Bob Rae Hits Quebec

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 I want Liberals to see Quebec as "anything is possible" rather than limiting our appeal, based on outdated language and approaches.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

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

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

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

Hope everyone has a great holiday season:

When Not To Chase A Poll

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?

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

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"

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

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?

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

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?

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

"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

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?

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

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

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.