Conservatives Benefit From Scattergun Opposition

A new poll from Nanos gives more statistical weight to the "co-operation" crowd amongst the opposition parties.  Particularly striking, the results in vote rich Ontario, which show divided opposition to Harper translating into potential electoral barrier.

It's important to not get hung up on every mid term mandate poll- somewhat meaningless with a distracted public- but not entirely without merit.  What we can gleam from almost all the polls, the NDP bloom has waned, and a Trudeau led Liberal Party puts them back in the mix, only denial doesn't compute hard superficial political realities.  This assertion doesn't assume the Liberals can win back power, only a scenario wherein one opposition party fades into complete oblivion- allowing the other to maximize voter discontent with the current regime- likely doesn't transpire.   In fact, polls such as the latest Nanos suggest another Harper mandate is quite possible, a rock solid base that can be quite efficient, more so given the mutual destruction society mentality that inhibits tribal war rooms.

Those who oppose any co-operation are mostly left to "anything can happen" and "you can't simply add up the opposition numbers", which increasingly appears detached from this corner.  From the NDP perspective, I see a better chance of Trudeau led Liberals assuming power than Mulcair, at worst a "blocking" component that will thwart ultimate dreams after the last election breakthrough.  As solace though, the harsh reality has already abandoned traditional NDP ground, the game is really to not only replace the Liberals but become in, rank and file pats on the head aside.  If one questions that landscape, a quite review of every single provincial NDP government the past decade shows a decided centrist leaning, if not outright disdain for anything resembling "socialism".  In other words, practical application demands that for a party to assume power they must appeal to the middle, so call it Liberal, call it NDP, I call it philosophically akin when the dust settles.  This fact makes all the consternation all the more curious.  Liberals can have a former NDP Premier as interim and we support, Dippers can have a former Liberal and they support, but god forbid formal recognition of overlap.

If one wants to put the current spectral contradictions in clear focus, this image sums it up nicely:

There he is, true progressive and leftie Tom Mulcair in his first NDP ad.  Note what looks like a Toronto Bay Street backdrop, as well as the boardroom feel accompanied by the crisp suit.   A new NDP, the imagery is clear and also telling, because it demonstrates that NDP strategists understand clearly that to widen appeal, they don't have to kill the Liberals, they have to BECOME them!  Some day the veneers will wane and partisans will have the epiphany.  Unfortunately, it might take another Harper mandate to truly wake us from our tribal slumber.

Ask yourself one question: if you are a Conservative, does today's poll make you happy or sad?  Exactly.

Stephen Harper's Man

Plenty of side issues now swirling around Patrick Brazeau, which to my mind are distractions from the real issue as articulated in this wheat from the chaff summation.  This controversy isn't about the validity of the Senate itself, it's about judgement and more specifically the horrendous judgement displayed by this Prime Minister for appointing Brazeau in the first place:

When he was appointed that morning, along with 17 others in a mid-prorogation patronage frenzy, the Conservative government already knew then-Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice had received letters from aboriginal leaders in this country questioning the membership and spending of the organization Brazeau headed.

The prime minister’s office knew this former model and martial arts expert was facing a charge of sexual harassment.

Kory Teneycke, Harper’s spokesperson of the day, said the prime minister was aware of the allegations and said Harper was “proud” to appoint Brazeau since there was no finding of misconduct.

Days later, news emerged of a troubling audit of CAP by Health Canada leading then Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff — 12 days after Brazeau’s swearing-in — to question whether he was “Senate material.’’

Then the Star’s Joanna Smith reported that the new senator, who drove a Porsche SUV, was behind in child support payments. The PMO, by then, was hiding behind its “private matter” shield, but Brazeau was already displaying his penchant for blaming everyone but himself.

 In other words, Brazeau was a TAINTED individual when Harper appointed him.  The litany of controversies that have dogged Brazeau since his Senate appointment appear to be nothing more a continuation of bad behaviour.   What kind of vetting process puts the "brash", "controversial" Brazeau in the Senate in the first place, by all accounts someone who garnered little respect within the aboriginal community the appointment apparently spoke to.  The RED FLAGS were everywhere, manifested in various forms, many a human resources manager would have steered clear of this hire.  And yet, Harper plowed ahead with this Senate appointment, in what can be fairly characterized as reckless disregard for troubling facts staring him in the face.

There is no way Harper could have foreseen the latest troubling episode.  That said, the buck stops with the Prime Minister when it comes to his presence on Parliament Hill.  Despite ample evidence that this individual was problematic prior to appointment, Harper decided this was the person best suited to represent the aboriginal community in the Senate.  Further, despite one controversy after another during his tenure in the Senate, Harper declined to sanction Brazeau, which effectively CONDONED his behaviour.  Only when we saw serious criminal charges on the horizon did the PMO launch into damage control and dump Brazeau to avoid any taint.  The decision is more about self preservation than moral imperative, because if that were the true guide many past opportunities to articulate that concern.  In fact, by appointing to the Senate such a "controversial" figure- then ignoring each subsequent transgressions- Harper emboldened Brazeau, he appeared untouchable, free to act in any boorish manner he chose.  

There are plenty of issues swirling around the Brazeau debacle.  What should remain top of mind,  Stephen Harper brought this man to center stage, this is his appointment, warning signs were ignored, later incidents condoned, culminating in this sorry affair.  Brazeau boils down to a question of incredibly poor judgement on the Prime Minister's part and that's the bottom line.

Conservative Party Of Canada: Catch Me If You Can

The latest robocall case is alarming, but not for the obvious reasons.  The fact the Conservatives were push polling over electoral boundaries is unseemly, but hardly surprising given historical tactics.  However, the real "story" to my mind is the sequence of events that led to the ultimate admission by Fred DeLorey, that YES the Conservative Party were behind the calls:

On Tuesday, after the voice analysis, Meier failed to respond to repeated calls and emails to himself, his company and his lawyer, R. Justin Matthews, seeking comment.

Matthews told Postmedia he “has not been retained to respond to your inquiries.”

Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski told the Regina Leader Post last week that Saskatchewan Tory MPs were not responsible for the calls.

“Certainly polling is not something I’m doing and I’m pretty sure I’d know if any of my colleagues was doing something like that and I haven’t heard a thing. That’s just something I wouldn’t have done anyway.”

Conservative Party spokesman Fred DeLorey also originally denied the party was involved, writing in an email Friday, “We are not polling.”

On Tuesday, however, after Postmedia and The Citizen received the forensic analysis, and sent emails to the party and Meier, DeLorey sent a release to the parliamentary press gallery saying that the party did make the calls.

“There was an internal miscommunication on the matter, and the calls should have been identified as coming from the Conservative Party,” said DeLorey

We get cryptic replies, we get denials of any involvement by Conservatives. Only when the voice is analyzed, a match made do we get the lamest of admissions, akin to being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. To keep it real, this means the Conservative Party of Canada were prepared to deny they were behind the calls, despite knowing full well they are required to identify themselves. Further, it is astonishing that our political system requires journalists hiring voice recognition experts to unravel the mystery, rather than a more formal response from authorities who are supposed to ensure rules are followed. If not for good reporting, Canadians would never know the true nature of these calls.

Clearly, the Conservatives were prepared to hide their involvement, only forthcoming when cornered, concerning is a kind characterization. What is a fair observation, the Conservative Party of Canada seems to have a "catch me if you can" mentality, which does a disservice to our democratic process.

State Funded Propaganda?

Various arguments floating around SunTV and its attempt to secure mandatory carriage.   There is the obvious hypocrisy, given past statements about said mandatory carriage.  As well, there are philosophical arguments about corporate welfare, the need to move away from the traditional TV fee model, not reinforce it here.  What is mostly missing from the discussion is the single biggest issue to my mind, the fact SunTV is a "arm" of a political party, it is unabashed in its political leanings, which makes the idea of forcing its views on everyone completely offensive and patently obscene.

The Canadian right wing has adopted the American mantra of the "left wing media", like most buzzwords an imported affair, a simple copy and paste mentality.  SunTV is a response to this perception, its very zenith assumes we need a counter to the heavy bias currently present.  However, when one peruses the "targets", we find an entirely different presentation than SunTV, at every turn a sense of balance.  The hated CBC Newsworld loves their Tom Flanagan's. Kevin O'Leary's, their signature commentator Rex Murphy is anti-climate change, taken in totality you can credibly point to all sides given voice, on almost every issue.  As a matter of fact, both CBC and CTV bend over backwards to provide balance with their panels and commentary, to the point of passive media, a development not necessarily evolutionary if one subscribes to facts taking prominence over diplomatic nicety.  In other words, one can credibly counter the bias claims from the right wing, in reality these accusations don't equate to real world expressions, if taken in totality.

SunTV doesn't attempt to find balance, it is bold and unapologetic in its leanings.  This stance is fine, advocacy is acceptable and necessary.  However, when we move from expression of a political view to the idea that all taxpayers should support a particular bias, actually fund what amounts to propaganda, the CRTC has no choice but to reject such an affront.  The SunTV lineup is a nightly buffet of conservatism, there is no grey are, apart from token examples, the network is conservative and nobody disputes this fact.  If there is consensus on this point, then the idea of mandatory carriage is fundamentally ridiculous.   While there is a certain ambiguity about other news networks, SunTV is defined, it is a vehicle, its modus operandi is to promote the right wing ideals.  This assertion isn't made up or contrived, it is simply regurgitation of what original proponents argued to justify the network's presence, their own words betray the calculations and inherent bias.

As I write, right wingers are being urged to contact the CRTC and push for mandatory carriage for SunTV.  Should the CRTC actually grant SunTV this status, it would represent a complete bastardization of their mandate, it would equate to the lowest moment in its existence.  At the CORE, the CRTC would be validating the idea that the state sponsors narrow ideological expressions, it funds self interested propaganda.  SunTV isn't like the other news networks, to make the connection relies on a lazy superficiality under the "news" banner, any depth at all reveals an entirely different animal.  This "decision" by the CRTC should be an easy one, should it decide to force SunTV on all of us, it would lose any sense of neutrality and its credibility will be in question. 

Why Gerard Kennedy

Today I submitted my intent to be a delegate for Gerard Kennedy at the upcoming Ontario Liberal Leadership Convention.  Hopefully I will get the opportunity to support Gerard in Toronto later this month, because this is obviously a critical event that will impact Ontario's future.  Reviewing all the contenders, it is clear there are plenty of people with impressive chops, I'm sure the decision process isn't easy for most and I see a myriad of possibilities unfolding at the Convention.  However, for myself, Kennedy is the clear choice, both in terms of political leanings, as well as important strategic considerations, fully realizing the daunting task Ontario Liberals face moving forward.

When Premier McGuinty prorogued, most Liberals stayed silent, the decision put many in an awkward position.  One of the few internal voices to openly question and criticize the decision, Kennedy did what he always does, follow his moral compass.  Pundit Andrew Coyne wondered if this criticism of prorogation was genuine or political, Kennedy simply trying to distinguish himself.  A fair question, and had we not ample past evidence to the contrary, perhaps true.  However, Gerard Kennedy has risked his narrow political interest before, in the name of a larger sense of duty, a rarity in many respects.

People may recall that when Michael Ignatieff seemed a complete LOCK to succeed Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy basically sabotaged his own self interest in the name of democratic principle.  The dye was cast, Ignatieff had assembled formidable support- no matter the process I saw him as inevitable, as did most- and yet at the 11th hour Kennedy stood with Bob Rae to challenge the truncated process.  Most reasonable observers realized the fight was over, and yet Kennedy made noise, moved to what amounted to a sinking ship in Rae, because he felt it was the right thing to do.  Critics can mock the lack of strategic consideration, I admit I was stunned as well, and yet there was something endearing about a truly principled politician, risking alienation and handicapping his own fortunes because Kennedy simply believed in what he was doing.  

Kennedy is a true anomaly in Canadian politics, these traits would translate to an excellent Premier that can regain the respect of the electorate and put a polish on a tarnished brand.  I admit, I don't think many Liberal partisans quite digest the gradient ahead, the odds clearly favour future defeat, to not see this reality is to delude.  With this stark landscape in mind, simple tinkering won't do, the Liberals need someone with some distance from the current baggage, as well as someone with a past conducive to healing wounds.  The Ontario Liberal coalition is falling apart, anyone with a doubt need look no further than the recent by-election in Kitchener, which to my mind serves as a microcosm of the problems faced.

Kennedy had a great relationship with the teachers during his stint as Minister, his record is clear. People need to remember this fact moving forward, because past support has been a key winning constituent for many reasons.  In a larger sense, Kennedy is removed from "death by a thousand cuts" scenario that currently plagues the Ontario Liberals.  What the party desperately needs is a distinct change in direction, Kennedy best suited to bring that, former insider now turned outsider, only he can credibly break with the legacy.  Of course, all candidates can create a new atmosphere, give Ontarians a new face, new arguments, a new platform, but Liberals must remember they face a cynical electorate and should choose wisely.

Kennedy is honest.  Kennedy is a true progressive, decent, hard working, earnest and attentive.  Kennedy is also intelligent, articulate and compassionate.  Kennedy has his own baggage, but important to remember some of the mockery amongst political class stems from simply following his reform pursuits, going where he sees most potential, no matter the strategic consequence.  Isn't that ideal what we desire in politicians, aren't we sick of slick calculations, narrow self interest trumping a higher "calling"? 

Above all I support Gerard because I respect Gerard, truth be told I probably wouldn't have joined the federal Liberals had it not been for his enticing candidacy.  Ontario Liberals now face a choice, does their arrogance assume minor tinkering and a quick buff job can regain voter trust, or do they realize that we live on borrowed time and require a true reboot in every sense of the word to re-engage credibly.  If you understand the latter, then Gerard Kennedy is hard to ignore.

Responsible Journalism Is Dead

 

 

Mission accomplished Canadian Press, you've generated that elusive "buzz", with your "controversial" decision for Newsmaker of the Year.  I'm sure someone around the decision desk brought up the absolutely dreadful optics of giving a depraved killer exactly what he yearns for, ATTENTION.   But, that common sense was obviously trumped by the misguided desire to turn heads with this "edgy" selection.

The Canadian Press have divested themselves of any sense of responsible journalism, in the name of attention grabbing consideration.  In so doing, CP has made a mockery of the tenets the organization supposedly lives by.  CP has provided Magnotta with the greatest Christmas gift his demented mind could possibly hope for, that the organization must know this, what makes CP's decision all the more scorn worthy.  An attention whore names an attention whore Newsmaker of the Year, perhaps fitting in the end...

What a disgrace.


UPDATE

In fairness, as has been mentioned on da twitter, CP simply canvasses Canadian newsrooms and tallies the results.  It is still their survey however, and their methodology for the choice.

The Trudeau Tease

There are plenty of conflicting messages swirling around the Liberal Party.  There is also a tension for Liberals moving forward, between sober realities and game changing possibilities.  One school of thought argues Liberals have to rebuild from the ground up, accept their third party fate and rebuild the brand with a long view.  The other view sees unmistakable "buzz", largely as a result of Justin Trudeau, and can't help but incorporate the x factor into the equation.  While I intend on remaining neutral in this Liberal leadership, I also think myself an utter fool to not acknowledge the Trudeau effect on Canadian politics.

Another poll out this weekend from Leger, putting the Liberals in a tie with the governing Conservatives should Trudeau take the helm.  Trudeau pads Liberal numbers a full 13% nationally, 11% in his home province.  The Liberals take votes from all quarters, but the NDP suffers worst, there is simply no denying a seismic shift with Trudeau at the helm.  Perhaps more intriguing, with the recent "gaffes" incorporated, we see no discernible support erosion,  a testament to voter disinterest and a measure of superficial calculations.   Polls are "approach with caution", of that,there is no doubt, but to ignore is equally flawed analysis.  Truth be told, the Trudeau tease very much puts the Liberals back in the political conversation, to the point a return to power looks attainable.

Beyond the polls, a more important indicator for Liberals.  People actually go out of their homes and attend political gatherings if Justin is present.  Liberals have understood this for years, Trudeau is possibly the biggest single fundraising draw we've had, he's been sent everywhere and back to drum up support for a languished brand.  When you factor this enthusiasm into potential election volunteers, you can equate a formidable force, which needs to be understood and digested.  For all the organization problems the Liberals have, much can be overcome if there is a draw which brings in new, energetic blood.  As well, I recall ZERO organizational strength for Dippers in Quebec, a testament to the power of political waves usurping traditional calculations.

This leadership race is shaping up to be an interesting affair, I'm quite pleased that real issues look poised for serious debate.  I like several quality candidates, there is a genuine appeal that could well win my support.  However, there is this overriding shadow cast by Trudeau, for the simple reason that there is an almost phenom quality, impossible to fully ignore.... 

Opposition "Co-operation" End Game

Plenty of ink and conversation revolving around the merits of co-operation amongst the opposition parties.  As well, talk of which parties are truly "left", "progressive" and how any party overlap would truly deal with vote splitting.  While I support the idea of co-operation in principle- primarily because it at least acknowledges the current system favours the Conservatives, despite limited support- it really is nothing more than a half measure in the final analysis. 

Joyce Murray has brought co-operation into the Liberal leadership race, akin to Nathan Cullen in the NDP race, perhaps an irony not yet digested.  The Greens are fully on board with co-operation, as Elizabeth May has recently reiterated.

 Murray cites the impetus as a need for "like minded parties" to come together, have a runoff of sorts and let the winner then stand against the Conservatives.  However, there is a fundamental contradiction in all this "like minded" talk, namely, it suggests synergy, commonality, shared values and goals.  Murray sees progressives coming together, yet still within their own factions, only to then pick one and envisions everyone working behind said individual.  I call that a normal PARTY nomination, in fact Liberals are quite used to competing visions duking it out in the "primary", then rallying behind, DESPITE differing visions based on results.

There is a very clear end game to all these co-operation machinations.  If only truly believes progressive forces are divided, there is this "like minded" demographic currently fractured, then just get on with it and physically become one entity, rather than this bastardized acknowledgement of affinity, yet some symbolic retention of tribal colours.  Politics forever involves compromise, we see this daily as party's ebb and flow with different leadership, all partisan adopt a pragmatic tone to reconcile wavering identity.

Here is the bottom line, dippers will proudly recite all the provincial NDP governments as PROOF socialists can govern effectively.  Trouble is, not ONE provincial NDP government has governed in a socialist manner, every single one is centrist, some bordering on corporatist, some blue Liberals for cripes sake, if you take their legacies in totality.  If anything, all these NDP manifestations that have actually governed serve as proof the far left disappears the moment one is forced to attract widespread support.  We see this reality right now federally, as Tom Mulcair moves the NDP to the center in an effort to capture ultimate power, it's a political necessity, yet partisans will remain steadfast no matter.  

As well, Liberals seem to have no problem getting behind a true left of center leader like Dion, as well as a borderline liberal like Ignatieff.  Liberals compromise personal perspective in the name of the "big tent", which really is a testament to "like minded" people entering a coalition of sorts.  The very fact Liberals are currently "finding themselves" through this leadership race a testament to just how malleable our identity.  Also noteworthy, Dion can speak at a Green Party convention, be well received and nobody follows the logic to obvious conclusion.

I don't believe a merged party translates to simply adding up the math of the various opposition parties, that adoption would bleed some support elsewhere, no question about it.  However, it is also true that had Joan Crockatt faced one opponent, she would have lost, I believe that in my bones.  At the very least, even the cynics must acknowledge the odds are improved with consolidation.

Joyce Murray propose co-operation in a limited number of ridings.  While I support any effort that confronts political silos, unless the concept has full adoption, it will allow special interest manipulation and undo the spirit of the plank.  Again, when we move to the end game, any usage of "like minded" denotes a commonality that can be cultivated into a new entity, which is a compromised manifestation, not much different from current "progressive parties".  It would appear co-operation is nuanced enough to make it palpable to partisans.   But ,really once the process reaches conclusion towards a single candidate, partisans then rally behind, work together, we see the tribes further exposed as ultimately unnecessary.  In fact, the end result of the co-operation angle is no different than what happens in every single riding, for every single nomination meeting, within every single individual party. 

I guess it's a start....

Liberals Can Expect Substantive Leadership Race

With the Liberal leadership race taking shape (Marc Garneau set to announce today), it is becoming apparent, this exercise will be anything but a beauty contest.  One of the criticisms of the NDP leadership race was the "agreeable" factor, apart from Cullen's co-operation idea, there was little divergence of opinion which didn't lend itself to much spirited debate.  Not necessarily a criticism, one could argue Dippers simply know who they are, hence the general unanimity, but in terms of contrast and colour, a pretty benign affair.  However, a review of some early policy positions taken in this Liberal leadership almost guarantees conflicting directions, which should provide substantive debate.

Whether it be Trudeau's somewhat controversial stance on foreign ownership, Murray reintroducing the carbon tax into the mix, as well as the complex arguments around political co-operation, or Hall Findlay's views on supply management, it all congeals into a fairly volatile mix, with much more to come one suspects.  Anyone predicting reaffirmation debates is deluding themselves, the stage is now set for Liberals to partake in a philosophical discussion, that could lead to very divergent paths.  Candidates will be put through their paces, as ideas are challenged, "sacred cows" put up for slaugher, there is the potential to get well beyond platitudes, into the policy weeds that Liberals really need to examine on the "renewal" path. 

Garneau is a man of substance, Murray has staked out some interesting ground, Hall Findlay promises policy planks on an almost weekly basis and Trudeau has given early indications that there is vision beyond the superficial distractions.  Obviously, Justin is the hands down front runner, but the lay of the land suggests he will be put through is paces, divergent positions will demand forceful debate and compelling counters.  There is no leadership cake walk on the horizon, at least in terms of the process.

People were worried if Liberals would actually have an interesting leadership race.  Early indications are shaping up to suggest a very compelling debate about ideas and directions, formidable candidates and divergent paths.  Liberals need a substantive debate, it would appear we are about to have one....

By-Election Breakdown

- It is up for fair debate whether or not the Trudeau/McGuinty comments cost the Liberal Party the Calgary Center seat.  There is no question Liberals had wind at their back last week, only to hit a brick wall with the damaging quotes.  We will never know the true impact, but with such a slight margin of victory- as well as evidence of a Green uptick in the wake- my opinion is that we had the opportunity and blew it.  That a Liberal victory would have been historic, potentially recalibrating potentials and assumptions, all the more hard to swallow.

-Newly minted Liberal leadership contender Joyce Murray enjoys powerful practical application to support her call for co-operation between the opposition parties.   The Conservatives held Calgary Center by 4.2%, despite the Liberals and Greens combining for 58% of the vote, a fact which should provide sober consideration.  If Stephane Dion can give a speech at a Green Party convention, one has to wonder what all the fuss is really about, once we become colour blind.  I look forward to Murray interjecting the topic into the Liberal leadership race, and hope we examine without the kneejerk reactions, because Stephen Harper is smiling, a shit kicking grin in fact.

-The Green Party are fast becoming a legitimate option in Canadian politics.  In two of the by-elections they were formidable, and came within a whisker of winning another seat.  The biggest hurdle for an upstart party is the credibility gap, the Greens should be encouraged with last night, because by any definition they were real players.  As an aside,  combining all the by-election results,  Greens averaged over 21%  support, as did the Liberals, and the NDP 23%, a testament to how well the party performed.

-Despite almost unprecedented attention, turnout continues to be an issue in Canadian politics, a fact that should be of grave concern to everyone.  Canadians are largely indifferent, apathetic and disengaged, 29% turnout in Calgary, with all the controversy and talk of razor thin results, is downright pathetic and disheartening.  Poor turnout works for the Conservatives most of all, as they do better with the dependable, older voter, which becomes more accentuated with dismal turnout.

"Opposition" Needs To Get Its Shit Together

How long will the same depressing theme emerge before somebody advocates FORMAL co-operation, "merger", "non aggression pact" between the opposition?  Another Nanos poll out today reinforces the macro problem, currently manifesting itself in Calgary Center.  Vote splitting is Stephen Harper's best friend, recent polling must make the PMO simply giddy.  Why then would the "opposition" continue on with their narrow tribalism, knowing full well their chief adversary LOVES the status quo?

Joan Crockatt has run a brutal campaign in this by-election.  The only saving grace for the Conservatives in Calgary Center is that opposition remains divided, this reality blunting full impact.  What we are witnessing in this riding is another glaring example of the opposition to Harper voluntarily handicapping itself in the name of tribal pursuit.  Of course there are differences between the various opposition parties, but put side by side with the chasm between themselves and the Conservatives, the inability to find some common understanding is philosophically suspect.

The majority of Canadians don't care about your team, they aren't invested in partisan pissing matches, in fact partisanship is waning within the greater society.   What is true, what we call the "center" in Canadian politics is nothing more than a recognition of where society sits, it shifts, partisans react to it, and truth be told no party can achieve power without mirroring it. 

With full knowledge that moderation is the only path to power, pure ideology is irrelevant, a domain largely reserved to the faithful.  Compromise is a must, and it provides curious bastardizations for partisans, in that they can call still themselves "left wing" and support a center right Gary Doer, just because he carries an orange banner.  You can slag a Dalton McGuinty, yet cheer a Darrell Dexter, even though the policies are largely similar, simply because of the tribal considerations.  You can bash a former NDP Premier, yet support a former Liberal cabinet minister- who places himself inside a boardroom, akin to a CEO, in his first advertisement- just because he's YOUR guy.  You can bash the Liberals on takeovers, yet turn a blind eye to changing opposition to trade deals, because it's your team and that's all that matters.  What is also true, the greater populous could care less about the philosophical pretzels partisans turn ourselves into to, they just want solutions and visions.

The polling is clear, in the absence of a complete Liberal meltdown, the NDP will be hard pressed to defeat the Conservatives.  The polls also show that under optimal conditions the Liberals actually have a chance, but put into the realm of probabilities, you are right back at another probable Harper mandate. 

The Conservatives have a 30-35% base of support that is unwavering, dependable and committed to vote.  Within the current political makeup, this government need not appeal to much beyond this base, secure in the knowledge two thirds of us are relatively irrelevant to their personal fortunes.  This reality creates a narrowly focused government, one that fails to achieve consensus, or even cares for that matter.  A divided opposition not only secures power, it also dictates how that power is yielded and notions of true democracy suffer as a result.

Liberals and the NDP, as well as Greens, can dream about ideal scenarios that bring them to power.  There are real avenues to power, but there are also many more practical outcomes that deliver nothing to either, except another mandate for this government, despite a vast majority wishing their ouster.  There is something fundamentally wrong with the current state of Canadian politics, and once we dispense with ego and sporting interests, understand that the path to power for all opposition parties is staking moderate ground, the notions of co-operation become not just desirable but entirely logical.

Calgary By-Election Has National Consequence

What is currently happening in Calgary Center is nothing new, in fact we are simply witnessing a tried and true Conservative election tactic.  Joan Crockatt is skipping debates, just like pretty much every Conservative candidate has in recent elections.  Perhaps the only difference, FINALLY someone- namely the popular mayor of Calgary- has cried foul and drawn much needed attention to an issue which truly impacts our democratic process.  The resulting controversy has morphed a sleepy by-election in the strongest of Conservative strongholds into a referendum on accountability and our political debate.

This by-election will have profound national implications.  One could argue, even a close result could reset certain assumptions.   But, an outright upset in fortress Calgary, would rewrite the Conservative political playbook, to the betterment of democracy.  Should we see Crockatt lose or win by a whisker, the Conservatives will be forced to rethink the standard practice of having their candidates shun most debates, participating in the bare minimum, secure in the knowledge that the practice has little real impact on voting preference.  If Crockatt wins handily, cynical Conservatives will fall back on the idea that controversy is inflated, social media kerfuffle doesn't equate to real world consequence.

Debates are a primary vehicle to put candidates through their paces, articulate their philosophy and see how they perform relative to their opponents.  Having attended many of these local debates- particularly ones with specific focus- you realize the inherent substance, people are forced to go beyond platitudes and talking points, at least if they wish to be effective in swaying voters.  Whether these debates have real impact- outside of mostly engaged voters who actually attend- is debatable, and herein lies the potential importance of the Calgary Center result.  Voters there have the opportunity to reject a playbook which actually gives the finger to accountability, further computes relative apathy and assumes the process can be manipulated with little impact. 

If Crockatt actually manages to blow Calgary Center, voters will have fundamentally altered what is acceptable and expected from our political candidates.  Not only will Calgary Center voters do their riding a favour, but impact the entire democratic process in this country, in a way that is clearly positive, if you actually believe accountability SHOULD be a given.

Why Merge?

Because graphs don't lie:

 



 

 

  

Trudeau Brings Liberals Up To Speed

If Justin Trudeau becomes Liberal leader, the party will finally return to sensibility on marijuana.  Further, Liberals will actually offer a truly progressive vision of ultimate legalization, never mind decriminalization.  Fact is, the Canadian public is way ahead of the politicians on marijuana, so both on liberal principles AND electoral upside, Trudeau makes complete sense:

“I think we have to recognize first and foremost that the war on drugs, as it exists right now, doesn’t work,” said Trudeau, adding that the current system puts criminal records on Canadians who consume the drug, while also allowing criminal organizations to profit from the prohibition.

“So I am a huge supporter of decriminalization.”

However, Trudeau added that the next step to look at would be legalization. This would take marijuana profits away from criminal organizations and allow the government to tax and regulate the drug.

Trudeau added that regulating the drug would mean keeping it away from children, since individuals would have to demonstrate ID before purchasing marijuana.

“(Because) you guys aren’t allowed to buy cigarettes or booze either. Because it’s not good for you,” he added.

The last national poll on marijuana found two thirds of Canadians support decriminalization of marijuana, highlighting that we are ready for the political conversation.  As well, when you consider where the Liberals need to "grow" to become relevant again, the fact that 75% of British Columbians support outright legalization, the same direction alluded to by Trudeau, you have a political home run.  Cynics will scoff that people won't vote based on marijuana, and while that may be true, a progressive stance does help give the Liberal Party shape, identity, not to mention ink.  Factor in a NDP lead Mulcair and their tentative position, I see opportunity, beyond the simple practicalities.

The public is ready, there is an economic/tax argument to be made, Trudeau's stance brings the Liberals up to speed.  With recent votes in the United States, there is the additional legitimacy that counters the usual fears of American reprisals.  It is nice to see Trudeau not only supporting decriminalization, but go further and make the argument that outright legalization is the practical end game.

Real Deal

If anyone doubts Barack Obama is a politician for all the right reasons, this video should clear that up.  The real deal:

 

 

You're lucky to have him America.

Voters Are Superficial

Every election, there is the requisite story wherein the journalist speaks to voters to ascertain what issues are important to them.  Normally this exercise confirms that we voters are sophisticated, this perception furthered by the other election novelty staple, the "focus group" segment.  While it is true that many of us do vote based on a series of issue based considerations, the SAD reality is political consideration just isn't that deep, in fact it's painfully superficial and fickle.

The latest federal polls are stunning in one sense, not so much when one considers the political landscape.  With the addition of one prominent face to the brand, the Liberals go from afterthought, a media death watch, to juggernaut, even the absurd prospect of a majority government.  Nobody knows a single real policy, nobody has crunched any numbers, nobody knows anything but lineage and hair, and yet....  

In reality, not particularly surprising the latest batch of polls.  After all, this is a country that just saw the "orange wave" roll across a province despite candidates not even in their bloody ridings, despite no real digestion of anything beyond the proverbial CHANGE mantra.  Everyone else has screwed it up, this guy with the mustache is likable, lets give him the keys.  Sad, overly simplistic, but almost entirely true.

Policy is important, but really it is just some concrete backdrop to basic appeal and resonance.  Liberals have confronted the perception wall with past leaders, no matter what we were armed with, it mattered not without a compelling figurehead.   One important caveat, if the electorate is so fed up with the current regime then a stiff can lead his party to power (you do the math).

This Trudeau wave may well be temporary, but it is still quite instructive in understanding just how easily wide swaths of voters can move, given the most basic of considerations.  The results also suggest that should Trudeau manage to stay within the lines, develop some basic slogan talking points on a host of issues, the Liberals can benefit from a largely shallow electorate.  Factor in a conduit that lacks focus and sustained depth on any issue, it all congeals into a pretty pedestrian political landscape that caters and rewards buzzwords, soundbites and photogenic appeal.

The latest "seismic" change in Canadian politic is further illustration that those of us politically engaged forever over analyze, which prevents a true understanding of the "real world" as it stands.  Fact is voters are pretty darn superficial, let us proceed with that knowledge.

The Messiah Cometh

When the latest Nanos poll came out showing a resurgent Liberal Party, it showed a strong uptick in Ontario and British Columbia.  Strangely absent from the Nanos Trudeaumania party was Quebec- numbers essentially flat -which I found a little odd to be honest.  However, along comes the Quebec "gold standard" poll CROP and we see the Trudeau effect, the Liberals stunningly surge to first place in the province:

Justin Trudeau led Liberals emerge from the abyss it reached the last federal election. At 36%, he would arrive first in Quebec, the NDP (30%), the Bloc Quebecois (19%) and the Conservative Party (11%).
 

Without Trudeau the Liberals are at 20%, an uptick from past polling, but he brings an additional 16% when his name is attached to the brand.  What is perhaps most concerning for the NDP, Justin isn't an unknown in the province, the same previous arguments I made for Liberal concern with Mulcair's popularity can be applied here.  In other words, shiny new toy doesn't quite digest where Trudeau may stand in his home province, Quebecers know him, they know him well.  A snapshot in time, many assumptions made, Trudeau isn't leader of anything at the moment, but still, the polls do show Justin is a potential game changer in every sense of the word.

The three most important provinces in the next election are unquestionably Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.  The fact that we now see interesting evidence of a Liberal wave in all these provinces, simply seismic.   These numbers will only solidify Trudeau and bring more support within Liberal ranks, everyone loves a messiah!  For other leadership contenders, the gradient gets more daunting, the perception becomes reality, Trudeau is a rock star.

Be afraid.

Ontario's Prorogation Stench

As the dust settles on McGuinty's shocking resignation announcement, the pungent stench of his prorogation decision remains.  It is unclear if there are long term ramifications for a clearly unpopular move, particularly with a new leader coming, the Liberals may be able to bookend the whole affair.  That said, with many potential successors defending the decision, this prorogation could haunt the Liberals moving forward.

About the only notable Liberal I've heard come out strongly against this unnecessary prorogation is Gerard Kennedy.  I've heard a few commentators float cynical motivations, but let's not forget this is the same person who went to Bob Rae during the 11th hour when everyone knew Ignatieff had it game, set and match, only because he felt democratic expression was a casualty.  In other words, Gerard Kennedy tends to lead with his principles first, political calculations second, I take his words as sincere concern.  Within that vein, the fact Kennedy remains a lonely voice questioning the wisdom, disappointing, considering many Liberals went apocalyptic (self included) when other governments have abused prorogation.

Liberals can split hairs and offer various justifications to distinguish this particular prorogation.  Of course each instance is unique, and perhaps in terms of degree the Harper Conservatives have no peer.  However, there are some fundamental points that remain, the same ones federal Liberals RAN on in the last election, the same basic tenets we got red faced about when our political rival shut down the democratic process.

McGuinty's decision reduces the Ontario Legislature to a body which serves at his whim, forever secondary to the personal machinations and political ambitions of the Premier.  Perhaps the system is set up as such, but the way government's now use prorogation a complete bastardization of original intent.  The work done in Committee's, the policies debated, the laws working through the process, all these things are BIGGER than the Premier.  Ontarians have elected representatives who are now rendered impotent and irrelevant because a man took a walk in the snow and sees no political advantage to let democracy breathe.  How can any democrat remain silent on this front, how can we rationalize further decay that confronts notions of egalatarianism and confronts the people's voice?

McGuinty made a very astute and sound decision to resign at this time, there is no question in my mind his regime was past its best before date.  There are many things the McGuinty government did that people can be proud of, but all that is sullied with this final decision.  McGuinty leaves with an air of arrogance, real or perceived irrelevant, prorogation roundly unpopular.  McGuinty has given rivals the high ground, while simultaneously leaving other members of his government offering the lamest of excuses to justify.  As well, federal Liberals are left running for the exits, not wanting to confront the naked hypocrisy that surely exists the moment they comment on this particular prorogation.  I can only imagine the contortions the next time Harper prorogues, neutered Liberals are lost.  In fact, this whole affair makes one wonder just what all the kerfuffle was about, all the speeches, the indignation, the holier than thou rants about supremacy of Parliament, the people's will, the business of the nation, blah, blah, blah.

In the final analysis, the selective outrage is perhaps instructive when trying to ascertain why Liberals currently sit where we do....

Debate Thoughts

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” Obama

McGuinty OUT

I'll simply go back to my post this time last year, that was openly ridiculed.  Knowing when to leave, on  your own terms, appreciating the true landscape, is a rare trait:

McGuinty Should Step Aside




.