality is to effectively ban many activities, in so doing you limit personal expression on a monetary front, but you protect a certain sanctity, no influence equates to equal influence, we are all left to individually express ourselves with nothing than our our commitments, opinions, drive. You care about an issue, you get out and fight for that cause, influence a byproduct of participation in a sense that goes beyond how deep your pockets, but left to the realm of intellectual persuasion. Rather than being shutdown by absurd constraints, we are all created equal in this formula, our words and deeds can extract influence, rather than factors which we can't control.

As soon as you create a system that handicaps participation from any societal subset, you have strayed from the ideal of individual freedoms, which is why the only solution is to eliminate any potential advantage altogether, create a system which favours no one and puts our political debate outside of financial considerations. This system isn't pretty, perhaps it is at odds with individual liberties, but it is fair in it's universal restraint, the field is even for all, it is the only compromise which truly respects "one person, one vote", or at least strives to protect that core political tenet.

Rae On A Roll

2012-01-19T07:28:00.004-05:00

For some of us it's possible to separate the dueling Bob Rae story lines, acknowledging success doesn't necessarily equate to rationale for permanent jobs, whatnot. In fact, in reviewing my posts when we were debating Rae for interim Leader, much of the benefits seem to be playing themselves out, he is providing exactly what we all hoped, demonstrating why he was best suited to take the temporary helm and guide Liberals through these tumultuous times. In other words, for myself, and other Liberals I've spoken with recently, not many are terribly surprised that Bob Rae is performing well.

With those qualifiers in mind, I'd like to digest some very encouraging polling for the Liberals, more specifically Bob Rae. A Forum Research poll out today shows the Liberals up modestly to a semi-respectable 25% in the polls, pretty much within the MOE of the NDP at 28%. The Conservatives sit at 35%, slight erosion, but still within their normal fluctuation range. The pollster credits the little Liberal uptick to Rae's performance, which seems entirely plausible, given his high profile and steady leadership.

Perhaps more instructive, the Frank Graves series for iPolitics which looks at approvals for various leaders and finds some remarkable results for Bob Rae. Graves finds:

Rae shows surprising strength for a caretaker presiding over a party with one foot in the grave, at least according to Peter Newman. With 44-per-cent approval, he eclipses the prime minister’s rating and with only 25 per cent disapproval.

A Liberal leader, interim or otherwise, with a high approval, eclipsing the Prime Minister, it's been YEARS since we've seen this dynamic, and even then it was fleeting at best. More remarkable, look at these Rae numbers for Ontario:

Given all our assumptions about baggage in Ontario, that Rae scores so high, his disapproval's so low, really does surprise. Stephen Harper has a full 35% higher disapproval than Bob Rae in Ontario. Nobody can claim Rae is an "unknown", so these numbers are all the more remarkable.

Bob Rae is on a roll, and within that the Liberals are clearly still on the Canadian political radar. Also true, it will become harder and harder to separate the fortunes of the Liberals and Rae, a great job in one capacity will support arguments for the permanent role, the two are now intertwined. I believe Liberals must tread carefully with the overlapping stories and just enjoy the encouraging signs.

Staggered Primaries Revisited?

2012-01-18T09:39:00.001-05:00

At the Convention, Liberals voted against the proposal to hold five staggered regional primaries. Liberals also voted to allow "supporters" the right to participate in the leadership process. Given, the initial rationale for the supporter inclusion was woven within this idea of primaries, it's fair to say the Convention provided a confusing result. As it stands now, all Liberal members and supporters will vote on one day, in essence a national election. However, I note that immediately following this vote, some indications coming from the Liberal Party that the issue of staggered primaries might not be dead yet.

It is worth considering, 58% of delegates did vote for the staggered primary option, and although that failed to meet the 2/3rd requirement, it still represents a healthy majority. This fact does provide a certain "legitimacy", the idea did find wide support amongst the assembled delegates, which may be important moving forward, should "revision" arise.

As I understand it, the party will now constitute a Leadership Vote Committee, made up of two co-chairs, the National President, two persons elected from the PTA's, two representatives appointed from Caucus and "another number of other members" appointed by the co-chairs. The mandate of the LVC is as follows:

The Leadership Vote Committee is responsible to plan, organize and carry out the Leadership Vote.

I view the above as fairly ambiguous, but also demonstrating the potential to implement staggered primaries. Given the Convention didn't specifically endorse one primary, there appears certain latitudes, this group will have CONSIDERABLE power as they develop a formal leadership process. Staging one national primary will be a huge logistical endeavour, perhaps that angle will be provide another motive for more "manageable" regional primaries.

I expect to see some form of staggered primaries to be at least considered. The fact there is a naked majority underpinning allows for some democratic justification (although I understand it was defeated based on required support). I do believe there was some "confusion" as to this voting process, and frankly I'm not sure why the two questions of supporter vote and primaries were separate questions, given they were initially considered as parts of a alternative hole. I don't believe this primary question is over and Liberals would be wise to keep an eye on their Leadership Vote Committee as we move forward...

Marijuana: Liberal Canary In Coal Mine

2012-01-17T11:49:00.003-05:00

An overwhelming majority, 77% of committed Liberal delegates voted to legalize marijuana. As well, if you do the math on the demographic delegate breakdown, you'll find that even if one assumes every young Liberals voted in favour, you are still left with almost 2/3rds of the remaining delegates in favour. In other words, no matter how your dissect this vote, Liberals of all subsets support this policy, creating a firm resolve. In addition, not only did our interim Leader resist shying away from the vote, Rae embraced it and placed legalization at the center of "war on drugs" debate.

Liberals rejected the idea of removing a leader veto over policy, so the future party structure philosophy remains unclear. However, I now view the marijuana issue as the canary in the coal mine so to speak, how this issue is treated heading into the next election will provide the clearest indication if a formerly top down entity has truly "renewed" and "reformed". The base have made their voices heard, a voice which is not out of step with progressive society as a whole. It is fair for EVERY Liberal to now have an expectation that marijuana legalization will be part of future Liberal policy, should that fail to transpire, people can rightly ask if members are nothing more than robotic bank machines, patted on the head, but nothing of real consequence in the affairs of party direction.

There has been some mention of actively soliciting "supporters", using this issue as a lure of sorts. I agree with an aggressive strategy, as Rob Silver pointed out this is a classic "wedge" issue, one the Liberals can use effectively to contrast crime strategies, as well as certain libertarian issues. The marijuana issue is larger than just pot itself, the tentacles of that approach resonate elsewhere. I think Liberals may well shock themselves at how many "supporters" can be attracted, simply based on this particular perspective. This is a way for non-partisan Canadians to say "hey Liberal Party, I agree with you, I SUPPORT your idea, I'll lend my name to the cause".

Moving forward, it is imperative to hold the Liberal Party to account, to push the envelope, to push our new executive to follow through on their commitments. How the Liberals manage the marijuana issue is now a central indicator that will demonstrate, in concrete form, if this has truly become a member-centric institution or remains a timid, top down affair, wherein the rank and file are dismissed in the ways that truly matter. I'm leaving the banner on the sidebar as symbolic of this potential future tension, the members who have kept this listing tub afloat have spoken, loud and clear.

Green Shoots

2012-01-16T09:11:00.000-05:00

It's important to not get carried away, after all you're in a room full of the faithful, one would hope to see some bravado, simply as a by-product of natural self interest. That said, for all the talk of a moribund party, the Liberals managed to bring in an impressive number of delegates, perhaps more encouraging a decidedly younger crowd than what I noted last time around. The mood was healthy and the end product does support the "change" mantra, even if the results were uneven.

I was surprised a few times at this convention. Particularly, when I heard the announcement "Crawley" for party President, I was genuinely stunned. Perhaps it was the buzz just prior to official announcement that Copps had won- my own sense of the room- but I never truly allowed myself to believe a generally status quo party could make this leap, especially against such a deeply rooted opponent. The closeness of the race speaks to how easily a different narrative could have emerged, but it also provides a testament to how much every vote matters, every conversation, every discussion back and forth, those "hallway" interactions were key. As a supporter of Mike, I look forward to his tenure and hope he makes good on his reform minded pledges.

As the convention unfolded, there seemed a very general sense that the "supporter" addition would fail, nobody I spoke with actually believed the new designation could get the 2/3rds support. I was a supporter of opening up the party in this serious way, but even I offered little resistance when confronted with negativism. And yet, the change was adopted, perhaps the most crucial reform to come out of this convention. Worth noting, I don't think this idea would have achieved the required 2/3rds had it not been for an impassioned plea just prior by Mr. Rae, I have little doubt that moved the room in a empirical way. As well, for those who argued membership should matter, Liberals rejected the idea of allowing "supporters" to participate at the local riding election level, so some condolence for that side.

The second half of the "supporter" addition revolved around this idea of Liberal primaries. In adopting this stipulation, Liberals agreed to let "supporters" vote for the party Leader, but there was another shoe to drop as the votes continued the next morning. Liberals rejected the idea of staggered, regional primaries, even though 58% favoured the concept, it didn't achieve the required support. I'm disappointed this idea failed, because I view it as tethered to the "support" vote, much of the rationale for opening up was to create this exciting dynamic, but now we will have one national vote, eliminating much of the potential drama. As an aside, I note Lawrence Martin on Cpac last night mentioned "confusion" over this question coming from party officials, some suggestion the issue wasn't quite dead yet, so stay tuned...

I would have liked to see the Leader's veto over policy dropped, and I felt the conversation around this issue was fairly muted, perhaps it got lost in the maze of resolutions. For example, on the question of marijuana legalization, the room of committed partisans was quite CLEAR, one would hope any future leader appreciate where his/her party sit on this issue and show some respect to grassroot want. I note, Bob Rae not only didn't shy away from the question but embraced it during his closing speech, soliciting massive cheers as he did.

I'm one who believe optics matter, not so much as it relates to press coverage, but moreso the general audience that gets information from the conduit. I sense that the Liberals have done the brand some favours, new faces, the idea of generational change, the word "open" a crucial evolution, it all congeals into something of consequence. I view the Convention as the first move in a long, laboured process. Soon, we will move to the leadership question in a more focused way, and here we hopefully cultivate more ideas, discussion. I'm not afraid of "messiah" talk, because the messenger is of paramount importance, leaders are vehicles for movements. In many respects, our current predicament is "freeing", and within that reality, I hope a true modernizing, reformist viewpoint can emerge and resonate. One thing is clear, Canadian apathy is a testament to a certain political void, I am more optimistic today that the Liberal Party can perhaps fill it. Time will tell.

You're In, You're Out, You're Out, Carry On

2012-01-11T15:08:00.005-05:00

Did you hear Bob Rae's rousing speech to caucus today? Was there any doubt that is sounded very much like a guy ready to go for the permanent Liberal leadership job? A interim leader doesn't need to defend an ancient record, unless of course that record could be used against his future aspirations.

Let's go back in time, there were stipulations put in place for the interim leader because many rightfully foresaw unique advantages that job would afford, ultimately a unfair advantage in the race for a permanent Liberal leader. We can quibble over those stipulations when Rae took the job, but there is no doubt he accepted those provisions at the time, and in so doing those with concerns "stood down" so to speak.

I'm not surprised Bob Rae has been successful in his current role, matter of fact I outlined his assets when I argued why he really was the perfect choice for this interim position. However, the judgement of his job to date takes on a different tone when one looks at the longer picture, when one considers all the previous hesitations. The interim leader has massive advantages, they can use party donations, our donations that supports staff, tours, to build a network, to make their case, to influence, to build a formidable wall of support. As well, they can use the interim position itself as a pulpit, that essentially DWARFS all others. In reality, what we see now, Rae in great position, is a testament to the very advantages we all outlined when this issue first arose.

I really, really, really like Bob Rae. Truth be told, I might even be inclined to support him for a permanent role, even with the BAGGAGE I've mentioned time and again. However, that viewpoint is really irrelevant to the underlying moral imperative here, namely that if Bob Rae really does want this job- and that speech today is the clearest signal yet- he OWES it to the membership to come clean, give up the end game here and resign his position immediately, in the interest of full disclosure. Should Rae stay on, we can only conclude he doesn't have aspirations, because a man of his moral compass must surely see the conflict of interest here, it is PLAIN AS DAY to anyone with a rational perspective.

The time has come for Bob Rae to sign a legally binding document that precludes his run for permanent leader OR the time has come to dispense with the intrigue, the out clause language, and just make intentions known once and for all. Pretty simply, you're in, you're out, you're out, carry on.

Radicals And Learned Responses

2012-01-11T07:56:00.001-05:00

Even if the Conservative argument is true, that we've reached a point where environmental review processes are bogging down economic development, it's an after the fact assertion, rather than a fair read of present reality. One must cleanse their mind of any historical context to even begin to comprehend the Conservative position, it simply fails to comprehend we've reached this point for a reason.

There was a time when companies acted with complete and utter regulatory impunity. What occurred within this environment, they TRASHED the environment, the destroyed ecosystems, their one concern was money, they acted as amoral entities, they UTTERLY failed to show any environmental stewardship. In reaction, society created certain "checks- some would argue not enough still today- because companies couldn't be trusted to "do the right thing" unilaterally, they needed laws, rules and oversight, like an impulsive child, guidance was required. See, companies like to cut corners, if there is a decision to be made regarding greater good and selfish desire, HISTORY has shown a consistent pattern. Government "intervention" in the free economy is nothing more than a learned response, had corporations properly policed themselves, things such as "public consultations" wouldn't be required. To be a Conservative these days seems to demand a certain naivety about human nature, a simplistic world that bears no resemblance to practical expression.

I note today a story on another Enbridge leak, the timing instructive, because a small reminder that empty promises made by corporations are just that, a seasoned society realizes that mistakes do happen, the sales line rarely meets the reality, so the question becomes: can we afford human errors, can we trust profit driven entities? Corporations today LOVE to tout their environmental records, their advancements, their commitments, their emerging "green" philosophies. Trouble is, these supposed revelations didn't come unilaterally, if anything the by-product of demands from "radicals" and government regulation. Reasonable people understand this fact, not trying to harm the economy, but the realization that things we do can harm the environment and the consequences CAN overshadow any short term gain.

When we hear of a pipeline that will snake through mountains and earthquake zones, only to end up at a challenging sea passage, it is fair to be concerned, not only are questions required, they should be DEMANDED by any reasonable observer. Perhaps these factors explain why British Columbians are "divided" over the project, there are many competing interests in play, it's a complicated proposition. The only "radical" predisposition I can ascertain is those that vilify people with genuine concerns, based on a dubious track record from proponents. If projects are getting "bogged" down in the review process, the blame for the current state rests SQUARELY with those that have failed to act ethically, responsibly in the past, those that have actually harmed the environment, those that are doing it as we speak. "Radical" apparently means anyone with a capacity to incorporate history and understand human nature. We don't trust corporations, we don't believe their promises, this is a learned response, based on their continual failures, that's why we're here.

Why The Lise St-Denis Defection Matters

2012-01-10T11:33:00.004-05:00

Everyone spinning this story, perhaps this post is more of the same, but I think today's "defection" of an NDP MP to the Liberals has some significance. I admit, I was absolutely stunned to hear these rumours this morning, there is just nothing intuitive to the idea that the Liberals could pickup a MP from the NDP, particularly from Quebec of all places. However, the Liberals have snagged a NDP MP from Quebec, and while Rae is right to say don't "exaggerate" the meanings, this move isn't inconsequential either.

I look at this story in terms of optics and narratives. Here we have a party fighting for its life, relegated to almost an afterthought in the Commons, appearing a viable option to someone from a party supposedly on the rise, "one step" from government. In addition, the geography is interesting as well, because the Liberals are nowhere in Quebec at the moment, whereas the NDP hold the lion's share of MP's, there is simply NO easily ascertained advantage in jumping to the Liberals. A head scratcher no matter how you cut it, rationales aside, this sends a clear signal that the NDP are still on precarious perch, the Liberals obviously down but perhaps not out.

The NDP have seen their support in Quebec erode as of late. As well, most objective observers have seen a less than impressive expression in Ottawa, partially because of the leadership race, but that doesn't tell the whole story. There is still very much a lingering doubt that the NDP are "for real" so to speak, therefore declining polls, pedestrian performance as Official Opposition, tend to feed that apprehension. Today's floor crossing is simply more ammunition for this perspective, another item for the ledger, that suggests the NDP aren't the firm alternative to the current government that they wish to convey. In fact, the Liberals have outperformed the NDP to date in Parliament, perhaps this professionalism and steady work ethic contributed to this decision(I found St-Denis' policy rationales less than convincing in totality). Whatever, the overarching conclusion, the down on their luck Liberals somehow managed to attract a MP to the fold, something I doubt the most seasoned observer ever pondered.

Liberals now head to our Convention with wind in our sails. Any talk of "death" now temporarily muted, and I'm sure St-Denis will be welcomed as a conquering hero, a terrific shot in the arm, no doubt about it. This defection should offer no distraction to the daunting work ahead, but it does speak to a certain resilience.

Score one for the zombies. And, if you still doubt this defection doesn't matter, I quick read of our opponents reaction should convince you otherwise. The NDP on the wane finds concrete example, the Liberals "still not dead" finds further confirmation, and a sense that things are still very much in flux in Canadian politics. We'll take it.

The Hypocrisy Chronicles

2012-01-08T20:04:00.000-05:00

There is nothing a conservative likes to ramble on about more than the idea of fiscal restraint, belt tightening, the need to make organizations lean and mean, competitive, bang for the buck, yadda, yadda, yadda, red meat for minions, a mantra for a movement, it's how many people define themselves politically. What I find FASCINATING, how this supposed underpinning of fiscal conservatism seems to be a partisan consideration, rather than true "ideal", the reaction can go from blind fury to utter indifference, depending on the subject matter.

Today, another story on the Harper government's spending habits, wherein the consistent theme of preaching one thing to others doesn't equate to internal behaviour. In fact, what we see is the most maddening of realities, a government that has the audacity to lecture Canada about the need for "austerity" at the same time they are racking in RECORD expenditures. The latest:

The number of staff hired to advise and consult with the prime minister has grown to unprecedented levels under Stephen Harper’s watch, despite his stated objectives to cut costs and balance the budget...

The largest Privy Council Office in Canadian history, surpassing those "dirty Liberals" these charlatans used to rail against! The hilarity knows no bounds, partially rationalized in the article by personnel needed for the Economic Action Plan, which really means we needed more people for government self promotion.

Speaking of self promotion, a more powerful pattern emerges when you see the utterly OBSCENE increase in government advertising, fully THREE times that of the previous Liberal government:

In a press release distributed Thursday, the Ontario MP cites a new report which shows government-wide spending on advertising more than tripled since the Conservatives first won power, growing to $136.3-million in 2009-10 from $41.3-million in 2005-06.

Factor in many outside observers feeling this government has taken advertising to a partisan level never seen before, and you have a picture of a Canadian public taken for an expensive ride in the name of self interest. Again, austerity for others, absolute reckless spending for themselves, sheer hypocrisy, a word that is over used but entirely warranted in this instance.

This government has increased spending in the Prime Minster's Office, they have a record staff in the Privy Council, they're off the charts when it comes to self promotion, no matter which measure you choose, there is simply no evidence of personal "austerity", rather that of people out of control, acting with impunity, shafting taxpayers for naked self interest.

And yet, Jim Flaherty can lecture the world on the need for austerity, Stephen Harper can STILL solicite donations from fiscal conservatives, the Conservatives can STILL get on their soapbox and speak with CONVICTION about protecting the taxpayer. A more amazing spectacle, you'll rarely see.

Liberals And Mayans

2012-01-07T09:11:00.003-05:00

I actually have very tempered expectations heading into the Liberal Convention. Truth be told, there is a good chance Liberals emerge from Ottawa with not much to show on the "renewal" front. It remains to be seen if anything of substance will be adopted or signals sent on the "personnel" front. In addition, I sense some emerging opinion that lack of real change isn't necessarily a bad thing, reform for the sake of it isn't inherently advantageous. Read a Tom Clark for example, and you wonder if people have incorporated the last few elections, apparently "oblivion" starts if we reform next week, as opposed 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011(my Mayan calendar started years ago). I find perspectives like Clark's bizarre, even though there is a rationale, it reeks of the "penalty box" mentality, which assumes time is our friend, just sit tight.

If I had to handicap the Liberal president race, I'd still consider Copps the front runner. Of interest to me, does the online "hype" surrounding my guy Crawley translate to real delegates, because I see his candidacy as very much social media driven, very much organic in momentum, does that "buzz" manifest into bodies or another example of the cyberworld overstating practical numbers. What is clear, this race is very much shaping up as the "insurgent vs the old guard", that's your narrative, that's your frame, expect post-Convention digestion to view the vote within these parameters. Should Copps emerge victorious, the symbolism will be there and it will make a statement to the wider non-partisan audience.

When you look at the reforms proposed, there is some element of radical moves, but also much that isn't. The "primary" proposal might not fly, I sense some hesitation, but even if it does, the requirement of signing up as a supporter, filling out a form, declaring, this process still provides a "closed" flavour, it is not opening up the door in a radical way, it just makes it SLIGHTLY easier to be a Liberal of sorts. I favour the "supporter" designation, but it's inclusion is really a pedestrian step, because apart from paying a small sum- which was never a big financial barrier- the process doesn't really change. Where the primary idea looks particular attractive is the novelty aspect, which will generate attention. But, when it comes down to the details, participation will still be limited and involve much of the past, in terms of what is required to come in and vote.

I'm also sensing some reservations about limited the leader's power to influence policy. In reality, when it comes to appointing candidates, our choice is a strange one indeed, the leader gets a quota of sorts and within that still retains his "power". We can argue whether that appointment retention is good or bad, but nobody can claim adoption would be revolutionary. On the policy front, I do see real reform, should we vote for these resolutions, it will help to transform inputs and the hierarchical discussion. Again though, does this reform pass?

My overall point, Liberals could well leave Ottawa with Copps as their president, a couple tinkering reforms and much abandoned. Everyone does there own deduction whether or not that scenario is a good or bad, but for all the talk of renewal, it is quite possible we leave with the old guard candidate at the helm and a short on true "bite" reform agenda. I don't favour change for it's own sake, frankly a few ideas proposed are flawed. However, I also understand the power of optics and the fact Liberals won't meet again for a couple of years. For that reason, I think it imperative every Liberal fast forward to the end of this convention and envision what message we want to convey coming out of Ottawa, what's your desired headline, because that consideration isn't irrelevant. Symbolism matters, and rather than see oblivion on the horizon, I live in the post-apocalypse world, it already happened :)

Leader Knows Best

2012-01-05T07:40:00.001-05:00

There are some healthy "renewal" proposals to vote on at the Liberal Convention. And, there is one change in particular that is so watered down that it amounts to institutionalizing the leaders power, not curbing it as advertised:

This proposal doesn't sit well, this leader appointment "quota" is supposed to be some improvement, advancement? I don't have the exact numbers for past elections, but allowing our leader to select a full 20 candidates doesn't equate to democratizing the party from this quarter.

In a true democratic party, NO individual should be ordained from the top, they should have to demonstrate their CHOPS, compete for member votes, provide a presence in the riding they want to represent, participate and engage with the grassroots. This proposal is actually insulting on many levels, because it provides two tiers of standard bearers, those selected by riding members and those IMPOSED on riding members with a "father knows best" flavour. If someone is truly a "star" candidate, surely the leader can visit the riding, make the case for she/he, work to get their choice nominated, let that person demonstrate to the great unwashed that they are a person of merit, a real coup to even have in the party.

This amendment looks like some sort of bastardized compromise, in formally "curbing" the leader's ultimate power to appoint, we've come up with a quota that enshrines the practice. Our leader can only appoint 25% of candidates in a particular province, posited as though this is progressive. Taken further, history tells us the leader generally appoints in FAVOURABLE ridings, so 20 KEY people that have a decent shot at becoming an MP are given a free pass, shoved right passed the membership. People put before the wider electorate without much advance knowledge of their positions, there ability to work a room, interact and engage. Having no personal relationship with ridings we are supposedly "empowering", said appointment may or may not jive with the locals, we really have no idea how that relationship will work, very much a forced marriage of sorts.

This amendment reeks of more elitism, it contradicts all the proposals which look to give local members more say in the process. One is hard pressed to find a more grassroots democratic expression than a local riding nomination, it is a core undercurrent that maintains a healthy debate. Giving our leader this almost obscene power to dictate isn't representative of a "modern" political party, of the type Liberals want to project. Instead, this particular amendment fleshes out top down hierarchy, it is regressive, paternalistic and anti-democratic, no matter how you cut it. I'd rather have NO proposal, status quo, open ended appointment power, then this ruse presented as some sort of reform.

Watershed Moments

2012-01-04T10:28:00.001-05:00

I must admit, I'm pleasantly surprised how the Liberals have managed to keep themselves in the news, despite a NDP leadership race and the obvious struggles for a third party. As a matter of fact, I think you could cobble together a fairly convincing argument that the Liberal Party is where the "action" is at the moment, a thought I wouldn't dare conceive of only a couple months ago. There is a small undercurrent of momentum, and this perception and interest is being driven by this emerging spirit of reform within the party. Much of this conversation, will come to a "head" so to speak as we Liberals gather in Ottawa next week, although really that is just a starting point.

Ibbitson column today asks the relevant question:

Will the delegates take the risks needed to fundamentally renew a gravely damaged political brand? Or will the old guard undermine reform in the interests of protecting what little turf is still left to them?

Based on conversations with people who spoke candidly in exchange for anonymity, the news for Liberals is mostly encouraging.

I would take it one step further and say who we elect as well, a clear signal moving forward, hardly trivial or "inside", but a overarching statement. There will be much decided during this convention, as you can clearly see in the many proposals put forth. Liberals can differ on what proposals they favour or reject, but there is the capacity for significant reform, of the type that can begin to revolutionize the party. I see many of these proposals, candidates, as laying the framework for a true reformist practicality moving forward, a certain playing field ripe for potential activism. As well, the potential for a culture that still has a necessary hierarchy, but is inclusive and egalitarian in many regards, sending a clear message that we have a representative party, modern in scope and welcoming. It is here that Liberals can start to engage lost generations, the slow rot could be reversed. I am in no way saying reforms will lead to true electoral revival, only that there is more potential for a resurgence should we implement, than sticking with old imagery and mostly the status quo.

Many proposals will fail, not all are sound or wise, bu the debate they've generated is healthy and productive. My hope is we come out of Ottawa with certain reforms in place, something beyond window dressing, show Canada that the Liberal Party has the capacity for internal reform. Liberals need new faces, new veins to mine and modernized approaches to Canadian politics. If we get the nuts and bolts right, I suspect we shall see compelling policy and people come forth in the months ahead, this could well be an exciting and inspiring period.

Let's see what happens, the question Ibbitson asks is a key one...

Bob Rae Hits Quebec

2011-12-31T00:07:00.000-05:00

While the story focuses on rehashed nothingness, there is something informative at the bottom of the Bob Rae article, namely the Liberals might have finally discovered this one province in Canada, think they call it Quebec:

He said the Liberals will be stumping in Quebec in early 2012 to pick up votes that now appear to be up for grabs. “I’m going to be spending quite a bit of time there in the new year and doing what I can to have an impact.”

Reads of this blog will know I've gone on and on for years imploring the Liberals to devise a more robust and AGGRESSIVE Quebec strategy. Whenever I have had an occasion to speak with anyone of substance in the Liberal Party, my first question always revolved around Quebec. Despite some fits and starts, the Liberals haven't articulated any clear outreach in Quebec, certain imperatives and festering problems rarely dealt with. There has been a certain passivity apparent within the Liberal ranks. I recall asking a core OLO francophone, with the former Leader's ear, about Quebec and received the most mundane of responses, basically not much to do until the election (this from someone with intimate knowledge of the province, seasoned and respected). I was stunned to be quite honest. Not a defeatist attitude, but almost a casual view, rather than assertive, I've never felt any URGENCY within the thought process. The NDP had that urgency, and that's how they became the default "second choice" in the province, first winning a seat, then becoming more credible, finally a leader who appealed to increasingly fertile ground. Meanwhile, Liberals seemed okay with a narrowing audience, we had our bastions, beyond that a growing irrelevance of the highest order.

I understand Liberals have had many internal issues, the Coderre fiasco, many other organizational problems, but these problems always struck me as excuses. The NDP had NO organization, proving that one should never limit themselves within a simple discussion of nuts and bolts. I want Liberals to see Quebec as "anything is possible" rather than limiting our appeal, based on outdated language and approaches. Better to try and fail, than to not try at all, and sadly, for wide swaths of Quebec, the Liberals have failed to reach out in any substantive way.

I'm encouraged to hear Bob Rae will make Quebec a key thrust for himself and the party moving forward, because whenever I run the electoral numbers, our health in Quebec is a key consideration. A hunger and urgency, armed with a fresh and inclusive presentation, we might just surprise ourselves.

Paul Summerville For National Policy Chair

2011-12-30T09:37:00.000-05:00

In doing some research on Paul Summerville, one common thread emerged from his proposals and ideas, a distinct egalitarian flavour woven within. In running for Liberal National Policy Chair, Summerville seems to find his inspiration from the concept that policy should be driven by the membership, the rank and file should help formulate, advocate policy and this engagement evolve into more than the typical "pat on the head" manifestations of the past. Cut to the chase, the Liberals always advocate grassroots policy input, but to often it feels like appeasement, superficial outreach, rather than a true "roll up your sleeves and dig in" expression.

Summerville sees the membership driving the debate, his proposals(not all adopted, but still relevant to sense philosophy) to date attempt to remove policy power from the leader, rather than this person dictating to the membership, he/she becomes a conduit, a spokesperson for the ideas articulated and approved by ordinary Liberal activists. Summerville also offers ideas on curbing the power of Caucus, not all of which I agree with, but the overall spirit is spot on and long overdue. In reviewing the final amendments Liberals will be voting on, I note the Leader veto is on the table, as well as the Leader's capacity for amendment.

Summerville brings a lot of experience to the table, beyond that there is a revolutionary underpinning to his thoughts, concepts that will impact how the National Policy Chair interacts with the membership. The Liberals need to empower the rank and file. If Liberals are to move from an elitist entity to a true egalitarian movement, wherein membership matters, then we require people in positions of influence who understand what must occur to ensure future political relevance.

I will be voting for Paul Summerville at the coming Liberal Convention, and would encourage others to give his candidacy some consideration.

Liberals Moving From Entitlement To Enlightment

2011-12-29T08:53:00.000-05:00

Reading Belinda Stronach's column this morning, I was struck by this passage in particular:

In the case of the Liberal Party, it has actually been liberated by circumstance to think about the state of politics and the future of the country in a way the government just can’t do. This is a time of flowing creativity, a free and humming marketplace of proposals. Not every idea from inside this incubator will come to pass, but the process is long overdue.

I don't support Stronach's term limit proposal, at least not her parameters, but that's not the point. I actually don't support many of the ideas floating around Liberal land, I'm even supporting people at the convention that I at least partially disagree with on certain key issues. What I do support is the notion put forth by Stronach, that the Liberal Party is showing signs of moving from the party of entitlement to one of enlightenment. I've been aboard this rotting carcass for almost six years now, no time approaches this current moment, in terms of true discussion, debate and constructive dialogue.

Cynicism aside, for the first time a party that actually feels as though voices matters, a proposal legitimate, no matter the source, no matter the status, we're debating merits, origins irrelevant. Stronach is like every Liberal these days, pitching an idea, throwing it out there for digestion, agreeing is secondary to this emerging culture. The question of sustainability is to be answered later, this convention lead up could be a blip, the results themselves perhaps a setback, but there is a different foundation being built moving forward and it does have a "genie out of the bottle" flavour.

Liberals numbers are smaller, we're a million miles from power, but like Stronach asserts, this predicament is actually freeing. The Liberals objectively desperate circumstance is morphing into a gift of sorts, out of our shackles, everything on the table, a sense we can just be what we want, rather than forever trying to be what we perceive our audience wants to hear. This emerging culture demonstrates the capacity to step on toes, be provocative, I even hear the word BOLD used now, without it being accompanied by "risky" or "reckless" to dial back the mere suggestion.

Not everyone agrees, there is no consensus emerging, but there is very much a debate occurring, juices are flowing and people are engaged, more now than at any time I can remember. It's healthy, it's optimistic and it's generating some substance, which hopefully is just in it's infancy. A few months ago I dialed back my commitment to the Liberals, my perspective was "show me" before I support in robotic fashion. I mention this because this optimism I project now isn't knee jerk partisanship, it's a sense that reform is on the table, real reform, something different possible, excitement is emerging from a stale and decidedly esoteric culture. It doesn't even matter is my philosophy entirely jives with whatever manifests itself, I support the spirit of the debate, moreso than the result, if that makes any sense at all.

I don't support your idea Belinda Stronach, but I love that it's being cultivated on newly found fertile ground. That healthy culture is the essence within, and it bodes well moving forward....

Liberal Primaries: Order Matters

2011-12-28T09:11:00.001-05:00

In reviewing the Constitutional Amendments Liberals will be voting on at the Convention, the section on the Liberal primaries is fascinating. An obscure group to be known as the "Leadership Vote Committee" deserves some attention, because their arbitary decisions have enormous impact, given the staggered nature of these primary proposals. How this Committee will be constituted:

Leadership Vote Committee consisting of:

(i) two co-chairs;

(ii) the National President;

(iii) two persons elected by the PTA Presidents from among the PTA
Presidents and the National Vice-Presidents, one of whom must be
English-speaking and one of whom must be French-speaking;

(iv) two representatives appointed by the Caucus;

(v) any number of other members of the Party appointed by the co-chairs in consultation with the National Board of Directors and respecting the principle of equal participation of men and women and the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada

The preamble to the leadership selection process offers a key assertion, that speaks to eventual primary order importance:

In order to raise the interest of the public and build momentum while selecting a Leader, the Party would use a modified version of the current Leadership Vote procedure that would enable entire regions to cast their vote on different days, and for the first preference results of a region to be published on the day that region holds its vote. This would also provide candidates with a better idea of how they are performing, and whether or not they wish to remain as a candidate in anticipation of the next regional vote.

After the first primary or two, candidates will get a sense of where they stand, viability, and it is true many will probably drop out as the process develops. According to the Constitution, if a candidate drops out after one vote, but prior to the next, any weighted support will be redistributed to the other candidates, based on their percentage in that primary. This stipulation could have some impact as the process moves forward. But, the true importance of a staggered vote, how this Leadership Vote Committee decideds the Primary order, the chronology for the six "regions".

Just as in the American system, wherein Iowa and New Hampshire assume disporportionate influcence, based on the calendar, how the LVC decides order will have incredibly enormous importance. Liberals would be wise to keep a close eye on who eventually joins this LVC, because certain candidates will have advantages or disadvantages based on their regional bas support. For instance, should a Quebec candidate emerge, he/she would have much at stake, depending on whether this LVC puts that regional Primary early or late in the process. If chosen first, someone with widespread Quebec support has advantage, a sense of momentum, again much like the American analogy. As well, someone who has large support in one region may never make it to that primary if that vote takes place late in the process: order may well be as important as overall support within this new system. The underlying motivation for a primary system is to build "momentum" as the votes unfold, which is an acknowledgement of an evolving process.

I'm not offering a positive or negative perspective on how these primaries will unfold, but it's important to understand that a "inside baseball" Committee will carry incredible responsibility and influence, how these votes shakeout on the calendar will impact the eventual result. It's nice if someone has great support in British Columbia, but if that primary is last on the leadership calendar, said candidate may never make it to that vote. As well, any other candidates who drop out during the process will be compelled to move to those with "early" support, again cementing the importance of order. Perhaps a relevant analogy, Rudy Giuliani's failed GOP bid, wherein he decided to virtually forego the first two contests- believing he could catch up later on- only to find lost momentum from Iowa and NH doomed his campaign before his strategy even had a chance.

Perception and momentum will drive this leadership selection process, which is why what the LVC eventually decides, the stuffy process part of the equation, may well prove to be as important as the votes themselves. Some won't be happy with the order, others will be ecstatic, we should all keep a close eye on this little Committee with very relevant powers.

Happy Holidays

2011-12-25T09:00:00.001-05:00

Hope everyone has a great holiday season:

When Not To Chase A Poll

2011-12-23T09:29:00.001-05:00

Anyone following the NDP leadership race has probably heard of this Forum Research poll, perhaps the first public gauge of the race. I'd like to look at this poll, not in the sense of insight- primarily because it provides NONE- but because it highlights an almost reckless incorporation by journalists who are supposedly trained to know better. Everyone is dying to get a read of how the race is going, perhaps this flawed release, leading to disproportionate conclusions. In response to the Forum Research poll, we get this patently ridiculous headline from the National Post, "John Ivison: NDP’s Paul Dewar upbeat despite poor polling":

Thomas Dewar, scion of the famous whisky family, once said he would never invest in a going concern until he knew which way it was going. On that basis, if you believe a new poll on the NDP leadership, you might not invest too much time helping the whisky baron’s namesake, Ottawa MP Paul Dewar.

A poll by Forum Research for the National Post asked Canadians who voted for the NDP in the last election who they preferred as the next leader of the party. Of the 300 respondents, nearly half were undecided, which suggests there is still plenty to play for. But of the 163 decided voters, 45% said they favoured Thomas Mulcair, with support coming from right across the country. Peggy Nash came second with 16%, while Mr. Dewar and perceived front-runner Brian Topp languished at 8%.

Now, in fairness, the article also provides a couple cautions on this poll, but the headline is clear, based on what I view as an entirely irrelevant beauty contest poll, the perception is actually evolving that Mulcair is way ahead, someone like Dewar trailing badly. I'm just amazed that professionally trained journalists will extrapolate anything from a patently flawed PRIMARY source, not worthy of anything except to note the power of name recognition.

The Forum Research poll doesn't ask potential delegates their opinion, it asks people who said they support the federal NDP who they prefer as leader. Half the respondents didn't even denote preference, a testament to treading carefully with the result. Further, if someone told me prior to seeing these numbers who would come out on top, I would have picked this order without hesitation. Mulcair has NATIONAL name recognition, he was the NDP deputy, he was the heir apparent, he has received a steady diet of coverage since becoming a MP. Peggy Nash has been on the federal stage for sometime, giving her a marginal advantage over a just emerging Dewar or more meaningfully a BACKROOM person like Topp. This "poll" is really nothing more than stating the obvious, a very general NDP audience really doesn't have much of an opinion yet, but when pushed, they cite who they know with more regularity. And, don't even get me started with the less than 200 sample size of mere voters for a party with almost 100000 actual MEMBERS.

It really does irk me that races become shaped based on the most dubious of sources. I expect seasoned journalists to denote red flags and precede accordingly, otherwise they WARP the reality of the situation. This poll tells me absolutely nothing that can be extrapolated to ascertain true measures of support. However, I keep hearing about this poll, it is now someone woven into our perceptions of how the race is going. Truth be told, we've yet to get a serious poll on the race, about all we can look at empirically is things such as endorsements, which speaks to organizational strength, where people are starting to move, even here very much subjective and dicey, but at least within the real playing field.

I've seen this NDP poll syndrome happen too many times, rather than giving little weight, over zealous and lazy conclusions drawn, then subsequently picked up, evolving to almost a concrete viewpoint. The problem I have is that moving forward, a particular candidate has to fight against emerging perceptions, which are based on nothing of substance, an entirely false narrative, that doesn't pass any smell test I can understand, based on my own training of what constitutes solid sourcing and evidence based thesis development.

Dewar is "upbeat" despite poor polling, seriously? After all the heavyweights lined up behind Topp, Mulcair enjoys almost SIX times the support? When you give weight to suspect relevance, you can actually begin a self fulfilling prophecy journey, you can reinforce a notion that someone is trailing badly, when really you have nothing of consequence to assert that argument.

I expect better, as we all should... Hopefully Mr. Dewar can keep his chin up, in spite of this devastating result that will apparently haunt his campaign. Goodness.

"Tuned In" Canadians?

2011-12-21T08:30:00.000-05:00

If you want to read a misleading poll result, then this Ipsos Reid offering on voter engagement and attitudes is a perfect example. The methodology is fine, but the conclusions are so contradictory, the idea the people are "still tuned in" evaporates with subsequent responses:

The number of Canadians turning out to vote may be dropping, but a majority of the country appears to still be tuning into politics, according to a new poll.

The Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Postmedia News and Global National found that less than one-third of respondents [31 per cent] said they have "tuned out of any kind of political activity, including voting."

Only eight per cent strongly agreed with that statement, while 23 per cent somewhat agreed.

That leaves the majority - 69 per cent - saying they have not tuned out, with 39 per cent strongly disagreeing that they have tuned out and 30 per cent somewhat disagree."

A huge majority say NO, they haven't tuned out, they are engaged. Trouble is, when you drill down further, the electorate's behaviour contrasts with their assertion:

A Statistics Canada survey of voters from the May election found that more than one-quarter -28 per cent - of the country's 7.5 million voters who did not cast a ballot did so because they weren't interested in voting, while another 23 per cent said they were too busy to vote.

I'm sorry, but with ADVANCE polls and every effort to make voting as PAINLESS as possible, to say you are "too busy" to vote is the clearest indication of complete and utter disinterest. Truth be told, the simplest of effort required, times and dates provided to ensure being "busy" taken into account and you still can't bother to participate in the most basic democratic expression? One thing to say you don't vote because you hate the choices, but "busy" is an admission of disinterest, anything but "tuned in".

Ipsos also asks voters impression of the government, and within these results you see that despite what we say, people are very much tuned out:

A majority also believed the government was getting things accomplished on enhancing Canada's reputation in the world (60 per cent).

Seriously? The international community criticizing us on the climate file, the UN criticizing us, ample evidence that our "reputation" is eroding and yet Canadians think our stature is on the rise? To my mind this perspective tells me that no one is paying attention, because this fall has seen a steady diet of criticism, how 6 in 10 of us see improvement escapes me.

This poll tells me Canadians like to think they're engaged and participating, but a closer look reveals superficial interest, bordering on completely oblivious. I also believe this government in particular has accurately incorporated the public indifference and sleeps well within knowledge.

Two Cents On Blogger Accreditation

2011-12-20T16:38:00.003-05:00

My friend Jeff has a great post up, that covers much of my perspective on the LPC decision, so I won't rehash. Kinsella also has a succinct post on the subject. I've sort of held back blogging about this subject, just a bit of whining on twitter and lots more in private. However, I have a couple points to add, because the way this whole decision went down is instructive as to what is wrong with the Liberal Party.

I'm the one who first applied for accreditation, primarily because I wanted a power cord and a chair to plant my computer, but also because I did want access to certain things. I don't consider myself "real" media, let's get real here. However, that designation doesn't distract from relevant commentary, my opinions expressed here have value, it's up to readers to decide how much. What really bothers me is PROCESS itself, not necessarily the decision itself.

Of course the decision is money related, I know that rationale for a fact and that's understandable. Truth be told, the glitzy blogger room at the last convention was rarely used, most of us we are on the floor where the action was, it was a WASTE of money. Ditto for the Thinkers Conference, again, nice to have I suppose, but not of much practical value. As well, some did attend events using accreditation, without paying any fees, so the party didn't capture this money they otherwise would have. Never mind the PITTANCE that number would be- the actual number of bloggers insanely small- for a party desperate to trim fat, an easy candidate. In other words, some sound logic for toning down the expenditure.

Here's the RUB though. Did the LPC ask any social media types for input? NO, I found out the new world order from a request, there was no consultation or anything, just LPC types in Ottawa deciding what is best, and in so doing revealing just how out of touch they really are, HEREIN lies the problem. Had this party acted like an egalitarian entity bent on renewal and rebirth they would seek out opinion, and surprise, surprise, they would have found most involved were already PLANNING on paying, and most didn't see a need for a blogger room, cost concerns not an issue!

My immediate reaction to the decision was to say, and this VERBATIM, the LPC will create a needless optical problem, once people like Stephen Taylor get hold of this decision they will cause a stir and we'll look bad. What would it say about a party that is claiming to be inclusive, egalitarian, grassroots in focus, for the people, bent on true renewal and forward thinking, to go BACKWARDS on social media? Here we have countries like Israel formally recognizing bloggers as journalists, and the LPC moves the other way on social media types? Again, the whole thought process denotes a real disconnect, how ANYONE couldn't have foreseen the reaction escapes me, because it was obvious and predictable.

There will be no re-think, because that's not how the LPC operates, father knows best and others are unfortunately left to rationalize bad decisions. All this decision does is tell me the Liberal Party needs to cleanse itself of the elitist attitudes that pervade the entire apparatus. Bloggers were going to pay anyways, bloggers didn't need bells and whistles, the concerns of no real concern, but that knowledge would require REAL outreach and a two way conversation. I will be going as a delegate with revolutionary spirit under foot, because this baby is broken and STILL doesn't get it....

Two cents.

Japan's F-35 Cost OVER 50% Higher Than Conservative "Figures"

2011-12-20T00:11:00.000-05:00

Canadians have a basic RIGHT to know the true cost of expenditures, particularly massive ones, like the biggest military procurement in our history. Anyone who follows the F-35 story has been frustrated with what amounts to a misinformation campaign from the Conservatives. This government simply makes up figures, experts can't verify their assertions, updated costs are never incorporated, INDEPENDENT analysis dismissed, only empty counters meant to confuse the electorate and neutralize the issue.

Today, we learn that Japan will pay 114 million per F-35 fighter jet, a FAR cry more than the 75 million figure the Conservatives have argued, based on objectively outdated estimates. Hardly surprising, in fact American experts warned Canada that the cost would be just what Japan paid, going back to last April, when this issue received sporadic attention. Faced with a mountain of evidence that the 9 billion dollar price tag the government had clung to was BOGUS, we then heard about special deals, Harper even said he had some letter which made us immune to cost overrun consideration(amazing, given the host country America had already foreseen HIGHER costs, Harper actually posited Canada had a better deal than the Americans themselves). The Conservatives simply made it up on the fly, desperate to get the issue off the front page and per usual, their fog of conflicting talking points won the day, everyone moved on, a certain deceit validated.

Last week, Fantino floated the notion that Canada might trim the number of planes we will actually purchase. Interesting, given the military have asserted the 65 plane purchase is the "bare minimum" number to defend the country. Are the Conservatives FINALLY admitting a cost overrun, which will translate to an ineffective military force? Are we actually on a path where we pay billions and billions for a plane that won't even meet "minimum" requirements? A boondoggle that doesn't even do the job?

The way this F-35 issue has been handled by the government denotes complete incompetence, as well as wilful disregard for the truth, it's that simple. That there is no evidence to date of any true accountability is disappointing, but hardly surprising given Harper's Ottawa. This plane isn't just stealth, the truth around it is also undetectable.

State Of The Liberal Party

2011-12-18T09:08:00.000-05:00

With the fall sitting of Parliament behind us- the first since the Conservatives won their majority- perhaps a good time to analyze where the Liberals sit, now that the election rejection dust has settled. If I could choose one word to describe the current Liberal predicament "resilient" seems appropriate, both in terms of internal spirit, as well as outside evidence. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Liberals are headed back to power anytime soon, our future very much in question, but nor does the party look poised to fall off the map either.

All in all, this has been a fairly productive fall for the Liberals. Those of us who thought Rae would make an excellent interim Leader, perform well in Parliament, get much needed "ink" for a third party, make efforts to rebuild and raise money, he's been a success, no question. Liberals have rallied, they've shown up at meetings, there has been a flurry of ideas and useful introspection, they've opened their wallets to the tune of outperforming the Official Opposition, there is a healthy appetite for real reform. Liberals have managed to stay part of the political conversation, we've been nimble and effective in getting noticed, if irrelevance is a chief concern, we've beat back the beast with a certain gravitas.

The polls have been fairly consistent in their message, Liberals remain a very relevant in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. In fact, all polls show us competitive or even leading in Ontario, a remarkable showing for the "walking dead". What the polls tell me, the Liberal still have a "base camp" or two, the entire country isn't a desert, although the challenges are obvious and daunting in many, many regions. If expectations are measured, then the landscape looks somewhat inviting, if survival is your gauge, then the polls are cautiously reassuring. Don't get me wrong, things are BAD, but I see a walk before you run scenario ahead and within this any firm underpinning is welcome indeed.

Overall, I'm a dedicated pessimist on the Liberal front, you hesitate articulating any optimism because to often this translates to shortcuts and half measures, a delusional thought that electoral rebound is just around the corner. Truth is we still live in a very precarious world and realistic perspectives incorporate multiple elections if a return to the power is even possible. However, in the short term, given the devastating election implications, the Liberals currently sit in almost optimal condition. It's as if we've survived phase one of "renewal", whether or not that matters will depend on important future decisions, the real work ahead. I prefer to look a the whole process like a steep set of stairs, within that characterization, fair to say the first step gets a CHECK. A good post-apocalypse start for the Liberals, all things considered.

Where Are The NDP In Quebec?

2011-12-17T08:22:00.002-05:00

A steady flow of polls for Quebec this week, with widely varying results, but consistent on the trend front. The Harris Decima offering earlier this week stated the NDP were in "free fall" in Quebec, which caused quite a stir. I found the result interesting, but mentioned the word "outlier" because of the steep gradient, nothing of true substance to explain such a collapse. As often happens, Harris Decima was quickly followed by a Quebec only CROP poll, as well as this morning's Leger result. Given the CROP and Leger polls come with much larger Quebec sample sizes, Harris Decima looks a bit suspect on the reliability front, although there is something instructive within their result.

Harris Decima pegs the NDP support at a lowly 26% in Quebec, tied with the Bloc, Liberals well up to 20%, Conservatives 17%. CROP shows no such thing, NDP at 36%, Bloc 22%, Conservatives 22%, Liberals 16&. Leger puts the NDP at 33%, Bloc 26%, Conservatives 18%, Liberals 17%. Again, I'm inclined to favour the Quebec only pollsters, the NDP aren't falling apart in Quebec, BUT there is consistent evidence of decline. Leger sees NDP support "eroding", slowly but surely and CROP does note a 7% drop since the election. As well, polls prior to this week have suggested a similar gentle decline for the NDP in Quebec. Harris Decima have picked up on the decline, but the amplification isn't replicated and it's only use, with confidence, would be on the trend front.

Taken in totality, it is objectively fair to say NDP fortunes are marginally on the wane in Quebec, the heights achieved during the election and afterwards have dissipated, suggesting a softness, which is hardly surprising. The NDP haven't really distinguished themselves this fall, the leadership race has been pedestrian at best, and Ottawa "bubble" logic gives the Liberals the opposition nod in terms of effectiveness. That said, even the Harris Poll poll pegs the NDP support nationally a mere 6% behind the majority Conservatives, 6% up on the Liberals, so you could argue a certain firmness in the new world order of Canadian politics.

My view for quite some time has been don't expect much in the way of poll movement until at least the NDP leadership resolution. There is some evidence we Liberals are performing well (particularly in Ontario), obviously indications that the NDP are off their dizzying heights in Quebec, the Bloc are still a factor and the Conservatives sit in their usual range. Unless we see some massive issue arise that draws the gaze of a slumbering national electorate, there is really nothing to suggest big support changes are in the offing. Perhaps the NDP continue to drop in Quebec, but until they have a new leader, any digestion is utterly meaningless to the longer perspective.

For the most part, Canadians have tucked away their majority government, just happy they don't have to listen to constant electioneering and sabre rattling. Those seaching for deeper meaning will be left embarrassed, because the interest is actually superficial and sporadic. As for the NDP in Quebec, considering their "wave" came about so quickly and spontaneously, some sober pullback is expected and only when we see a new leader in action, should we truly take measure of future prospects.

Low Road Chronicles

2011-12-14T09:50:00.002-05:00

Susan Delacourt's offers five steps to effectively dose any and all political fires. In the context of Cotler and "reprehensible" actions on the part of the Conservatives, I suspect Delacourt's theorem will hold, once again nothing in the way of recourse or price to be paid, every week amounts to an almost fresh start, that's just the way politics work now, and have for years. These Conservatives have mastered the art of damage control, their method is deliberate and consistent, and above all MASSIVELY successful.

It truly is remarkable that the Conservatives can be found to have acted in "reprehensible" fashion, and yet there will be NO sanction forthcoming. In the absence of new information, the Cotler story lacks the requisite "legs" to stay on the front burner, so whatever action is quite irrelevant in terms of real world impact. In fact, the precedent here reinforces the idea that political parties can say whatever they desire, with little fear of formidable blow back. As well, overriding this whole discussion, the cynical idea that all parties operate this way, it's the natural order, hardly something to get all "uppity" about, par for the course. With each successive example of "reprehensible" behaviour, we cease to be surprised, outraged, reaction outside of partisan circles becomes a shrug, a passive disposition which only cultivates further indiscretions.

We live in a world with no attention span, political parties have wisely incorporated that reality into their strategies. As well, a certain jaded mature mentality takes the view that we've "seen it all" so it is very hard to truly shock the conduit, as well as their audience. Any partisan outrage is relegated to just that, a almost hypocritical selective memory, issues tend to get lost in this relative haze, objective judgement haphazard and undependable.

Almost everyone does agree that the Conservatives behaved badly in relation to Cotler. But, perhaps the fact that "political" behaviour will result in little consequence is what's really reprehensible, when you apply clarity to jaundiced eyes.

Is Stephen Harper a Denier?

2011-12-13T07:57:00.001-05:00

This entire Kyoto debate is frustrating in one sense, the former Liberal government's utter failure continues to absolve the current Conservative government and their now SIX year abysmal reign on the environment. The Kyoto Protocol has been a friendly ally for these Conservatives, it runs cover for their complete inaction, people forever lay blame elsewhere and in so doing utterly miss the plot. Yes, the Liberals signed Kyoto and did little else, we can all agree on their record, I will never defend it, nor did I support it in the ballot booth. It is also true this Conservative government was "saddled" with the commitments, it was pretty clear Canada would face a herculean effort because of past inaction, so again, YES, we all digest the chronology, we all realize the 2006 starting point, we get it in relation to the Liberals, we do, we do, we do, ENOUGH already.

I would love for the discussion to begin with this Conservative government, because the blame game on Kyoto doesn't adequately incorporate the last SIX years. These Conservatives were always Kyoto sceptics, a "socialist scheme", there was a philosophical resistance, which is reasonable and worthy of some merit. Kyoto is flawed, Kyoto isn't necessarily "fair", people can disagree, people can suggest alternate plans, it is not the holy grail and we can debate the contents in this democracy. However, what is required within this Kyoto discussion, an acceptance of the problem, and within that any rejection must be accompanied by an ALTERNATIVE, otherwise motivations are dubious, true intent suspect.

I find it a bit hilarious that people can vividly remember the Chretien years, and yet they seemly can't recall the more recent past. I remember Rona Ambrose failing badly to bring forth a credible climate change plan, I remember it was so bad public relations wise this government pulled the hook on the Minister. I also have memory of John Baird taking up the Conservative "fight" against global warming with the catchy "Made In Canada" action plan, with much hype, THIS plan was the counter that would show a seriousness on global warming. Unfortunately, even though the 2008 election was PRIMARILY about environmental issues, Baird announced that the Conservative plan would be delayed in light of said election and produced at a later date. The Conservatives won that election, attacking the Liberal carbon plan, while simultaneously producing NOTHING to counter, then summarily SHELVED their PROMISED "Made in Canada" plan after the vote. After Baird's reign, Jim Prentice took up the lead role, so bad it was now referred to as a "career killer", people openly wondered if Harper gave him this post to hobble future leadership aspirations. Prentice spoke of intensity targets, hitched his wagon to America, in essence we gave up environmental sovereignty, and decisions for Canada would be made in America (an amazing development given the former "Made in Canada" thrust). Little in the way of noteworthy policy followed, band aids and not much else, Prentice left an objective failure, like his Conservative predecessors. Fast forward to Kent, more inaction, little effort, more "pariah" talk, rhetoric without real world applications.

This government has CUT climate change research, this government actually diverts "green" money to carbon producing ventures, this government has left a void that some provinces have tried to fill, leaving a patchwork effort, so BAD even the carbon puking industry itself wants MORE clarity. The last six years provide a very coherent strategy, this government will attach itself to anything that can lessen primary blame. The Conservatives will blame past governments, other nations, "special" requirements unique to Canada, anything that provides distraction, that creates a fog to shield the true shape of their actions. In essence, six years of propaganda, smoke and mirrors, moving goalposts, evolving excuses, hiding behind other countries.

If you review Harper's commentary on global warming just prior to taking office, you see a consistent thread, Harper was very much a sceptic, he reads like a global warming denier. Only when the issue rose to the top of public opinion, only when Harper became PM, did he suddenly start to sound committed to the idea of man made global warming, when challenged ONCE, he spewed out some flat language meant to end any suggestion he actually questioned the entire premise. However, if you take Harper at his word prior to taking office, then review the Conservative "commitments" on global warming, how we've acted on the international stage, there is really nothing to suggest that Harper has changed his beliefs, in FACT, there is a perfect symmetry.

If you're a climate change denier, massive odds you're a Conservative supporter, read some of their supporters and you can literally hear the knuckles dragging. That fact in and of itself begs some questions as to why the attraction, given public pronouncements. As well, just last week Harper's former guru Tom Flanagan took to the CBC airwaves to declare himself a proud denier, even encouraging others to come out of the woodwork. Harper was quite clear prior to becoming PM, one wonders has he really changed his mind, or does the nature of the job demand more nuanced public language? Given the record, given the public commentary history, given where we sit today- still long on massaged propaganda and public appeasement, short on actual ACTION- it is fair game to wonder if we have a climate change denier for Prime Minister? Maybe when everyone is done chasing Chretien's ghost we can get down to it, once and for all....

Stakes Are High For Liberal Convention

2011-12-12T07:59:00.002-05:00

"Renewal", the key buzzword heading into the Liberal Convention next month. Given the current predicament, I see this gathering taking on particular importance, providing clear signals about our future direction, but it will also serve as a testament to whether Liberals have that internal reform spirit. Talk to people outside Liberal partisan circles and there is a certain clarity, within, remains to be seen if the gravity is fully incorporated.

A Tandt column states the obvious to my mind, Liberals need a "intellectual reboot":

Most importantly, there’s this: the Liberal policy kit, supposedly the reason for the party’s existence. Between Jan. 13 and 15, Liberals are to gather in Ottawa for their biennial convention. This is billed as an opportunity for renewal, for testing and discussion of a new U.S. primary-style leadership selection process, and for debating and honing new policies.

But as the Liberal party’s nifty interactive website makes painfully clear, there are few new ideas on offer. Early drafts of resolutions mainly read like re-treads of “red books” of the recent past: Bring back the Kelowna Accord; fight global climate change; restore Canada’s peacekeeping tradition, and the like.

Nowhere in the collection of resolutions on offer — except perhaps in the discussion of electoral reform, which shows promise — is there a hint that the Liberals realize they need an intellectual reboot. Underlying this is the assumption that lousy leadership explains their collapse.

When people attack, Liberals tend to act defensively, circle the wagons, stand up for the tribe and it's glorious past. That instinct is noble in one sense, as is that "rallying" spirit we've witnessed over the past few months. However, that mentality also tends to offer a comfort blanket, and in so doing doesn't quite grasp the outside reality for what it is, favours tinkering over a true revolutionary mindset. If there is one danger for Liberals moving forward, it is finding strength in each other and then erroneously projecting that fighting spirit onto an already rejected landscape.

Tandt is right, there is a certain reinvention that must take place, armed with cutting edge ideas, "everything is on the table", traditional liberal ideals updated and transformed so that ingredients together create an entirely new expression. It is here that one of the first "tests" for the Liberal Party will be this convention, not make or break, but a concrete step that will tell Canadians what we've digested and where we want to go.

I respect everyone's decisions, thought processes, in choosing whomever for the elections at this coming Convention. Whatever the outcome, Liberals will get behind and support the people chosen. However, it is also true that this Convention has a optical imperative, it must say to Canadians that a fresh approach is coming, this isn't the Liberal Party you've already decimated. A step further, when you have one candidate with NATIONAL recognition, you must choose carefully, knowing full well that the decision goes beyond "nuts and bolts" of the party, but very much a FACE consideration. Do Liberals really want to come out of Ottawa preaching renewal, rebirth, new directions, a fresh start, with a face that reminds everyone of another era? Is it really wise to continually remind people of the past, say nothing's changed, same old, same old, is that the visual we want leaving Ottawa? There will be no turning back, "controversial" the middle name and a FACE the media will continually seek out, for obvious reasons.

The Liberal Party gathers in Ottawa, with their future relevance very much unclear, in desperate need of new ideas and direction, and they look to the distant past for inspiration? That's it, that's all you could come up with, that's your prescription, that's what you want to tell Canadians, "the rat pack is back baby!". Like I said, I'll get behind whatever, but to be frank, the very idea is maddening on a host of levels, makes no sense to me whatsoever, a complete lost opportunity, and there are few of those left.

You see many columns like the Tandt one, people looking for signs of true renewal and unsure of its existence behind lofty language. This convention is very much about sending a message, it is more than clapping our hands in defiance of those who wish us dead, it's about clean slates, it's about a process that helps rehabilitate the Liberal brand. Again, for myself, this Convention will be a testament to whether a political entity is capable of correcting diagnosing it's own predicament internally, or will it understate the challenges with mutually misguided reaffirmation. The "headliner" moment within that tension will be the Party president selection, it will send the biggest and clearest signal. The canary in the coal mine so to speak....

Drive For Five

2011-12-10T11:27:00.004-05:00

Below, a beaming and proud Inuit youth excepts the prestigious "Fossil of the Year" award in Durban on behalf of all humbled Canadians:

What is simply tremendous, Canada has now won this award FIVE TIMES IN A ROW! Think of all the nations on earth, and yet we have managed to snag this honour in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. Take that big polluters, take that America, there's a new player on the international stage and it's Canada baby!!

I walk with an extra bounce in my step today....

Will There Be a Tipping Point?

2011-12-07T08:18:00.000-05:00

For years now, those of us who vehemently oppose this Conservative government, and their modus operandi, have been waiting for some sort of tipping point, wherein they go to far, the offend to blatantly and in so doing pay a irrepairable price with voters. You can point to many past examples where it appeared that political damage had been done, only to see the Conservatives rebound, instead of erosion, a GROWING mandate. In many ways, these Conservatives have become the teflon government, nothing sticks, what appears problematic from time to time wanes and never reaches critical mass.

I mention the above in the context of this Bob Rae piece, where he argues that the Conservatives newfound arrogance will be their ultimate undoing:

The lack of civility and democratic debate in Parliament has become a major problem — and ultimately it will come back and bite the Conservative government, says Liberal interim leader Bob Rae.

"I think it's going to turn out to be a very, very deep Achilles heel on the part of this government," Rae said in an exclusive interview with Postmedia News on Tuesday. "I think it's going to be a quality of this government which ultimately will be to its demise."

The article comes with another warning from The Speaker on civility, the lack thereof, a theme we've heard before and frankly one that has failed to resonate beyond the "diehard" crowd. Instead of public outrage with each successive breakdown of democratic underpinning, we get more indifference, more apathy, people tune out, they don't get mad. This dynamic explains why the Conservatives operate with relative impunity, why political geeks are left scratching their heads when apparent "big deals" generate small ripples that fizzle out, time after time.

Is Bob Rae correct in his prediction, or is this latest bout of outrageous behaviour just a moment in time, with little long term damage apparent? I would argue that we are seeing a different Conservative government, that this majority has brought a newfound arrogance the previous minority configurations tended to blunt. The Conservatives have a different swagger, you see it in how they respond, you can sense it from their MP's and minions, a completely dismissive tone, that has a distinct authoritarian spirit. This pre-disposition has always been part of the Conservative makeup, but again, without the threat of election, without full control of all levers of power, it was at least muted to a tolerable level. Now, having finally achieved the ultimate goal, Canadians are starting to see the true nature state of the Harper regime and I do see potential for "achilles heels" and some blowback.

At some point, Canadians will say enough is enough, it will come without predictive signs or mounting evidence. Perceived arrogance has brought down governments of all political stripes and rarely do they see it coming and address before it's too late. Given that these Conservatives simply can't help themselves, given that I truly believe we are now witnessing the unshackled beast roaming in it's natural habitat, there is some room for optimism that a true tipping point will be achieved. I would also argue a compelling, "decent" alternative presentation can speed this process along...

Exposed

2011-12-05T14:11:00.002-05:00

Not that we need any more evidence the Conservatives have NO intention of doing ANYTHING on the climate change file, but today's development really does highlight these frauds that run our country.

If you go back to every climate conference, meeting, international discussion, since the Conservatives have taken office, they have hidden behind the "big emitter" arguments when justifying their own lack of commitment. Supporters of the Conservatives have chimed in as well, with these empirical arguments, why Kyoto is practically useless without the participation of countries like China, other emerging economies. This line of defense to deflect Conservative indifference on the file has been quite effective.

Suddenly, China has given signals that is perhaps willing to enter into BINDING agreements, a major BREAKTHROUGH by any measure:

On the weekend, China’s top negotiator signalled his country – now the world’s largest emitter – would accept binding commitments in a treaty after 2020, so long as developed countries renew their pledges under Kyoto.

The European Union is pushing for a compromise that would see current Kyoto participants accept a second round of emission-reduction targets, while the major emerging countries agree to negotiate their own binding commitments for the post-2020 period.

Asked whether Canada would reconsider its Kyoto position in the light of developments at the United Nations talks in South Africa, Mr. Kent offered a terse: “No.”

So, Canada's argument- which Moore is still bizarrely using in Parliament today- is that only a small percentage of nations are under the Kyoto umbrella, rendering it impotent in tackling the problem of carbon emissions. EXCEPT, now we have the big emitter- the country the Conservatives have CITED for years to deflect criticism- saying they might be ready for binding targets within a Kyoto-like Protocol. IF, the Conservatives were previously genuine, they would be JUMPING ALL OVER this development, but instead we get an unbending rejection, now based on flawed and dated logic.

Exposed AGAIN, and while the domestic consumption will be shrouded in wave after wave of pungent Conservative bullshit, our international partners will once again look at Canada with disgust and surprise.

Interview With Candidate For LPC President Mike Crawley

2011-12-04T08:28:00.001-05:00

I had the opportunity to speak with Mike Crawley about his candidacy for Liberal Party president. I found his candour to be refreshing, his energy somewhat infectious and was pleased to get a real sense of depth behind convenient platitudes. Prior to this interview, I was leaning heavily towards Crawley, this conversation sealed the deal so to speak, "I like Mike" as they say and believe he is the right person, at the right time, to create a winning climate for the Liberals moving forward.

A few months ago, Crawley wrote a provocative column on the state of the Liberal Party, which was sobering, and to my mind completely accurate. I asked Crawley if he had received any "pushback" from his assertions, he said the only real resistance was his rejection of "the party of the center", many Liberals believe this is where we must plant the flag, this is where we belong on the political spectrum. A interesting logic behind Crawley, centrism in Canada is "reactive" in the sense it takes it cues from definitions of left and right provided by other parties. I think this is a spot on characterization, because it speaks to a Liberal propensity for taking positions relative to others, rather than independent and irrespective of spectral consideration.

Beyond this discussion of the political spectrum, Crawley argues that we must be a party of pragmatism, rather than "a party of orthodoxy". Without being shackled by pre-determined postures, a few core set of general principles are free to move the party, which is "liberal" in essence. Crawley also believes that "pragmatism and big ideas aren't mutually exclusive", which speaks to a perceived tension I've heard elsewhere. For Crawley, "big ideas have made Canada what it is, people with vision have always been part of the equation". I have always pushed the idea of the Liberals as the party of pragmatism, that Crawley also doesn't see a sacrifice, but an embrace of the "bold" is refreshing.

We spoke about the vast swaths of Canada that are seemingly out of reach for the Liberal Party of Canada. Within this discussion, Crawley again speaks to bold ideas as a way to get beyond old perceptions, they are a necessity if Liberals are to find new audiences. In blunt terms, Crawley says Liberals "need to shut up about the past, it doesn't matter". Crawley believes people know the "lessons of the past, they can read a history book". In the absence of compelling new ideas that challenge the status quo, many Canadians simply revert to traditional definitions of the Liberal Party and this is part of the problem. As part of this spirit of "innovation" that Crawley pushes, he wants to create an environment within the Liberal Party that seeks out think tanks, organizations, individuals that bring forward thinking vision, and in this way the party pushes ahead as a relevant entity, rather than the traditional arguments.

I think it fair to use the word "revolutionary" to describe the Crawley mindset. Given our current predicament, I believe this strong reform minded agenda should find a receptive audience. We spoke about the looming leadership contest, I asked if the party can forge ahead on policy prior to articulation from leadership hopefuls. Crawley put it in a interesting way- which speaks to a certain egalitarian flavour- leadership hopefuls can "join the ongoing conversation", rather than dictation, part of the healthy debate which is already occurring. As well, ideas, concepts, put forth by the party membership itself can be adopted by leadership, rather than a small room formulating philosophy and then consulting membership.

With regards to this "open primary" concept put forth, Crawley sees value on a riding nomination level(both "members" and "supporters"), but hesitates on the leadership front, believing membership "has to mean something", he wants some commitment from participants. Crawley would make membership free, a easy downloadable form provided, he sees no real barriers that would preclude participation. I differ on this score, but appreciate the perspective, as well as the healthy debate this idea in particular is generating.

In general, Crawley strikes me as someone who views his role as the person who creates the climate within the party for ideas and innovation to flow, a receptive canvas that allows others to imprint. His perspective strikes me as the correct one for these challenging times, his passion is obvious and we need people who aren't afraid to embrace concepts which challenge former definitions.

When the dust settles, Liberals will get behind whomever ultimately wins this race. For my money, we are much better off with a forward thinking agenda that shows no sentimentality towards formerly relevant presentations. These are daunting days for the Liberal Party, we have one chance to get it right, we have one chance to have the courage to reform ourselves in substantive ways that show Canadians a new and compelling face. I respect other choices for this particular race, but I will be supporting Mike Crawley as a delegate and I would recommend others consider his candidacy as well.

Anatomy Of A Charlatan

2011-11-30T08:45:00.001-05:00

Another climate conference, which means a rash of criticism directed towards Canada, it's just the way of things. As well, plenty of "backing" in the press, in the sense that Kyoto can be viewed as a very flawed regime, while the spirit is correct, the practicality does allow for credible criticisms. Therefore, if one simply NARROWS their understanding to the Kyoto Protocol, the Conservatives do find "cover", there are plenty of detractors. However, when you take Canada in totality, when you put Kyoto inside the overall contributions, suggestions, undertakings, inspirations, you find an utter fraud, with no real interest in doing ANYTHING.

My working thesis, these Harper Conservatives, and their supporters for that matter, find primary motivation through what they are against, what needs to be torn down, what must be opposed and stopped, rather than any positive vision. Extrapolate that assertion to any file and a more coherent underpinning becomes apparent. Isolate yourself to the climate change file, and again you see what amounts to a total charlatan, hiding behind this and that, but whenever push comes to shove, simply AGAINST, working to stop, water down, poison and ultimately undo. This pattern is now clear, every single climate conference we hear about Canada "working behind the scenes" to scuttle agreements, we NEVER get the slightest indication of a POSITIVE contribution.

Take the Conservatives at face value on Kyoto, because again there is an intellectual argument for pulling out, we can argue, be disappointed, but it comes down to rational debate. Where the smell of the skunk becomes readily apparent, the lack of any true alternate proposal to deal with the problem of global warming. It's one thing to be against Kyoto, quite another to oppose and offer NOTHING of substance in its place, an imperative if you are TRULY engaged on the issue, if you GENUINELY believe the science. Canada has opposed, but offered nothing more than lip service language, thrown a bit of appeasing money around, but never part of the constructive dialogue. In fact, if you listen to the clear message from other country delegations, Canada isn't part of the conversation, it's an obstructive force, rather than positive participant. Given that we now have had several of these conferences during this government's reign, the pattern becomes striking, the excuses just that, the arguments HOLLOW and transparent, Canada on climate change is a ruse, plain and simple.

Apologists will point to Canada's proposals as rebuttal, but the obvious "rag the puck" flavour, the deflection of relative responsibility to others, exposes the government in clear terms. Anyone can cobble together clever sound bites to mask true intentions, but when you delve further you see it all boils down to public relations strategy, behind that the only goal is to do nothing, but deflect blame.

When the dust settles on this latest climate conference, Canada will be against initiatives, it will "pull out", it will claim to be supportive of other ideas, and in the end it will have done absolutely nothing constructive, leaving other nations scratching their heads once again...

Megaphones And Disingenious Origins

2011-11-29T08:11:00.001-05:00

It is fascinating, and somewhat disturbing, to watch ideological zealots drive debates, using disingenuous talking points to initiate, then pass off conversation to more reputable inquiry. Take the debates about the CBC and the tar sands, and you'll find careful manipulation, worthy arguments about transparency and human rights pimped out to provide cover for true motivations. A seed is planted, under dubious rationales, then picked up in a wider sense, by those who's arguments are honest in desires.

Here's the bottom line for me, people like Ezra Levant don't GENUINELY care about human rights in the Middle East, it is only an argument of convenience, when really it's all about hating environmentalists, thinking global warming is a "scam", wanting nothing to interfere with oil extraction. That is the GENESIS, that is the true inspiration, which then finds other arguments to push that agenda. The government then adopts the language, it's a talking point, it provides them philosophical cover. Others then chime in, as there is a legitimate discussion to be had, but the whole conversation is driven, hatched from a disingenuous source.

Conservatives HATE the CBC, that is a fact, that is your starting point. Forget this nonsense about transparency, again this is just an argument of CONVENIENCE to MASK true intent. I suspect part of the CBC's resistance to all the information requests is a simple recognition that the pursues are on a jihad, not some noble pursuit surrounding openness and accountability. Again, however, those who do truly believe in these ideals- myself included for that matter- chime in, giving legitimacy to a thrust which is TRANSPARENT itself.

Should we debate the CBC? Absolutely. Should we discuss the pros and cons of the oil sands, no censoring, full disclosure? Absolutely. That said, what I find troubling "healthy debate" seems to find its origin from highly biased, ideological driven, entirely charlatan in nature sources. The champions of human rights, PLEASE. Just about openness and respect for taxpayers, OH PLEASE. Those with functioning fore brains understand, but what is truly unnerving, how minor noise machines receive disproportionate attention, moving marginal arguments to mainstream discussions.

Last week, both the CBC and CTV had excellent discussions on the CBC, encompassing different points of view, intellectual and productive. I have no problem with this "coverage", however it is revealing that this "debate" only occurs because of the INITIAL onslaught from the outside the mainstream ideologues, they DROVE the debate and brought it to center stage. The same chronology is true of ethical oil. Almost commendable in one sense, how a small cadre of ideologues can bastardize certain legitimate lines of inquiry for their own purpose and in so doing manufacture a truly national discussion. Perhaps it would be easier to digest if I believed for ONE nanosecond that the original proponents actually gave a rats ass about Saudi women or the public's need for transparency. I don't, nor to most outside observers, so that acknowledgement, in and of itself, deserves serious reflection, otherwise we are at the mercy of loud propagandists, astroturfers and disingenuous players.

Brian Topp Swings And Misses On Taxes

2011-11-28T14:25:00.002-05:00

Brian Topp released his tax package today, which demonstrates why I prefer him in the NDP leadership race, FROM a Liberal perspective. This document should win rave reviews from the NDP faithful, Topp stands on proven grassroots ground, class warfare and redistribution of wealth in aggressive fashion. In terms of the NDP leadership race, a good release for Topps, but in terms of a party who will need to capture moderate Canada if it ever hopes to form government, this document casts a narrow net that will most likely alienate.

The idea of a growing gap between rich and poor, to my mind, is a fact, not an argument. Topp's initial assumptions are correct, and I do believe there is a fertile audience for the idea of fairness and more equity within our society. However, it is Topp's remedies, PARTICULARLY going after capital gains, that will turnoff many in the middle class, the group he supposedly champions with this release.

Stock options, check, Topp does make sense on this score, they've become a loophole for a small group of the wealthy insiders, an "option" which is routinely abused. Reversing some corporate taxes, a very credible argument that the current regime is out of balance, we have tilted to far, the promised investment hasn't materialized even while corporations post record profits. Another tax rate for those making 250000 or more, maybe, although I MUCH, MUCH prefer consumption taxes here, which address income indirectly and efficiently: the more you make, the more you spend, the more you pay. Where I fall completely off the Topp train is this idea of going after capital gains, and I believe this proposal will come back to haunt the NDP, should Topp win the leadership.

Topp uses RRSP's to show how capital gains are somewhat unfair. What he doesn't come close to understanding, RRSP's provide a tax shelter- as well as contributions LOWERING your taxes at time of investment- until which time you need the money, which is normally done at an optimal time, wherein this is a sole source of income, taxed accordingly. In other words, there are PLENTY of advantages to an RRSP that you don't receive with capital gains, to such an extent, singling out capital gains as unfair is just BAD MATH.

Middle class Canada understands capital gains, it isn't the domain of fat cats in ivory towers. Sure the rich benefit from capital gains, but so does anyone who invests outside of other options, so do people who have the misfortune of losing their parents, so do parents who want to leave their accumulations to their children. Many Canadians hate capital gain taxation, if Topp thinks this measure has no relevance to middle class Canada, I suspect he's in for a surprise. Just look at the overwhelming success of TFSA's- well BEYOND the government's projections- and you'll see ORDINARY people are looking for ways to get around capital gains. This measure, I predict, will go over like a lead balloon and provide EASY fodder for opponents to bludgeon the NDP.

With this package, Topp may well win the battle, but I can't see how he wins the war. The fact he doesn't embrace any consumption taxes is old thinking, which does nothing to show Canadians the NDP are widening their appeal IMHO.

Dead Man Walking

2011-11-28T08:55:00.001-05:00

Federal polls at this moment are mostly irrelevant, but this new Nanos offering is noteworthy on a couple fronts. First off, I have been of the mindset we Liberals are relegated to third place until well after the NDP leadership race, primarily because of a belief that contest would suck all the opposition oxygen, leaving us to fight for headline scraps. However, to date, this NDP leadership race has been pure VANILLA, early days, but so far nothing terribly compelling. Add in a dose of unexpected positive Liberal press- the Rae love in- and the dynamics have changed slightly(note the polling days mostly prior to Peter C. Newman digestion).

The numbers(last NANOS in brackets):

Conservatives 35.6% (37.7%)
Liberals 28.1% (23.4%)
NDP 27.3% (30%)
Greens 3.9% (3.8%)

An outside the margin of error move for the Liberals, as it appears they take votes from the NDP and Conservatives. The above rationale, as well as a negative flavour to the Conservatives heavy handed tactics in Ottawa, might explain the Liberals solid result. Decent coverage(Rae and renewal), a mostly invisible Official Opposition and Conservatives playing the Parliamentary bully game equates to a statistical move.

The regionals show the Liberals in first within vote rich Ontario:

Liberals 38.8% (30.5%)
Conservatives 37.2% (42.4%)
NDP 19.6% (22.5%)
Greens 3.8% (4.6%)

That is a clear shot in the arm result for the Liberals, suggesting there is still fertile ground, as well as hard to define tether to provincial standing. The McGuinty Liberals are alive and well in Ontario, so it does bleed some credibility as an option to the federal counterpart? Just a theory.

Nanos also find some evidence of Quebec erosion for the NDP, I only mention it because he is alone. Again, I'm a bit surprised to see the NDP faltering a bit, at least at this stage, but it is fair to say Turmel has been an utter non-factor and voters aren't sure where the party is headed. One BIG caution here, this NDP race WILL heat up, the battle will be joined and the debate should heighten exposure, so this could well be a temporary pause/pullback during a lull period.

In two years, when both the Liberals and NDP have new leaders, then the polls start to become instructive as to future possibilities. However, for a party desperate to remain in the conversation as a viable option, results like these tend to blunt the funeral processions, so they are not completely throw aways. This poll also demonstrates why I prefer MAYBES over the unequivocal proclamations of certain authors; that stuff bites you in the ASS every time, politics never sympathetic to absolutes, to fluid for theorems.

Best Foot Forward?

2011-11-24T07:59:00.003-05:00

When the dust settles, you'll get behind whomever, because in the grand scheme the selection of President for the Liberal party isn't a make or break factor. That said, the next President is incredibly important, given our current predicament, the role takes on unusual significance.

Toronto Star piece encapsulates for me why Sheila Copps is the wrong choice for Liberals:

I had heard from Liberals who are thrilled that Copps, once one of the best-known — and most controversial — Liberals in Canada, is in the race. They believe she is their best hope to spark interest in the party, rebuild internal operations and attract new members.

I had also heard from Liberals who feel Copps is “yesterday’s woman” and to them an unsavory reminder of the years when the party was waging bitter internal wars. They also fear she will be more interested in seeing herself on national TV than in dealing with the nuts-and-bolts of running the party.

There you have it, and the above is problematic. I will never understand the net benefit in embarking on perhaps our final stand as a party with someone who solicits such a wide array of feelings? For a party that needs all oars in the water pulling in unison, the LAST thing desired is a controversial figurehead that turns some on, others off, a confusing presentation of the past trying to pave the future.

Sheila Copps GETS ink, she always has, because she has that kind of profile, because she is opinionated and the media laps that up. Liberals must ask themselves, do they prefer a nondescript builder or someone who will be in the news, and as we've seen MAKE some news of their own? Run through the other candidates for President, do they offend anyone, do they bring passionate disagreement, are they a POLARIZING figure? Personally, I want to hear ideas, beyond that I want the next President to work tirelessly behind the scenes to rebuild the party, I have no desire to hear them on television, that is a role for others. As well, I will literally CRINGE anytime a President interjects themselves into wider debates and becomes part of the story. With this sentiment in mind, having watched Sheila Copps for decades, it will be almost IMPOSSIBLE for Copps to wade in. Canadians will see a "face" on the party, one that they will CLEARLY identify with the past, one that will be at odds with our essential "NEW" thrust, the optics are confusing, period.

The LAST thing we need is baggage attached to our "NEW" direction, why we would VOLUNTARILY handicap ourselves like that forever escapes me. I appreciate the strengths her, Copps brings much to the table, but there are negatives and that in and of itself is concerning, for my money not the "best foot forward" scenario coming out this decisive convention. Again, who we choose for President isn't the critical moment for all time, but it's not a "nothing" calculation either, it has practical and SYMBOLIC ramifications that will be apparent in the months ahead.

A fascinating Lawrence Martin column today, on a mostly unrelated topic, but interspersed with references to Copps, apparently about leadership, but also somehow about Sheila, to the point a MP's opinion is sought. Again, another reminder of the direction we may well be headed, and one that deserves careful consideration...

THEM

2011-11-23T08:43:00.000-05:00

It is perplexing that people are perplexed by the Harper government's recent bullying and nasty behaviour. Dan Gardner does a terrific job dissecting the underlying motivations for this government, which if truly understood put recent incidents in their true perspective:

Stephen Harper doesn’t want to beat the other side; he wants to destroy them. They’re not opponents; they’re the enemy. As for the depth of his ideological feelings, the prime minister’s colleagues use the word “hatred” to describe his antipathy to liberalism.

When politics is everything, when opponents are enemies, when there’s hatred in your belly, certain things follow. Ruthlessness, for one. Personal attacks. A refusal to accept the legitimacy of different views and to work with those who hold them.

I have long argued on this blog that conservatism under Stephen Harper is as much about what they OPPOSE, as much any philosophical vision for Canada. Without a THEM, there is no positive inspiration, there must be an enemy, something to tear down, something to destroy. If you understand this psychological state, then the inability to incorporate new facts or arguments, the narrow zeal that never bends, is more fully in crisp focus.

Gardner focuses on Harper, but really the whole "movement" that emphatically supports him falls into the same category. Look at how the Conservatives choose their fundraising vehicles, almost every single one is predicated on this notion of some big bad force that threatens our sensibilities and needs to be tamed. It's never about traditional conservative principles, it is ALWAYS about some enemy and the faithful open their wallets. The need for a THEM runs through this entire expression, Harper, his minions, right down to his nasty online commentators, a true ruthless sensibility that speaks to the worst in all of us. Why anyone actually expected this majority government to "mellow" escapes me, it simply isn't in their DNA.

If you review Harper's career, how his brand of conservatism rose to power- found grassroots support- you will note it was ALWAYS about what they were against, what needed to be destroyed, what was counter to their sensibilities. Harper spent years attacking Canada, it's institutions, found it necessary to trash us abroad, just an overriding NEGATIVITY that fed all the arguments.

It is this state of mind that provides the never bending commitment, that renders traditional debate meaningless, a pre-determined state of mind that sees questioning as threat, legitimate discourse an irritant. Anyone who dares get in the way of Harper's agenda is subjected to outlandish attacks, their reputations put into question, their non partisan credentials undercut, just a pervasive mood of intimidation and low brow tactics.

Again, if you are left scratching your heads at Harper and company's recent behavior, you simply fail to understand the true makeup of your subject matter. Harper's Conservatives has been nothing if not consistent, there will always be new enemies around the corner, it's what gets them up in the morning....

"The Party That Tells It Like It Is"

2011-11-22T07:21:00.001-05:00

Andrew Coyne presents an interesting perspective from which Liberals can approach their predicament. Rather than entirely depressing, our new found lowly status in Canadian politics provides an opportunity, relative irrelevance frees of us politically correct shackles, allows us to breathe without fixating on focus group tested politics. Viewed within the lens Coyne puts forth, there is really the possibility for exciting ideas, rather than being everything to everybody, be something to someone.

I quibble with Coyne's assessment of the recent Liberal renewal document. Truth be told, I'd didn't read the Liberal achievement tripe portion, but was solely interested in the infrastructure stuff, the "process". This document isn't supposed to be a philosophical treatise, I don't want my party hacks carving ideological direction at this point. The document, to my mind, lays out the playing field from which the "bold" Coyne speaks of can nurture itself, cultivate organically, find an inviting environment that brings healthy and open debate. Viewed in this limited sense, that road map achieves something noteworthy, it allows for someone armed with ideas to make a case without pandering to a self determined base, it allows for what Coyne argues, someone to step on some toes, offend here and there, but present a coherent "tell it like it is" platform. Opening up the process allows for someone to catch fire without pandering to a limited audience, the feedback loop of self affirmation.

Coyne correctly diagnoses the predicament, it is bleak, unprecedented and above all the sense that the Canadian public owes nothing to the Liberal brand, the starting point. I've argued forever that our own sense of lineage is a handicap, the almost sentimental reiterations of past achievements perhaps good for the "troops", but of no consequence whatsoever to the average Canadian. Rather than go back and find ourselves, rooted in past achievements, we must embrace the future, which may step all over past predispositions, some blasphemy required. Again, Coyne's use of the word "opportunity" is correct, the question becomes: can Liberals appreciate the circumstance enough to embrace what that designation requires?

We might be dead, we might not be, anything that is unequivocal at this stage doesn't seem particularly wise. However, unless we embrace a "bold" path, our fate is more predictable, merely left to languish until we finally wither away. Much, much more attractive to "go down" fighting, to dispense with the niceties in Canadian politics that turns everything into vanilla, that keeps people away, that doesn't get the blood flowing, generates messy and HEALTHY debate, something to get behind or oppose. We can't be afraid to offend, we do need to forget about "tents" and spectrum considerations, we need to take stands, hold to them, based on a vision we think is best for Canada. Third party status allows us certain freedoms, and we may just be rewarded if we demonstrate a true revolutionary spirit, not band aids and platitudes, but in your face, uncompromising politics, that says "this is me", DEAL with it.

Is There Anything More Useless Than A MP?

2011-11-21T07:32:00.002-05:00

I support the Liberal seat distribution plan, if only because it is the only presentation that doesn't increase the number of MP's, an occupation which is increasingly useless, redundant and downright unnecessary.

If you're a Conservative MP, you're not allowed to speak freely, debate ideas or act in any fashion without approval from the strongman. If you're an Opposition MP, your questions are feed to you from the halls, you react with sound and fury, but you are essentially powerless, relegated to constituency work, rather than truly participating in democracy. Oh, of course, all that great work in Committee, which is essentially a pat on the head scenario, because majority rules, and those rules don't originate in those rooms.

What we really have in Canada, is a Prime Minister who more resembles a totalitarian dictator. The Prime Minister, and his team of unelected hacks, pick the Cabinet, who are really just extensions of PMO policy choices. Government MP's are feed their talking points, told their direction, should they divert in anyway they face sanction. In reality, these people just occupy seats, their true powerbase is so miniscule it doesn't deserve serious consideration. How Canada approaches the world, how Canada deals with the economy, the environment, social issues, etc, all of it resides with a small cadre of people, of which only one is a byproduct of democracy. The sad part, that is the reality for MP's elected from the government side, slap a "Opposition" label on an MP and futility takes on new meaning.

Yes, there are exceptions, a private member's bill here and there, but again there is still vote direction from the top, in many cases the true inspiration. MP's toe the party line, a line determined outside of democratic manifestations, and should they go "solo", they will be ostracized, this or that "taken away", rendered even more useless for showing any sense of independance.

Of course, MP's have more individual power in a minority, but not really, in that all decisions and emphasis is still a top down affair. With that now cemented reality in mind, any proposal which doesn't ADD more empty vessels is the preferred option. There is a certain irony today, as I read the Conservatives look to "push" through their seat distribution Bill. "Push", as in minds have been made up, the PMO has decided, so stand up Conbot MP's, get this thing passed, as for you Opposition MP's, it doesn't matter. More succinctly, a Bill to add "fairer" representation in Parliament is about to steamroll over Parliament, think about it.

The title is harsh, of COURSE MP's do many important things, particularly in their ridings, where they actually can assist people. However, when it comes to Ottawa, their supposed main emphasis, an MP in the sense of democratic representative is a intellectual farce of the highest order. Save the cash, save further dilution of already marginal influence, the Liberal plan addresses regional inequalities without the spectre of more paper tigers populating Ottawa. And, of course, the Liberal plan will receive no proper airing or debate, and isn't that the point really...

Cut The Crap

2011-11-20T10:33:00.000-05:00

If you happen to read one document on the current state of politics, Allan Gregg's expansive essay is a MUST read. Gregg articulates what we crave, what is missing and why those who exhibit the slightest AUTHENTICITY now thrive, no matter their political persuasion. I've stressed the word authenticity on this blog many times, to my mind it is now a core characteristic that must exist to truly resonate. "Victory" these days is a tricky affair, because when you factor in turnout, apathy, outright disdain, seat calculations don't always equate to a more encompassing view of "success".

A fantastic analogy by Gregg:

I was pondering this quandary the last time I was in New York, when I ventured onto Bleeker Street to catch the early sets at the seminal folk-rock venue, The Bitter End.

The opening act was a three piece alt-rock outfit, fronted by a bespectacled, baseball capped, singer-guitarist by the name of Michael W. To my surprise and delight, they were very good – not quite ready for the big stage, but certainly beyond competent. They played original material that had a Tracy Chapman/Ben Harper rhythmical, not-quite-rock-but-not-the-acoustic-singer-songwriter thing going on. The crowd responded to their first few songs with something between courtesy and enthusiasm.

It was all very pleasant when something completely unplanned and unexpected happened. A few bars into about the fourth song in the set, W’s electric pick-up popped out of his hollow-bodied guitar. Rather than stop the song and repair his now obviously dysfunctional instrument, he leaned over to his piano player and whispered (the club is intimate enough that you actually can hear such things from the audience) … “we have to go acoustic”. The keyboardist turned off his instrument, the drummer avoided the skin of his snare and merely tapped out the beat on the rim of his kit and W began to sing off mic. Within a few seconds, the normal ambient din of a rock club slid into absolute silence. Stripped of all reverberation, the cadence of W’s voice seemed far more assured yet nuanced, while his guitar playing was unquestionably more dynamic and muscular. Robbed of his instrument, the keyboardist had little choice but to move closer to center stage and he and W began singing to each other and produced some of the most beautiful harmonies I have heard in a rock club. As the last chord was struck, the room literally exploded with rapturous cheering, hooting and applause.

It wasn’t at all clear that the Michael W band fully understood what they had created, because with equipment repaired, they never again even came close to connecting with the crowd in the same way for the remainder of their workman-like set. But we in the audience knew we had witnessed something very magical and rare – unscripted, unrehearsed, naked authenticity. The band had ceased to “perform music” and instead had communicated with us and among themselves with a joy and passion, without artifice.

I'd also add the word ORGANIC here, which is an extension of authenticity, instead of contrived, things just happen. Everything in modern politics is scripted, pre-planned, careful, tested, approved and manufactured. This presentation is in direct conflict with modern means of expression, wherein the audience is no longer PASSIVE, but engaged and active. No longer do corporations "sell" their products, they now put out their messaging, which we investigate ourselves, relying on the personal experience of others to guide us, the "street take". Gregg uses travel as an example, I'd add big items like purchasing an automobile to the smallest of investments, taking in a movie. You look online to see what others think about your preferred vehicle choice, you go to Rotten Tomatoes to see if a video is worth renting, you forever seek out real world FEEDBACK, beyond the traditional sales job. This development speaks to an inherent mistrust, we no longer take the word of the salesman, we require third party validation to make a more informed choice. With few exceptions, the modern political apparatus has failed to understand public sentiment in this regard, still relying on outdated, almost one way means of communication, which is viewed with outright suspicion.

It's a fairly simple and painfully obvious calculation: there is a disconnect between the messenger and the audience, the dialogue isn't viewed as a real world connection, but some foreign world that the players reside in baring no relationship to our own. As Gregg notes- across the political spectrum- voters are so desperate for an air of authenticity, they will reward those they normally wouldn't support, based solely on a sense that there is something genuine, real, honest about that person. In an age of packaging and careful sterilized discourse, the very hint of authenticity- something that pierces through the perceived snow job- is entirely attractive. The Toronto electorate didn't move right when they voted for Rob Ford, they simply responded to plain talk, within a package which oozed "Joe Average", straightforward, one of "us", no pretense or slick presentations.

If you look at the last Ontario election, one moment strikes me in support of Gregg's thesis. Only one moment, within a sea of the usual bullshit, the Dalton McGuinty "hey, I know you don't like me, but..." ad. For those few seconds, McGuinty looked human, sincere and shockingly HONEST. Political scientists can pour over that campaign, but I would point to that simple ad as the KEY turning point, that probably saved the Liberal government. There was an authenticity about that particular ad that stepped outside the usual tripe that people tune out, real is effective, honesty can resonate, self deprecation resembles real world reflection.

People no longer take politicians at their word, the entire "game" as we see it deserves complete suspicion, if not outright disdain, almost a defensive posture which demands scrutiny to sift through the misleading optics. Politicians will say anything, their promises are worthless, their message is almost trickery, rather than advocates, the whole political machine is at odds with everyday society, how we speak and interact. There is the political world and there is the one we live in, our apathy and disinterest providing powerful evidence that leadership is now rendered an esoteric world, far, far away and completely irrelevant. A dangerous development, but also a circumstance that highlights how a "cut the crap" mentality can truly capture the public mood, an air of authenticity piercing through the smoke and mirrors.

Political parties now spend incredible amounts of time trying to figure out how to communicate effectively in the modern world. Contrary to that acknowledgement, what fascinates me, how there is still this cookie cutter war room mentality, how the template is still adhered to, despite all the evidence pointing to a tired model that doesn't work, if engagement is your true guide. Outreach is almost tertiary, the models persist, despite the acknowledgement of a changed audience. When we see anyone or anything step out from the stencil, it is refreshing and yet it still remains rare. The party that figures out "authenticity", makes it the core word that surrounds and develops every strategic decision, will be rewarded. Not a theoretical prediction, we have many practical examples which demonstrate where the electorate is, they are simply waiting for the political machine to catch up...

Key Word Is "Open"

2011-11-16T12:55:00.002-05:00

Ask Canadians which political party is least grassroots in orientation, more a backroom affair, more an organization of elites and insiders, most corrupt, least "street" in outreach, and I guarantee all day long the Liberal Party of Canada "wins" in a landslide. There is a readily apparent disconnect between how Liberals view themselves and how Canadians view Liberals. With this perspective in mind, the idea of a Liberal "OPEN" primary finds new appeal.

It is true that Liberals currently have a OMOV selection process, egalitarian and inclusive, no doubt about it. It is also true that membership fees are such they should provide NO barrier to active engagement, so minuscule to be inconsequential. However, when you factor in the very nature of partisanship, fully UNDERSTAND the wider perceptions, you can see how "joining" the Liberal Party can and IS a mental obstacle for many people. We all know people who are political, have strong opinions about issues, many right in the Liberal philosophical "pocket" and yet they shy away from partisan manifestations. This reality is all the more striking with younger Canadians, particularly with a party which so entrenched, with so much brand baggage, not only uncool, but downright offensive. If you accept the above, then you logically look for new ways to engage, reach out, OPEN up the political process and allow for gentle contributions, an appeal that appears wider than simply partisan ramblings. This is where the conversation about Liberal open primaries begins, in my estimation.

I keep hearing criticisms like "gimmicky", "hail mary pass" desperation, and while you can argue some merit in those viewpoints, the idea also looks more a 21st century progressive trend, that is proving to be of significant value in other jurisdictions. My initial reaction to open primaries was negative, for many of the reasons already articulated. However, the more I ponder the idea, the more attractive it becomes, the more I look elswhere, the more I see potential payoffs, the more I come to grips with how tarnished the Liberal brand, the more I favour measures which completely mix up the status quo. As well, when you factor in the core idea of GREATER participation, it's hard to see a downside, inclusivity is never a bad exercise.

I offer the two most recent experiments with "open" primaries, and you see very impressive results, real "sparks", lots of attention and focus, and new legitimatises with the electorate that go beyond normal "convention" flavour partisan decisions. In France, this example:

Successful primaries give French socialists momentum

Open primaries were initially suggested by a progressive think tank, Terra Nova, and encouraged by a few reformist leaders with a modernising agenda. Opening up the selection of the Party's candidate, they argued, meant fully embracing twenty-first century politics and would force the Parti Socialiste to go beyond its organisational structure and address the concerns of society as a whole...

Extensive media coverage, a high turnout of 2.7 million voters and a decisive result will give the socialist candidate greater democratic legitimacy and momentum. An incredible 6 million viewers watched the final TV debate on Sunday between Hollande and the runner-up, Martine Aubry...

In England, this example:

Tories hail high turnout in 'open primary' to select candidate

A doctor was today chosen as a Conservative parliamentary candidate after more than 16,000 voters – most of whom were not party members – took part in Britain's first full "open primary".

The Tories were delighted with the turnout of about 24%, which sets a record for the number of people involved in a parliamentary selection, and could lead to the procedure being used much more widely by the Conservatives – and possibly other parties...

After the result was announced Pickles said it had been "a great success for democracy".

He went on: "Today's turnout exceeded my wildest expectations and just shows that if you trust the people they embrace democracy.

"I hope Totnes represents a new type of politics, which rejects negative campaigning, and sees openness as a way to restore confidence in public life. I hope over time that the primary process becomes a permanent fixture in British Politics."

Real world examples, providing concrete evidence of turnout above expectations, massive attention and a sense of doing politics differently. In both instances, the general public reacted, and in so doing the eventual winner has a resonance beyond the tribe, they look much more the choice "of the people". I'm sorry, but this sounds exactly the kind of RECIPE for the Liberals, if ever a party needed mechanisms to make them appear more grassroots and democratic in nature, it is this institution.

Last week, I heard Craig Oliver make a comment about the Liberal open primary. Oliver said the media would eat up such a contest, it would receive a ton of attention. I share that viewpoint, just the novelty alone provides great intrigue, then factor in a more general appeal and coverage is all the more justified. An open primary is exciting, it's fresh, it has the potential to let a true outsider make a run, based on nothing but ideas that resonate. A open primary could provide a terrific opportunity to completely reintroduce the Liberal Party to Canadians, to say in stark terms, this is a new party, forward thinking and OPEN to all, come on in, have your say, this isn't a club but an outreach.

The more I think about open primaries, the more become a proponent. This looks the right remedy, for the right time, for all the right reasons. With "partisanship" on the decline, the party that first captures the changing dynamics stands to reap the most benefit.

UPDATE

A piece in the Huff Post arguing for Liberal Primaries.

Please STOP Talking

2011-11-14T18:06:00.004-05:00

Oh good, I'm not the only one who reacted to Sheila Copps today like skin reacts to poison ivy. Here's a neat concept, if you want people to stop seeing you as a "stalking horse" for someone else, STOP acting like a "stalking horse" for someone else. It is simply astounding how every single interview, commentary, piece I've heard from Sheila Copps SINCE she floated a run for Liberal President includes some dialogue on how Bob Rae can be permanent leader. Nevermind if Mr. Rae can or can't run, with ALL the myriad of ISSUES facing the Liberal Party of Canada, this continual distraction is disappointing, and frankly it reveals why Copps isn't necessarily a good choice to lead the party.

I want a President that does the tough work, but also someone who is largely anonymous, isn't controversial, isn't a potential problem or doesn't bring baggage. Unfortunately, Copps pre-occupation with parting the seas to allow Mr. Rae a run for permanent leader raises all kinds of conspiracy laden theories. It's as though we currently have two parallel universes with the Liberal Party, the encouraging reforming agenda that strives for a new presentation, and the old nudge nudge, wink wink, backroom flavoured machinations.

Bob Rae is doing a FANTASTIC job as Interim Leader, as many thought he would, without the permanent question in the equation. However, Mr. Rae was provided the opportunity with certain stipulations in mind. Yes, people can change their minds, but the unique advantages that Interim Leader provides should preclude any future revisions. Sheila Copps doesn't think the Interim Leader role provides a potential advantage, which is pure MADNESS, YES it does, obviously it does, hello, hello, are you for real? Again, to not admit this basic common sense fact leaves me WONDERING what the hell is really going on here?

Mr. Rae gave his word, Mr. Rae has said he will not seek the permanent position, on various occasions. It is most certainly NOT the role of a potential Party President to drive an agenda that amounts to almost picking sides, getting right in the middle of debate that is outside of how I view this party role. Perhaps this is an example of why Liberals should be weary of Sheila Copps, she is prone to become the story, is that a net positive for US moving forward? Will Liberals have to endure this now reaccuring commentary on Mr. Rae, feeding distractions, wasting energy and focus on issues that frankly she should be taking a PASS on.

Just PLEASE, please STOP talking. I have this sneaking suspicion that we are going down a bad path...

Week One?

2011-11-12T09:00:00.001-05:00

This was a great week for the Liberal Party, perhaps one day it can be viewed as a "watershed" moment. In fact, it's hard to recall a week that has generated as much positive energy, healthy debate, serious consideration, and it's no coincidence that underneath it all is a certain boldness, the forever elusive pre-requisite which is finally coming to the fore.

Almost shocking to read a National Post piece suggest that Stephen Harper listen to Bob Rae on tax reforms. The one off more symbolic of a speech which was serious and generally well received, articulating points of distinction, planting a flag or two, throwing some elbows for political space. Just one speech, but one that afforded Rae and the Liberals some credible ink on the economic file. There are two key battles going on here, one is to undercut the Conservatives, the other to outflank the NDP and look the true alternative on economic matters. Rae had a nice balance to his speech, pro business but also addressing resource based distortions on things like the dollar, as well as the shrinking middle class. I would categorize that speech as "in the pocket" of the Canadian mainstream, again "balance" will be a core argument to reconcile competing interests which the two other parties tend to embrace. I see Rae's speech as an opening salvo, received in such a way it allows for further serious considerations and fleshing out.

The speech, as well as a successful town hall, provided a nice backdrop to the big development this week, the Liberal White Paper which has stirred up much debate. Immediately dubbed the most reformist political document in Canadian history, potential hyperbole aside, the designations are a testament to just how sweeping in scope the proposals. Again, we see a boldness in these proposals, perhaps some risk, but also potential for serious rewards. For a party desperate to stay in the conversation, this is the right document at the right time, guaranteeing our looming convention will have an intrigue that process arguments rarely achieve. I said earlier we need a sense of "where the action is" to re-energize beyond internal machinations, this document delivers, the debate will be pointed, spirited, emotional, something is at stake, something to fight for, something to rally behind. Pro, con, irrelevant in a certain regard, job one is to get people talking, so from a political perspective I'm very encouraged.

As regular readers know, I haven't exactly been Mr. Sunshine on the Liberal front recently, so see my newfound optimism within that lens. My political antenna feels something stirring here, substantive debate over ideas with profound implications. I stopped giving to the VF for a couple months, because I took a "show me" posture, rather than being taken for granted, my money directly tied to delivery. I signed back up a couple weeks ago, because I heard rumblings of what might be coming, real change rather than platitudes and back room machinations. This week has confirmed that new found faith, this is a party that finally looks like it wants to get somewhere, that has the potential to be a true representative democracy, accountable and more egalitarian in nature, less bloat, more direct lines, more "street" resonance. The Liberal Party of Canada may have just turned a corner this week, let's hope so...

Massive Support For CBC

2011-11-10T18:31:00.003-05:00

A Harris Decima poll finds overwhelming support for the CBC:

A Harris-Decima survey conducted for The Canadian Press suggests 46 per cent of Canadians would like the CBC's funding to stay at the current level and 23 per cent would like it to be increased.

On the flip side, 22 per cent say funding should be cut, while 12 per cent say it should be eliminated altogether.

A full 69% want funding for the CBC maintained or increased, representing massive support for the broadcaster. Given the present air of "austerity", deficits, need for cutbacks, that 7 in 10 of us are fine with status quo or even more funding, a very conclusive finding. In fact, as many people want funding increased as decreased, with a very marginal number wanting CBC funding eliminated.

This poll is very instructive, because it provides some grounding to the supposed intense CBC debate we keep hearing about. In fact, there is no controversy at all, Canadians see the value of the CBC, they want it maintained, PERIOD, it's a slam dunk, ignore the disproportionate shrieks from the misfit contingent. Interesting too, despite all the manufactured outrage, clearly the JIHAD isn't resonating outside of a very knee jerk, narrow base.

Bottom Up

2011-11-10T08:20:00.001-05:00

Yesterday it was the wider net of a primary system, today the internal dynamics of the Liberal Party. There is nothing more counter-productive in my mind than the "fiefdom" mentalities that exist within the Liberal Party. The way the party is currently structured, it massively favours incumbency, which in the long term leads to rot, complacency, entitlement and a lack of true accountability.

Some of the proposals coming forth tackle riding nominations, in the sense that incumbents will no longer be protected. As it stands now, a candidate runs for a Liberal nomination, if he/she wins that battle, they then move to sew up the entire riding association and it becomes their personal kingdom, until which time they unilaterally decide to pack it in. Harsh, but not an exaggeration. Part of the problem Liberals find themselves in today is a lack of "new talent", the turnover rate is simply a hindrance to renewal. You constantly need new blood, new people coming in and a system that allows for periodic referrals for a more general approval. I would actually favour a 2 year "leadership review" at the riding level, wherein members do as they do at conventions, vote on MP performance and incorporate certain informal thresholds.

By making MP's constantly accountable, it isn't an attack on them, it simply demands a certain level of performance, that constantly seeks reaffirmation from the rank and file. Add in the proposal to END appointed candidates from the top, and you start to have internal machinations which actually look like a representative democracy. It's a bit farcical to have a party operate with an almost "strongman" mentality, then pivot to be a champion of democratic institutions in a more general sense.

The party leadership apparatus shouldn't dictate to the ridings who their nominee should be, nor should they interfere in any way for that matter. Representation should be left to the grassroots, which also means any candidate or MP shouldn't be able to seize the levers at the riding level, making it almost impossible to revitalize, until retirement or eventual defeat. Periodic references to riding members is a healthy excercise, perhaps "messy", but indicative of something to fight for, which in and of itself is the underpinning of any successful "movement". Open it up, take it out of the leader's control and make people forever accountable. Encouraging signs.

Liberal "Primaries"

2011-11-09T08:22:00.002-05:00

The best thing about floating new ideas, it generates debate, pumps some life into the process, gives a sense of "where the action" resides. I note quite a lot of conversation regarding a possible Liberal primary system as a leadership selection method. I've actually played devil's advocate on both sides, ever since Rob Silver first put the idea out there, now reaching a crescendo with Bob Rae musing, the Liberals set to formally put the concept into the debate.

The whole key to a primary idea, does it strike the right balance, does it achieve what is intended without sacrificing notions of fairness and commitment? I'd like to wait and see any proposal truly fleshed out before jumping on board, but at the very least I now find the general concept attractive. Anything that opens up the process has advantages, particularly for a party desperate to reconnect, present a new face that operates in the open, for all to see and weigh in on.

Some of the valid criticisms I'm hearing revolve around this idea of "instant Liberals", people with little real commitment to the party having influence that cheapens the role of the devoted membership. As well, any primary system runs the risk of shenanigans from other partisans, particularly if the process itself doesn't result in a large turnout (a very real concern, given the apathy that exists). There is potential for unseemly outcomes, which is why any proposal must exclude active members of other political parties, this stipulation a bear minimum if logistically possible.

Right now, it is quite easy to join the Liberal Party, the financial commitment minuscule and not a barrier in any practical sense. However, that logic also speaks to a certain openness, you can join anytime, a couple bucks and you have a voice, that's all that is required. Given the current flimsy nature of membership, there is something to be said for taking the process one step further and allowing anyone who bothers to come out and vote a say. The very act of casting a vote indicates a certain commitment to an idea proposed, pro or con, someone or something has MOTIVATED said individual to take time out of their day to participate. Rather than cheapening membership (which still has "advantages" in other matters, leadership isn't the only expression of influence within a party), the line between partisan and simply political is blurred, tribalism replaced by a more general call to participate. For whatever reason, many people with strong political views stay outside of partisanship, they don't like the labels, the designations. A primary allows almost anyone to participate, while still maintaining an independence, it casts a wider net of interest.

Under the current rules, it is almost impossible for a true "insurgent" to win the Liberal leadership. Party systems reward things like loyalty, networks, factions and self interests. Elites within parties can handpick potential leadership candidates, throw their organizational weight behind and immediately become a force, without going through any paces, without establishing a rapport with Canadians, WITHOUT ideas being the true impetus. In a general sense, any "advance" which opens up the process to a more grassroots potential immediately should be debated. In addition, given the well established history of the Liberal Party, some fresh air that eliminates the backroom machinations, ends the ass kissing esoteric culture, has some appeal in a general sense.

I actually don't care if a committed Liberal or a "outsider" ends up leading the Liberal Party. I care about what ideas, philosophy is put forth, a vision that speaks to modern "liberalism", something I can get behind. At present, the system favours "paid their dues" people, or at the very least a person who has the backing of powerful insiders. In this sense, the idea of a truly egalitarian system, that REACHES out to everyone and says lend your voice, the concept has potential to change how Canadians view this damaged party brand.

I'm not quite ready to wave the "primaries now" flag, but nor am I ready to reject the idea out of hand... If anything, the underlying concept of open participation- a debate wider than tribal considerations- sounds very much like an evolution, and for that reason, a serious deliberation warranted.

Beyond Platitudes

2011-11-07T15:00:00.002-05:00

For a party desperate to stay on the political radar, the notion of "intense debate" is an underlying must. Ideas that challenge the status quo particularly attractive, not just in the name of change for change's sake, but as a vehicle to get juices flowing, to engage and fight for something beyond "hope" and external possibilities. If the Liberal Party is going down, far better to die on it's own terms, rather than remain committed to safe positioning, left to wait for others to provide inspiration.

In a wider sense, times of stark realities often bring the greatest clarity. The frustration for some of us, waiting to hear words which acknowledge an objective desperation, and then speaking from this vantage point with tones that aren't comforting, but naked in their honestly. This weekend Mr. Rae seems to have reached that point, and in so doing just might have provided a "moment" we look back on as the true beginning of real reform. Like a breathe of fresh air, Rae essentially takes on the Liberal Party, armed with internal suggestions, concepts and ideas that threaten fiefdoms, entitlements, go after the never ending PROCESS discussions that PLAGUE the Liberals and needlessly waste energy on internal machinations.

I mostly loathe the Liberal constitution, any measure to pare it down is instantly appealing. I can't stand a Party which has created so many levels of ever narrowing regional elitism it has become a exercise in self importance, rather than a "movement" of any kind. I absolutely abhor the way riding associations become esoteric playgrounds, essentially undercutting new ideas as a perceived threat to established norms. Finally, a sense that Liberals are prepared to take on their own culture of entitlement, in a way that doesn't necessarily require agreement, but is fundamental and meaningful, to the extent it generates some PASSION.

Rae's words, this "white paper", a real discussion begins, something that suggests you want to part of it, something that says the status quo is already dead, so where do we go from here. This encouraging mentality is the necessary underpinning if truly meaningful change can occur, of the sort where the average Canadian sees a entity that is "street" in nature. Forget the NDP imploding, forget Canadians tiring of Harper, the only job for Liberals is to ensure we are so interwoven with Canadian sensibilities, armed with a compelling vision, free and open to all, that when the time comes, if it comes, we are the alternative. For the first time since May 2, we have evidence that from the ashes something new and potential exciting could flourish...

An Economy Out Of Balance

2011-11-04T08:11:00.001-04:00

You have to be cautious about drawing inferences out of one month's numbers, but today's job figures are of the type to be considered "eye popping", and I note economists reacting as such. Just this very week, Mark Carney was on television promoting the virtues of the Canadian economy, how it was fundamentally poised to withstand global uncertainty; not immune but relatively strong. One particular comment struck me, Carney said "corporate balance sheets have NEVER been better", an objective fact, nobody would dispute. A few days later we receive these abysmal job numbers, which demonstrates some disconnect pointing to a fundamental problem.

I predict if someone were to graph corporate profits and employment trends, you would see a divergence the likes of which unique in economic history. Day after day, quarter after quarter, corporations are racking up impressive profits, on fundamentals, price to earnings, the stock market should be surging to record terrority. And yet, we still see consistent drags on performance, a primary root is the continual inability of economies to create robust job numbers. Apologists will NOW argue the corporate tax regime was never intended to create jobs necessarily, but I would suggest a review of past statements to truly understand the sales job. What is happening- and nobody disputes- corporates are HOARDING their cash, Carney is right about the balance sheets, but offers little guidance on opening the taps to the greater economy.

On economic health we receive theoretical commentary about how corporations will eventually start spending, there is a nervousness which precludes normal investment, expansion. I would suggest a review of bank practices- the largest benefactor of corporate tax decreases and you will see that during the HEIGHT of expansion, those heady days prior to the 2008 crash, they were slashing jobs LEFT and RIGHT, across the board, despite making absurd profits. Economists can turn themselves into pretzels telling us why corporate tax cuts work, but there is little real world evidence to support outdated theory.

There is something fundamental wrong at the moment, economically things are out of balance, what should be happening simply isn't and we are left to look for remedies. I have floated an idea of putting a cap, perhaps a claw back, on corporate dividends, given that this money isn't fairly distributed, but rather reinforces inequities. Corporations currently have more cash than they know what do with, judging by the jobless numbers, this notion that profits benefit all is simply fiction. It is quite clear, the corporate tax cut argument has gone too far in a ill advised race to the bottom. The policy has resulted in record profits WITHOUT the promised benefits, every stat betrays proponents, we are left to nothing more flimsy than future inevitability arguments.

The economy is no longer in harmony, of that I have little doubt. I also have more confidence that the general population is coming to this sober realization which provides opportunity. Someone, or some entity, must address the growing inequalities, they are real and pronounced.

Sun News Revenues Drop 86%

2011-11-03T08:45:00.003-04:00

People can talk about long term plans, growing pains, "insert excuse here", but it's safe to say that SunTV/Sun News isn't exactly ELECTRIFYING the airwaves:

Sun News, which has been on the air for about six months, was also a drag on earnings. While specialty channels make money on a mix of advertising revenues and fees from cable and satellite subscribers, TVA chose to forgo subscriber revenue for Sun News until now. The channel was placed on a free, over-the-air TV signal, replacing the money-losing Sun TV station in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London, Ont. The over-the-air station was also picked up free by some cable and satellite companies.

The combined revenues of Sun TV and Sun News have dropped 86 per cent since the news channel launched in April. The channel is now negotiating deals with subscriber TV services to increase revenues.

I'm sure there are negotiations for subscriber revenues, but that doesn't distract from the clear picture: advertiser revenue has dried up and dried up BAD. This fact offers a clue as to the TRUE ratings for Sun TV, as well as testament to potential squeamishness from would be advertisers. Again, you can spin it all day long, but this station barks like a DOG, shits like a DOG and digs a money pit like a DOG.

What does it mean? I depart from others in viewing these numbers as evidence of a channel which will eventually pack it in. See, I don't think there was ever a rational "demand" for another news channel, nor do I think there was some gap in previous manifestations that needed something to fill the void. In fact, two news channels, you could actually argue saturation in the Canadian market, there was no true economic impetus for another channel. This backdrop is informative, because Sun TV isn't about making money necessarily, it was borne and pushed out of ideological zeal, a partisan consideration really, part of concerted effort to push a particular political bent. I view the network as a propaganda arm and I expect the channel to soldier on as long as is humanely possible, no matter the abysmal figures. The goal will be to lessen losses, buried within a larger conglomerate that can absorb the poor economics. Normal fundamentals don't necessarily apply in the short term, I expect a stubborn commitment that will forever preach future success.

I still haven't watched the station, although I feel like I have, given all the second hand conversation I read. I don't expect the network to simply vanish any time soon, while these numbers are heartening in one sense, there is much commitment to keep the Conservative signal up and running, no matter. What is clear though, commitment aside, this network is a BIT player at the moment, and it deserves attention in line with it's narrow influence.

Beyond "Broken"

2011-11-02T08:11:00.001-04:00

During the Martin/Harper minority years, people spoke of the "dysfunctional Parliament", to such an extent the Conservatives successfully framed anything less than a majority as the antithesis of "good government". In some respects our collective memories had almost forgotten how majority governments actually work in this country, we are now getting a RUDE awakening, as the Harper government operates more like a "regime" than democratic creation. A strong, stable government is really code for an almost omnipotent entity, that freely stifles debate, somehow turns 39.6% into 100% DOMINATION of everything and anything.

The inherent problem with Canadian democracy- never more stark and revealing than this moment- with each successive layer peeled away, true power resides in an alarming few. A minority vote translates to majority rule, within that minority vote a inner circle of key MP's largely frames the debate, within that group a small cadre of mostly unelected operatives within the PM's office dictates the direction of the entire government apparatus. We have a democracy which someone manifests itself into a virtual dictatorship in practice, based on dubious electoral math. Minorities might be messy, but they provide an accountability function which evaporates in alarming fashion once 50 plus 1 is achieved.

As the linked piece by Dan Gardner explains, all majorities operate like totalitarian regimes, but with this Harper government we are witnessing a new expression in terms of degree. It is legitimate to ask, what is the point of Parliament in a majority circumstance, particularly one where the government routinely shuts down even the window dressing that is "debate"? What do MP's really do in a majority? Is it fair to say they are empty vessels, essentially representing no one, standing up and down without any true power? Most government MP's are drones, programmed to perform a function, but devoid of truly diverting from the chosen course. Opposition MP's don't hold the government to any standard, at least not in ways that necessarily demands a seat in Parliament. The government doesn't like any particularly debate, they unilaterally shut it down, no true exchange, nor even the slightest indication that any legitimate suggestion would be considered. When you distance yourself from the process that brings people to power, the concrete practice of yielding power is ALARMING in this country.

There are plenty of ideas floating around to reform our system. While solutions still remain somewhat disjointed and piecemeal, the core problems are quickly coming into focus. Perhaps, if there is one "silver lining" in enduring this particular regime, their continual abuse of power will provide the tipping point for a system which isn't just sick, it's effectively dead in terms of FUNCTIONING democracy.

Ranking NDP Candidates: Liberal Prospects Edition

2011-11-01T08:58:00.002-04:00

To my mind, the NDP have a terrific opportunity with this leadership contest, if they get it right, Liberals have much to worry about. On the other hand, choosing the wrong person could provide the political space required for a Liberal resurgence. Most Liberals will admit, our destiny isn't entirely within our control, external forces will play a role, that's a fair representation. Putting on the partisan hat for a moment, a quick ranking of who I think would be the best NDP leader from a Liberal perspective, with the chief factor being an ability to reinvent the brand somewhat, appeal to voters the NDP MUST capture if they truly can takeout the Conservatives:

1 Brian Topp

Topp looks every bit a "in the pocket" NDP candidate, planting the flag on traditional ground, having a background which feeds the historical political spectrum bent. To my mind, any indication that the NDP will stay true to their core ideals is a net negative on the replacing Harper front. Not a matter of agreeing or disagree, but there is nothing about Topp that suggests an NDP ready to embrace a more mainstream viewpoint, which translates to limited appeal. Factor in that Topp is a wildcard on the voter resonance front- backroom acument not necessarily translating to electoral juggernaut- and he represents a potential risky choice, which is appealing from the Liberal perspective.

2 Peggy Nash

I would actually put Nash first, except she is a proven campaigner, we've seen her on the trail, we know her strengths and weaknesses. There is much appeal with Nash, today I read about Thatcher comparisons, she is clearly a force. However, as with Topp, Nash is almost an old guard dipper philosophically, there is plenty of potential attack ad fodder, she can easily be framed and would seem to lack the "rethink" variable necessary for the NDP to move to true threat nationally. As well, I find Nash terribly bland, perhaps effective, but little to suggest she can recreate that Layton "magic", fairly low on the charisma quotient. A "from the left" NDP leader, with a "steely" character, sign me up if I'm a Liberal.

3 Paul Dewar

Dewar screams moderate, his tone is friendly, his disposition warm and disarming. If you want to put a new face on a growing party, Dewar fits the bill in many regards. His French is a drawback, but assuming he grows on that front, he is the type that might just have the common touch necessary to reintroduce the NDP brand. If I'm a handler, Dewar is the kind of politician would could be sold as a modern New Democrat, one that could move the party to a place where it could siphon off more Liberal votes and truly threaten the Conservatives. Dewar makes me nervous as a Liberal.

4 Thomas Mulcair

Mulcair has baggage, and his personality could take him either way electorally, but he is SPOT ON with his message, the conversation he is pushing is the right recipe for electoral bliss. The trouble with Mulcair to date, he isn't pandering to the base necessarily, he's providing the straight goods for general election success, a stance which hurts his chances for leadership. However, Mulcair understands that the key to future NDP prospects is economic credibility, shedding the old assumptions about the NDP and presenting a fiscal alternative that is modern in approach. Mulcair walks over Liberal ground, for this reason, he represents the biggest threat should he win the nomination. Let's hope Dippers can't see the "big picture" arguments he is selling, because in many regards that is the necessary template to squeeze the Liberals.

Apologizes to the other candidates, but these are the big four in my estimation. As well, not naive enough to think a leadership campaign necessarily translates to wider election messaging, very pragmatic on that front.

Zing

2011-10-29T17:58:00.003-04:00

Why I love my public broadcaster(h/t @KimFox):

Cheeky!

A "Occupy" Policy Proposal

2011-10-25T08:00:00.000-04:00

If there is one overriding fact that the "Occupy" movement demonstrates, there is an ample reservoir of sympathy for dealing with corporate greed, the widening gap between rich and poor. While the movement lacks form, there is base inspiration that is generally well supported, all evidence shows people think we need change, just not much in the way of concrete proposals to get behind. On the political front, we are already seeing certain attempts to tap into this angst, I would submit Brian Topp's clumsy proposals as timely, not by accident.

I think most would agree that many of the arguments behind corporate tax cuts haven't panned out as advertised, despite certain revisionism's from economists. The theory hasn't worked in practice, leaving proponents scrambling to find new rationalizations or simply dismissing the empirical evidence that shows companies HOARDING the new found cash, rather than reinvesting as promised. Here we sit today, with unemployment somewhat stubborn, the economy supposedly stagnant and day after day big corporations are reporting huge profits, "beating the street", simply AWASH in cash. If you look at history, I would submit the disparity between corporate profits and general economic health has NEVER been so pointed.

What is occurring, companies are simply redistributing their profits amongst themselves, the promised general economic benefits harder to ascertain. It may be time for a party to advocate a FREEZE, perhaps a claw back on dividends companies pay to shareholders. It does appear that the fall in corporate taxes has increased profits and those profits are being redirected to shareholders of the companies in the form of increasing dividends. Given that these dividends favour wealthy investors, as well as high ranking employees of said corporations, rising dividends only contributes to the growing gap between rich and poor. In reality, by cutting corporate taxes, we have created a pipeline to further pad the pockets of the wealthy class. Of sure, people can argue that dividends go to all investors, including granny and grandpa, but as the link highlights, the CHIEF benefactors are ONCE again the wealthiest, the big players, the executives of the very companies getting a break. Rather than reinvest, create jobs, maintain corporate health, as corporate taxes were sold, the created mountains of cash are being doled out disproportionately, amplifying disparity, rather than benefiting the economy as a whole, as previously argued. What you have now, the money that used to go into public coffers, no goes into the pockets of powerful interests and top tier employees with their attractive portfolios and options. A political party might be wise to advocate not only a corporate tax cut rise, but take a serious look at the rise of dividends as another "gap" contributor.

Tell Quebecor To Pound Salt

2011-10-22T08:55:00.004-04:00

No reasonable observer disputes the notion that our public broadcaster should be scrutinized and held to account, after all it is our tax dollars at play and the CBC should be accountable to the Canadians it serves. However, what we are witnessing with Quebecor's obsessive ideological pursuit against the CBC amounts to harassment pure and simple. Quebecor hides behind supposed ethical underpinnings, but when you look at some of the people leading the "jihad", it becomes clear there are other factors at play besides simple idealistic notions of accountability and transparency. That Quebecor decided to hire prominent CBC critics and give them high profile platforms, all the more REVEALING in terms of true intent.

Canada has never seen a media outlet with such an ingrained philosophical bias, extrapolating to a clear AGENDA. In fact, it is time people stop referring to this organization as a "media" organization, when in fact, it is a political organ, a propaganda arm of the right, a biased and bastardized presentation that attempts to present itself as "news". The few exceptions aside, anyone with a functioning fore brain can see the intent, can see the ideological zeal that warps every issue to fit neatly into a pre-determined view of the world. That approach isn't news, it isn't "media" in any definition I've read, it's nothing more than ADVOCACY. Quebecor doesn't support a state sponsored broadcaster, particularly one built on the myth that is biased against their political slant, rather than legitimate pursuit, really a special interest disguised as something else.

What I see is ideological zealots flooding the CBC with mostly trivial demands, which if done to an individual, could be construed as nothing more than harassment. Certain people would be bereft of inspiration if they didn't have the CBC to attack, the almost pathological nature of the pursuit unseemly. Quebecor can present arguments to rationalize their sad obsessions, but the sheer volume and venom underlying the attacks, the buffoonery leading the crusade, it is obvious to most what is really occurring here.

I'm glad the CBC has finally addressed these never ending attacks from Quebecor, although it easily ascertained why they've been hesitate in the past. Staying quiet doesn't work, waiting for the flood of requests to stop will never come, hoping the harassment ends wishful thinking; NO the only way to take on bullying behaviour is to stand up and tell them to FUCK RIGHT OFF.

Gaffe Alert

2011-10-21T08:02:00.000-04:00

Like every leadership contest, we wait for the first sizable gaffe of the campaign. I submit Brian Topp has provided that moment by commiting the CARDINAL sin of entering into hypotheticals, on of all things TAXES:

Brian Topp is boldly going where most Canadian politicians fear to tread: promising to make the wealthy pay more in taxes.

The perceived frontrunner in the NDP leadership race wants his party to make higher income taxes for high-income earners a key plank in its next election campaign platform.

He told The Canadian Press he intends to unveil a detailed proposal in the weeks to come.

"I will be talking about income taxes and I think it's time for our party to step up to that plate and to be pretty clear about that because then we'll have a mandate to act if we're elected," Topp said in a wide-ranging interview.

He also called for a hike in corporate taxes and did not rule out a sales tax increase "at some point," once the fragile economy is on surer footing.

At some point? I actually think Topp could find broad support for "tax the rich", this notion of a growing gap between rich and poor is resonating, perhaps fertile ground, bold but not reckless necessarily. As for corporate taxes, we need a debate about this race to zero mentality, again I think Topp isn't terribly "out there", although he does open himself to the easy "anti-jobs" attack line. Where Topp makes a perhaps huge gaffe, actually musing about raising sales taxes, leaving the door open on an idea which will be met with complete and utter rejection.

A more seasoned politician simply says, "a sales tax increase isn't part of my plans", and let's move on. Instead, Topp leaves room for saddling Canadians with more taxes, forget the philosophical or economic arguments, pure political poison no matter how you slice it. Canadians feel maxed out, the Conservatives have already exploited sales taxes to win a mandate, there is no political upside in this consideration. Topp reeks of a certain disconnect, in the soundbite world, this statement is pure gold, while he will be left explaining details nobody entertains.

Topp's ideas may be attractive to rank and file NDP supporters, but for a party that needs to broaden support, Topp is narrowing appeal, reinforcing baggage that prevents the NDP from capturing mainstream Canada (obviously Quebec aside). I will raise taxes on business, I will raise taxes on certain individuals and I will raise taxes on everybody. Honest yes, pure fodder for the Conservatives, oh my goodness YES, YES, YES, the ads write themselves.

Cutting the GST was actually a ill advised move by the Conservatives, wherein they pandered for votes at the expense of sound tax policy. However, Topp looks every bit the man who "has never been tested" with what amounts to a rookie mistake. I don't see much fallout from partisans, but the wider audience- should Topp succeed- expect to hear "at some point" TO the point of nausea in the future.

Nathan Cullen's Limited M$%#&%

2011-10-20T08:21:00.000-04:00

Just don't call it a merger, if it makes you feel better let's say "arrangement" or "limited" co-operation, or "joint nominations", but NOT that M word. Nathan Cullen's idea is garnering some attention, and it is an interesting proposal. However, the concept reeks of trying to have your cake and eat it too, advocating what amounts to local mergers without actually endorsing the concept, leaving the wider party affiliations in place, although invariably bastardized by the process.

Let's move from the theoretical proposal to the practical realities and co-operation becomes something more that does threaten the tribal mentality, a first crack which logically favours a wider reality. A riding unilaterally decideds to hold a joint nomination, with the main thrust being a progressive alternative to the Conservatives, one that can win, one that doesn't split the vote, one that puts all oars in the water for a common cause. The three parties come together in a riding and have a nomination, very much like a "primary" as the link points out. Really, no different than a nomination for an individual party, different folks run, different "camps" work to elect their person, in the end all three competitors take the stage and acknowledge the one person who will hold the "anti-Con" banner.

The joint nomination has found their candidate, now it's time to take on the true enemy and win the riding. Let's say the NDP candidate wins the riding for instance. Do the Liberal and Green workers, their riding association members, their volunteers now go home and leave the NDP alone to fight for the win? OR, do these other party members work with the NDP team to win the election? Given we have a meeting of the minds to hold joint nominations, a bit counter productive to believe the nomination is the end of the relationship. NO, if people are coming together to beat Harper, people are coming together to beat Harper, so expect more of that working together post nomination, Libs, Dippers, Greens out on joint canvasses, out on joint sign banging, out on joint GOTV. In other words, semantics and taboos aside, you really have a quasi new party of people with common purpose. The very process itself acknowledges an overriding commonality that USURPS individual tribal wants, so for the love of god just call it a merger, because the guts of the idea are just that.

Fast forward to post-election, and our joint candidate head to Ottawa. The candidate is a Dipper, sits in the Commons as such, yet is really a creation of a different arrangement, one that exists beyond what the superficial flag suggests. At this point, after a joint nomination, a joint resolve to elect an individual, joint VOTES, the ultimate expression, we just go back to the old divisions and said MP carries on as in the past. Really? After all this co-operation and SUCCESS, people just pull back and there is no evolution? I don't buy it for a second, the Cullen template if fruit bearing is really the first step towards a total and complete merger. All parties have divergent interests within, but there is a wider affinity, whereing compromise is made for the greater purpose. Cullen's proposal is a timid recognition of a a wider concept, it gently blurs the lines in more palatable fashion for partisans, but the result is something more in my view.

The Conservative Monopoly

2011-10-19T08:22:00.001-04:00

Certain issues encompass all that is wrong with rigid ideology, wherein abstract commitment to certain "principles" fails to incorporate the real world application, blindly soldiers on no matter the evidence or circumstance. The now approaching SIX year battle to end the Canadian Wheat Boad "monopoly" is reaching climax, and it really is quite instructive to review the history and all the egregious moves by this Conservative government. I won't rehash here, but any superficial analysis will see a consistent pattern of oppressing opposing views, using government tools to try and influence the process, ignoring democratic will, failing to put forth a true economic argument that draws on independent support, a DIRTY fight that shows true colours, when push comes to shove..

There is nothing more STUNNING that Gerry Ritz evoking the Conservative mandate as moral justification for ending the CWB. Ritz uses democracy for underpinning, yet democracy is undoing, it more clearly than anything shows ideological zealots bent on achieving some ideal, NO matter what opposition or expression they face. Supporters of killing the CWB can blather on all day long, it will never change a core fact: farmers have democratic rights enshrined within the CWB, the mechanisms are already in place to allow for reforms or outright extinction. Farmers have opportunity after opportunity to elect anti-single desk directors, and YET every time votes are cast, they keep electing CWB status quo defenders, in overwhelming fashion. To my mind, freedom means self determination, western farmers have continually expressed themselves and supported the single desk. The vote over this summer another decisive result, that is being ignored by the Conservatives, shows an arrogance that doesn't respect core pillars of democracy.

There is a pile of misinformation floating around, so it's hard to decipher what is true and what is exaggerated, when trying to comprehend who will benefit, should the CWB cease to exist. For my money, no more powerful "proof" of upside to CANADIAN farmers than the close to TWENTY legal challenges over the years from the AMERICANS, wherein they claim unfair advantage. What we have here is a Canadian government giving American farmers what they've always wanted, and simply intuition should raise RED FLAGS when comprehending true benefits. Sift through all the bull, there is no escaping the clarity our competitors have revealed, a strong united collective is a powerful force which gives certain advantages, not my view, there's expressed time and time again.

The CWB is really a "strength in numbers" proposition, the little guy banding together to create a potent manifestation that has true power. Once you destroy that entity, you are left with small players who will ultimately be at the mercy of multinationals:

The Winners: Richard Gray, University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist, says big grain handlers such as Cargill, Viterra and Bunge should end up better off. They will face a huge new supply of sellers competing to unload their product and make money off the marketing margin, or difference between the purchase and resale price.

The Farmers: Ottawa is not promising farmers will see more money for their grain, but is instead talking up the potential for more investment such as pasta plants to drive demand for the crops. Studies have suggested the average price fetched will in fact drop because sellers will be competing for business with foreign buyers. And as Prof. Gray notes, just south of the border, where grain is already sold freely, there’s not an abundance of pasta plants. Pasta is fragile and plants tend to be built close to large population centres.

When the government announced they would be plowing ahead with CWB extinction (pay no never mind to this nonsensical idea that it can survive with "choice", a naked attempt to appease with no empirical underpinning), Viterra stock rose, because it is commonly assumed the big players will make more money under a true "free market" expression. Isn't it interesting, with all this talk about corporate greed, multinationals marginalizing local interests, gaps between rich and poor, that this government intends to enact new rules which will benefit the very entities under the microscope. This talk of local economic benefit is the stuff of unicorns, other jurisdictions have shown the promised jobs will never come, but we know full well where the loses will be seen. True is, there is really little economic justification for getting rid of the CWB at this time, plenty of ideological stubbornness, but not much in the way of independent backing.

The Conservatives will likely win this battle, but it has been a shameful exercise, they have conducted themselves like thugs during the process, truly embarrassing for a national democratic government. All Canadians should worry, another example of policy being guided by pre-determinded biases rather than evidence based expressions. It's days like these I almost feel we are being run by a single minded cult, rather than being provided the "good government" we generally assume.

The Liberal "Messiah"

2011-10-17T08:20:00.002-04:00

The moment you mention the words "Liberal" and "messiah" together, it seems to generate some heated debate. I'd like to flesh out my assertion that this point in Liberal history necessitates a search for the controversial "messiah", BUT not in isolation OR sole energy exhauster. In other words, yes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, so articulating a want doesn't preclude other vital reforms or evolutions. My mind doesn't work on one track exclusivities, so there is no choice or preference consideration, just a recognition of a certain required facet.

In the past, Liberals have been guilty of trying to short cut "rebuilding" by finding one glamorous person to take the reins and make all right. Critics are correct to reject this mentality, and past examples offer instructive wisdom on the leadership front. Truth is, you can pick the most compelling figurehead, but if that person doesn't have the potent organizational tools, the stout base, financial wherewithal and rooted ideals, it's a recipe for failure. In many instances, I agree, Liberals waste precious time hunting for the next Trudeau, at the expense of more mundane pursuits.

However, I would argue we Liberals are in a unique circumstance, our perch precarious. It is important that grassroots Liberals rally behind the flag, and in some respects the post-election period has been encouraging. That said, I see no emerging crystallizing force on the horizon, no commonality that can breakout beyond a conversation between fellow Liberals. Given the new Canadian order, past examples really aren't analogous or comforting, the Liberals have never faced a reality as stark as today, that just seems plain fact from this quarter.

The Liberals need a lot of things, and chief among them is an eventual new leader that resonates, armed with an updated articulation of modern liberalism. Liberals need the vehicle to propel our aspirations, and it's simply foolhardy to bristle at messiah talk. Liberals need a game changer, a voice that mixes up a new status quo which marginalizes us all day long.

A leader that symbolized a grassroots western expression built such a formidable base that party took over the old PC party and now sits with a majority. A leader with the common touch and a perceived authenticity turned a nothing party in Quebec into a political powerhouse that propelled him to potential PM in waiting. Leadership matters, leadership matters A LOT, it's vital, particularly when your down, but not quite out.

I joined the Liberals when a certain leadership candidate joined the fray in 2006. This candidate articulated a vision that spoke to me, it was a message I felt like investing in, it allowed me to overcome my resistance to "tribes" and independence, it engaged and inspired me that things could change for the better. Leaders provide direction, focus, passion, motivation. Leaders bring in new people, new ideas, can galvanize reform, can challenge the status quo, can make Canadians take notice and reaccess past assumptions. Yes, the political party must do the heavy lifting, there are NO shortcuts. But, particularly within this sober Liberal reality, our next leadership decision will be the most critical choice we make, of that I have no doubt. Consider me an unabashed messiah seeker. Amen.

We Might Be Dead

2011-10-14T07:40:00.002-04:00

Plenty of ink spilled this week on the death of the Liberal Party. The latest from Susan Delacourt, offers another fair but sober description, well worth a read. These prognosis I've read are instructive for Liberals, because they don't represent some misguided ganging up on we poor Liberals when down, they're actually full of objective merit. In some ways, the Liberals are like the Bruce Willis character in The Six Sense, just waiting for someone to fill them into the true reality.

So, the question, are the Liberals really dead? Truth of the matter, we just might be, but that recognition isn't necessarily as dire as the acknowledgment would seem to suggest. See, I believe looking death squarely in the face doesn't allow for delusional comforts, it's stark, it's urgent, it scares the shit out of you. People who have had a near death experience often have an epiphany of sorts, and it is here where the Liberals can come back from the white light, if the prescription is right.

The reality demands a utter REVOLUTION within the Liberal Party, aggressive positions, seismic internal reforms that present a new age democratic institution, a complete and utter overhaul, that can only be achieved knowing full well death is the alternative. My personal pessimism has been fueled by a complete inability to truly recognize the circumstance, the whole plan seems to be predicated on the external hope the NDP fail which is the stuff of gambling. Susan Delacourt makes a terrific point about old stories, "you had to be there", to which I'd add a culture of ambition, wherein social climbing tends to trump a necessary HIVE mentality.

Look, the Liberals are dead as door nails unless somebody pours icy water on the whole appartus and mindset. To my mind, in this one instance, we very much are looking for the "messiah" leader, because we need a lightning rod, some place to put the revolutionary spirit, someONE to implement the necessary reforms, someONE that can speak above the competing chatter and still lingering appeasements. Liberals need the vehicle, while it's true that leaderitis has plagued us in the past, if EVER the sentiment was justified, now is the time. We need an insurgent, and hopefully this objective talk of death allows for a hero's welcome.... It's the only way, apart from waiting on some LUCK to come our way. We might be dead, Liberals need to start everyday with that morning thought.

There Will Be Blood

2011-10-13T07:26:00.003-04:00

The frame is already coming into focus for the NDP leadership, the establishment vs the insurgent, the traditional slant vs a new philosophical paradigm which offers electoral bliss.

This race promises to be very emotional, with Mulcair already musing about taking the NDP closer to the mainstream, ala Gary Doer, contrasted with Topp who sounds very much in line with what we are used to hearing from the federal NDP. As well, when is the last time you heard a federal NDP heavyweight preach the merits of smaller government, Mulcair is bringing provincial NDP evolution (Dexter, Doer, Calvert) to Ottawa, and it will be fascinating to see how stout the resistance, even though the faithful have embraced and celebrated the centrist move in provinces, tribal considerations trumping true political leanings. I suspect Dewar will also offer a philosophical reset, so we will see a true battle for the heart and soul of the NDP party.

I'm continually amazed by Brian Topp and the organization he has built in such sort order. It is no stretch to say he is the establishment candidate and others are quickly positioning themselves as the insurgency challenging the old world order. Dewar has placed himself as a grassroots up candidacy and Mulcair is throwing barbs that he is the unwanted irritant upsetting the pre-ordained coronation. I see plenty of blowback potential in this race, Topp does look every bit the backroom boy with powerful friends, poised to steamroll the field, a posture which tends to demand rank and file defiance. The question will be, is the abrasive Mulcair that messenger, does he enjoy that grassroots appeal to counter, or will his reforming ideas turn off those he need to take on the Topp juggernaut? Perhaps this is where Paul Dewar fits into the puzzle, time will tell.

This race is going to get nasty, make no mistake. Anybody who has watched Mulcair knows that "heated" is a given, I expect continual fireworks between his camp and Topp, the likes of which the NDP haven't seen. In fact, this race looks very Liberalesque in many respects, particularly the role of the vanguard in dictating. I'm curious to see how this notion of the "little guy" party confronts serious Topp down considerations, particularly when the perceived best challenger isn't exactly a natural fit.

This NDP leadership race will be conducted under a microscope, the big leagues demand attention never seen before, and this focus will only heighten the intrigue, the potential divisions and fault lines. I intend to follow this race very closely as well, largely putting aside my own party leanings to comment as a detached observer as I see it. Given we are still months away from picking a leader, this race has all the hallmarks of classic political struggle, all the elements are there for a fascinating affair.

State Of The Nation

2011-10-12T08:22:00.003-04:00

To my mind, if you want to chart an effective future course you must digest a realistic reality. It's fine to be optimistic, but that view tends to gloss over sober circumstances, which in turn doesn't contemplate what is necessary to truly realize your objective.

Today, Nanos provides that Liberal shot in the arm, the NDP falling back a bit, the Liberals rising, the Conservatives could care less as the opposition rearranges their deck chairs. Not a surprising result, if you look closer, much of the Liberals uptick is Ontario based. Whether that is a real move or just the election effect remains to be seen, but it is positive for the Liberal "brand" that McGuinty did well. On the flip side, this election revealed the same dangerous narrowing of Liberal support into urban pockets, as well as huge voter decline, so there is a mixed bag flavour to the result. Overall though, some spillover to federal Liberals is expected, just as spillover to provincial NDP from federal success was earlier.

Looking forward, here is what I expect on the federal scene, realistically. I see little opportunity for the Liberals to get any real traction for quite a while. The NDP leadership race is where the "action" is, it's intriguing to watch and it will continue to suck most of the oxygen out of pedestrian Ottawa. This obvious predicament equates to an almost relegated status for we Liberals and we will have to fight for headlines and attention. Mr. Rae can look formidable in Question Period, the Liberals can push items, we can do the mundane work of rebuilding, but it's hard to see any near term catalysts that will shake public sentiment.

I see a party reconciled to third place standing- and the accompanying attention that designation receives- until at least the leadership in 2013. As the Liberals build up for the convention, people being campaigns, ideas and reforms are truly debated (hopefully), only then we there be opportunity to mix up the new Ottawa order. Of course, this view assumes the NDP doesn't self destruct, or choose a poor leader, but that would be an external development. The NDP aren't some fad, which many Liberals still seem to believe.

The trick moving forward is to understand just how disinterested the public is at the moment, how little they pay attention to machinations in Ottawa, how scarce the opportunity to really change the landscape. Particularly, in a majority situation- without the constant threat of upheaval- most Canadians have tucked their political interest away, snippets here and there, but snappy lines by Mr. Rae in QP aren't resonating, I assure.

Liberals should quietly go about their business, so we are ready for 2015. However, I'm not expecting the polls to suddenly turn favourable, I don't expect to overtake the NDP anytime soon, challenging the Conservatives almost absurd to contemplate. Not optimistic or pessimistic, but perhaps realistic and I believe the correct mindset for the months, and perhaps years, ahead.

UPDATE:

Along the same lines.

What's Wrong With Canadian Politics?

2011-10-11T07:32:00.004-04:00

A couple good reads this morning, digesting low voter turnout, the general malaise that is objectively putting our "democracy at risk". I'd like to point to another story that came out last week, garnering little attention, but offering up a terrific demonstration of ALL that is wrong with Canadian politics:

Only two days into the campaign, PC Leader Tim Hudak’s blue bus broke down in Ottawa. His staffers, afraid journalists would use the incident as a metaphor for his election effort, parked the vehicle far down the suburban street where Hudak was slated to make a campaign announcement and brought in a replacement bus...

Hudak used the replacement bus for less than a day, until he got his wheels back.

PC campaign staff divulged this story to reporters after the election wrapped up Thursday night.

And there, the state of Canadian politics in a nutshell, and a powerful citation as to WHY nobody gives a shit. I don't blame the Hudak campaign, god knows Liberals are well aware how a completely unrelated mechanical failure can DOMINATE an entire day, IF NOT MORE, of an election campaign. Can you imagine the sheer PANIC to find another bus before it became public knowledge, I mean we are talking about seats in the balance here! SAD, but TRUE.

The above story encapsulizes campaign fixation with the superficial, how the TRIVIAL can take center stage. Nobody will dispute, when I say if that bus broke down, it would have received more attention than the debate over clean energy in the Ontario campaign. Truth is, campaigns are all now about avoiding mistakes, sanitizing the message, protecting the messenger, carefully crafting every step to avoid the dreaded "gaffe". This posture has contributed to voter disinterest, in a way that deserves much more attention: campaigns are bland, they're SAFE, they avoid any controversial issues, their goal is to not offend or ruffle, the antithesis of what politics is supposed to encompass. Again though, today's campaigns are really a product of learned response, they are merely reacting to past pitfalls, trying to avoid, a clean campaign is preferred to a substantive one.

The Hudak bus incident speaks volumes about the state of things. Bravo to the Hudak team for switching buses, that one moment was perhaps key to thwarting a Liberal majority, SERIOUSLY.

McGuinty Should Step Aside

2011-10-08T08:44:00.002-04:00

Given the makeup of the Ontario legislature, I assume this Liberal government has at least two years- possibly even a full term- before any threat of an election looms. With that realistic backdrop in mind, I think the provincial Liberals would be wise to consider a transition plan, set a course that incumbents rarely appreciate, if the ultimate goal is continued implementation of philosophy, rather than ego driven pursuits.

I'm as happy as the next person about the election result, and seriously have nothing but praise for the Liberal campaign and the Premier in general. McGuinty was unflappable, he conveyed quiet confidence, it was those traits that served him well in this campaign. It really was an incredible reversal of fortunes, considered dead and buried, McGuinty defied all expectations and won a very historic victory, that cements his legacy. However, the winning side of every campaign has a tendency post-election to gloss over any fundamental problems, even the mere mention of concerns unwanted negativity.

RARELY, does a politician step aside at the right moment, too often it is the voters who ultimately force a retirement rather than graceful exit. Here's hoping that Dalton McGuinty, and the Liberal team can see beyond this victory and appreciate an erosion which is likely to continue in the future. Liberals received 600000 less votes this election, and if you look at the electoral map, you see a narrowing area of appeal, dangerously analogous to the federal cousin decline. Despite the victory, I would argue this Liberal regime has reached it's apex and the future is very uncertain. The Liberals won no new ridings, the same gang will rule Ontario and there is every reason to believe Ontarians will eventually desire a new direction.

In this election, Liberals benefited from a clumsily opponent who essentially "threw it away". This realization doesn't discount from the terrific campaign we ran, nor does it undercut McGuinty's personal triumph, but rather than get out the thundersticks, I think it important to look at the horizon with a sober and detached perspective.

Dalton McGuinty mused awhile ago that he was contemplating retirement, only to pull back when any admission equated to lame duck or lack of desire, something opponents could use against them. In my mind, the shrewd strategy is for the Ontario Liberals to quietly cultivate some sort of transition logic, do the impossible and reinvent the brand while still in office, which can be achieved when a new leader comes forth(British Columbia a terrific example here). The ideal situation would be for Mr. McGuinty to continue to put his stamp on the province, then a couple years in, announce a retirement and allow the Liberals to pump in fresh air. This scenario offers the best circumstance to win another mandate in the future. I see this election as more "dodged a bullet" than a terrific endorsement of the Liberals, the numbers support this view, as does a detached perspective.

Craziness, I know.

Election Wrap Up

2011-10-07T07:01:00.003-04:00

A few thoughts from a fascinating Ontario election result. First off, there is a bit of utter revisionist nonsense floating around that the PC lead over the summer "wasn't real", even though all signs pointed to a huge Liberal deficit. YES, the sentiment was very real, it revealed a distinct desire for something new- and the polls never suggested otherwise, even throughout the campaign- the PC's were every bit poised for victory and the Liberal challenge looked immense. That backdrop makes this election result somewhat incredible, because "kick the bums out" was every bit a electoral mentality.

Heading into the campaign, the only Liberal hope as I saw it was "campaigns matter", as well as a firm contention that Hudak wouldn't resonate with Ontario voters, blunting the "change" mantra (btw, I now hate that word). There are now some numbers to counter, but in the final analysis, both those critical hopes manifested, the Liberals simply ran a better campaign and Hudak was more a drag on support than anything, he lost the debate and by all accounts found few coverts on a personal level, the DUD was just that. PC's and apologists can point to the seat totals- and I really hope they do- but to my mind, this election represents a failed opportunity, a better message, better messenger, better campaign, it was really all there for the Progressive Conservatives to capitalize.

For the NDP, there is little question the Layton aftermath put some indirect wind in their sails, as well as other obvious breakthroughs. A good result for Horwath, but again, during the campaign, a fairly flat baseline and she never caught fire, with perhaps the north being an exception. Again, we heard last night how Ontario voted "for change" from Horwath, but several factors suggest they voted with tertiary interest and I still see Premier McGuinty, so the revolution was clearly muted.

Of course a Liberal majority was what the faithful hoped for, but as I said privately to a few friends, given the circumstance, a minority would be a terrific result. If I said to you August 1st, "hey Liberal, you can have a minority, which is effectively a majority, given the Speaker votes with the status quo, would you take it?" YES SIR, YES SIR, sign me up NOW!! Let's keep it real, first past the post flaws aside. From a partisan perspective, I'm pleased, an agenda I geniunely believe in continues...

However, I would argue everyone is a loser here in one important and sobering sense: voter turnout was abysmal, under 50%, a RECORD low. The Liberal vote was way, way down, the gravity of which only lessened by the relatively sad ability of other parties to truly "get out the vote". Truth is, this election was a pedestrian affair, it excited no one, people voted out of duty rather than desire and apathy won the day. Turnout is a testament to a failed opposition message, a tired opinion of the government of the day and above all a repudiation of the process, the superficial debate that resonates with no one, the predictable campaign tactics and the barrage of polling which distracts(on that last point, I think we need a serious debate about limiting polls during campaigns, if not an outright ban). The cookie cutter campaign and the coverage, someone needs to digest that Canadians are increasingly tuning it right, it bears no relationship to their lives, the disconnect is FRIGHTENING. The political party that can solve the riddle and challenge the entire status quo process will find a very fertile audience. We desperately need some entity to blow it up, and blow it up real good, this recurring template is an electoral loser, that only gets worse with successive disappointments.

One final point, not a great night for first past the post, the raw vote totals clearly at odds with seat counts, and while it worked to my party's advantage this time, that's irrelevant, the optics are somewhat brutal.

All in all, happy to have Premier McGuinty back with a practically strong mandate, I truly believe we are in the midst of a greening revolution in this province and will only become clearer with the superior eyesight that time affords. Now, let's just hope the PC's decide to keep Hudak on ;)

Okay, This Is The "Last Poll"

2011-10-05T18:53:00.003-04:00

This morning I read the Angus Reid poll that showed the PC's in the lead and was a bit surprised they hadn't captured any Liberal move, it reeked outlier. Dubbed the "Last Poll", the results were as such:

Tories are at 36 per cent, the Liberals at 33 per cent, the New Democrats at 26 per cent and the Greens at 5 per cent.

However, that was SO this morning, turns out Angus Reid went back into the field today and suddenly found that Liberal surge others had shown:

Liberals 37%, Progressive Conservatives 33%, New Democrats 26%, Greens 3%,

Okay, so the last poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday had a 3% PC edge, then the new last poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday shows a 4% Liberal lead. If accurate, a massive swing in one day of polling, by any standard.
A quibble, this morning AR said:

The Progressive Conservatives continue to boast the best retention rate of all contending parties (84%), followed by the NDP (79%). In contrast, the Liberals are holding on to 66 per cent of their voters in 2007, and the Greens to 48 per cent.

The latest last poll:

The late change in Liberal fortunes lies in the unmistakable return of Ontarians who supported the governing party in the 2007 election. In this final survey of absolutely certain voters, the retention rate for the Liberals is 75 per cent, compared to 66 per cent in the middle of the campaign.

Compared to middle of the campaign? Try way, way back to THIS morning. A bit of a odd disconnect, but perhaps a testament to that volatility in Ontario I've always highlighted.

Okay, now to the only poll that matters... May the DUD come through!

"I Like You, But I Don't Like Your Leader.'”

2011-10-05T16:23:00.003-04:00

Simply amazing comment from PC candidate Cheryl Miller, particularly since it was made just after said leader exited their JOINT radio appearance. Another convert to DUD nation:

Speaking Wednesday morning to host Steve Garrison of News/Talk 1290 CJBK, Miller said, "It's kind of interesting. I knock at doors and people say, 'I like you, but I don't like your leader.'”

Her comments came mere minutes after she and Hudak joined Garrison on air for a nine-minute interview — the Tory leader joined the interview late and left early as he prepared for a last-day blitz of the province.

Really quite odd that Miller would appear with Hudak, since see believes he is torpedoing her chances at election. Federal Liberals know the feeling at the door, but rarely does someone throw their leader under the bus in such a public way, especially under these circumstances.

She is right though, NOBODY likes Hudak. Hudak's last day "blitz" seems to be encountering a Russian winter so to speak.

New Poll

2011-10-04T17:57:00.005-04:00

Quite a shocking poll from Ipsos, another double digit lead and pronouncements that it's a Liberal victory, just a matter of seat formation. Lots of caution still, nobody should be complacent because ground games matter, but one fact is now IRREFUTABLE:

They more they see, the less they like...

Trending Liberal

2011-10-04T08:29:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, we saw conflicting polls, but that divergence has quickly evaporated, as the new Nanos suddenly looks a lot like the earlier EKOS, while the new EKOS shows further widening of the Liberal lead. In a nutshell, two big pollsters are showing a late break to the Liberals it would seem, with EKOS openly talking about a Liberal majority.

Last night, NANOS came out with their final result, which showed considerable swing:

OLP 38 #PCPO 33.2 #ONDP 25.8

Libs up 3, PC down 3, NDP same

That's quite a big change for a rolling poll, but interestingly it reconciles with the EKOS offering, both now showing a decent Liberal lead, evidence of late breakers moving. This morning, we are still officially waiting on the EKOS numbers, but all indications point to an expansion of the 7% lead yesterday, further Liberal momentum:

"A new EKOS poll to be released to iPolitics later this morning suggests Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals have opened up a clear and probably insurmountable lead on their rivals in the final stages of the Ontario campaign."

Last night on twitter, Frank Graves openly spoke of a Liberal majority scenario as well.

Details aside, it appears the Liberals have another wave of momentum. The first big moves came just as the campaigns geared up, the "insurmountable" PC lead evaporated quickly. Now, in the crucial late stages, cautious evidence that people are moving again and it spells big trouble for Hudak. The problem now, there are no saviour headlines for the PC's, it's all about what is going wrong, shrinking odds, the polls will fuel an air of decline right through to the ballot box. Federal Liberal supporters know too well this scenario, pretty much guaranteed defensive posture now for the Hudak PC's. On the flip side, McGuinty has wind at his back, momentum at the perfect time.

Of course, we can still expect big surprises Thursday, by no means counting chickens. However, if you're planning out an optimal "end game", these polls feed a best case scenario for Liberal fortunes, obviously this is the preferred trend as people make their final arguments.

UPDATE

EKOS and Nanos out with their internals. EKOS gives the Libs a large 10% lead now, and interesting to note the numbers hold relatively well on the likely voter question. Nanos pegs PC support at the lowest of the campaign, both pollsters show cratering support. As well, the NDP look flat, which could suggest some bleeding if Liberals have the momentum.

EKOS

Nanos

Dueling Polls

2011-10-03T07:44:00.000-04:00

Two polling heavyweights out today with different results, both conducted during the same time period. If you're a Liberal, then EKOS acts as a powerful elixir, just don't look at the Nanos which actually gives the DUD the nod. What to make of it all?

EKOS:

37.8% LPO
30.6% PC
22.7% NDP
7.3% Green
1.6% other

NANOS:

36.4% PC
35.6% LPO
25.7% NDP
1.2% Green

Perhaps an exercise in polls providing little clue to actual results? Here you have EKOS showing the Liberals moving into potential majority position, whereas Nanos would likely put the PC's into power, a bigger disconnect we rarely see. EKOS shows no NDP bounce, which Nanos highlighted yesterday, only to see a slight ebb today. Additionally, when it comes to likely voters EKOS finds the Libs and PC's do better, whereas the NDP falls to 19.3%.

We do see a consistent pattern with the two pollsters, Nanos tends to show little relative Green support, whereas Graves does, we saw this divergence federally as well. I find 1.2% for the Greens a bit low from Nanos, but EKOS at 7.3% also looks quite high, relative to what others are finding: Green support looks weak this election.

One thing I've noticed is that, with Nanos in particular, for all the talk of momentum, if you look at his graph it's been pretty stable for the last three weeks. To this amateur, Nanos looks more statistical noise than any real trend (not withstanding results prior to September 11). In a more limited sense, EKOS also shows a fairly pedestrian trendline, which suggests a leveling out of support perhaps, after the big early moves in this campaign and pre-writ.

So in conclusion, NDP spoiler, NDP afterthought, Libs surging or losing and the DUD a DUD or a Premier. Alright then...

Green Shoots

2011-09-29T08:31:00.001-04:00

Lately, I've wondered whether we Liberals are even capable of a real revolutionary spirit, whenever faced with stark- and to my mind irrefutable- realities we always fall back on some optimistic scenario, borne of external developments, to brighten up our sober landscape. We talk about the Liberal "grassroots", but I would describe it as feeble in scope and influence, this is clearly a party that takes direction from the top, everyone seems to have a title or considers themselves "connected", it's a real bizarre climate, but maybe that's just me.

I'm not going to read too much into this FRESH development, but from a purely feisty perspective, Boris Wrzesnewskyj maybe the start of exactly what is needed:

Wrzesnewskyj said 2013 is a critical opportunity for the party to show it is ready to represent Canadian values and the ideals that led it to become one of the most successful parties in the history of democracy.

He noted that it was the Liberals that pushed forward the idea of multiculturalism, a just society, and peacekeeping, but that success brought its own problems.

“Success attracts people, and often very capable people, with wrong motivations,” he said. “We’ll see over the next two years whether we can jettison that group, because they are like an anchor.”

Wrzesnewskyj blames that group for the party’s declining election returns and a legacy that dampens its future prospects. And it is a future he is optimistic about.

“I haven’t given up on the Liberal Party. There is no other party in Western democracy such as ours. They are all parties of the right or left,” he said.

“The Liberal Party is not a party of ideology—it’s a reflection of Canadian history, of accommodation.”

While other parties are guided by ideology, the Liberals are, at their best, guided by ideals, said Wrzesnewskyj.

“That’s why it would be such a shame to lose the Liberal Party of Canada as a consequence of being highjacked by a so-called party establishment.”

I'm not sure the party has been "hijacked" as much as it's inability to appeal and inspire has left it largely impotent on the ground level. After years of failing to bring in new blood and let it blossom, hardly surprising we are largely left with same old as alternatives, really a byproduct of marginal infusion, due to lack of inspiration and motivation.

I'm not endorsing Wrzesnewskyj necessarily, but I appreciate the reform mentality, we need voices that actually do step on toes, that are prepared to blast the status quo, don't mind being controversial Things may actually be getting interesting in Liberal land.... thankfully in my view.

I Know Who Lost

2011-09-28T07:32:00.003-04:00

In my mind, last night's debate was Hudak's only chance to convince Ontario voters that he was Premier in waiting material, he had the chops to the lead the province. Hudak failed on that score, and in so doing is the big loser coming out of last night's debate. We can quibble about "who won" the debate, but nobody can convince me it was Hudak, and given his abysmal campaign to date, anything less is worrying for PC prospects.

I said yesterday that a draw probably worked to McGuinty's advantage, if the pre-debate polls are accurate. Given the dynamics, McGuinty was bound to be on the defensive, so expectations were viewed within that reality. Last night, I felt that McGuinty started slow and looked stilted- they all did- but as the debate progressed, he built up a more natural lather and looked in command by the end. Apparently my perrceptions weren't clouded by partisanship because Ipsos Reid found results which largely mirror my thoughts. A solid night for the Premier, he did what was required within a stale debate that wasn't particularly remarkable.

Horwath did well, and by that I mean, she made a good first impression, which Ipsos also found. The NDP are the wildcard in this election, literally the balance of power could be in their hands, whether it be stopping a majority or being part of a minority arrangment. There was nothing last night that suggests the NDP support will fade, so in that sense perhaps a net negative for the Liberal cause. People are already making the federal comparisons, which I'd catergorize as intellectually lazy, given the Liberal equation bears absolutely no relationship to their federal cousins predicament. In other words, let's treat each scenario independently rather than constantly making tortured analogies.

I'd conclude that both the Liberal and NDP camps are relatively happy this morning, the PC camp wondering if it's slipped away.

Debate Watch

2011-09-27T10:42:00.002-04:00

The all important debate in Ontario is ready to go. Polls only highlight the importance, tonight's exchange will likely decide the election, particularly because of the late timing in the campaign.

A few things I'm looking at tonight:

-Horwath is perceived as "likeable" apparently, but I would submit the vast majority of Ontarians haven't the foggiest who she is, what she stands for, her demeanour, so much so most couldn't pick her out of a police lineup. In many respects, this debate is Horwath's introduction, how she translates will be key to the NDP appearing a viable option. Should Horwath fail to impress, the Layton hangover might wane and the NDP could lose support to perceived power parties.

-People don't know Hudak very well, but they also don't seem to like the guy so much. Proof is provided by the PC campaign, which seems to be systematically taking the focus off the leader as time marches on. I've listened to a few Hudak radio interviews and he actually comes off as personable, even funny. I want to see how Hudak tries to humanize himself without it looking like a cheap pander. Nobody is giving Hudak the keys if he doesn't look a Premier in waiting, so he doesn't just have to throw mud at McGuinty, he has to look classy in the process.

-McGuinty is a known quantity, for me the key will be for him to stay cool, confident and turn attacks into diatribes on successes. Ontarians don't have to love the guy to vote for him, the past has proven that, so McGuinty needs to deflect the barrage that is coming his way from both parties.

-I expect to see Horwath and Hudak largely ignore each other, so it will be up to McGuinty to raise doubts on two fronts, he can expect to be alone in softening up his opponents. I could be wrong on this score, the format necessitates back and forth between the two opposition parties, but I expect quick pivots to turn the debate into a judgement of McGuinty.

-There is a real danger that Horwath comes away unscathed in this debate, which is a net negative for the Liberals, good news for the PC's, at least intuitively.

At this point, I would argue a draw favours McGuinty. If polls stay static post-debate, this could hurt the NDP, as some late breakers move to the more viable option. Hudak needs some momentum, so a "blah" debate won't serve his interests, this reality might give a hint of nervousness. Should Horwath win the debate, there is a scenario where the NDP could come up the middle and provide fascinating outcomes. Should be an intriguing affair...

Topp Heavy

2011-09-26T07:51:00.003-04:00

This NDP leadership race is quite fascinating, and I'd submit not well thought out to date. The rush to Brian Topp is very much coronation in tone and purpose, he does seem the "pre-ordained choice of the establishment".

The Topp campaign are orchestrating a shock and awe type strategy, flexing their muscles in an effort to scare off credible alternatives. After Layton's death, talk of upwards of a dozen potential candidates, now the NDP looks lucky to find a serious alternative to the supposed anointed one. There are plenty of problems with this rapidly developing story, not the least of which the entire Topp movement is predicated on suspect rationale.

A month ago nobody would have considered Brian Topp a leading candidate to replace Layton, and yet here we sit with Topp skyrocketing to frontrunner, truly amazing when you sit back and digest the rapidity of it all. However, the impetus for Topp is really where the danger lies, because rather than an organic rise to prominence, he is really a creation of powerful inner circles who are reacting to Mulcair, he's an answer to the perceived heir. The quick co-ordination isn't about inspiration but more about blocking the more natural choice. This "establishment" move comes with terrific risk, because the rush to Topp looks reactive, as though someone was picked that has the necessary pedigree to undercut someone else who is perceived as unattractive. The pitfalls are obvious, and when the dust settles, I see every possibility of buyer's remorse. The backroom boy, with the powerful friends, mount a blitzkreig to dissuade others and take the bearded one out at the knees. Doesn't sound particularly democratic, doesn't sound particularly inspiring, in fact it sounds like another certain party.

There is a clue here for my NDP friends, as this Topp tornado rips across the land. Oddly, it comes from John Ivison (who's a terrific writer when he isn't carrying Conservative water) in his piece "Can anyone stop Brian Topp?":

One thing NDP members should perhaps think about is who the Conservatives would least like to face in four years time. One senior Conservative said that he is not concerned by Mr. Topp, calling him “wooden” and lacking in charisma. Nor is he worried by the prospect of Mr. Mulcair winning, calling him “very wedge-able.” But Mr. Dewar does make him nervous. “He’s young, bilingual, telegenic and has political genealogy [his mother was mayor of Ottawa]. He has good parliamentary experience and people seem to like him. He’s the closest thing I’ve seen to a young Bob Rae.”

I agree, as I've already said, I don't understand Topp as a political natural that will resonate. I also agree that Paul Dewar is the one that has the best capacity to capitalize on recent NDP gains. Dewar has an authenticity which is rare, he's capable, measured, likeable, intelligent, young, attractive, well versed and has a common touch. Grassroots dippers would be wise to blunt the Topp train, at least enough to allow for a truly open debate, where the outcome is in considerable doubt. As it stands now, the NDP leadership race looks like dictation from the Topp, a quick "sew it up" process that people might one day look back on and shake their heads.

What's The Point Of Voting NDP?

2011-09-25T11:06:00.006-04:00

Okay, before you do the knee jerk partisan deduction( here goes those Liberals again), pretend for a second there were no "teams", just philosophical underpinnings. Readers of this blog will know I've long made the case that colour tends to blind actual spectrum considerations. For instance, Gary Doer was centrist, pro big business, observers agree that his government had little in common with federal NDP policies. As well, Darrell Dexter winning in Nova Scotia was really an exercise in moving the provincial NDP to the center, a fact that is irrefutable. For all the fawning from federal NDP forces, Dexter was really a repudiation of traditional NDP ground. I mention these examples because I firmly believe you could make a case that Dalton McGuinty is every bit the progressive that these supposed NDP icons are and where. In other words, forget about this colour and that, just look at the policies and you'll find little true impetus to vote NDP in this provincial election.

What are the big issues, synonymous with traditional NDP leanings? Start with unions, and you'll find that the McGuinty government has brought relative labour peace to the public sector, contrasted with the past regime, it's like night and day McGuinty has engaged with respect and the relationship has been quite cordial. As well, moving to the private sector, the fact that the head of the CAW can take the stage with McGuinty speaks VOLUMES about how the provincial Liberals have governed. A perfect record? Absolutely not, but if this was an NDP government, NDP supporters would be singing McGuinty's praises, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

I once voted NDP, primarily because I felt they were spot on when it came to the environment, the Liberals a disappointing disaster, closer to regressive than progressive by any measure. However, if you're concerned about the environment in this provincial election, there is endless evidence that these McGuinty Liberals offer the best alternative. Oh sure, we can quibble about this and that, but if you forget the partisan pom poms for a moment, you'd have to concede the Liberal agenda is progressive, dare I say REVOLUTIONARY. The fact leading environmentalists have praised the agenda, endorsed it completely, offers some independent realism apart from the partisan fog.

The NDP traditionally believe in a interventionalist government, one that actively engages in the economy. This approach is in direct contrast to the hands off, free market approach that Conservatives believe. The McGuinty government has demonstrated time and again that it sees an active role for government in the economy, there is nothing offensive in this approach from a purely philosophical NDP perspective.

I don't mean to sound smug or dismissive, but I'm starting to see this provincial election in Ontario as really more about colour than content, more about who you're predisposed to support, rather than a fair reading of the issues. On many major fronts, the red team reads like the orange team, so much so if we traded platforms, people would passionately defend. In this election, for myself, the Ontario NDP are entirely unnecessary, redundant and the points of distinction are more exaggerated for partisan purposes than true philosophical divergence.

There I said it :)

Up For Grabs

2011-09-24T08:02:00.003-04:00

Now, that's a poll Forum Research. However, size doesn't necessarily equate to better accuracy, so I'd caution taking this poll as gospel just because of sheer volume. What this poll does show that seems consistent: Hudak has lost his lead and this election is now clearly up for grabs.

Three weeks ago Forum had it 35% PC, 30% Lib, 26% NDP and 6% Green. The latest behemoth leaves the PC's stalled, the Liberals up 5%, NDP down 3% and Greens down 1%, translating into a dead heat between the two main parties. From the Liberal perspective any evidence of NDP erosion to the Liberal camp is welcome news, to win they must drive down that NDP number.

One quibble with the pollster, they come out with seat projections, then make a prognostication about minority, even though over 25% of seats are completely in play:

If those numbers were to be repeated on Oct. 6, the Liberals and Tories would be tied at 47 seats with the NDP only holding 13 seats in the 107-member Legislature. However, the results for at least 28 ridings are within the margin of error, so seat predictions are not nearly as reliable as the total sample.

Even so, none of the parties appears likely at this point to be able to win the 54 seats needed for a majority government, which leaves Ontario poised for its first minority government since 1985.

Forum finds 26% of seats are within the margin of error, meaning there is still significant room for gains or losses. In fact, this finding leaves open the possibility of a majority, a late rush will firm up one sides ridings and could easily pull the 7 more required to sneak in with a majority. If the debate were to bring a small percentage change in vote intention, a majority is easily attainable, so I'm still not prepared to buy into the "looming" minority just yet, to early and to much evidence of volality. Let's not forget, a few weeks ago a PC majority looked a "certainty", so educated wisdom is forever leary of "looks like". Throw in what I see as a large subset of marginal support and Ontario may still yet surprise.

One argument is solidified, namely this debate will probably decide who becomes the next government. The late timing of the debate in this campaign almost guarantees any momentum would be unstoppable, heading to election day. Make or break is an understatement, given the now clear backdrop.

Bold Is Beautiful

2011-09-21T07:55:00.000-04:00

Part of the new Liberal equation, is coming to terms with the true realities that face us. From my perspective, elements of denial and "fresh coat of paint" mentalities still exist, and a few clues to date suggest no revolutionary thinking is taking place, apart from hollow platitudes. One exception- a breath of fresh air- has been Rob Silver and his commentary. In fact, of all the voices I'm listening to chime in on Liberal reform, Silver seems to start from a necessarily sober place and the thinking develops from this realization. It's not about agreeing with all suggestions but forth, but we need more people who are pushing ideas that challenge current sensibilities, in fact that's the only posture that will stave off outright eventual extinction.

In his latest missive, Silver argues the Liberals should come out and favour legalization of drugs. The idea has "risk", and as we know Liberals are risk adverse, now so political correct to be neutered and vanilla. I still recall the disappointment when Ignatieff basically mirrored the Conservatives on marijuana legalization, stale, bland, and not compelling in the least.

If Liberals are to re-energize their brand we need to step on some toes, we need to dare to offend. Liberals shouldn't be reckless in this regard, but we should adopt policy that is intellectually logical, coherent positions that provides philosophical foundation. I'm not sure legalizing all drugs is on the table, but at the very least Liberals should counter the Conservatives, stop playing defence and take some progressive stands that speak to conviction, rather than pandering nothingness. The kicker for Liberals, there is actually a reservoir of public opinion that favours decriminalization of soft drugs, so bold isn't really all that outlandish.

The war on drugs has failed. Why not develop a policy that favours legalizing marijuana, then perhaps use the proceeds for further education, particularly when it comes to more harmful drugs? What if Liberals devised a position wherein half of all new tax revenue went into educating teens about the dangers of crystal meth, or even why marijuana should be avoided? The other half of newfound tax revenue could go to policing for other more serious crimes. In other words, the entire premise would be revenue neutral, all monies collected from legalizing marijuana put back into the system to give young people more information, police more tools to defend citizens. I'm just throwing this idea out as one possible direction, moreso as a general way to show a way to pivot off the obvious wedge issue. In this way, legalizing marijuana becomes a positive in society, and all it requires is common sense in realizing that marijuana is here to stay, past polices forever doomed to fail.

Rather than reacting to the Conservative agenda- even worse MIRRORING in some cases- why not develop a true pushback position, that challenges everyone and demands some serious rethink? Liberals need to adopt some colour, and on drugs were are the most boring of beige. I firmly believe we can move public opinion over time, particularly with a serious strategy that addresses the entire status quo position. All that is required from Liberals: a certain moxy that confidently articulates deemed wise policy, without worrying about stirring the pot. Step one for Liberals is stop trying to be all things to all people, because you end up being pretty much nothing to everybody. Advocating marijuana legalization, woven within a policy with many tenticles, would be a good start...

OUCH

2011-09-15T07:35:00.001-04:00

In the Toronto Sun no less:

Looks an accurate depiction.

Say Anything

2011-09-14T07:30:00.002-04:00

Let's keep it real, politicians are forever exaggerating, downplaying, even misrepresenting on occasion, all in the name of projecting a subjective truth that speaks to self interest. This reality partially explains voter cynicism, we see our elected officials as more salesman than honest brokers, which is unfortunate. With purity a non starter, the discussion then moves to a question of degree. Where is the line where partisan relative focus becomes outright lying and deceit, utter fabrication that simply has no factual basis?

The Progressive Conservatives "Changebook" platform has been savaged for it's overt dishonesty, and rightfully so. The CCPA provides a stunning rebuke of the PC platform:

In fact, not one of the 13 graphs is completely labelled and sourced, consistently scaled, and accurately graphed. This consistent failure to accurately and completely present the empirical data cannot be ascribed to sloppiness or typographical errors. The statistical graphs in the changebook have been presented in ways that are clearly unacceptable in normal academic or professional practice. They consistently mislead the reader about the relative proportions of the variables being discussed. The changebook’s graphs reflect a consistent willingness to bend the statistical truth, and a disrespect for normal standards of honesty and transparency in written work. From a group that aims to govern the province, this
pattern is deeply concerning.

Now, apologists will look at this source itself and be dismissive, but since we are dealing with empirical concerns, that's more denial than fair read. The Hudak PC's have taken misinformation to a new low, wherein the whole book reads like an utter pack of lies, pure propaganda with no relationship to reality whatsoever. In fact, almost every independent observer who has poured over the PC platform can see troubling assertions, MATH, conclusions.

We are electing a new government. While voters have become accustomed to distortions, the PC's have introduced fabrication as the cornerstone of their message, they are trying to get elected, based on utter bullshit. This blatant disregard for honesty brings into question character, ethics and fitness to lead? Apparently, platforms are now works of fiction, and it simply comes down to selling prowess, factual basis a laughable afterthought.

I am waiting to see how media endorsements shakeout in this campaign. Should any publication actually ENDORSE this disingenuous document, people can rightly conclude said entity has ceased to have applied ANY journalistic standard. This is "CHANGE" nobody should believe in, nor condone.

Job Killer

2011-09-13T16:13:00.004-04:00

In politics, once you are forced to argue beyond neat soundbites, you've probably lost the battle. For instance, when one politician comes to town and SIMPLY announces 200 new jobs to a region with plus 9 percent unemployment, that is a slam dunk optical winner. When his opponent comes to town and says he will kill said jobs in the region with plus 9 percent unemployment, due to this and that in the details, he's lost in almost embarrassing fashion:

Hudak vows to kill Samsung green energy deal, 200 jobs

LONDON, ONT.—Tim Hudak was unapologetic Tuesday when he said he’d kill the Liberal government’s $7-billion green energy deal with Samsung — and 200 local jobs.

“We can’t afford it,” the Progressive Conservative leader said on radio station Newstalk 1290 CJBK, referring to the controversial pact with the South Korean manufacturing giant, which he blames for rising electricity rates as Ontario heads toward the Oct. 6 election.

Last week Samsung executives appeared with Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty in London to announce a new 200-employee plant that will make solar panels in the city, which is struggling for new jobs with a 9.1 per cent unemployment rate.

There is one headline you never want, the one that includes the words JOBS and KILL. Hudak can argue his case, the wider economic argument, but in essence he appears to be advocating KILLING new jobs, because he doesn't like the terms. Unemployed workers in London don't give a rats ass about the terms, what they care about is that the Liberals are offering new jobs, new industry, to counter years of erosion. If the PC braintrust were smart, when McGuinty announced the revised terms pre-writ they would have softened their opposition, but instead they remain stubbornly steadfast.

This issue is a loser all day long, the more Hudak wants to talk about it, the better. Ontarians realize that we've lost many manufacturing jobs and they are NEVER coming back. While the details of the agreement might be a bit of a hard swallow in one sense, the deal still represents a Premier actively trying to lure new investment, progressive employment, as we reinvent our economy. It is simply comical to have Tim Hudak in a local riding, telling voters that he will axe a deal, which will bring economic advantage to the region. Great strategy.

Fluid

2011-09-13T07:55:00.002-04:00

Before the Ontario election campaign began in earnest, the Progressive Conservatives enjoyed a double digit lead, many basically declared the Liberals dead and that was that. Trouble was, we still actually had to go through the motions of a pesky campaign, and lo and behold things have changed already, in dramatic fashion, in a way few would have predicted. The once insurmountable Progressive Conservative lead has dramatically evaporated, from romp to panic, polls now show a dead heat at best, a Liberal lead at worst.

Yesterday, two more polls from Nanos and Ipsos, both tell a similar story, reinforcing other results as well. One huge caution, don't make the same mistake made prior, these numbers are fluid and one misstep here, a gaffe there, it could move back quite easily. It really does look like the coming debate will be the key moment, as it usually the case, no revelation there. Perhaps a bit more pointed this time, if only because Hudak desperately needs a strong performance to offset this erosion, should he look ordinary, things will cement themselves.

The real wildcard continues to be the NDP. Polls show historically strong numbers to date, but they also show a very distinct third place position. When push comes to shove, should the NDP not look a realistic option, we could see some movement to the Liberals. The Liberal strategy from here on out has to see if there is any opportunity to poach a few points off the NDP, that will be key. I also recognize the NDP strategy, so no assuming anything here or typical Liberal mindset, but there is always risk of decline when you're trailing.

There are so many scenarios now in play, it's silly to predict an outcome. However, certain things are clear: namely the Hudak campaign has to be feeling quite nervous, having watched a massive lead evaporate so quickly. Will the PC's respond with calm confidence or does panic mode start to set in as they are put on the defensive? The PC's ads clearly aren't working, their leader is looking every bit a DUD, they've created bizarre wedge issues, media coverage has been dismissive, it actually looks to be unravelling quickly.

On the other hand, if someone had told Liberals two months ago that at worst they would be tied, at best starting to run away, after a week of the election campaign, it would have been a beyond wildest dreams proposition. And yet, here we are, with much campaign to go.... So far, so good.

Not Feeling It

2011-09-12T12:28:00.003-04:00

With the endorsement of Ed Broadbent- and all the structural weight that carries- the prospects of Brian Topp actually winning the NDP leadership just became more probable, he may even be the front runner. A lot will depend on the campaign, but now Topp is firmly positioned at the center of the debate. I admit, I'm a bit flabbergasted that Topp is a serious contender, even moreso that Broadbent has come out so early and enthusiastically backed his candidacy.

I've seen quite a bit of Topp, as well as read some of contributions. Smart, strategic, sauvy, Topp is clearly someone that deserves serious attention. However, the guy has never struck me as a politician, in the sense of having any gravitas necessary to resonate. In fact, Topp's dour disposition- an almost deadpan delivery- has always struck me as the prototypical backroom operative, long on political acumen, short on the overt common touch. It looks like it hurts for Topp to smile to be honest, and my instinctual reaction is that he has potential flop written all over him. Perhaps I'm missing something, but there seems nothing overtly compelling in terms of style, disposition or delivery, at least in the sense of instant frontrunner.

Is there more to this story than meets the eye? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the quick floating of Topp after Layton's death, the close ties to his inner circle, is he a concoction borne of a "stop Mulcair" sentiment? Seriously, when you think of successors- particularly now with Quebec's emergence- Mulcair is the first name that comes to mind, and it has been for sometime. Instead, we see a quick strike to put Topp's name into the mix, and now Broadbent comes out straight off with a gushing endorsement. Plenty of niceities directed toward Mulcair, but is Topp the bilingual counter from those who are weary of Mulcair's potential leadership? I'm inclined to think Topp has a anti-Mulcair genesis if only because he is such an AWKWARD consideration to begin with. However, when you start to wonder who could challenge Mulcair in Quebec, who has the creds that could counter his assets, then Topp starts to look plausible.

Topp running is a perplexing development in one sense, within the lens of Mulcair however, a more logical sequence begins. I'll keep an open mind moving forward to see if Topp does have the chops to be Leader of the Official Opposition, but right now I'm not feeling him at all. This candidacy looks forced and somewhat unnatural from here...

"No Us And Them, Just Us"

2011-09-12T07:05:00.002-04:00

Worth noting, that prior to this "foreigners" debate in Ontario, the Liberals campaign slogan was already "Forward.Together". There was a reason for the theme, people appreciate the notion of all oars in the water toward a common goal. As well, there is a general sentiment that is sick and tired of divisions, bickering, people yearn for positive visions that speak to a sum greater than our parts. I thought the Liberals optical strategy was a sound one, and fortunately Tim Hudak has played right into that narrative, providing a concrete contrast which allows the Liberals to make the case:

In addition, the emphasis on working together for a common purpose, also elbows certain NDP messaging, who are championing positivity in politics. In other words, not only can the Liberals paint Hudak as divisive, negative in tone, they can also steal some NDP oxygen at the same time, which makes this issue- and the general themes surrounding- all the more crucial.

The Liberals already had a unilateral focus for their campaign, which I'm sure was based on some accurate reading of public mood, some fundamental contrast position that provided a potential attractive vision. The Progressive Conservatives have volunteered themselves in a bizarre move, they've decided to fight on this ground, seemingly unaware that they've highlighted a core thrust of their opponent. Your opponent wants to highlight "together", speaking to commonality for a brighter future, and one of your first campaign ads raises the spectre of differing classes of citizens, tries to pit certain groups against others for naked political ambitions? I'm sure the Liberal war room couldn't have dreamed of a more positive development...

Tea Party North Is "Fair" Game

2011-09-10T08:33:00.003-04:00

It is pretty amusing to hear some pundits SCOFF at this whole Tea Party North designation, as though mere manufactured labelling. Of course political opponents have picked up on the theme, but really only to highlight extremist tendencies which have PRACTICAL foundations. Let's just forget what partisan rivals are saying, confine ourselves to the infighting WITHIN the formerly progressive Conservatives and you see that Tea Party North is a self creation, based on events, borne of a philosophy entirely consistent with certain labels.

Last time I checked the former PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PREMIER of Ontario isn't a Liberal operative, so when he volunteers "Tea Party elements" as part of HIS own party, it carries certain weight, that deserves consideration. Perhaps more fascinating, we have a PC candidate, at the center of this radicalized debate, which embraces the comparison to the Tea Party, last NOVEMBER, well before partisans tried to unfairly paint the PC party, well before Eves provided critical mass to the discussion:

Remarks made by former Ontario PC premier Ernie Eves at an appreciation dinner for MPP Norm Sterling have shown a growing division within the Tory party.

Eves criticized his own party for failing to defend Sterling, a 34-year Queen’s Park veteran, who was ousted during the riding’s nomination process on March 31.

MacLaren, a far-right wing politician associated with the Ontario Landowners Association, won the bitter nomination battle.

“I don’t care who hears this,” said Eves. “The treatment that Norm got from his own party was not very polite, was not fair, it was not loyal, it was not compassionate, it was not even and it was not honest,” Eves said during a dinner for Sterling at the Canadian Golf and Country Club in Stittsville on Aug. 25.

Eves later clarified his comments on a Toronto talk radio show, saying that “Tea Party” elements within the Conservatives were behind the poor treatment of Sterling.

In an interview with this newspaper last November, MacLaren said it was “fair” to compare the local Tories’ move to supplant the riding’s old guard with the Tea Party’s attempt to move the U.S. Republican party further to the right and the Wild Rose party’s attempt to pull Alberta politics in the same direction.

“All across the western world countries are willing stand up a little more. I am willing to fight for my culture and heritage and what my forefathers fought for,” MacLaren said at the time.

Never mind the bizarre references to culture and heritage- which are troubling in and of themselves- here we have a candidate saying it's "fair" to make the comparison last year. The radicals that are yielding greater and greater influence within the PC ranks seem comfortable with the Tea Party comparisons, so the likes of John Ivison might want to incorporate that self realization into their own biased view of the world. It is FAIR game to discuss the far right elements in the PC party, just as detractors like to speak of the "radical left" when disproportionately disparaging other entities. True is, by all accounts, there does appear a very REAL internal struggle within the PC party that provides a very fluid comparison to other manifestations down south.

Voters need to understand what is occurring beyond the superficial optics the PC party is trying to sell. Voters need to know, that should this group take power, there is a hard right element which will yield influence when it comes to decision making. Voters need to process the facts on the ground, and if they're comfortable with the emerging radicalization of the PC party, then that will be expressed at the ballot booth. What is pure bullshit however, is trying to belittle this Tea Party debate, particularly when the genesis of the debate comes from the PC party itself. This is a REAL issue, the views of certain MPP's and candidates well known, their presence deserves to be incorporated into the discussion of which direction you want to see the province of Ontario move.

Hudak Is A DUD

2011-09-09T07:06:00.005-04:00

A rehashed title, only because it's so TRUE! The new HD poll has tongues wagging, as people digest an apparent massive reversal of fortune. I would still caution the poll as an outlier, but what's become clear: Tim Hudak's Progressive Conservatives have completely BLOWN a once seemingly insurmountable lead and the campaign has just begun. My working thesis, an inverse relationship between PC fortunes and voters learning more about Tim Hudak is closing in on "law" designation.

Who would have thought two months ago that one could actually say "have the Liberals peaked too early?" and not be laughed at. However, as stated previously, Ontario is a very volatile place, those that declared McGuinty done really don't appreciate the fluidity in this province, nor the impact of true focus. Now that the campaign has finally began, all bets are off, any outcome possible and from the Liberal perspective that's a terrific relativity.

I think the Liberals ads have been fantastic to date, the type I LONGED for in the federal campaign. McGuinty taking on his popularity directly, then pivoting to a laundry list of accomplishments, is a brilliant ad. As well, the theme of working together, as opposed to Hudak's divisive posturing, I sense that is resonating with a public starved for positive vision. As well, Hudak has suffered through many negative headlines, his party is showing cracks, he looks opportunistic rather than principled and above all, he's a DUD. McGuinty may not be the most popular leader in the country- although I sense a limited rethink occuring- but voters aren't going to hand the keys to anyone, should they look amateurish or not up to snuff.

This campaign is going to be fascinating, the Liberals now have wind in their sails and Hudak will have to react to questions about lost support, the pressure is on. A lot will depend on how the NDP perform, they could be anything from afterthought, to spoiler, to true contender. The key moment, obviously the debate, but in this campaign the stakes seem even higher.

So far, so good for the Ontario Liberals...

Red Flags

2011-09-08T12:25:00.002-04:00

I don't want to belabour, because frankly I'm beginning to no longer care about the maddening internal machinations of the good titanic Liberal. Jeff has an excellent piece that gets to the fundamental truths behind certain misconceptions. Lawrence Martin sums it all up with one sentence:

If Sheila Copps isn’t a stalking horse for Bob Rae, she sure came off sounding like one.

Last July, when Copps first mentioned running for Liberal Party President, she said "she’s already spoken with Liberal leader Bob Rae about her possible candidacy." Perhaps an innocent comment, but the inference was there from the get go: Bob Rae approved of such a run. Fast forward to Copps eventually putting her hat into the ring, she begins her campaign with this bizarre pronouncement that Bob Rae is free to run for permanent leader. Obviously true- as Jeff Jedras explores- but still a curious start to a campaign and one that raises legitimate red flags.

Yesterday, I wrote the party and asked that they cancel my Victory Fund contributions. A decision I've pondered for awhile now- a complete whatever in the grand scheme- but I don't feel like robo donating anymore, I want to see real evidence of renewal before I pony up anymore cash. That's my prerogative, I feel at ease with the decision, and I think it symbolic of a notion that actions speak louder than hollow words, or platitudes as the case may be here. I know many Liberals who have shared a common concern: the upcoming party apparatus races will be used by heavyweights to put friendly figures in place, with ultimate goals that betray stated intentions. Put more bluntly, a lingering fear that the fix is in and people are getting their ducks in a row.

In one sense, I depart from some other commentary. While there is no rule precluding a permanent run from Mr. Rae- and Copps has no practical say one way or the other- a word is a bond that must be respected. Yes, Liberals can decide at the time how they regard a change of mind, but the problem is that in the intermediate unfair advantage have been exploited, in many respects the damage of insider manipulations manifested, so that blow back is offset by built in power levers. In addition, I wonder how broad potential downside, if one has spent considerable time ensuring the ground is fertile for such a change of mind.

One thing is clear, Liberals don't need this kind of intrigue moving forward, everything should be up front and easily ascertained. Naive perhaps, but the grassroots should be afforded some comfort that we aren't being taken for fools, for granted, that people have agendas beyond what has been stated. Unfortunately, Copps has provided more mystery with her statements yesterday, unnecessary but perhaps very enlightening to how January is shaping up.

It's getting really old fast....

UPDATE

Worth a read

ReNEWal

2011-09-07T08:00:00.001-04:00

Every Liberal in the country needs to do one thing: stop talking to each other for an extended period of time. This is a fantastic idea that will lead to the sober recognitions that are required to survive. The problem with Liberals gathering, talking, is that it provides almost delusional comfort, taking the edge of an objectively dire situation. Liberals will say they get it, everybody is offering up all the necessary platitudes and generalizations, but in the end I see a disconnect.

I talk to fellow Liberals, and while I appreciate the tribal spunk, I'm STILL struck by the short cut mentality that exists. The problem with we Liberals, we are all students of our own history, will all still believe in the brand, even though all outside information suggests a stark landscape and even more precarious future. If you stop talking to fellow Liberals, only then can you fully appreciate how tired and spent we appear, how NO ONE shares our nostalgic view of the party, how many have left for other options, how we've completely and utterly lost a couple generations with no sign whatsoever or rebirth. These statements will lead to obvious protests, YES we do get it Steve, but it takes time! But, really, when you look at the mentality to date, it suggests no such acknowledgement.

My view of Sheila Copps is evolving. Initially, when I heard that Liberal powerbrokers saw merit it raised my hackles on the renewal front. However, as time marches on, I'm starting to see Copps as an acknowledge that perhaps we really are bereft of new and fresh talent, she's a testament to the slow death. I don't mean to offend, Copps brings PLENTY to the table, but if this is the best our braintrust can fathom, if this is their first choice to re-introduce ourselves to Canadians, then it speaks to an inability to appreciate and/or a sober testament that no new generation is coming, they've left.

It all sounds so harsh, but let's look at certain realistic probabilities:

-I see a ZERO percent chance the Liberals form the next government

-I see a TEN percent chance the Liberals become the official opposition the next election

-I see a TWENTY percent chance the Liberals prop up the NDP as the next government

People can quibble, but I'll whip out the electoral map in a heartbeat if need be, it's a realistically bleak short term picture. Truth is, unless the NDP implode, Canadians will now see the Official Opposition as the first alternative should we tire of the Harper goverment, overcoming that mindset hurdle is herculian in nature and can only be achieved with BOLD actions. Sheila Copps isn't bold, it's more of the same. Liberals need to stop talking to each other, only then will we fully realize Canadians have stopped listening.

Critical Choice For The NDP

2011-09-06T08:10:00.002-04:00

Twice in my life I've had the misfortune of working in a unionized workplace. I say misfortune, because those two stints easily stand out as the most dysfunctional, backass experiences of my life. I still support unions in theory, but like many, many Canadians I understand the practical disconnect, the idealistic intent so often distorted in very unflattering fashion. The above a massive generalization, fully appreciating exceptions, fully understanding my experience of unproductive, nonsensical relationships, a limited perspective.

I'm not anti-union, I didn't support the government attacking postal workers, their one sided view of the world on fully display. I support BALANCE, which means often times unions and their right wing opposers both miss the mark, there is a compromised ground which neither has the proper capacity to appreciate. I mention all of this blathering in the context of the NDP and their internal struggle with unions and their prominence moving forward. From the outside, a fascinating debate that pits traditional leanings against pragmatic understanding of expanding your base.

There is an inherent contradiction for a party which prides itself on equality sanctioning a leadership process which GAMES the result, with a backroom flavour to boot. NDP MP Pat Martin, who has a long labour background, actually makes quite a bit of sense here:

Winnipeg MP Pat Martin similarly said he wants to see a "one-member-one-vote" leadership process, "plain and simple," with no special influence for labour.

"If labour wants a larger voice they can sell NDP memberships among their union members," Martin said.

"It would be one less thing for our enemies to use against us," he added, alluding to the fact that rival parties have often portrayed the NDP as captive to big labour.

Getting rid of the labour vote quota doesn't translate to diminished labour influence necessarily. There is nothing stopping unions- and their MASSIVE organizational tools- from being power brokers, they just have to work for it, rather than anointed say. In addition, the optics of "one member one vote" send a clear signal to Canadians that the NDP isn't a narrow party, but one that more can embrace without hesitation. People can debate until the cows come home, but the idea of the NDP closely tied to big labour is a very limiting proposition. Many people write off the NDP immediately because of this fact. As well, when one sees how quickly opponents of the NDP continually try to box them in as serving a special interest, it should act as a CLUE that beyond a certain threshold the affiliation is albatross in nature. Let's put it this way, as a Liberal I'm hoping the NDP maintain their 25% labour threshold.

Unions will always play a large role, so long as unions have a large membership capable of putting boots on the ground and influencing the process. Should unions diminish in stature, any artificial measures that prop up their role isn't representative, it's a bastardized process that looks more like a special interest lobbying effort than progressive politics. If unions want a certain leader, they have all the tools necessary to provide massive inputs, nobody disputes this potential within the NDP.

Unions may be a great source of support for the NDP, but they are also an irritant for many would be supporters. It will interesting to see if the NDP recognize potential evolution or remain shackled by one side of the modern political equation.

CAW Backs Merger Talk

2011-09-02T07:09:00.002-04:00

Interesting development on the "not a chance in hell" merger idea, as the CAW President weighs in:

The president of the Canadian Autoworkers Union has written to NDP MPs to support Pat Martin's appeal for a merger between the NDP and the Liberals.

In his letter to Martin, Lewenza praises Harper's "incredibly successful" vision in uniting the right.

"The writing has been on the wall since the Conservative alliance," says the letter. "To suggest otherwise would be misleading and not credible. The CAW would be prepared to take part in this idea in the interest of progressive politics in the interest of all Canadians."

The CAW is among the largest unions in Canada, and traditionally has played a powerful role in backroom NDP politics, although during the Paul Martin minority Liberal government then-president Buzz Hargrove lent his political muscle to the Liberals.

I'm immediately curious what NDP MP Peggy Nash thinks, because her last gig, prior to her election campaign, was as assistant to Lewenza? Also, NDP MP Malcom Allen is a CAW member, as is MP Peter Stoffer and MP Claude Patry(former local president).

I believe this letter to be relevant, simply because it doesn't leave Pat Martin hanging in the wind, he finds concrete backing from a traditional NDP powerbase (recent developments incorporated). One thing is quite clear, merger talk is here to stay during this NDP leadership race, no question about it. Should be fascinating...

Dud

2011-09-01T07:30:00.003-04:00

My working thesis is the more Ontarians see of Tim Hudak, the less they will like him and his outdated policies, a focused voter not his friend. So far, so good:

PC Leader Tim Hudak’s gold-bricked path to the Ontario premiership has just gotten bumpier.

Only two months ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Party was poised for a devastating defeat at the hands of Mr. Hudak’s Conservatives. Now, with election day only five weeks away the two leaders are “neck and neck,” according to a new poll by Toronto-based polling firm Forum Research...

At the beginning of summer it may have seemed as if Mr. Hudak needed only to run laps around Ontario in a campaign bus waiting for October 6. Now, every word, campaign promise and platform point he delivers could ultimately decide whether he takes the premier’s chair.

“It’s going to be a very tight race …. when they’re this close, a campaign can move it one way or the other,” says Mr. Bozinoff.

Slick

2011-08-31T07:43:00.002-04:00

Another poll out today that confirms a tightening race in Ontario, fair to say almost any configuration is possible at this point. Plenty of digestion why Hudak's big lead has eroded, but from the Liberal perspective the trendlines offer a relatively positive entry into the real election race.

One thing I've been quite impressed with are the Liberal ads. I'm not sure how the ads are resonating, but they're quite sharp, focused, clean and somewhat outside the box, politically speaking. Case in point, this latest ad featuring McGuinty:

I genuinely love this ad, particularly McGuinty front and center, addressing his popularity in confident fashion. The subsequent listing of achievements, with clever sourcing to cement, it's a very slick ad. In the past, when campaigns are faced with an unpopular leader, they tend to emphasize everything but, that's a known strategy. However, I've always thought avoiding the elephant in the room is a mistake, and the Liberals have devised a clever way to acknowledge the true "drag" and turn it around into a testament to achievement.

I recall PC's and others howling at early ads, because they didn't show McGuinty or only used his voice, evidence they said of just how unpopular he really is, what a liability. Interesting then that the Liberals put out an ad that is all McGuinty, a plain backdrop, he is 100% of the focus. When you weave this ad in with the other offering, I see a strategy which can be quite effective.

I remember in the last federal campaign stating that the NDP seemed to have the better ads, ours seemed fairly pedestrian, standard, nothing of real interest. I mention this fact only because any "pumping" of Liberal ads now will immediately be seen as simple partisanship. Whomever is running the ads within Team Ontario Liberal, it's looking quite impressive from here...

Liberal Democrats?

2011-08-30T12:08:00.002-04:00

Some interesting comments in the latest NDP-Liberal merger piece. A few days ago, a post by Rob Silver, which for my money could be one of the more thought provoking concepts put forward. I've also thought about the possibility of a new party, but in the wake of Layton's death, the public sentiment, I see a more realistic opportunity.

I've voted Green, I've voted NDP and obviously I've voted Liberal, all this century as well. Partisanship has only become part of my psychological predisposition the last few years, as I decided to engage in a political party, join a "tribe" and invest in that agenda. Not unique, you find yourself at odds with your own "team" quite often, quickly realizing that being a member of a party necessitates compromise and pragmatism. If you hold that view that a political party is capable of completely mirroring your own moral and philosophical compass, it's an exercise in futility. I mention this naked fact, because part of the opposition to mergers, unions, coalitions, is an inability to accept a differing perspective, a resistance to compromise in the name of a perceived greater good. In the past, I've sort of balked at "merger" talk because I know full well that stubborn interests in both parties are frankly incapable of seeing past their respective teams. Meshing the two distinct cultures is almost herculean, the dynamics at play bear NO relationship to the merger we recently saw on the right.

With the above in mind, the Silver suggestion appears a far more intriguing option. In addition, with the sincere and genuine affinities that manifested themselves the last few days, I would argue the logic has never been more sound. What we've seen is progressives of all stripes, Liberals, NDP, Greens, non affiliated come together within an optimistic message which while partisan in crafting, spoke well beyond artificial boundaries. The fight is larger than a party, it's about a direction of a country, and within that I see a recognition of MANY shared values. Not an overlap, not everyone in complete lockstep on all issues, but a more GENERAL thrust which suggests real opportunity.

The time has come to put everything on the table, really FLESH out what could be, identify the roadblocks and access the best options moving forward. The status quo is a probable loser, unless your name is Stephen Harper. Open minds, a sensibility that extends beyond tribalism, within this vein could come a truly unifying force. Perhaps a new entity, without the historical shackles, divergences and narrow interests is a possibility worth serious consideration...

And They're Off!!

2011-08-29T08:59:00.000-04:00

If anyone thought it would take a few days to build up a NDP leadership lather, you would be mistaken, because the race has begun in earnest today. The apparently well sourced Hill Times article lays out some potential fault lines, evidence of acrimony and divisions that would even make a long in the tooth Liberal take notice.

Perhaps a bit premature to say a "stop Muclair" sentiment exists, but clearly he is a controversial figure within the NDP ranks. I'm not sure I buy the angle that Mr. Layton purposely opted for a quick vote to undercut Muclair, but I don't doubt a rapid timetable was preferred because leadership contests are divisive, that's just the nature of the beast. What is clear, the NDP have to be very careful how they deal with Muclair, given the geographic nature of their caucus and support, any overt evidence of "stop" could have negative ramifications. Of course, it is all very premature, but the the tone of the Hills article suggests a real undercurrent exists, which makes for some fascinating machinations moving forward.

I'm not sure what to make of the Brian Topp musings, frankly his name seems to have come out of nowhere. I suspect we will learn more in the coming days about how his potential candidacy came to consideration, because at first blush it seems a very awkward direction. I've seen a fair bit of Brian Topp and I've seen absolutely nothing optically that suggests he has the tools to be a successful politician. Time will tell I suppose.

Lots of names being floated, one that I'm keeping a very close eye on from afar, Paul Dewar. I've mentioned Dewar before as a possible successor, from this vantage point he appears to have all the tools, so I'm curious to see if his name emerges over the coming days. From a partisan perspective, Dewar is the one name that should scare the shit out of Liberals IMHO. Why? A compelling authenticity that has the capacity to really resonate.

The NDP leadership race has started. If today's coverage is any indication, we political junkies are in for a battle that would make anonymous senior Liberal insider proud ;)

"These People Never Stop"

2011-08-28T08:48:00.003-04:00

First, a couple thoughts on the Blatchford column, now that the funeral has passed, then some digestion of the line above, which was the central thrust of her column and those that support it.

It's not really what Blatchford wrote- Layton's letter was a political document, Stephen Lewis even referred to it as a "manifesto" yesterday- it was the timing. Most people have an internal mechanism which would prevent penning that piece, then, because the reaction was entirely predictable. Blatchford's column really was a study of her own character flaws, it wasn't "brave", it was asinine and devoid of basic common sense and compassion. The subsequent column, wherein Blatchford lists all the terrible things people said to her in response, really a validation of her horrendous judgement. The second column a now common refrain (see Coren after his Norway terrorist crack), rather than deal with the substance of complaints, you highlight the most offensive to garner sympathy for yourself and in so doing completely ignore the central problem. The real issue here is why Christie Blatchford is so bloody jaded and cold hearted that her FIRST response to this death is to lash out in unseemly and embarrassing fashion. Had Blatchford waited a few days, her column would have been seen in an entirely different light, because at the heart, there is a relevant point, which no one, including my NDP friends would deny.

"These people never stop", and they didn't stop at the funeral either, which turned into a political event, rather than a traditional funeral. One last reference to Blatchford, speaking of never stopping, I wonder if she had penned a outraged piece on our PRIME MINISTER'S weekly meeting to review where the Economic Action Plan signs were placed. I mention Harper because our political world is now dominated by 24/7 focus, everything is throw into the mix and parties have dedicated staff who's sole focus is to never stop, never let any opportunity go, never fail to calculate. Jack Layton was "on" all the time, he was a professional politician, why would anyone expect his last missive to lack this overriding characteristic? Why would anyone begrudge a dying man- and his team for that matter- a final chance to cement a legacy and provide a path forward, which of course had an element of self interest? In other words, people actually expected Jack Layton to stop being Jack Layton? Were you paying attention?

What Mr. Layton wrote, how he choose to be buried, certainly belies a motivation to push a very politicized agenda after his death. Mission accomplished Mr. Layton, one final contribution which highlights why you became Leader of the Opposition in the first place. The same spirit, the same unrelenting focus, his death mirrored his life, Mr. Layton understood this was a moment from which to capitalize. The NDP team kept their wits about them, in this fascinating attempt to turn grief and sullen resignation into a truimphant moment that will pace the party moving forward. I saw bravo to the NDP, bravo to Mr. Layton for demonstrating his political skill until the bitter end, rather than anger I commend how shrewd "these people" really were and are.

Blatchford was actually right in one limited sense, woven within a column that was ALL WRONG, on EVERY level.

R.I.P. Mr. Layton

2011-08-22T08:58:00.000-04:00

I'm away for the week, but I wanted to offer my condolences to Mr. Layton's family. To my NDP friends , I am so tremendously sorry. What a sad day, no matter your politics.