Visionless Liberals?

Quite alot of debate surrounding the relatively "early" Liberal leadership convention. Some argue that the Liberals should have postponed a leadership race, and instead focused on re-inventing the party. Others argue that it is essential for the party to act soon on the leadership question to present a face for the party and prepare for an early election. Two articles highlight the varying opinions:

The positive:

Unwilling to let Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new Conservative government dominate the political arena for an entire year, the Liberal Party of Canada has wisely chosen to compete for the attention of Canadians by speeding up the process for choosing a new Liberal leader...

The goal is to generate public interest in the contest through serious debates on the directions the country needs to follow to ensure its success on the global economic and political stage in the coming years

The negative:

At the moment, Liberals are utterly lost. After careening through two years and two elections with Paul Martin, a party that once boasted it was the western world's most successful no longer dominates the political centre, is out of fresh ideas and has no obvious leadership light to follow out of darkness.

So what's the Liberal response? It's to declare that Stephen Harper is making such a horrendous start that they must be ready to fight an election now forecast for next spring.

What self-deluding nonsense...

A short, sharp leadership contest favors style over substance, organization over personal potential, pragmatism over growth. That, and the bravado assumption that voters will consider Liberals rehabilitated by next spring, inflates the spectre of a Conservative majority.

Liberals are wisely recognizing this contest must be transparently more honest. They are foolishly ignoring that the party needs more time to find itself. A party obsessed with power is now hurtling toward nowhere.

After the election, I argued that it was essential for the Liberals to abandon a quick leadership race. The Party desperately needed to focus on internal policy matters and re-energize without the distraction of ambition and naked politics. I also felt the Harper government had a clear two year window, given the electoral mood of the country, and this allowed for a slow process.

However, I have now come to the conclusion that the Liberals are best served with a relatively early race. The lack of a clear frontrunner has opened up the race to allow for a more substantive debate. If soundbites are any indication, potential candidates clearly recognize the need for the Liberal Party to re-define itself. Brison has spoke to a desperate need for vision, so too Dryden. Ignatieff welcomed Rae into the race, saying "the more the merrier". According to Ignatieff, the leadership race is primarily an exercise in:

"A great party engaging in a full borne renewal. A really searching debate deep inside itself."

My point? From all indications, many of these contenders understand the stakes and embrace the opportunity to provide a clear vision. This leadership debate can easily morph into the debate the Liberals require to provide a new, positive agenda. Through these candidates, if they hold true to their commitment, all the questions can be addressed in a forum that allows clear distinctions. These candidates are all in consultations with local people and the grassroots. Obviously, the feedback conveys the desire for a real debate and not the usual slogans and style. I think the race, on a substantive level, is shaping up quite well- everyone is ready to engage.

In addition, I have now abandoned the "two year" window argument for the Harper government. Harper has already used up so much political capital in such order that it has no historical precedent. The early signs show a government that's own rigidity may cause more friction that anyone bargained. Harper's political tin ear and his preference for little advice suggests a disastrous miscalculation waiting to happen.

No one would argue that it isn't in the opposition's best interest to have clear, forceful leadership. If Liberals can embrace renewal through the leadership race, then it is a positive to have a leader in place as soon as possible. This is not to say an election is imminent, but why not have the ability to move if opportunity arises. Harper is already fighting the next election, as evidence by his massive offensive in Quebec. I am not sure the Liberals can essentially stay on the sidelines for a long period and hope to recover.

The early signs suggest a leadership race that recognizes the imperative of substance. If Liberals can accomplish renewal in relatively short order, it will undoubtedly provide more flexibility in dealing with the Conservatives. I must admit I am pleasantly surprised at the tone of most of the leadership hopefuls- they seem to get it.

Hearts And Minds

Is anybody surprised when stories like this surface:

After a roadside bomb killed a U.S. marine in western Iraq, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a three-year-old-girl, residents told The Associated Press on Monday.

The military says 12 marines are under investigation for possible war crimes by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service following the Nov. 19 attack in Haditha, 225 kilometres northwest of Baghdad.

The allegations against the marines were first brought forward by Time magazine, which reported this week that it obtained a videotape two months ago taken by a Haditha journalism student that shows the dead still in their nightclothes...

"American troops immediately cordoned off the area and raided two nearby houses, shooting at everyone inside," said Mr. Rsayef, who didn't witness the events but whose 15-year-old niece says she did. "It was a massacre in every sense of the word."

I'm sure there are many other incidents like this one, that will never see the light of day. Unrealistic to expect humanity, when everything about war contradicts the premise. These American soldiers aren't unique, it happens in ever conflict- atrocities are a pre-requisite. Another night of Arab news outlets beaming the message that America is evil. Hearts and minds?

Emerson/Harper Inquiry Over, But...

Shapiro concludes:

From the preliminary inquiry is that neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. Emerson contravened any of the specific Sections of the Members’ Code. I am satisfied that no special inducement was offered by Mr. Harper to convince Mr. Emerson to join his Cabinet and his party. In addition, there is no reason, and certainly no evidence, to contradict Mr. Emerson’s own claim that accepting Mr. Harper’s offer seemed, at least to him, a way to better serve his city, province and country. I therefore find no reason to pursue these matters further.

Hardly surprising, it was technically a weak case. Although, Harper's massive over-reaction now looks incredibly foolish, given the quick end to the inquiry. What is interesting is Shapiro concludes that, while no there is no formal breach of ethics, the appointment of Emerson leaves much to be desired:

This discomfort can be partly explained simply by partisan politics. It is always a matter of some delicacy to determine whether a request for a specific inquiry arises from a genuine concern for compliance with the Members’ Code as opposed to, for example, an attempt to gain partisan advantage.

In this case, however, I believe that partisan politics – in the very best sense of that phrase – is an insufficient explanation. “Crossing the floor” in the House of Commons is not at all unusual in Canadian parliamentary history. However, the closeness in time of Mr. Harper’s offer and Mr. Emerson’s acceptance of it to the general election heightened the issues – ethical and political – that always lay beneath a decision by a Member of Parliament to cross the floor and become affiliated with a political party other than the one under whose umbrella he or she campaigned and was elected. Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance seems to have given many citizens a “sense” that their vote – the cornerstone of our democratic system – was somehow devalued, if not betrayed.

Shapiro offers the Emerson protesters some validation, by rebuking the Conservative's standard spin, that this entire affair is mere partisanship. Shapiro gives support to the idea of voter disenfranchisement. Clearly, Shapiro makes a distinction between this floor crossing and previous ones, by outlining the close timeframe between vote and crossing. While Shapiro acknowledges that his office has no formal complaint against Emerson/Harper, he advises parliament to deal with the negativity that surrounds such manoeuvers.

On the surface, the media will spin this as a win for the Prime Minister. However, if you carefully read Shapiro's conclusions, you can read it as "yes it stinks, but it ain't my pile". I don't see this decision dampening any of furor over Emerson, Shapiro is sympathetic to the outrage.

Liberal Executive Lays An Egg

The Liberal Party will pick a new leader in early December:

The leaders also took steps to reduce financial barriers for candidates, party president Mike Eizenga said.

Those steps include reducing the entry fee to $50,000 from $75,000, leaving more money in candidates' hands by eliminating the party levy on the first $500,000 raised, and tightening disclosure rules. (The levy on funds above $500,000 is 20 per cent.)

But the executive approved a $3.4-million campaign spending limit, which gives an advantage to candidates who can tap into rich backers.

Most striking, is the missed opportunity to project an appearance of equality. Despite the tinkering, the fact that the spending limit is 3.4 million sends a clear signal that money and power trump the grassroots. Instead of endorsing a 2 million limit, which apparently was on the table, the Liberals go with the high end number and basically say "nothing's changed". Eizenga can point to the cosmetic changes(any serious contender can come up with 75 thousand) as evidence of reducing financial barriers, but the bottomline is the spending allowance and in that regard it puts a barrier on certain candidates, while allowing others a distinct advantage.

This was the first test of the "new" Liberal Party and I think they failed badly. If you really are concerned about opening up the process, and it isn't just convenient politico speak, then you should make rules that level the playing field. Setting a high spending limit betrays candidates who don't have "important" friends and their organization will suffer, no matter the process. This decision allows people like Stronach to thrive, not on merit but influence. The national executive can spin all they want, but on the important matter of the day they went with the status quo and essentially revealed their disconnect. Money and power are alive and well in the "new" Liberal Party.

update
Liberal reaction:

"Candidates should be competing based on ideas and vision, rather than on bank accounts," Brison has said.

That could be seen as a dig against Stronach, also a former Conservative with deep pockets thanks to her multimillionaire father's business success as head of auto parts giant Magna International.

Stronach applauded the new rules, saying they will "ensure the leadership race is more open, accessible and accountable process . . . that will guarantee a level playing field for everyone who decides to run."

The fact that Stronach applauds the rules pretty much says it all really. I put in the earlier Brison quote because it speaks to the real capital that should dictate.

Liberals Need Kennedy

Cherniak has an overview of the main players for the Liberal leadership. The big six are Dion, Dryden, Brison, Stronach, Rae and Ignatieff. A brief look at each, makes it easy to conclude that the Liberals desperately need Gerard Kennedy if they hope to project a new image:

Dion: While Dion is a great intellectual, he is crippled by his close ties to old regimes. Dion has baggage which is not easily shed, in effect a new leader already tarnished. This predicament is hardly an attractive quality for those who understand the need for a fresh start. I suspect Harper would salivate at his chances in Quebec with Dion at the helm. "Renewed federalism" vs "old centrism" is a recipe for disaster.

Dryden:I like Dryden. Dryden shows a real grasp of the "big picture", approaching each issue with vision and coherence. Dryden's ideas challenge Canadians to reach for the best in themselves. However, Dryden is a boreasaurus as an orator, prone to rambly speeches that lack inflection. The message is great, but the messenger can be a turn off. Dryden's ties to the last government aren't a huge burden, but coupled with his age, Dryden may find it hard to present a new path.

Stronach:Is there a more divisive figure in the Liberal Party? As Cherniak said, you either love her or hate her- clearly a polarizing force is the last thing Liberals need. Stronach has grown since she became an MP, but she is still relatively lacking in the substance department. Stronach, rightly or wrongly, represents all that is wrong with federal politics. Star power, whatever that means, can't mask the deficiencies.

Brison:I caught Brison doing the rounds the other day. When he wasn't deflecting the email criticism, Brison again showed that he is a crafted speaker, heavy on philosophy. However, the recent admissions have tarnished Brison, whether Liberals choose to believe it or not. Again, Brison has the stain of the old regime, which puts him in conflict with the fresh approach.

Rae:What a great speaker and statesman. Rae is a true intellectual, who shows a masterful understanding on every issue. However, talk about baggage! NDP canvassers in Ontario still hear voters who refuse to vote NDP because of Rae. Rae was unfairly saddled with a massive recession, but his legacy is written in stone. While I welcome a Rae candidacy, his appeal may be limited and ultimately any success would probably bring more questions than answers. Do Liberals want such a controversial figure at the helm?

Ignatieff:Another intellectual, with a great pedigree. On the surface, hard to argue with someone who draws comparison to Trudeau. Again though, Ignatieff comes with issues that distract from his credentials. The residency angle portrays a sense of opportunism which Ignatieff will not easily shake. Ignatieff's age, the Martin factor also betray any sense of a new direction.

Which brings us to Kennedy. When you see the above landscape, and I am probably overly harsh, you conclude that the Liberal Party are setting themselves up for failure. The common theme I have heard since the election is the Liberals need to re-invent themselves and break away from the shackles of the past. Gerard Kennedy is the wildcard who has unique appeal when considering a new vision. Kennedy is relatively young, articulate, placed outside of the Ottawa hierarchy and has potential appeal over several regions. The stakes are high for the Liberals, this is not a time for half measures and cautious transitions. None of the above candidates can be packaged to convey a freshness the way Kennedy can. The Liberal Party needs Kennedy in this race, if for nothing more than appearance.

I like some of the above candidates, plus a couple more not mentioned. But, if you view this campaign tactically, I don't see a calculus of pluses and minuses that doesn't put Kennedy at the top. Everyone one of these candidates has a downside, what is Kennedy's?

Bush: Environmental Nightmare

Pretty sad, when the courts have to intervene to stop the Bush administration's assault on all things environment:

A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The fact that 14 states were part of litigation speaks to the Bush administration's disconnect from the people it claims to represent. Obviously, this is good news for eastern Canada, given the massive amount of U.S emissions that drift into the region. In an age where the world struggles to reduce emissions, the Bush administration offers the stone age mentality, actually arguing for looser restrictions. Huh?

However, for every positive development, the Bush administration moves on other environmental targets. Clearly, unable to take repeated NO's for an answer, we find this sad attempt to re-start the ANWR issue:

A last-minute deal to secure the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) on a $2.8 trillion budget plan has given new life to the Republican drive to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which will begin in October, includes a $10 billion Gulf Coast restoration fund that would be financed from the leasing of arctic refuge drilling rights, revenue from new drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico and further sales of the broadcast spectrum. With that provision in hand, Landrieu cast the only Democratic vote for the budget resolution, which squeaked through Thursday night, 51 to 49.

It remains a longshot, given the past vote rejections, but the simple fact that this issue has re-emerged speaks to a single-minded, industry driven philosophy that has no regard for anything but potential profits. If only the American Senate were allowed to vote on the Iraq war over and over and over. Is it 2008 yet?

Buzz Makes A Point

I'm not a huge fan of Buzz Hargrove, but I think he makes a valid point regarding labour's affiliation:

"Union members are no more likely to support the NDP than other Canadians. And union leaders who position themselves as automatic spokespersons for the party are wasting their political credibility with their own members."

"We need an active, demanding independent labour movement to push the envelope and hold government accountable — whatever party is in power. Second, our members are far more sophisticated and independent- minded in their politics today. They do not want to be told how to vote."

Organized labour should not be in the business of directing their membership's voting preference. The NDP should not be beholden to organized labour, as the primary consideration on any policy decision that relates to the economy. I don't think organized labour, or the NDP, are best served by such a formal alliance. Labour loses the appearance of independence, as well as credibility with members who don't vote NDP. The NDP is viewed as primarily a labour run party, which narrows its appeal to the wider electorate.

If labour is perceived to be a free agent in the political realm, they would in fact have more leverage and influence as parties jockey for their support- we see this development with the American primary system. Politicians would speak directly to the membership, instead of the translation through the organization. Labour would also benefit from the appearance that it is not a goosestep enterprise, that operates like a vanguard. You could argue that labour gets it relevance through mass organization, but political openness doesn't threaten this ideal.

There is no question that the NDP suffers from the stigma that it is tool for organized labour. If the party has any hopes to gain a greater political relevance, any move that alleviates the labour party appearance would be a plus. Labour will always be a part of any left-center party, but more informal understanding would benefit both parties.

Decima Poll's Curious Omission

The newly released Decima Poll compares the results with those on election night. Conclusion: the Conservative's hold steady, while the Grits lose and the NDP has marginal improvement. It is hard to dispute these numbers, however it is curious that Decima fails to compare the results to a poll they did exactly one month ago. The data is presented as though this is the first post-election poll, which it clearly isn't. If you look at the February Decima Poll and use those results to compare today's release the conclusions are altered slightly.

The February poll showed the Conservatives at 35%, while the latest one is 37%. The Liberals are actually up three points to 28%, compared to the earlier 25%. The NDP falls from 24% to 19%, representing a marked drop. Conclusion: Tories have slight rebound, Liberals return from post-election hangover and the NDP are the big losers. Obviously the election results are a far more reliable backdrop for this poll, especially given Decima's record, but no reference to their own methodology is odd. Anyways, food for thought.

How Does Klein Do It?

Ralph Klein has decreed that all potential replacements resign from cabinet by June. Couple this fact, with Klein's announcement that he will stay on until 2008 and you have a situation that betrays the public good. Albertan's now have a lame duck Premier, with bizarre priorities, as well as a government deprived of it's best and brightest.

Flashback to Jean Chretien's "long goodbye" and you will find the same people who reacted with contempt now strangely silent on King Ralph. It is simply staggering to watch the Klein "cult of personality" operate with impunity. In effect, there is now a two-year leadership campaign which will invariably distract the government, or what's left of the government. How are Albertan's served by this scenario? Clearly, Klein can do whatever he wants, with little accountability which reveals an inherent hypocrisy in Alberta. Oil revenues seem to mask the arrogance and sense of entitlement so often vilified in the federal realm.

On the surface, asking cabinet minister's to resign makes sense to avoid conflicts and jockeying. However, the timeframe betrays the "ideal", leaving the government in a perpetual holding pattern, that intensifies as the months pass. Klein has already made it clear he lacks any vision for the future, as evidenced by his lazy attitude in the last election. Now, Ralph can just sit on his throne, awash in revenue, while the people are largely silent and the peons fight to replace the annointed one. I don't get it, I didn't get when I lived out west- it's almost laughable. Everytime I raised a issue about Klein, I inevitably received the "oh that's just Ralph". A province of apologists(I'm generalizing of course), who offer no criticism so long as the checks come in and the coffers are full.

Elected Senate: "I Don't Think Harper Knows What He's Up To"

Anyone who has reservations about the possible implications of an elected Senate should give this article a read. Harper seems determined to forge ahead with his plan, mainly as a way to appease his base, despite the pitfalls. Instead of democratizing the process, the Harper plan puts accountability into question:

It is unclear what is gained through elections if the victorious senators are still allowed to remain in office until age 75 or until their resignation, as the Constitution dictates...

"Once elected, the senators are there until 75. What have you accomplished?" ask Mr. Franks, who has written pieces defending the work of the current upper chamber. "In Canada, you elect people and then they are accountable for their acts in a succeeding election. The senators are appointed until 75, so that opportunity doesn't exist."

Harper plans to go ahead with an elected Senate, without provincial consultation, which means the Senate would essentially lack accountability. After election, Senators are free to do as they wish, without the voter check that democracy demands. In a sense, the Senator's would have greater latitude than MP's because they are not subject to electoral reprisals. How is this reform an advancement on democracy?

Once engaged, the newly elected Senator's would wake from their "effective" slumber and become a player:

Regardless, once the elected senators are in the upper chamber they may feel empowered to flex their muscles, Mr. Behiels warns. The Senate does have the power to block legislation and send it back to the House of Commons, but that power is rarely deployed because Senators are viewed as lacking the degree of legitimacy enjoyed by elected MPs in the House of Commons.

"The elected senators might say, 'We have nothing to stop us. We have these powers. We're going to use them.' That will immediately cause a clash with the House of Commons, because all of this hasn't been worked out in advance," says Mr. Behiels.

His warning is echoed by Ronald Watts, a former director of Queen's University's Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. In the book Protecting Canadian Democracy, he writes that leaving the powers of the Senate as is while introducing direct elections represents a recipe for disaster.

"Doing this while leaving the powers unchanged and without introducing a deadlock resolution process ... might open the way to serious problems in the operation of responsible government."

Historically, the Senate has been weary of serious challenges to Commons legislation because they lacked democratic legitimacy. Harper's simplistic, superficial remedy allows for a legislature that becomes increasingly partisan, prone to pork barrel haggling and a general inability to function smoothly. Adding another layer of bureaucracy, without additional constitutional tinkering serves no one, apart from the appeasing appearance of "elected".

I am not against Senate reform per se, although I think you can make a strong argument that abolishing it is the most seasonable. Harper's approach doesn't show much depth, a mere bandaid solution that opens up an entire different set of problems that will have to be addressed. I think this quote sums up the initiative quite nicely:

"I don't think Harper knows what he's up to," says Michael Behiels, a professor of Canadian political history at the University of Ottawa. "Harper is being led by his wishes to satisfy the Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party, rather than any real understanding of what this will entail."

Such is the case with kneejerk agendas, meant to garner votes, without a careful consideration of consequence.

Harper Gives Mixed Signals

Harper made a point of declaring our firm resolve in Afghanistan with the "we will not cut and run" argument. Harper was attempting to show that Canada is committed longterm, that our support would not be dictated by day to day events or setbacks. The message was intended to boost the troop morale, present a united front and appease any Afghan concerns about our longterm presence. It is within this context, that Harper's later comments with Karzai seem contradictory:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai yesterday that Canada's desire to keep troops in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed if opposition parties at home resist...

"As I said to the President, we have a parliamentary system and I don't control the majority and I don't control the other parties, but I would hope that if in the future we reduce our military presence, it's because we've achieved two of our objectives," he said after the two men met in the presidential palace in Kabul.

We will not "cut and run", but I really don't have the longterm authority, or present power, to back up my pledge. These mixed messages offer more confusion to Afghans than if Harper said nothing at all. Karzai is left with the impression that the Harper government is a weak entity, in a volatile environment.

Stephane Dion chastised the Prime Minister for politizing his visit with talk of internal troubles and he was right to do so. Internationally you want to project strength, no matter what the issue. Instead, Harper talks tough one day, then absolves himself of any longterm relevance the next. I guess you can chalk this inconsistency to lack of experience, but given the stakes in Afghanistan it serves as a bad blunder. Harper's purpose in visiting Afghanistan was supposed to clarify our commitment on many levels, to different audiences. Instead, there is still confusion because political uncertainty is now part of the equation, undercutting any appearance of unity.

Conservatives Commit To Kyoto

I guess this new stance is a good sign:

Despite Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public misgivings about the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the federal environment minister says Canada will not opt out of the accord.

Rona Ambrose said Tuesday the Conservative government will work within the protocol, but she said there is a need for a separate, made-in-Canada solution to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution...

We are going to be working within Kyoto," Ambrose said, clarifying lingering uncertainties about the federal government's plans.

Ambrose still holds the view that we need a "made in Canada" approach to emissions. I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, the Kyoto Accord is far from perfect. However, I think we should remain sceptical of what the Conservative plan really entails. Will Ambrose distance herself from the oil and gas interests she has previously defended? If we are serious about emissions, any arrangements that don't have specific legislation is a toothless exercise. Simply arguing that the private sector will be the one's to come up with solutions, defies the logic of a capitalistic enterprise, where profit trumps all.

That being said, the fact that Ambrose, and by extension Harper, have finally recognized the Kyoto Accord serves as a positive. I am curious to see how practical the much anticipated Tory "Clean Air Act" turns out to be. That initiative will show if the Conservatives have really evolved on the environment, or prefer useless propaganda akin to the Bush "Health Forests" nonsense.

Bob Rae Advocates Liberal/NDP Merger?

Bob Rae's speech yesterday highlighted the need for progressive unity:

Former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae cast his first public -- but unofficial -- pitch for the federal Liberal leadership yesterday, suggesting that Canada's progressives must consider joining together to win a majority in the Commons...

But he told reporters he is worried about "what a Harper majority government would do" and suggested that it is time to unite the left in Canada to win power.

"I think it's important for people who call themselves progressive to really think about the situation.

"There's a progressive record that's shared by a majority of Canadians, but so far, we have not succeeded in becoming a majority in the House of Commons, so we must think a bit about how that can happen."

The obvious implication of the need to unite progressives is to do so under one party banner. Rae accurately assesses the current political makeup, wherein conservatives are a distinct minority, yet are able to thrive because of a divided center-left. This problem wasn't a serious concern until recently, when the conservatives recognized there own need for a merger to enhance their relevance. I hope Rae does decide to run for the Liberal leadership, because I think he is uniquely positioned to articulate the need for a formal rethinking of the political system.

Unquestionable, by any measure, Canada is decidedly a center-left electorate. Unlike the American political system, social conservatives don't have the numbers clout to dictate policy, except in a scenario where the center-left remains divided and they can exploit the split. Rae doesn't come right out and argue for a merger of the NDP and Liberal Parties, but he sure implies it and this idea deserves serious consideration.

I can see how many NDP supporters would resist any blending with a Liberal Party that is prone to stray and only exhibits progressive tendencies during election campaigns. However, any synthesis would necessiate a shift to the left, simply as a result of bringing a strong progressive voice into the fold. The centrists, and the marginal moderate conservatives, who inhabit the present Liberal Party would be marginalized in any formal policy planks. The left-wing of the Liberal Party, coupled with the mainstream NDP would essentially rule the roost and progressive ideals would become the party mantra.

You could argue that the Liberal Party could lose the soft centrist vote to the conservatives with any formal alliance with the NDP, but I would suggest the political landscape still allows for some erosion, while still maintaining enough support to govern. If you did a detailed analysis of each riding in the last election, you would find a circumstance, wherein even if you were to slice 5% of the Liberal tally and give it to the Conservatives, you would still have electoral success. Another by-product of a NDP/Liberal merger would be a Conservative Party which would be forced to completely abandon their extremist tendencies if it were to have any chance at success.

I haven't addressed the idea of proportional representation, although it could be another avenue to get us to the same place, without the formal blending. The more I think about it, the more I would like to see Rae jump into the race, if for no other reason than to bring the issue of divided progressives to the forefront. Canada can't afford to let a minority dictate policy simply as a function of a splintered majority.

New Afghanistan Poll

A new Strategic Counsel poll offers some insight into Canadians thoughts on Afghanistan:

The poll found 78 per cent of Canadians surveyed think that the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will improve the lives of people there, while 14 per cent don't.

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents think that casualties are an acceptable price to pay while 39 per cent disagree.

Seventy-three per cent of respondents said they are emotionally attached to their troops, while 26 per cent are not.

Of those who are emotionally attached, the vast majority, 83 per cent, are proud of them, while 13 per cent are not.

Overall, 55 per cent of Canadians support sending troops to Afghanistan, while 41 per cent do not.

On the surface, you would conclude that Canadians are largely supportive of the mission in Afghanistan. However, this finding suggests why the numbers are skewed towards support:

70 per cent of respondents think Canadian troops are in Afghanistan as peacekeepers, rather than in a combat role.

This result may explain why an overwhelming number of Canadians think we will improve the lives of the people. The fact that people view our role as "peacekeeping" is a combination of our traditional role internationally, coupled with a lack of understanding. When Canadians are asked a more realistic question pertaining to our actual role in Afghanistan the numbers are different:

47 per cent of respondents think Canadians should not be involved in a combat role in international conflicts, compared to 51 per cent who think they should.

The poll also finds that, despite the perceived support, an overwhelming 69% think we should debate a prolonged engagement. The main conclusion I take away from this poll is that Canadians support our troops, but are certainly not clear as to the true nature of our mission. The shift in support when the mission changes from peacekeeping to a combat role should worry the Harper government, because invariably we will see combat casualties and the sober reality of our role will crystallize in Canadians minds. I'm not convinced Canadians really understand the nature of the mission, that being Canada is now the military vanguard.

Wanted: Prime Minister

It seems we have elected a Prime Minister with a Premier's mentality. Harper doesn't seem to understand that the role of the federal government is to provide leadership, act as a check on ambitious regional agendas and offer a sense of uniformity that gels the nation. Instead, Harper has articulated his contempt for the federal government's "incursions" into provincial terrorities. Harper has offered a "renewed" federalism which translates into fractured regionalism, within a loose federation. The current situation in Alberta, where Klein is clearly on a path that threatens the Canada Health Act serves as a frightening example of a Prime Minister more concerned with not making waves than upholding his constitutional role. Where is the counter voice to reign in the belligerent bull?:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to be backing away from a confrontation with Alberta over its Third Way health proposals...

"I think the (Third Way) health policy framework, for all its vagueness, is pretty clear about where it wants to go," said Harvey Voogd of Alberta-based Friends of Medicare.

Voogd said the lack of response from Ottawa has raised questions about ,"what the heck he (Harper) meant when he said during the federal election he would stand up and abide by the Canada Health Act and protect it."

Many critics say a simple statement by the prime minister that Alberta is violating the rules of medicare could have a major political impact - perhaps more impact, in this case, than a cut in federal transfer payments to the province.

Tom Noseworthy, director of the Centre for Health and Policy Studies at the University of Calgary, said Ottawa should speak now or risk losing any ability to influence the outcome.

"We'd better be careful, or the federal government may be looking at a fait accompli - and then trying to make a change is going to be very difficult."

Harper seems more interested in not alienating his Alberta base than he does in doing his job. You can argue about the threats to public health care with regards to the Quebec's and British Columbia's plans. However, there is no doubt that the Klein government proposals are in clear violation of the Canada Health Act requirements. This isn't a "wait and see" proposition, the discussion demands a clear rebuke and sadly Harper is silent. Who provides the check on Klein? If not Harper, then nobody for all intent and purposes.

Harper promised to protect the Canada Health Act, clearly his words were hollow. I'm sure, when the issue reaches a head, Harper will do the symbolic dance and garner some meaningless concessions to look relevant, all the while the system crumbles. Votes trump vision.

Harper's Dodge and Weave On Afghanistan

Instead of defending our mission in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper takes no responsibility:

"The previous government made an important decision to help the people of Afghanistan and to support our troops in a very dangerous mission, and this government has no intention of questioning this mission while our troops are in danger," Mr. Harper said last week. "In such a debate, such a lack of strength by any Canadian party would weaken our troops, and possibly place our troops in more danger."

Honoring the commitments of the previous government, that's all. Okay, assuming that logic is valid, then how can Harper scrap the previous government's commitment to daycare? Doesn't that commitment deserve Harper's support too? Harper is just using a convenient argument to dodge and weave so as to not implicate his own government, should the mission go astray. I expect to see Harper fall back on this argument everytime there is a question about Afghanistan.

When the daycare debate comes back to the forefront, I hope the opposition parties, particularly the Liberals, use Harper's own justification on Afghanistan to show the hypocrisy. If you honor commitments, you honor commitments. Period.

Harper Offers Bad Reasoning On Afghanistan

I was reading a online piece, which outlines Harper's defense of the Afghanistan mission. Now, I realize Harper was probably tired from his long and extensive trip to Afghanistan, but surely our mission in Afghanistan is more than this:

Harper said the Canadian force in Afghanistan serves the national interest because:

1)International terrorism is rooted in the country. "It was in Afghanistan that Sept. 11 started."

2)The country is a major source of narcotics, which have a terrible impact on Canada.

3)It shows Canada providing international leadership and humanitarian aid.

Harper points to stopping terrorism, which is valid and completely justifiable. However, fighting the drug trade?? Can we expect to invade Colombia soon? How about a joint mission with the Americans into British Columbia to stop the evil weed that is corrupting our youth. Harper trivializes the mission by pointing to the heroine trade as some validation. I seriously doubt that Canadians would support a "war on drugs" argument to justify the bodybags. In Bush lingo, that is tantamount to "stop the drugs over there before we have addicts over here".

Harper also mischaracterizes the present mission, by falling back on the standard "humanitarian" angle. Interesting that Harper makes these comments, while at a base where hundreds of soldiers are absent because they have launched a major military offensive in the Afghan countryside. We are at war, this is not the UN dropping food rations. Our primary role is not about building schools and safe water, it is about ridding the insurgents from the landscape. The Americans are also involved in "humanitarian" efforts in Iraq, but no one would suggest they are not at war. Don't sugar coat it, don't introduce nonsensical arguments, just the facts please- Canadians can take it.

A Dangerous Sign in Afghanistan

Canadian troops returned today to the site of last week's axe attack in Afghanistan. I think it important to look at this one village as a microcosm of why our mission may ultimately fail. Canada had entered this phase with lofty goals, a combination of military objectives against insurgents, coupled with a outreach to Afghan tribes to gain trust and bring stability. The issue of trust is the key element, if Afghans come to view the Canadians as occupiers then the insurgency finds greater relevance and the resistance grows. Despite the Canadian military's best intentions, incidents like last week place a wedge between the forces and the people out of necessity:

Armoured columns of edgy Canadian troops rumbled Sunday into the town where an axe-wielding teenager nearly killed a Canadian soldier.

The soldiers first sealed off the mountain town, cutting off all exit routes and sending scouts high into the mountains to prevent the potential escape of any insurgents.

Along with the Afghan National army, the troops made a house-to-house search that yielded only two shotguns and ended with the brief interrogation of a suspect who was carrying Pakistani cash...

The show of force was a markedly different operation from the meeting a week ago when Capt. Trevor Greene sat down for a friendly gathering of townsmen...

The village elders were gathered together when Croucher told them their town was about to be searched inside-and-out.

"It was a little tense," said Capt. John Croucher, the platoon commander who led troops into the village.

"That's the second time I went to that village. I'll be honest, the
first time I went in there it was a laissez-faire attitude. When I went back this time Trevor's incident was in the back of my mind. It was there, I was worried about my guys."

Is the military justified in conducting house to house raids, coupled with an intimidating show of force? No doubt it is under the circumstances, but the signal it sends is counter-productive and will only cultivate hostility. The villagers have essentially been violated by the foreign army, while the Canadians are suspicious of the villagers true allegiance. This distrust is inevitable, as shown in every military operation over history that attempts to suppress a homegrown insurgency. The problem is, despite the diplomatic overtures, your mission is too kill Afghans and that has consequences.

With each attack, Canadian troops will inevitably become more paranoid and suspicious of the people they are supposed to engage. With each search, detainment, firefight the people begin to turn on the "foreigners", in effect developing sympathy for the insurgency that didn't exist previously. Today's return to the same village is a minor development in the grand scheme. But, if you look at the changed dynamic in such short order, you are justified in wondering if this isn't a precursor of things to come.

New Liberal Leadership Hopeful?

Why not? He needs a job, has name recognition and is uniquely Canadian. While some might argue his annoying character would work against him, I would suggest a quick review of our last few Prime Ministers- annoying seems a prerequisite. He has massive charisma and a disarming sex appeal that would project well. The Canadian Tire guy has shown a natural propensity for problem solving and quick decision making, which are essential in today's political environment. He is a tireless(no pun intended) community servant, always willing to lend a hand to a person in need.

Just imagine Stephen Harper in debate with the Canadian Tire Guy. Harper wouldn't stand a chance against this industrious thinker, quick with rebuttal and alternative viewpoints. So, with that in mind, I think a draft the Canadian Tire guy grassroots effort should be initiated. Canadian television's loss, may well be federalism's gain. Think about it.

NDP Makes A Mistake On Stronach

I think the NDP has badly miscalculated by drawing Stronach into the ethics investigation. The obvious motivation appears to be an attempt to eliminate the partisan aspect of the story, using Stronach to portray an even standard. If New Democrat MP Pat Martin's desire for a joint investigation is simply a personal view, without political consideration, then he is entitled to his opinion. However, if the NDP has done the political calculation on this issue, and I suspect they have, then they have made a mistake.

First off, the timing is terrible. Why distract from Emerson by introducing the media darling Stronach, in effect clouding the waters and letting Harper off the hook? I don't think the case against Emerson is particularly strong, but Harper has turned this inquiry into a question of accountability and adherence to law. Introducing Stronach changes the channel, which is stupid politically. The first rule of politics is if your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, get out of the way.

The NDP also opens themselves up on the ethical front. Why wasn't this matter engaged at the time of Stronach's crossing? It would seem the importance of this defection has a direct co-relation to the NDP's own political reality. There is no formal alliance with the Grits now so Stronach is fair game, but during the last parliament the NDP was protecting their own interests, first and foremost. Introducing Stronach well beyond any reasonable timeframe makes the NDP look opportunistic and adds a cynicism to the entire inquiry. If the NDP is banking on portraying themselves as the only "pure" party on ethics, the dynamics of the Stronach angle suggest otherwise.

There are certain aspects to the Emerson affair that are unique, with no resemblance to the Stronach matter. What the NDP has done is blend the two so that any discussion of one necessitates the comparison. On substance, the NDP may be right on Stronach, but politically I don't see the benefits to offset the obvious negatives.