Please STOP Talking

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?

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

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

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"

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

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

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%

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"

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

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

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


Cheeky!

A "Occupy" Policy Proposal

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

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

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$%#&%

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

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"

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

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

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

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.