Dion the Rebel

At a certain level of detachment, a leader is a vehicle for the type of policies that you want enacted. And I believe Michael Ignatieff will be a good vehicle for the aspirations of Canadian Liberals.

For the last two years, I have supported Stephane Dion as leader of the party because I believe he is a man of integrity and great intelligence. A great Canadian who has devoted himself to the country and the party. As a consequence, he has suffered many attacks. He led the party in the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal and was villified by Harpers political machine.

Michael Ignatieff will eventually face the same type of attacks. In my small way, I will help to defend Ignatieff and promote the party. And I hope that he is able to rise above the personal smears in a way that Stephane Dion ultimately was unable to do.





Dion worked effectively under both Jean Chretien and Paul Martin as a highly competent minister. They gave him difficult tasks (the Clarity Act, the Montreal Climate Change Summit) which he accomplished with impressive skill. And for that also the party and Canada owes Stephane Dion our deep respect and gratitude.

The linked video is not one that I would have featured when he was leader, but what the heck.
h/t Garth Turner

We love you, Stephane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsIBtKRmjM8

Conservative Manipulation of the Media

The rumours and misinformation circulated freely by Canadian newsmedia this week is worrisome.

Ottlibs thoughtful post yesterday on conservative media bias and comments by readers might make you wonder what the news should sound like.

What are the alternatives?

Here is an example. (It starts with a 15 second commercial for RealNews by Danny Glover)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9vtBYOsqE



I don't know much about RealNews.

But it makes you wonder whether the Internet might ultimately provide the answer (or corrective) to media concentration and its abuse by wealthy conservatives.

The Conservative use of its base as a instrument to attempt to sway talk-radio and flood message boards with party doctrine also needs to be addressed.

Cool Down Period?

The media are claiming that the prorogation is a "cool down" period.

Well think again. Brace yourself for the attack ads.

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that if Harper gets to the other side of this he will suddenly be chastened and act responsibly? Really?

When/if the coalition is off the table, Harper will destroy the opposition.

Parliamentary Democracy thwarted

The power of the Prime Ministers office over the elected House of Commons has been reinforced today. And the airy ideals of the former Reform party (which resides now in the present Conservative party) for greater democracy have been voided and revealed as empty rhetoric.

The precedent set today is also a strong argument against minority parliaments and any reform to the electoral system that would favor minority parliaments. It is a commitment to more elections and their abuse. Good thing if you are a political junkie I guess, but bad for everyone else.

Will the coalition hold? The Conservatives would like to think not.

I do not blame the Governor-General. She should not have been put in this position.

Do you want a Prime Minister who is willing to say anything, generate any crisis to retain power?

Harper's Destructive Path to Power

This is no joke. We are in an international economic crisis.

But the Canadian government is caught up in the worst political crisis since the 1995 referendum.

And who is at the center of it? Stephen Harper.

Albertans are talking about separation. And Harper is stoking the separatist fires here in Quebec by suggesting that elected representatives of Quebec are not legitimate.

Harper is wielding the Conservative party like a weapon against the constitution and parliamentary democracy. And he will stop at nothing to get complete power.

Harper is likely the most divisive politician in Canadian history at a time when we need to be drawing various factions in the country together to meet the economic crisis

To resolve this crisis, Harper must be removed. That is the minimum condition.

Scott Brison on what will happen

Scott Brison gave this interview to the Globe and Mail today on what will happen in parliament.

I just took a look at some Blogging Tories sites and I am shocked by their weak understanding of Canadian democracy. Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore? I guess the Conservative's understanding of Canadian civics is only matched by their understanding of the economy.

There are 305 elected members in the House of Commons. In our democracy, you either find the support of more than half of those elected representatives to form a government and pass legislation or you do not and are defeated. There is not alot of ambiguity about that.

You have to work with the other parties in a minority. Harper chose not to. What I find bizarre about all this is: the Conservatives seem surprised.

Regime Change

In the current economic crisis which Stephen Harper has likened in potential scale to the Great Depression and in light of a recent election, it would be irresponsible of the Governor-General to dissolve parliament at this time if the current ministry is defeated because of its unwillingness to bend to the will of the House of Commons.

It is clear that the current ministry does not intend, or is not intellectully able, to introduce the measures necessary to diminish the impact of the coming recession. In fact, the Harper government seems to be so fully occupied with cheap political gamesmanship that cooperation in the current session appears highly unlikely.

And yet the Liberal minority government led by Lester Pearson was one of the most fruitful legislative periods in Canadian history.

Its time for regime change.

Structural Weakness

If there is a structural weakness in the Liberal party, it is due, I think, to factional infighting. It takes time to build a winning coalition and if Liberals want to affect the direction of this country (on health care, on the economy, on our role in the world), that's what the party should be focussing on now.

We need more money first off. By my estimate the next round of Harper attack ads will come out before Christmas. Will we be able to respond?

Also, there is, I believe, a remarkable potential for growth in Quebec. But that will require alot of patient effort, working the ridings and building networks and friendships.

None of the things which we need to do to win the next election will happen if the factions are allowed at each other again. I can only imagine that another leadership contest would exacerbate the structural weakness of the party in many and unexpected ways.

How long after such a contest would it be before "Senior Anonymous Liberals" of the losing factions start telling an emboldened CTV(spit)that the new leader is incompetent and not in control of caucus? How many more Libloggers will regurgitate Conservative talking points and openly disparage a new leader during the next campaign? How many Liberal partisans will sit on the sidelines until their "guy" wins.

These contests are emotionally divisive and the party will look incredibly weak during the minority parliament (feeding the NDP narrative). If we seed bad faith now, we will harvest some ugly twisted fruit during the next election.

Dion ran a good campaign without gaffes. And at a certain point last week, alot of Liberals started to think that we just might be able to pull off a victory. In the last few days the tide turned. I think the most effective use of the party's emotional and intellectual resources would be to figure out what changed in those few days. How do we mount a better campaign next time.

This definitely involves analysis of the Green Shift. We may need to drop the carbon tax because the envrionmental movement is fickle and undisciplined. If there is going to be a serious engagement of environmental issues, we'll need to Will it into being within the framework of our own party. But no one is going to come up with the policies that will unite the party if we head into a leadership contest now.

So, if I were Stephane, my first instinct would be to tell the champions of division where to stick it (diplomatically but firmly).

I am a Grit, though. But I think Stephane Dion is one too.

Hope and Patience

I want action on the environment. I want to decrease child poverty. I want a responsible government that brings together the best minds in the country to solve our economic and social needs.

There are many people in the country who want the same thing as I do. We now have to consider what is the best way to deliver the intelligence and good will of Canadians to this end.

Its been a long campaign. We all need some time to withdraw and in a few weeks soberly consider the way forward. I am proud to be a Liberal. I believe in the issues that the party has forwarded in this election. We should never be ashamed of our aspiration for a better Canada.

Why I am Voting for Change

I care about the environment and I want more doctors and nurses.

I want Canada to get away from the neverending Conservative "War on Terror"

And I want Stephen Harper replaced tomorrow.

As Elizabeth May has said, Stephen Harper's "plan" to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming is a fraud. If Harper remains as Prime Minister, Canada will do nothing. Worse the Conservatives actually sabotage at international meetings the efforts of countries that want to do something about this crisis.


The Conservative response to global warming. A grease spot attack ad. Here is a spoof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI6HaoVde4I





The Liberals Green Shift plan brings together scientists concerned about the environment with the brightest Canadian minds from the field of economics. All working together to develop the best long-term strategy to create a sustainable economy. Providing industry and individual voters the incentives and investments they need to really make a difference.

The Liberals also have an ambitious plan to decrease child poverty as well increase the number of doctors and nurses at a time when aging Baby Boomers will be putting the Canadian Health system under increasing stress. The Liberal platform.

And then there is the expensive and violent Conservative War on Terror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs





Stephen Harper wanted Canada to invade Iraq.

He said so in a speech that he plagiarized from the right-wing Prime Minister of Australia.

Fortunately it was a Liberal government at the time who said, NO to George Bush's war of aggression.

We will get nothing we want if Harper gets re-elected. Nothing but more wars, more prisons, and more poverty.

It is time to replace Harper with a progressive Liberal government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzmI3XrF0f0

Tremendous Disappointment for Harper

The immense room reserved for Harper's big end of campaign booster rally in Quebec City was almost empty today (organizers scrambled to get the fewer than 500 partisans who showed up in the aspirational "heart" region of the Conservative Quebec strategy). Read about it here in LaPresse.

"Mauvais messages, stratégie contre-productive.

Mais il y a plus. Le chef lui-même n’est vraiment pas inspirant.

Ses discours sont ennuyants, son sourire est forcé et le contact avec les gens restent pénible.

Plus de quatre ans après avoir pris la tête du nouveau Parti conservateur, M. Harper n’a pas réussit à se rapprocher des électeurs. Au contraire, il traine même la réputation d’être indifférent aux préoccupations de ses concitoyens."

(translation mine; read the original)

"Bad messaging and a counter productive strategy.

But there is more. The leader himself is not inspiring.

His speeches are boring, his smile is forced and the interaction with people is painful. More than four years after taking the leadership of this new Conservative party, Mr. Harper has still not succeeded in reaching the voters. To the contrary, he drags behind him a reputation for not caring about the concerns of the people."

See also this insightful analysis of the Harper disaster in Quebec. Harper was supposed to have this election in the bag, but Quebeckers see clearly his hard right wing agenda. More wars, more prisons, no action on the environment and a poor record of economic management. Plus he's a jerk.

We need to replace Stephen Harper with a progressive government.

Harper's Leadership Doubted

According to Nanos, Harper's personal impopularity may hold his party back. The Globe and Mail reports that it may be a good strategy for Harper to refuse questions from the media for the remainder of the campaign.

Kim Campell: A campaign is no time to talk about policy.

Stephen Harper: A campaign is no time to answer voters questions.

Other good reasons for Harper to hide from the media:
He has no platform to run on (22 pages of Harper photos does not count). And new evidence contradicts Harper's version of the Cadman bribery scandal

What is Harper hiding now?



Stéphane Dion Day Thirty-Four

Who Will Fight For Canada?

Who will fight for a Canada?

Chretien knows (we all know) that Stephane Dion will.

Here is the link to Chretien's speech in Brampton on Friday night

The best line of the night goes to Dion according to Radio-Canada. I will post Dion's speech as soon as I can find it.

It is time to replace Harper and his incompetent ministers with a strong Liberal government.

Dion On the Issues

When Dion talks about the issues he is at his best.

Here is Stephane Dion's interview with Lloyd Robertson on CTV (spit).

Listen at the end when Lloyd reluctantly raises the delicate issue of language.

Does the fact that Dion is a francophone disqualify him to be Prime Minister? Dion playfully turns the issue around and asks Lloyd what he thinks. And the well-humoured cosmopolitan Lloyd responds "I understand you." Lloyd's no bigot.

This is not to say anything about how Lloyd will vote, he does work for CTV (spit) afterall, but
the people that Dion needs to reach understand what he is saying when he speaks about the issues. And the issues are what the people will vote for if they hear them.

I don't believe in the noisy little ups and downs of polls +/- up to 10 % (especially in consideration of their empirically established conservative bias i.e. six to ten points overrated in the most recent federal elections (what are they really measuring?)), but the dramatic plunge in the Conservative polling numbers 11-15 points when Canadians started really hearing about the different parties policies, indicates to me that they are motivated by the issues (if they hear them). Leadership is a short-cut that doesn't really work in a campaign. But you can still hear the last whining shrieks of air coming out of that bag of nothing from the media.

Liberal policies: français english

Harper loses his cool

Harper enters whole new territories of shrill partisanship.

Harper is trying to make an issue out of an interview Dion had with CTV. Dion is really good generally in the interview format. The interviewer asks a complicated hypothetical question; Dion asks him to clarify; they joke around a bit, then start again. You can go watch the video, or look at Harper's over-the-top reaction. (It is a desperate Rovian attempt to distract voters from the issues)

But the only thing you are likely to remember about this by Sunday is the joke told about it in Brampton at the Liberal gathering on Friday night.

Why don't you try.

It could be a couple sentences long, but a one-liner would be preferable.

Here are the ingredients:
Harper's lack of concern for working families in tough times
Harper's pettiness
Harper's hyper-partisanship
Harper's lack of a platform
(22pages of pictures of yourself does not count, Steve)
Harper's doubtful judgement in spontaneous situations
Harper's history of distortions
Harper's negative attack ads
Harper's lack of vision

Extra points if you can also convey how you REALLY feel about Mike Duffy Live or bird poop.

If you live in a family that has a history of voting Liberal at any point since 1993, that's the joke you will hear repeated at Thanksgiving dinner.

The question remains who will deliver the joke. My bet is da little guy from Shawinigan.

Dion Could Be Our Next Prime Minister

Dion could be our next Prime Minister according to Stephen Harper. Yes, that is possible.

And I have every confidence that Dion would make a very good Prime Minister with an exceptionally strong cabinet. Since the debates, Dion has reached the voters that could make this happen. And he will be able to work well with the other parties. There is a shrewdness in Dion's negociating abilities that the media have not picked up on yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-NZqGGyREs



But I am not sure why Harper is advertising a Liberal government now.

My gut tells me this is yet another mistake (similar for example to his profound miscalculation about the "War on Terror" or calling this election etc. etc. etc.)

It is probably based on some polling data and a complex secret statistical formula hidden in the darkest depths of the Conservative War Room. One vote here, two votes there. Or maybe Harper is just winging it again. I am guessing that Harper believes the possibility of a Liberal government will make Canadians afraid maybe? Really? Outside of his base, I just don't see how this will be effective.

And Harper's real base is much less than was pretended. That is becoming more obvious since the LEADERSHIP fantasy has exploded.

I recall it being reported earlier in the campaign that Harper's support was very firm. But this cannot have been true and I don't think it is anymore true now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbD7gn8WII



Yes, Dion could be our next Prime Minister.

French

English

Harper: Oops! I forgot to write a Platform

Harper is in his third election campaign, but he somehow forgot to write a coherent platform before the start of the campaign. That's not smart. There are a number of miscalculations on Harper's part that I think are going to come under increasing scrutiny in the remaining days of the campaign. Mistakes and blunders.

One of Harper's glaring weaknesses is his inablity to perform in the confrontational one-on-one interview format. Harper gets angry and brittle.

The debates were in a very similar format and that hurt him (especially in Quebec)

Compare and Contrast Dion/Harper Interviewed on RadioCanada.

Harper' s Interview

Dion's Interview

(try clicking the links twice; the second try seems to work or just go here)

Harper's body language is all wrong. At one point, in a defensive posture, Harper looks like he is trying to shove his shoulders into his ears. But that is not the major problem.

It is not because Harper has an accent. Harper's french is not good, but that is not the reason why he is doing so miserably in Quebec right now. Dion's english is highly accented too, but he is able to use english much more effectively than Harper. Listen to the interview when Bernard Derome asks Harper what he meant when he said that Canadians have become more conservative. The problem is not Harper's french (which is not good) but that he does not have an answer beyond the soundbite.

In general Harper demonstrates a lack of reflexion in all his answers. Dion excels in this format because it shows he has thought through the issues before and is only looking for the correct words to express his ideas. Under close questioning, Harper's ideas are absent beyond glib one-liners.

Derome is equally tough on both Dion and Harper (well maybe a little easier on Harper because of the language barrier). The funniest part is at the end of the Harper interview when Derome takes Harper to task over rumours (rumours intitiated by Conservatives) that a Conservative government would dismantle the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Harper totally flubs the answer.

The problem with Harper in Quebec is the issues. And he should have known this and planned for it a long time ago. Harper is on the wrong side of almost every issue and a smile won't cover that up. (Not that Harper even tries to smile)

The Conservatives are heading toward disaster in Quebec. Harper is to blame.

Stephen Harper is a BUNGLER!

There is more news of economic turmoil with governments around the world taking action to shield themselves against the worst, while Stephen Harper releases his platform to tackle Senate Reform. Senate Reform?

If Stephen Harper gets back into government, you are on your own because he will be very busy reopening the Constitution to tackle Senate reform. It's just that important to him.

Stephen Harper is a bungler.
And I think he is getting desperate.

--------------------------

Update: By contrast here is Stephane Dion: energized, confident and at ease talking about policy.

What the Liberals will do to address the economic crises in the first 30 days of forming a government. The immediate Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnK8WugX-Y



-Speed up investments in infrastructure and the manufacturing sector to create an immediate economic stimulus
-Demand the recommendations of the major financial institutions and leading economists
-Coordinate the efforts of the provinces to protect Canada against the international crisis

Sounds pretty reasonable to me given the circumstances.

I am still not clear whether Stephen Harper believes that there is a problem.

A Gimmicky Conservative Platform

I think that it is becoming increasingly clear that Stephen Harper's perfomance in the leaders debate in english was awful (and in french just disastrous).

In the face of life-changing economic upheaval, Harper is preparing to do nothing.

And Canadians saw that in the debates.

If Harper manages to form a second government, you are on your own.

Tomorrow, the Conservatives bowing to public pressure will offer a face saving and belated policy platform. Like most Conservative policy announcements, it will be made to great fanfare. And like most Harper announcements, it will be thoroughly discredited within two or three days.

I suspect that the platform will be laundry list of tax loopholes that will render the Canadian tax system more arcane and difficult to navigate.

If the Conservatives want to lose the election definitively, they will talk about Senate reform and reopening the constistution.

What we won't get tomorrow is visionary policy.

It will be B.S. in front of a media-friendly backdrop.

Thousands at Anti-Harper Rally Today

Thousands (10 000+) of concerned citizens rallied to protest against the hard-right wing policies of the Harper governement today in Montreal.

Watch the news report here.

Harper is a threat to the Canada we want.

Effective Ads

Stephane Dion's performance during the Leaders Debates was excellent.

He speak the truth best in english and french. ;)

(It puts to rest that strange Harper talking point about Dion's proficiency in english. Good. In the tight linguistic game of a high-stakes televised Leaders debate, Dion articulated the Liberal plan precisely. I always viewed the slurs on Dion's english as a species of conservative bigot talk anyway. And a bit ironic considering Harper's obvious weakness in french. But I live in Quebec...)

Here are some ads that are out. The effect is cumulative and I think quite powerful. I got the full message after watching a few of them.

The ads are simple. And the talk is straight. Here is a selection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2E-Eq37qdw





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu6z-l8Um_Y





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5DZmpE6_AE





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lkNHUK9Jis





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRvSo3egncA





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SkffVIPh-M





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awN1WejijFw

Cré moi, Cré moi pas

Stephen Harper does not love Quebec culture. Don't buy the B.S.

Here’s a video by Michel Rivard “Culture en peril” poking a stick at arts funding under an imagined gouvernemoo majoritaire Conservative. Shades of Kafka. Phoque!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnccaVAKLwI




Wake up Canada before it's too late.


Update: Link to the full song :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6CSOLxbeM

Dion wants to Decrease your Income Taxes

Stephane Dion wants to decrease your income taxes.

What???

I will say it again.
Stephane Dion wants to decrease your income taxes!

Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff, Ken Dryden, Scott Brison, Martha Hall-Findlay, Gerard Kennedy...
in short, the Liberal party wants to decrease your income taxes in a big way.

But who will pay for this big income tax decrease?
Polluters will. The more you pollute the more you pay.

There will be financial winners and losers in the new economy where energy costs are skyrocketing whether you believe in global warming or not. The losers will be those who decide to pollute more. And the Liberal Green Shift Plan budgets to help every Canadian who needs it, e.g. homeowners, fishers, truck drivers etc. to become a winner in the face of huge increases in energy costs.

Frankly, I think in the sense of personal responsibility anyone who does not care about the future environment of their children is an emotional "loser". Like the losers who dump their trash on the side of the road. They don't care about anyone else. Conservatives don't care. For them it is all about "ME" and now. They preach personal responsability, but it is just a mask for greed and an immature sense of entitlement.

Now these "losers" will have financial incentives to think about before throwing garbage into the air. It seems that is the only way to get through to some people. And God-bless-them, a Liberal government will help them to become more energy efficient, to save their money instead of giving it away to the oil companies, with incentives and income tax cuts.

It is visionary.

The Liberal party, like in the days of Chretien/Martin, are asking Canadians to exhibit some fiscal restraint and personal responsibility for the sake of the nation and the world. A message, which in my opinion, is well-crafted for the typical thoughtful and caring Canadian voter.

Let's decrease our income taxes. Vote Liberal!

Cool New Ads and an old Advertising Story

I saw this one on t.v. last night as I was eating a quick dinner.

also h/t m5slib

Grand'>http://www.liberal.ca/video_f.aspx?guid=35F5F885-3DEB-4E3B-B4AB-332CCA02AD6E">Grand Leader




In other news, a media release of the RCMP could play in the election as reported by LaPresse today. This sounds familiar doesn't it. The RCMP releasing information that casts a dark shadow on the Liberals during an election campaign which was called last week by Stephen Harper. During the last election, the RCMP announced a mid-campaign investigation into the dealings of then Finance Minister, the honorable Ralph Goodale. The polls shifted dramatically over the following week. The investigation was dropped after the election because the charges were unsubstantiated.

In addition to being the most shrilly denounced and most thoroughly investigated scandal in Canadian history, adscam could break a whole new record: the longest lasting --three election cycles. That would be really incredible.

Duceppe's reaction to the news was interesting. Reader's are reminded that Jean Brault, a main actor in the federal ad scandal, also had some dubious transactions with Lucien Bouchard's provincial PQ government. "The Parti Quebecois knowingly took nearly $100,000 in illicit contributions from ad agency." -The Gazette June 22, 2006.

What has taken the RCMP so long?

The RCMP, I suppose, believe that their image with the Canadian public is so solid that they can withstand the potential perception of scandal during an election campaign. What? Maher Arar? Retirement Fund Scandal and Cover-up? Tasers? Honest people do not criticize the RCMP.

The Conservatives handpicked new chief of the RCMP, William Elliot is also unforunate in the sense of the potential for perception of bias on this particular matter of releasing information during an election. Unlike previous chiefs, Elliot was not a policemen before his appointment to this position.

"That would be the worst possible choice for the RCMP right now," said retired Staff Sgt. Ron Lewis, one of the five RCMP officers who led the campaign to reopen the investigation into the pension plan scandal."And that kind of an appointment would also put an end to an arms-length relationship with government. If the government wants to fully control the RCMP, then putting a bureaucrat in there is one step closer to shortening the arms-length."

Umm.... What I am trying to say is this: the RCMP, for the sake of its own effectiveness in providing public order, needs to manage its image. Since the ability to do their job properly is in part based upon public trust, they should at all costs avoid even the slightest appearance of impropreity.

Has the image of public institutions been enhanced or debased during the reign of Stephen Harper?

Elections Canada
Nuclear Safety Watchdog
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court challenges program
Have I missed a few?

Environmental Crisis Meets Quebec Identity Politics

Linguistic and sociological tensions frequently mask the real challenges facing Quebec as I argued on this blog during the last provincial election. Competitivity, health care and now the environment have been reflected through the fun house mirror of Quebec identity politics to the detriment of actual debate on how to deal with these issues.

"I am more Quebecker than you..."
"Referemdum!" "No referendum"

These old slogans are a bit tired, as well as dangerous because of their obscurantism.

There is a certain interpretation of the unexpected rise of the ADQ in the last election which holds that the ADQ symbolized in the minds of many a turn away from the identity politics of the past. (Whether the policies of the ADQ truly involved such a turn is a separate subject that I will leave to subtler minds than myself). I too felt that appeal because, as I said, I think that most issues suffer from distortions of french/english tension.

Until recently, the Bloc were advancing a general line of reasoning that Quebecker's greater concern for the environmental crisis was another example of a distinct culture, and thus reason to separate. It is a weak argument that convinced only a few.

Now, Harper claims quite falsely that the Liberal Green shift plan will cause a recession, and thus will give Quebecker's a reason to separate. This is as weak an argument as the Bloc argument.

Unfortunately, both arguments mask the problem of what is the appropriate action to take on the environment. Conservative and Bloc politicians have been using linguistic tension to mask the fact that most economists and environmentalists agree that to deal effectively with the carbon emissions that cause global warming a price must be put on carbon. The fastest way to put a price on carbon is to tax it because, unlike a new bureaucratic investment in an unknown cap-and-trade system, we already have the infrastructure to tax carbon.

The Liberal Green Shift plan would use the money raised by the tax to decrease income tax and help Canadians become more energy efficient. Since, regardless of your beliefs about global warming, energy prices will continue to rise steeply, a more energy efficient economy will be a more competitive one.

You may or may not agree with my argument in favour of the Green Shift Plan, but Quebeckers on the whole ARE concerned about the environment. Responsible politicians and responsible members of the media would present voters with the facts about the options (and note how these facts may be distorted with identity politics by unworthy politicians).

Perhaps some would rather indulge in the old slogans: "I am more Nationalist than you." These latter individuals will be doing the greatest disservice to the nation.

Harper Government Lied about Torture

The editorial in the Globe and Mail today leads one to believe that even they do not believe Harper is sincere about his sudden promise to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011.

"But further decisions about our future role in that country must be made in a sober fashion, removed – as much as possible – from the partisan pressure cooker of a federal election campaign."

That is, wink wink nudge nudge, we'll see about this again later after the election.

It was, in fact, the Conservatives with their "don't cut and run" "scumbags" "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" "global war on terror" language that really politicized the debate here in Canada. Harper thought it was a vote getter. But it was not. It was dumb both politically and in terms of finding a way forward in a minority parliament because it poisoned the discussion with infantilism.

Given Harper's past statements, his history of abrupt flip-flops and broken promises, and his devotion to secrecy, I think any reasonable Canadian would have doubts about what his real intentions are. In other words, I don't think many people believe that if he gets a majority we will be pulling out of Afghanistan in 20011.

The conservatives have demonstrated time again their inability to deal with this complex file. The most highly reported example is the torture allegations. Not only did the Conservatives lie about the Afghan detainee issue, about torture, listen as Harper and his ministers deflect the issue with cheap jingosim and chest thumping.

http://www.youtube.com/v/R2cAKZlonM8&hl=en&fs=1




Can Harper be trusted to tell us the truth?

Harper lying about Afghanistan?

In the following video, Stephane Dion clearly details the Harper government lies on the Afghanistan issue. (The video starts after 16 seconds)



Is Stephen Harper a Liar?

"If you cannot believe them on something as important as torture, when can you believe them?"
-Dion

Is Stephen Harper a Liar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeUGhSgWIy8

Is Stephen Harper a Liar?

In my last post, I said how surprised I was that angry man Stephen Harper, who has run a constant negative campaign of childish ads against Stephane Dion since the day he was elected Leader, this same Stephen Harper was now concerned that the Liberals would run a negative election campaign against him. Poor baby.

As if to demonstrate definitively that he thinks he can fool everyone. This morning at 6:00AM he released even more attack ads on Stephane Dion. In the afternoons, he pretends he is a warm fuzzy family man (at least this week).

Crybaby Harper

After a year of ugly attacks on the character of Stephane Dion, after calling the opposition parties Taliban-sympathisers, attempting ludicrously to link a Liberal MP to the Air India bombing, and creating an idiotic website, conservative.ca (now cleaned up a bit for the elections) that was almost entirely devoted to attacking the Liberals and their Leader in the most childish of terms.... After all that and more, Harper is afraid that the opposition parties might hurt his feelings by going negative, i.e. talk about his poor management of the economy and mean spirited narrow ideological views.

Poor Harper. And such an unbelievable hypocrite.

"To be really honest, I anticipate a very nasty, kind of personal-attack campaign," he told Lloyd Robertson, CTV's chief news anchor and senior news editor, at Harrington Lake.
"That's just what I'm anticipating; that's what the opposition's done in the past. I think that whether Canadians agree with what we're doing or not, I don't think they're going to believe the kind of personal attacks and scare tactics that we've seen in the past."

Tell us again Harper about how the Liberal Green Shift Plan, which will lower income taxes by increasing taxes on pollution, is, in your trashy words, going to "Screw Canadians."

What a hypocrite.

What a whiner.

Harper breaks his word AGAIN

Well where to start?

Harper breaks his promises once again. There is no honesty in this governement. Its like the old days but worse because Harper is a lying, scheming hypocrite.

Harper and the Cadman Scandal

The family of former MP Chuck Cadman claims that, before he died of terminal cancer, the conservatives offered him a 1 million dollar insurance policy to help defeat the previous Liberal government.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip89011#clip89011

If the allegation is true, it would affect the decision of a large number of voters. It speaks directly to the issue of ethics in the Conservative party.

Harper is in a position to find out. An honest person would explain the discrepancy. If not, Canadians will need to decide with their votes who they believe.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/clip35176#clip35176

Who is telling the truth: the Cadman family or the Conservative party?

Harper testifies under oath

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper has testified that he personally authorized an offer made to late MP Chuck Cadman in 2005 for help defeating the Liberal government."

"It was Mr. Harper's first detailed account of his role in the so-called Cadman affair and, during four hours of testimony, he offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles."

So now I am confused. There was a life insurance policy offered to Chuck Cadman?

Is that not illegal?

Update: The article from the first link has been changed. The above direct quotes were reworded.

Harper Anxiety Attack

It's the end of summer. Most people are relaxed. Except Steven Harper, it seems, who is having an anxiety attack over "dysfunctional" parliamentary committees.

(I thought the conservative strategy was to brazenly sabotage the committees because regular Canadians don't pay attention to such things)

Anyways, I don't see why it would be necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to drop all his plans and jump on the next plane because Harper is having a freak out. I don't sense the urgency. Maybe Harper could make further explanations to the press...

Budget Surplus and Cancelled Ships

I wonder if the sudden federal budgetary surplus has anything to do with keeping up appearances for a potential snap election and this. Funds set aside for the Navy and Coast Guard 2.9 billion + 324 million must be reallocated. Announced on a Friday night at 8:30PM. Maybe no one will notice.

While propping up the budgetary losses in the short term, those same funds could even be promised during an election to some other potential pool of gullible Conservative voters.



(Then quietly cancelled a year later.)

Decima: Majority support Carbon Tax

More good news for the "strategic genius" Stephen Harper.

According to a Decima poll reported on today by Le Devoir 70% of Canadians would support a carbon tax if the revenues collected were put toward environmental programs.

“Surprisingly, Decima found that 75% of those who currently intend to vote for the Conservative party in the next election support the idea of a tax on carbon that would finance ecological programs.”

The article also reprises the Pembina poll which found similar levels of support for the carbon tax policy which is fiercely opposed by the Conservative government and the NDP.

You have been Punked!

I could not believe that La Presse actually ran that full front page character assassination on Michael Ignatieff today. I had to read it twice. Ignatieff sipping martinis with friends and plotting the defeat of the party in the next election.

La Presse knew full well that, if Ignatieff said what was reported, there would be a line-up of good Liberals stretching clear across the country ready to give Ignatieff a verbal smack down. It would be wildly dumb --buck-tooth wide-eyed dumb-- because such an attitude makes the rank and file, the people who really believe in the issues advanced by the party, look like total suckers.

Ignatieff recognizes how damaging this would be to his reputation and has resolutely denied the story. And I am guessing he and everyone connected to him hopes it fades away. I am not sure that it will. We might see this again in Harper advertising.

Over the years, the Quebec media has attacked Dion in every way. (I am not worried about him though. He’s a grit. He can take it.) But the crap thrown at Dion can also be thrown at Ignatieff… and maybe a whole lot worse. He might want to watch the company he keeps and how his comments might be interpreted.

Opportunity

It’s not that I want this to continue playing out on the pages of LaPresse, but I think that the situation within the party in Quebec has come to a head and presents a unique opportunity for Stephane Dion, if he acts quickly and decisively, to make the changes necessary for the long-term viability of the party in Quebec. In other words, rather than portray Steve Pinkus’ interview as a nuisance, it should be perceived as a call to action that requires a swift and full response.

The temptation during a minority parliament is to pass over contentious structural and personel changes in favour of “electoral preparedness.” This might make sense if the Quebec wing were even somewhat prepared for an election. It is not.

That these problems are spilling out into the press clearly makes the argument for the leader’s prerogative to take the steps, even the hard ones, that will resolve the crisis. This is an opportunity.

Hope

[Insert name here] are not a leader. Barack Obama is not a Leader. Hilary Clinton is not a Leader. You, Liberal voter, and you, progressive, you are not a leader either.

The Conservative attack line used against Stephane Dion so easily applies to anyone that the neoconservative movement disagrees with. Though it means very little, the Republicans are bound to use a variant of this in the upcoming presidential election. It could be Hillary or it could be Barack. The Republicans are also likely to promote divisions within the Democratic party resulting from their leadership contest. And there might be some gullible democrats who will fall for that trap.

I like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Although at this moment I prefer one just a little bit more than the other, I fully believe both would make a great president. But I fear that following the heat of the Democratic primary, some partisans of the losing candidate will have so firmly convinced themselves in the value of their own choice they will not support the winner. That would be a huge mistake. The George Bush years were a huge mistake. In fact, I would be greatly disappointed in the losing candidate, Obama or Clinton, if they were not to put their tremendous political connections and rhetorical skills to the service of regaining the White House. In my mind, failure in the next election would reflect badly on the whole Democratic leadership.

To me the leader of the party is a vehicle for the issues I would like to see promoted. It takes time to build a winning leadership profile with the voting public (in Canada historically this process takes several years) and the ongoing Democratic race is perhaps already cutting into that.

There is a lot of advertising for the two candidates. This one makes me totally crack up.



Disclaimer: I don’t understand the language in the ad; I just happen to like Bollywood. So the ad might be a bit mischievious without me knowing. I doubt that this would be a good ad for Obama with the larger part of the American voting public, but that is not the audience of this blog.

Fear and Lies

The Globe and Mail, and in particular reporter Graeme Smith, should be applauded for the excellent series of in depth reports based on interviews with a broad sample of Taliban fighters which will be appearing over the coming week and started today. The interviews can be found online here.

I have had ongoing doubts about the quality of information on Afghanistan available to the Canadian public. Although I don’t believe there is a central conspiracy, these doubts persist because of a confluence of interests from potential misinformation distributed by military industrial lobbyists, to laziness on the part of some in the media who are content to serve merely as the conduits for propaganda, to misplaced patriotic zeal and an irresponsible right wing political movement in the U.S. and Canada ready to fuel the flames of xenophobic terror in order to further their own domestic electoral aims.

object width="425" height="355">







Stephen Harper wanted Canada to invade Iraq.

Yet Jean Chretien and Canadian Liberals were able to stand against the onslaught of neoconservative lies and even turn public opinion which could easily have gone the other way. It takes time to build up a leader like Chretien who can confidently advance Liberal values. Alot of liberals currently seem to forget the hard times while Chretien’s leadership was being established. It also helps in defending Liberal values when we form the government.

We doubted the neoconservative lies about Iraq and the global war on terror. I think we should also be wary of the same with regard to Afghanistan. As the opposition, Liberals can start by exposing misinformation about the Afghan mission and deflating Conservative rhetoric. For instance, global Jihad is a neoconservative boogeyman. Go see the Globe and Mail report.

Poetry Cornered

This is not a criticism of Michael Ignatieff. I am being playful, interactive. It’s Sunday. But can you really corner poetry? The title of his latest blog post caught my eye Poetry Corner which sounds something like an elementary school educational unit safely stored in the sunny corner of the classroom to be visited on specified days in the curriculum; cute pictures and little poems under a fading sign “Poetry Corner” an edge of which has become untaped from the wall near the neglected end of semester. A special place near the window where flies come to die.

My idiosyncratic negative reaction is directed only toward the title because I liked the rest of the post a great deal. Knowing he shares incidental poems with Zsuzsanna, spotting one on the subway, makes me like him more than before.

No, I am just thinking about the title. The poetry is put in its corner, like a picture-frame which tells the bourgeois “This is art!” because otherwise they would not recognize it. But isn’t good poetry the sort of thing that even if you think that you have safely put it in its place its words escape again?

And I think over again

My small adventures

When with a shore wind I drifted out

In my kayak

And thought I was in danger

Of course, I am just joking around about poetry cornered. I am glad to see in an earlier post on the same blog that Michael Ignatieff reconfirms his support for the leader’s decision not to bring the government down over the budget. The media reports about conflict were quite remarkable. There have always been plenty of ambitious men and women in the Liberal party who know their own mind strongly --I wouldn’t want it any other way. So the fact that there would be disagreement over the timing of the election does not seem out of the ordinary. What is remarkable, though, is that the discussions were leaked to the media. There seem to be some rogue elements willing to trade in bad faith, people whose instincts tend toward the self-serving and the destructive. What do you say to people in that mood?

Anyway, since Michael Ignatieff has set such a good example, here is a poem by Frost that I like and comes to my mind from time to time.

I'm going out to clean the pasture spring;

I'll only stop to rake the leaves away

(And wait to watch the water clear, I may);

I sha'n't be gone long. –You come too.

I’m going out to fetch the little calf
That’s standing by the mother. It’s so young
It totters when she licks it with her tongue.
I sha'n’t be gone long. –You come too.

War, Peace and the Liberal Tradition

Does history provide any kind of model or pattern for the present?

Robert Bothwell, in an excellent historical essay which appeared in this morning’s Globe and Mail, sketches the face of the Canadian Liberal tradition toward the perennial issues of war and peace. I read the article more than once.

Bothwell adds detail to the topic which I have been wondering about over the last week and planned to post about, although my attention was directed more towards the future not the past. I have been thinking about the potential unintended consequences of “peace-making,” and military interventions in “failed states.” These two terms are in scare quotes because, to me at least, their potential ambiguity represents a set of pitfalls whose presence may be covered over by seemingly noble though unrealistic intentions.

One danger originates in a darker aspect of the human mind which is the tendency to exaggerate the diabolical qualities and powers of external enemies. Military involvement so easily invites the simple perceptions of good and evil which the media, acting in its role as entertainment, propagates in bold patriotic terms. The linked article provides numerous examples of this from our history. We also have examples from the present debate over Afghanistan. "Support the troops" "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" etc. But when does bluster start getting in the way of peace-making? I have been wondering about whether the perhaps enlightened intentions of intervening in failed states might always be undermined by other less innocent impulses.

I’ll post more about this some other time, but that is the general direction of my thinking at the moment.

Failed Afghan Policy

I had not given much thought to Afghanistan before September 11th 2001. Most Canadians would be lying if they said that they did pre 9/11 –lying to themselves. I suspect that the Al-Quaeda attack was not “about” the forced conversion of the world to Islam but rather a response, rightly or wrongly, to perceived abuses of Western influence in the Arab world.

Afghanistan.

The Taliban are a local Afghan phenomenon, largely allied to the Pashtun tribe. It seems the word Taliban means “student” in reference to the Koran and names a religious movement that, as a government, if not completely competent did provide some stability to the country after years of war fueled by foreign interests (Russians, Americans etc). The question I have is: can the Taliban/Pashtun be excluded from the government of Afghanistan? To put the question somewhat in a Canadian context: could we tell Alberta or any other province that they can participate in Confederation only through Liberal representatives? You can have your say but only if they are Conservatives?

Its hard to change the minds of a religious movement. It seems to me that a bad situation would be compounded by excluding the religious/tribal Taliban/Pashtun group from power especially when the exclusion is enforced by Western (colonial) military forces. As I said, I think the 9/11 attacks were in fact motivated by the perception, rightly or wrongly, of abusive Western influence in the Arab world. I would not like the Canadian military “cure” to cause more problems than it is intended to fix.

The counter-insurgency efforts seem to be failing. While I believe that the intentions of those who would have us continue throwing soldiers and money at the Afghan mission are good, I also think that they are wrong. I am not a coward. You are not a coward. I just think that you are wrong and perhaps a bit naive. The goals of the current mission are ineffective and wasteful and I would not have another brave Canadian soldier (or Afghan civilian) die for wishful thinking.

Make a habit of two things: to help or at least to do no harm.

Although Canada has more than done its fair share, it is feasible that our military continue to serve a limited security role in the region while negotiations amongst the different factions of Afghanistan proceed --they better get on with it. But the aggressive counter-insurgency tactics are a failed policy and need to stop.

The Compromise

The compromise position is to stay in Afghanistan under the current mission mandate until February 2009. Harper’s proposed surge strategy, more troops more equipment, is not a compromise solution; it is an escalation. I fail to see how anyone could imagine that it is not just more of the same, more of a failed strategy on into an indeterminate future.

Certainly, to those in Ottawa, the Manley report must seem a refreshing change of tone in comparison to the barrage of insults and emotional rhetoric that has substituted for argument to date on the part of the Conservatives. But then again anything is better than the jingoism and simple minded pro-any-war statements Harper has made over the last two years. Though I appreciate the Conservatives’ decision to begin speaking like adults, I am not sure it merits special praise, and it should not alter the Liberal policy. The facts have not changed from a week ago. The security situation is deteriorating, NOT improving, and the end game realistically does not involve the eradication of the Taliban but rather a negociated settlement with them.

I would have the international community move toward the end game sooner rather than later, although, with regard to the current aggressive NATO tactics, Canada has done much more than its fair share. If hunting the Taliban is indeed worth continuing, then other NATO nations should be more than willing to step up.

Ending the current mission in February 2009 honors our international commitment while striking a fair compromise position amongst the larger part of public opinion. Maybe not everyone gets exactly what they want, but democratically it should do.

Nuclear Safety: No Leadership

Stephen Harper and the Conservative party resolutely refuse to accept any responsibility for the shut-down of the Chalk River nuclear facilities which threatened the world supply of medical isotopes.

Rather than show leadership, the Conservatives are trying to shift the blame to someone else. They blame the Liberals, they blame Linda Keen the nuclear safety regulator, heck they even tried to blame the former head of AECL who incidentally was a Conservative appointee with ties to the Conservative party.

Rather than present Canadians with the facts, which given potential public alarm over nuclear safety would seem the right course of action, Conservatives have tried to obscure the facts. Responsibility for the misinformation lies squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper.

Leadership is about more than just ordering people around. And recently (see my last two posts) the Harper Conservatives have demonstrated a flagrant lack of leadership. No Leadership on the ethics of the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal; no leadership on the legitimate economic concerns of the premiers. And if you know what the Conservative positions on the combat mission in Afghanistan or the Environment are, please let me know. Do Conservatives even know what their position is?

All the Conservatives’ talk about Leadership is only half what it seems to be. What about honesty? What about clarity of purpose? What about listening or even just a little executive competence?

Federal-Provincial relations: No Leadership

Well, Stephen Harper can check "Photo-op with Premiers" off his to-do list. The dinner with the premiers yesterday represents little more than the appearance of consultation i.e. an attempt to "neutralize" the fact that there have been no formal meetings with the premiers since Stephen Harper became prime minister.

Somewhat ominously, the Globe and Mail reports, “The Prime Minister did pledge to write to the premiers with a summary of the meeting and some ideas on how to push issues forward, Alberta's Ed Stelmach said.” Given Stephen Harper’s awkward leadership style this means they will receive a memo essentially saying: Here are your orders from the federal government, now shut-up.

Honestly, why can’t the premiers be more obedient like Conservative federal cabinet ministers. There would be more Unity and Openness in this country if the premiers would just do as they are told. A good premier should be seen and not heard. ; )

Joking aside, the Conservatives are not offering any leadership on the Environment or the Economy. Leaders also listen sometimes.

Mulroney-Schreiber Affair: No Leadership

In the eyes of a substantial block of voters, there is only one type of Conservative. There is no difference between Mulroney Conservatives and Harper Conservatives. There is one Conservative party --and until recently Stephen Harper was happy with the association. The Mulroney-Schreiber affair when explored will damage the Conservative brand one way or another. It is surprising then that the Conservatives are offering no leadership on the issue.

Admittedly, the Conservative scandal is a bit of a lose-lose situation, having the public associate the Conservative party with secret hotel meetings where ambiguous amounts of untraceable cash traded hands cannot help but sound bad while on the other hand denying the association of Brian Mulroney with the Conservative party is somewhat preposterous. But Stephen Harper is falling out of the tree and he seems determined to hit every branch on the way.

At first, Harper said there was no need for a public inquiry. Then Mulroney said he wanted a public inquiry, then possibly as a consequence Stephen Harper said he also wanted an inquiry. Mulroney later changed his mind and said he did not want an inquiry. Harper also seemed to change his mind and suggested he longer thought an inquiry was necessary. The recommendations offered by the independent advisor, David Johnston, do not provide more clarity because they are not legally binding and do not settle the issue of whether or not there will be a public inquiry. Harper can ignore the suggestions. He could set in motion a full inquiry with a broad scope as of tomorrow or, as is more likely, he will keep stalling. Meanwhile, those in the public and especially those in the media who would gladly defend Harper’s stance --were he to take one-- are left twisting in the wind. Is Mulroney really one of us, a Conservative? Do we need an inquiry in any form? How does this relate to the Conservative party’s position on Accountability? By not deciding, Harper is ultimately jerking around his own supporters and you can only do that for so long.

By offering no leadership, the Conservatives are also green lighting the House of Commons Ethics committee to do anything they want with the issue which, in my opinion, is the bigger side of the lose-lose equation.

The Conservatives have shown no leadership on this ethical issue. But wishful thinking aside, the Mulroney scandal is not going to go away on its own.