Thoughts on the Milton Town Hall Forum

Last Wednesday marked our first post-Garth Turner Town Hall meeting in Milton. It was hosted by our new Liberal candidate Deborah Gillis, and featured two eminent guest speakers: MPs Michael Savage and Dr. Carolyn Bennett.

As one of the organizers, I was very pleased at how well the event went off given that we only had two weeks to pull it all together. The hall got booked, the ad got into the paper on time, the flyers got handed out at the Farmers' Market the Saturday before, and despite my fears of an empty house we actually had about thirty people show up.

Given that our two guests were the Opposition critics for Human Resources and Health, respectively, we tried to come up with a theme and a title that would reflect their areas of expertise as they applied to local concerns while leaving things open to a broader discussion. Various ideas got bandied about until we finally ended up with "Building Canada's Health and Social Infrastructure".

I did mention we only had two weeks to do this, right?

Deb introduced our guests, everyone gave their opening remarks, and then we opened things up to questions from the floor. There had been some concern that some people would try to disrupt things with endless questions about Ignatieff and why the Liberals are trying to force an election, but it all turned out to be very civilized. I wasn't surprised. I had told Deb that even during the worst of the Garth Turner town halls, the disrupters usually restricted themselves to standing glowering against the back wall.

Of course, the discussion wasn't restricted to just the theme at hand. All kinds of issues came up, from the environment to civic engagement to election strategy in the riding of Halton. We talked about Aboriginal issues and the Kelowna Accord. We talked about engaging youth in the political process. We talked about the problems of promoting Liberal social policy in one of the richest ridings in the country.

Carolyn Bennett is a firecracker. She's one of those intense, passionate, socially conscious politicians that I've always been especially fond of. In fact, when she was talking about grassroots democracy and the ability of MPs to effectively represent their constituents, it was almost like listening to Garth again. Mike Savage is very much the same, although he seemed to have trouble getting a word in edgewise. And just the fact that Deb Gillis was willing and anxious to engage in this sort of public forum only six weeks after her nomination tells me that she is of the same mind.





Watching and listening to these three remarkable people, and having met and spoken to a growing number of other Liberal MPs over the past two years, it occurs to me that whatever the problems are with this party and this country, they are not primarily because of the men and women we have elected to the House of Commons. Maybe I'm self-selecting, but every one that I've met is just as passionate. Every one believes that their responsibility is to represent their constituents and not their party. Every one believes in social justice, and the idea that helping those in need raises us all up.

Beyond that, every one of them has specific, practical ideas for making these abstract values into functioning social policy.

I have no illusions that every single Liberal MP in the House of Commons is as intelligent and as socially committed as the dozen or so that I have personally met, or that every one of them is completely sincere. But nor do I doubt that there are many fine, committed Conservative and New Democrat Members who, while they might have different solutions, care deeply about democracy and social justice and want to see all Canadians live better lives.

So what's the problem? How is it that these intelligent, committed people are all reduced to children throwing spitballs during Question Period and, to a lesser extent, in committees and in the public media?

It's easy to blame it all on the Conservatives, and easier still to blame it all on Stephen Harper. But let's face it - if even half the MPs simply refused to engage in these ridiculous games, it couldn't go on.

Take Question Period. QP and the preparation for it occupies an inordinate number of hours out of the working day for each and every one of our MPs, and there is overwhelming agreement in every party that the whole process is a frustrating, humiliating, and utterly pointless show put on for a public that finds the whole thing disgusting.

Mike Savage colourfully described it as a "putrid, fetid, pus-filled swamp between two fifteen and three o'clock".

So why does it go on? Why isn't there a mass movement in all four caucuses to have QP moved to the morning, have rules of decorum imposed and enforced, and make other changes to turn it from being a circus into an actual exercise in holding government accountable?

Or take the mess that is internal party politics - particularly in the Liberal Party. Every single Liberal MP from Michael Ignatieff down to the lowliest backbencher will happily extol the virtues of "grassroots democracy". And yet we continue to have a system which allows the party leader to bypass the will of local members and arbitrarily appoint candidates.

I have been a Liberal Party member for about three years now, and I have yet to be allowed to vote for either the leader or the candidate of my choice.

Nobody likes this - not the MPs, not the riding executive, not the members - and it never, ever ends well. The squabbling over Outremont this past week is an extreme example, but even here in Halton where most riding members seem more or less content with the way things worked out, we still lost people who really wanted Garth back and were appalled at the way the whole thing went down. And that's not just bad for democracy - it's bad political strategy.

So why does it continue? What's the up side to allowing candidate appointments? It can't just be about getting more women elected - that's easy enough to fix through active recruitment. Is it really just a power thing, getting MPs in who are beholden to the party leader? 'Cause I really don't see someone like Deb Gillis kissing anyone's ring no matter how she got here.

It's puzzling to me. I'm sure that a large part of the answer lies in the power wielded by those unelected advisers, strategists and party officials whose roles seem so arcane and yet whose names keep cropping up whenever these issues arise. But who gave them that power in the first place?

Maybe it's all just David Smith's fault.

As depressing as all this seems, that town hall meeting actually gave me hope for my party and for my country. Because I am convinced now more than ever that there are a lot of good, good people representing us in Parliament, and even more working on the local level to get them elected. I know. I've met them.

We just need to figure out how to clear the way to let them do their jobs.

Why Didn't I Say That?

I just got back from the Milton Town Hall Forum which I helped to organize, and which I'm happy to say went swimmingly. It was hosted by our new Liberal candidate Deborah Gillis, with special guest MPs Carolyn Bennett and Michael Savage.

They were all great, and I'll get more into what was said later. But after all my fumbling through that recent blog post on the difficulties the Liberals seem to have distilling their policies into digestible form, I was amazed to hear Dr. Bennett state the problem perfectly:

Liberals believe that for every complex problem, there is an equally complex solution."

Man, I wish I'd said that.

Further on Civic Disengagement

One theme embedded in the somewhat rambling musings of my previous post was the question of voter apathy as it relates to party politics. So it was a nice bit of serendipity when I ran across this article in the Regina Leader-Post concerning this very issue, in which the author posits the following:

"...the Age of Distraction in which we now live surely hasn't made life easier for our political leadership, which has traditionally preferred an engaged, mobilized electorate."

I disagree, sir.

I am influenced here by Al Gore's excellent "The Assault on Reason", but after spending no small amount of time amongst politicos of every stripe I can tell you from personal experience that political strategists COUNT ON having a disengaged electorate.

Think about it. What's easier? Developing and communicating a policy platform that would actually provide a coherent, long-term plan for the nation that (God forbid) some subsequent government might take credit for and which benefits the vast majority of largely middle-class and poor voters? Or just play to the base, push their buttons through disinformation, bigotry and fear, sell them on some placebo that you have no intention of following through on, and then bus them en masse into the polling stations on election day from whatever church, union hall or mosque they happen to be gathered in while those fussy undecided voters just get fed up and stay home?

This is what they want. They don't want you to pay attention. They don't want you to inform yourself. They don't want you to notice anything they do except when they're jumping up and down and clamouring for your attention. They don't even want you to vote unless your one of the unthinking Party Faithful - for their party, of course. And I'm not exempting anyone here. I can guarantee that these calculations are as much a part of the NDP's strategy as that of the Conservatives and Liberals.

So. To the question posed at the beginning of the Leader-Post article, "Did voters become uninterested because of today's duplicitous, self-interested politicians or did uninterested voters create today's duplicitous, self-interested politicians?"

The answer, for the most part, is B. Although, for the most part, it isn't the politicians themselves who are the biggest problem.

The solution? Get informed. Get involved. Get active. Then get in your friends' faces with it. I don't even care which party you pick - just do it for the right reasons.

Imagine if even a third of the voting public did that.

Liberal Policy for Dummies

Like many Liberal bloggers, I watched Ignatieff's speech to the Toronto Board of Trade with interest yesterday, hoping to hear a few planks of the Liberals' much anticipated economic platform.

My heart sank a little when he opened with an apology for how long and detailed the speech was about to be.

The details are there alright: taking a pro-active approach to accelerating economic growth rather than just letting it happen, defending Canadian industry and technology from foreign takeovers, instituting a permanent increase in the gas tax transfers to municipalities, greater investment in renewable energy and green technologies, bring back the 'Team Canada' trade missions, making the PBO truly independent, and on and on.

I can't say I agree with everything he's proposing. His 'tearing down the borders' theme scares me, and while the U.S. 'Country of Origin' labelling laws might be hurting Canadian pork producers for the moment, I'd much rather spend some money on PR for them than allow food companies to omit such information on Canadian packaging.

Overall, though, I approve of the direction he wants to go. He's committed himself to a reversal of Harper's 'hands-off' approach to government, which is a good start in drawing the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Now it's time for the marketing guys to go to work. Because while I find all this stuff fascinating - as I'm sure you do, oh faithful reader - the sad fact is that most voters only digest policy in bites of six words or less. It's not that they're stupid... ok, maybe some of them. It's that most of them are just too disinterested / disengaged / busy to bother investigating political policy positions beyond what they get through thirty second TV commercials.

Oh, they'll complain about it alright, saying "So-and-so doesn't have any clear policies", or "There's no real difference between this party's policies and those", when what they really mean is, "Nobody has distilled all this into bullet-point form for me to compare and contrast".

The problem, of course, is that most good, comprehensive, well thought-out, balanced policy is quite often highly resistant to distillation. Bad policy, on the other hand, is very easy to summarize because it is so often oversimplified to begin with. The Republicans are masters at it: "Tough on Crime". "Trickle-Down Economics". "The War on Terror". "Just Say No".

There may be no better example of this phenomenon than Dion's failed 'Green Shift' policy. Despite the catchy name, the detailed presentation and the positively elegant use of market incentives to create a self-funding emissions reduction program, it resisted all efforts to 'sloganize' it. And once the Conservatives saddled it with their own 'Carbon Tax' label it instantly became anathema to a great many of Canadians. The financial benefits to average Canadians were easy enough to understand with maybe five minutes of reading - but everyone already knew what a tax was, so hardly any of them bothered to investigate further.

As with the opposition to Obama's health reform proposals, some of those who railed against the Green Shift actually had rational arguments based on a reasonable understanding of the issue. Sadly, they were - and are - in the minority. The rest... well, anyone who has ever perused the comments section of any given newspaper website knows the sort. But even those reactionary types are a minority. The real majority of the electorate in both Canada and the U.S. Just. Don't. Care.

None of this is news, of course. It's been well known for decades that the reasons people vote one way or another almost never have anything to do with their understanding of or agreement with a candidate's policies. Far more often, they are influenced by what others think about about these policies - friends, relatives, and always, the media.

What is interesting in the case of yesterday's speech is that the media seems, at least temporarily, to have been knocked off of their "Liberals have no policies" narrative (except for the National Post, of course).

The speech itself didn't really say much that Ignatieff and the Party haven't been saying all along, and there likely won't be any more average voters examining this speech especially closely or rushing over to Liberal.ca for more details. But now that the media's line has started to change from "Liberals have no policies" to "Ignatieff talked about his party's economic policies", we might begin to see a few rays of light penetrating down to ground level.

We just need to make the slogans small enough.

(BTW, do go and read the New Yorker article on 'The Unpolitical Animal'. If that doesn't put you off politics altogether, you know you're really hooked.)

Man! I step away from the computer for TEN MINUTES...

... and someone comes up with Scenario #4.

All I can say is, Jack Layton owes Gilles Duceppe a case of beer.

How To Build a Better Candidate

I've found myself thinking a great deal lately about the quality of our MPs and candidates, and what sorts of people I would like representing me and making decisions on my behalf.

Part of this reflection came from listening to Gerard Kennedy speak at our fundraiser last month. I've admired Kennedy ever since he was the outspoken director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, and it got me thinking about how much that background has informed his views and his priorities as a politician. It also made me wish we had more MPs with a background like that, which in turn led me to investigate just how many of them actually did.

I decided to go through the list of MPs on the Parliamentary website and find out what they've done besides working as MPs. The little profile they give is hardly detailed, but it does list previous occupations and electoral history. I wasn't going to go through all of them, so I just did the 100+ from Ontario since that's my region, and the three major parties are all well represented here (keep in mind that most MPs have multiple jobs in their background, so percentages are going to add up to more than 100%).

What I found was interesting, but not really surprising. To start, nearly half - 47% - of our Ontario MPs come from the corporate world. Among Conservatives its 53%, but even the NDP caucus has more than 1/3 of their members with a corporate background. When I compare that to the number of people I personally know who are corporate execs, managers or directors, I can't help but think that this is a grotesque over-representation.

The next most common profession or background at just under 30% was municipal politician, which I consider to be a good thing. In general, town councillors, reeves and mayors are less rabidly partisan, more practical, and more cognisant of the effect of their decisions on real people. The NDP have the most municipal politicians on their roster, followed by the Conservatives and lastly the Liberals.

Then come the lawyers and the teachers, tied at 17%. The Liberals have the most lawyers (24%) and the same percent with an education background. The NDP have the most teachers (29%). Teachers and professors are good. Lawyers are ok, although there are vastly different kinds of law and a constitutional lawyer, a criminal lawyer and a corporate attorney are going to have very different perspectives.

My favourites, the social workers, social activists and the dreaded "community organizers" only account for about 10% overall, with the vast majority being NDP members. I like these people as politicians because like municipal politicians, they have the needed organizational and administrative skills without ever losing sight of the fact that they are working for the benefit of people.

We need more of these people in the Liberal Party, and in politics in general.



Getting back to those corporate people. I've tried to distinguish wherever possible between corporate 'business people' and people who actually run a business (usually listed as entrepreneurs) because I consider them to have completely different mindsets. I'm a business person. I started a numbered corporation and opened my first business when I was eighteen. I've managed everything from bookstores to print shops. I've run the same mail-order crafts business for over 20 years. My website is as old as eBay.

I've never made a great deal of money with my current business, but I consider it to be successful because a) it let me be home with my son when he was little, b) I get to do something I love and can take pride in, and c) people around the world buy my wares and write me back to tell me how much they appreciate what I've made for them.

If I were a corporate executive, I'd be a total failure. If I were a corporate manager, I'd be outsourcing my inefficient one-person crafts workshop to one of the dozen or so companies from India who email me every month offering to duplicate my work for pennies a piece.

Corporations have their place I suppose, but here's the thing: you CANNOT run a government like a corporation. You just can't. You can sort of run it like a business because real businesses provide tangible goods and services, and frequently measure success by something other than pure profit.

Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders. Period. They don't have to care about the people they employ or the communities they set up shop in or the products they produce, except to the extent that these considerations might impact their quarterly statement.

Governments are in many ways the exact opposite of corporations because their primary purpose is to provide services and other tangible benefits to the public. They accomplish this using the taxpayers' own money and so are obligated not to waste it or spend it frivolously, but it's understood that any given government program or service is not necessarily going to be 'profitable'. Many are distinctly unprofitable and inefficient by corporate standards - but they are also carefully regulated and made accessible to all according to their need. The measure of their success is public benefit, not profit.

A corporate manager would look at Canada Post and ask why they charge the same minuscule amount to send a letter across the street or across the country. They would ask why post offices or RCMP stations or even roads exist in remote communities when centralization is so much more efficient. They would question the wisdom of hiring Canadians to print or process government forms - or make those little Canadian flags - when such work could be done in Mexico or India far more cheaply. They would question why the government is running operations like the LCBO or AECL at all when they would be so much more profitable being run by the private sector.

The fact that such questions are, in fact, being raised indicates to me that there are far too many people with a corporate mindset running our government.

So what would I look for in a political candidate? I'd look for someone who's been in the trenches. Someone with a lot of volunteer hours, or experience working for a charity or an NGO. Someone who has run their own business, or has a real job producing something, creating something, or providing a useful service. Someone who has been involved politically on a practical level, served on planning committees or riding boards or administered local programs. Someone with enough education and life experience to see the bigger picture and make informed decisions. Someone who has demonstrated a real desire to do good in their community and has actually done something about it.

These are the kinds of people we should be actively recruiting as candidates and even public servants. Not just for the Liberal Party, but in general.

What I do NOT want to see is more CEOs, CFOs, corporate managers, or people who seem to do nothing but sit on boards of directors. I'm sure they're very nice people and have skills to offer, but we already have plenty of people like that running the country, thank you very much.

Wednesday Morning Notes: Isotopes, Game Theory, and the PBO

Lazy mid-week blogging:

1) McMaster Reactor Steps Up.

I think I've mentioned before that my husband used to work at the accelerator lab at McMaster University as a nuclear safety technician way back in the late 70s (I'll have to dig up a copy of his 'Nuclear Bunnies' 'zine for you some time). Anyway, apparently Mac has now done the math and determined that the University's reactor can, in fact, produce enough Tc-99m needed to supply about 20% of the North American market. They just need (you guessed it) a biggish pile of cash to do it.

I did find this statement particularly interesting:

The president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Dr. Robert Atcher, is saying the long-term solution to the worldwide isotope shortages isn't necessarily in building new reactors.

"It turns out that our real problem isn't that there aren't enough reactors to make medical isotopes," Atcher told CTV on Tuesday.

"It's the production facilities that we use when we take those targets out of the reactor and process them to remove the medically useful isotopes -- that capacity around the world is very limited. So we don't need necessarily to build any more reactors; we need to build those processing facilities."

UPDATE: The Natty Post picked this up this morning, quoting the McMaster facility's manager as saying that all they need is the non-weapons grade uranium and the trained staff and they're good to go.

2) 'Parliament Without a Cause'

A brilliant essay by Andrew Steele in yesterday's Globe & Mail on the application of game theory to this week's political showdown. He comes to some interesting conclusions about the pros and cons of a summer election for each of the four federal parties, but really - just watching someone draw parallels between the political brinksmanship in Canada's current multi-party minority government and the 'chicken' scene in 'Rebel Without a Cause', is just... wow.

Go read.

UPDATE: CalgaryGrit liked it too.

3) Kevin Page Vindicated

The Library of Parliament Committee has finally reached their verdict:

Parliament's budget watchdog is woefully underfunded, the Library of Parliament committee said in a report released Tuesday. The committee recommended his 2009-2010 budget be raised to $2.8 million from $1.86 million.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page's current budget is $323,000 short of his projected spending for the fiscal year and well short of the $2.75 million he was supposed to get before his budget was cut.

"Even with a $2.75-million budget it was virtually impossible to provide scrutiny of departmental estimates [planned expenditures] representing over $240 billion per year," the committee said.

"The reduction will mean that the scope for the PBO to fulfil the legislated mandate will be further reduced."

Assuming anybody is actually planning to act on the committee's recommendations, this is excellent news for our much beleaguered Paliamentary Budget Officer - who, BTW, recently looked at Jim Flaherty's numbers and concluded that there is no way in hell the government will be able to dig itself out of the deficit hole any time soon without severely cutting programs or (gasp!) raising taxes.

Kevin Page: the Last Honest Man in Ottawa.

OR NOT: The Toronto Sun is spinning this as putting Page on a "tight leash", insisting that he not hold press conferences or release his reports to anyone besides MPs an Senators. They also reference to Page's release of the Afghan War cost analysis during the election - a move which, they forget, was agreed to by all four parties.

This is the actual quote from the press release on the report:

The report proposes 10 recommendations aimed, among other things, at increasing funding for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, consistent with his following existing procedures at the Library of Parliament and respects the confidentiality of the work of parliamentarians and committees; and permitting the publication of independent reports as long as they are presented first to parliamentarians.

That doesn't sound like a spanking to me - that sounds like they're saying, "Carry on".

Travers, Turner and May on Democracy in Crisis

Michael Enright discusses the sorry state of Canadian democracy with Elizabeth May, Garth Turner and the Star's James Travers on this Sunday Edition podcast.

Every citizen of voting age in this country should listen to this episode. Then go read (or re-read) Travers' extraordinary editorial that splashed across the country like a glass of ice water last month. Then read Turner's book, and May's.

Sleepers, awake!

Here's a Thought...

Ujjal Dosanjh.

I'm not especially tuned in to BC politics, but the second I saw his name mentioned in the comments over at James Curran's place, and then read that he might actually be interested in going for a leadership shot, I instantly liked the idea.

High profile provincially and nationally, tons of experience, associated with a signature Liberal portfolio, left but not exceedingly so, NOT from Ontario, visible minority but not likely to scare the straights... ok, so he doesn't speak French. Meh. We can work on that.

So, you Western Canadians - whaddya think? Would this be a good idea, or would he have Bob Rae's toxicity in his home province?

Kingston II, Anyone?

Ok, my week of mourning is over. Time to move on.

Every Liberal in the country has spent the past week busily hatching schemes and drawing up blueprints for "How to Save the Liberal Party From Oblivion". Suggestions have included moving right, moving left, electoral reform, re-jigging pre-writ spending laws, finding a 'saviour', recruiting Elizabeth May, and cloning Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

All of these plans are sincerely and carefully contrived to help the Liberals win more seats next time and eventually win back the House, but none of them address a more fundamental question that, believe it or not, Stephen Taylor managed to bring into sharp relief:

What do the Liberals stand for?

The bulk of his thesis is bullshit, of course, although he did manage to choke out some back-handed and belated praise for Dion. But that one point stands out as the sort of profound truth that one occasionally hears from the mouths of four year-olds.

I sometimes despair that I am hopelessly naive to believe that things like policy and vision even matter anymore in our world of sound bites, media manipulation and celebrity politics. But when I take a close look at what is going on south of the border right now, I think that I might just be right after all.

The Obama phenomena has too often been written off to charisma and skilled oratory. But after seeing the crowds that have been turning out to vote in the advance polls and the predictions of over 70% voter turnout in a country that hasn't cracked 60% since... well, the sixties, I am more convinced than ever that there is more than star power driving this.

Americans are excited, and they are excited because they believe that their vote will make a real difference and bring them things like universal health care and an end to job outsourcing and serious action on the environment and an escape from the war in Iraq. They are excited because Obama is telling them that these things are possible and achievable instead of explaining why it can't be done and why they never really wanted that stuff in the first place.

We need to get Canadians excited. Just so.

I frequently hold up the Trudeau years as my idea of the Golden Age of Canadian Liberalism, but I was reminded yesterday that the real transformation of the Liberal Party from a private members club of stodgy, Amero-centric corporate yes-men to the briefly shining light of social democracy in North America happened under the watch of Lester B. Pearson.

Both The Star and The Globe & Mail ran editorials yesterday invoking the Kingston Conference of 1960 as a model for the potential rejuvenation of the Liberals. Peter C. Newman was there:

Especially now, with no election in sight and time to plan, the Liberals ought to pull a Ben Tre manoeuvre - the Vietnamese village that, in 1968 "had be destroyed in order to save it." When the Liberals were in a similar jam in 1960, facing the formidable political hypnotism of John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson organized a four-day meeting at Kingston, Ont., that brought activists and academics together in a rare free-form gathering. Three years later, that radical process - and enlightening contents of its presentations - breach-birthed a victorious Liberal Party, based on new paradigms, new energies and new recruits who would become the party's intellectual and animating agents provocateurs for the next three decades.

...The Pearson-sponsored Study Conference on National Problems, which convened at Queen's University in September of 1960, was billed as a non-partisan assembly of liberal-minded Canadians. Less than half of the 196 attendees were party members, though 48 of them were later named to senior appointments in Liberal administrations. The most influential was Tom Kent, an ex-Economist columnist who became editor-in-chief of the Winnipeg Free Press and later Mr. Pearson's chief policy adviser. His paper Towards a Philosophy of Social Security became the winning blueprint for the Pearson platforms in the three elections that followed. The distinguished Quebec academic Maurice Lamontagne's lecture was summed up in his opening sentence: "The ultimate objective of economic activity is the maximum common welfare."

Watching the proceedings, sensing the electricity in the air and assessing the presence of such newcomers to the political wars as Jean Marchand, Maurice Sauvé and Mitchell Sharp, I soon became aware of what was really happening. A new political generation was being born - the same style of transformation that the Liberal Party desperately requires now - as Jean Chrétien might put it, "the better the sooner."

Voter turnout during that period, in three rapid-fire elections in 1958, '62 and '63, was the highest in Canadian history at close to 80%. No 'election fatigue' there.

We are not likely to see another star like Obama or Trudeau rise from the ranks at the upcoming convention, but nor do we really need one. We just need to re-discover what we stand for, and find a way to enthusiastically communicate that vision with one voice. We should be developing bold new progressive policies that move the party out of its comfort zone and get people excited about the possibility for real, positive change in this country. The Green Shift was a policy like that, but it was presented in isolation by a hobbled leader without the support of his own caucus. Perhaps it can be rehabilitated, but that can only happen if the fat bastards of the party agree to either get lost or get the hell out of the way.

This, to me, is the best argument against Frank McKenna or John Manley taking the helm this spring. Many have argued that such Chretien/Martin era stalwarts will appeal to the Blue Grits and Red Tories and bring them back into the fold, but this approach ignores the glaring truth that we are bleeding far more profusely to the left than to the right.

More on that later.

Getting people excited about the party and the political process in general solves a plethora of problems for the Liberals. It will increase voter turnout, which will not only help financially but will likely favour the Liberals as they were the ones who disproportionately stayed home this time. It will get younger people interested and involved, not only as voters but as people with the means and know-how to upgrade the party's antiquated web presence, fundraising mechanisms, voter databases, etc. It will draw in volunteers and organizers and the kinds of human resources we were sorely lacking this time around.

Most importantly, it will generate the grassroots individual donations which are absolutely essential under the new donation rules. This is the real secret behind Obama's success - not the crowds at his speeches, but the millions of donors who have stuffed his campaign coffers to the point where he can afford to buy a solid half hour of prime time television without blinking.

The Liberal Party has survived and succeeded over the long years because it has always been willing to change and adapt, and even burn itself to the ground once in a while in order to build anew. If they refuse to radically transform themselves again this time and insist instead on cowering behind the policies and personalities of the past, maybe they really are destined to be replaced by the NDP as a dominant force in Canadian politics.

I guess we'll find out this spring.

Watch closely - this is us in another four to eight years.

There is a devastating and bloody evisceration of Sarah Palin in the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone. It was written soon after her debut at the Republican National Convention and so fails to account for the bloom coming off that particular rose in recent days. But the language is delicious and the criticism of both her and the America that loves her - merciless.

I'll skip to the end:

...Sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we're actually going to need in government if we're going to get out of this huge mess we're in.

Here's what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins "Country First" buttons on his man titties and chants "U-S-A! U-S-A!" at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn't that she's totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and horked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: that you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we'll not only thank you for your trouble, we'll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for a few hours around election time.

Democracy doesn't require a whole lot of work of its citizens, but it requires some: It requires taking a good look outside once in a while, and considering the bad news and what it might mean, and making the occasional tough choice, and soberly taking stock of what your real interests are.

This is a very different thing from shopping, which involves passively letting sitcoms melt your brain all day long and then jumping straight into the TV screen to buy a Southern Style Chicken Sandwich because the slob singing "I'm Lovin' It!" during the commercial break looks just like you. The joy of being a consumer is that it doesn't require thought, responsibility, self-awareness or shame: All you have to do is obey the first urge that gurgles up from your stomach. And then obey the next. And the next. And the next.

And when it comes time to vote, all you have to do is put your Country First — just like that lady on TV who reminds you of your cousin. U-S-A, baby. U-S-A! U-S-A!

I bring this to your attention, not to further mock Sarah Palin (and no, I haven't seen tonight's Vice-Presidential debate yet, although I did tape it), but to encourage you to see the pathetic mockery of the democratic process currently unfolding in the U.S. as the logical extrapolation of our own.

Read that excerpt again, and imagine for a moment that he is talking, not about the obviously superficial, celebrity-driven U.S. election, but about our own. Think about the fact that incidentals like policy and integrity have at long last become totally irrelevant in our current discourse, supplanted by telegenics and charisma and dog whistles, and whichever politician is best at convincing you that they're "just like you".

I'm sorry, but I don't want a Prime Minister who is "just like me". If I did, I'd run myself. I want someone who has a a broader perspective, with a better understanding of how government and economics work, and who is smarter than me (and I've got a pretty kick-ass IQ).

I don't give a rat's ass if you have a hunting license or a brood of kids or if you play piano or wear sweater vests. I want to know that you have great ideas, and a vision for this country that approximates mine, and a solid, practical plan for how to get us there.

I've said it before - if Stephane Dion, for all his intellect and ideals and bold, forward-looking vision turns out to be unelectable in this country simply because he has a heavy accent, it will say more about us than it does about him. Gods help us all.

The Blog Wars Claim Another Victim

Congratulations to BigCityLib for digging up that nasty hairball Conservative candidate and handgun fan Chris Reid coughed up and subsequently tried to shove down the memory hole.

(Note to Conservative bloggers: the internet never forgets.)

Reid has now withdrawn his candidacy, claiming that he "would not be able to "commit" to a four-year term in office". Right. Because he apparently realized just this weekend that he had about a .042% chance of beating the incumbent - Bob Rae.

I find it curious that Reid chose this particular time to shut down the comments on his blog, and then delete the blog all together. It makes me wonder if he and Lisa Raitt might have received the same memo from the Ministry of Truth that Garth Turner got two years ago.

More later...

Dueling Experts

Impolitical raised an interesting question today as she surveyed the numerous highly qualified economic experts who have concluded that Harper's whole "The Green Shift will destroy the economy" meme is utter bollocks.

She questions whether the Liberals are doing enough to inform people of these expert opinions, and asks

"whether such independent expertise will be legitimately valued by the Canadian public as the election proceeds or whether there will be lazy succumbing to Conservative fearmongering".

In short, no - I don't believe such expertise would be valued by the public even if the Liberals ran ads featuring it a hundred times a day from now until the 14th. But is it laziness? I thought about it, and while that is undoubtedly part of the problem, I'm not sure that's all there is to it.

I suspect it has more to do with an inability to think critically.

Critical thinking requires not only an analysis and synthesis of available information, but an ability to discern between varying qualities of information based on the quality of the source. A critical thinker would, for example, give more weight and consideration to multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies on the effects of fluoridated water than, say, something your friend sent you in an email.

This would seem to be self-evident, but the persistence of such idiotic notions as "Global warming is caused by sunspots" and "Obama is a Muslim" in public discourse speaks volumes about the public's inability to distinguish fact from rumour, and expertise from hackery.

(I'm sorry - I've been sitting here watching "The Grapes of Wrath" on CBC, and the next thing I know I'm having to suffer through not one, not two, but THREE consecutive sweater-wearing Steven Harper ads during the commercial break. The cognitive dissonance just made me throw up in my mouth a little. Anyway...)

I'm not sure who or what is to blame for this shocking inability to tell the difference between smart people and idiots. Part of it may be a failing in our education system. Part is a creeping anti-intellectualism that started with Nixon at the end of the sixties and has infected North American consciousness ever since. Part may well be the media's insistence on giving equal time and weight to both sides of any given issue, even if one side is entirely out of its weight class. As in, "Next on CNN, physicist Stephen Hawking faces off against the President of the Flat Earth Society".

Jim Travers ran an op-ed in the Star today that may offer some insight.

Beating up elites is almost always better politics than talking down to voters. So if it weren't for extraordinary events it would be no surprise at all that this election's question mark is the size of the approaching Conservative victory. But these are suddenly turbulent times that in theory should be raising doubts that Harper's preferred role for government, a role drawing heavily on coffee shop wisdom, is the best one to pull Canada through.

... Only voters can decide and it's to Harper's considerable advantage that they don't have much time to mull variables. Consensus forms slowly around complex issues – balancing the federal budget took nearly a decade to rise to the top of national priorities – and the issues now muscling their way into public consciousness weave tightly through the very nature and purpose of 21st-century government.

Harper's other advantage is Dion. Electioneering isn't primarily about policies, it's about character and identity, and Conservatives are far superior to Liberals in making voters comfortable with their leader. Harper is positioned as Everyman driving kids to the rink in a Chevy minivan – as if he didn't have a chauffeured limousine. Dion is the nerd carpooling academics to a symposium in a Volvo wagon – as if he didn't have a government Prius.

There's more to Harper and Dion than either stereotype. Still, there's no evidence yet that Conservatives were wrong to assume that voters are happier being told what they already know by politicians than what they should think by experts.

Someone else (I wish I could remember who) also pointed out today that people are always more inclined to accept information when it serves to confirm that which they already think they know. He got himself ragged upon as I recall.

Al Gore has a lot of answers in his extraordinary book, "The Assault on Reason". Go. Read. I'm going to bed. I can't take the end of "The Grapes of Wrath" right now.

It looks too much like the future.

Conservatives to Target NDP, Greens

I'm not at all sure what to make of this:

Tories change campaign target to aim at NDP, Greens

OTTAWA - The Conservatives said Sunday they are refocusing their primary aim on the NDP and the Green Party, citing them as a bigger threat to their reelection than the Liberals.

The Tories explained their dramatic shift in strategy, coming as the second week of the federal election begins, as being due to NDP Leader Jack Layton's rising popularity over that of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's main target last week.

But the Conservatives also said that the NDP and Green Party are making significant inroads, not only in British Columbia and parts of the Prairies but in northern and southwestern Ontario.

I'm trying to think of any way in which this would actually benefit the Conservatives. After all, of all the NDP supporters I know, I can't think of one of them who wouldn't rather gnaw of their own leg than vote for Stephen Harper. If they suddenly became disenchanted with Jack Layton (and some of them have), they might vote Green or Liberal, but never, ever Conservative.

The only thing I can think of is if some of the hardcore union types would consider the Conservatives a viable alternative. I don't know. Perhaps some of you Blogging Dippers can enlighten me. I've probably been a little sheltered in my GTA cocoon, but most of the NDP supporters I know are more latte than lunch bucket.

BTW, I've mentioned this before but I should probably say it again. I have no problem with the NDP. I used to vote NDP on a regular basis, and would happily do so again. I have some problems with Jack Layton, but if it even came down to a choice between him and Harper, I'd pick Layton in a heartbeat. So if things ever got to the point where the NDP became the official opposition and voting for them became our best chance of getting rid of Harper, then... well...

Happily, I don't think we're there yet. But things sure are getting interesting.

This Just Keeps Getting Better

Harper must have woken up this morning, checked the headlines and wondered, "Is it too late to change my mind?"

Canada squeaks past recession as GDP rebounds

OTTAWA -- Canada's economy limped ahead in the second quarter barely enough to avoid the first recession in 17 years, recording the thinnest of gains after a much worse winter quarter than previously believed.

But with Statistics Canada sharply revising downward it's first quarter tally on gross domestic product to a negative 0.8 per cent, the modest 0.3 per cent gain in the March-June period meant that the economy actually contracted during the first six months of 2008.

It constitutes the worst performance by the economy since 1991...

.....


Ottawa wanted U.S. to accept more lenient meat inspection regime

OTTAWA — The Canadian government strongly opposed tougher U.S. rules to prevent listeria and lobbied the United States to accept Canada's more lenient standards, internal documents reveal.

Briefing notes prepared by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for an April 7, 2006, meeting with the board of directors of the Canadian Meat Council outline how both industry and the Canadian government were frustrated with the increased precautions the United States was demanding.

Specifically, Canada opposed daily inspection visits and the testing of finished products for Listeria monocytogenes.

.....


Walkerton mayor calls for public inquiry on listeria outbreak

OTTAWA — The Mayor of Walkerton, Ont. is calling for a public inquiry into the outbreak of listeria, saying he cannot believe lessons failed to be learned from the tainted water tragedy that killed seven people in May 2000.

Mayor Charlie Bagnato released a statement today decrying the current outbreak as “outrageous” and noting that some of the cabinet ministers who were in the Ontario government in 2000 are now in the federal cabinet.

.....

Tories' arts cuts spark ire in Quebec

The recent Conservative cuts to arts and culture have done what neither the pursuit of the unpopular Afghan war nor the demise of the Kyoto Protocol had accomplished: wake up a sleeping Quebec giant that is now gathering strength for a show of force in the upcoming election campaign.

In the swift-changing Quebec political narrative, the controversy is shaping up to offer the Liberals their best chance to rise from the dead in the province. By putting the axe to a host of cultural programs on the eve of a probable campaign, Stephen Harper's Conservatives may have given Stéphane Dion the kiss of life in Quebec.

Let's see... the Liberals need seats in Ontario, Quebec and BC. All three have active arts, film and television industries. All three have suffered listeriosis cases. Ontario and Quebec are already feeling the effects of a looming recession. Ontario remembers Walkerton. Quebec is full of disenchanted ex-Bloc voters looking for a new home.

Oh, yeah - and urban BCers haven't been reacting at all well to those Conservative ten-percenters about the nasty "junkies". Or to Tony Clement's asinine comments about safe injection sites.

If Dion just keeps picking at those sores while presenting a clear, comprehensive plan to lead us in a new direction, I think the results might just surprise everyone. Then again, anything can happen in 36 days. That's why politics is my favourite sport!

____________________

BTW, I found this comment by Harper to be very interesting...

The most common definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of shrinking economic output, but Mr. Harper said this wouldn't worry him because it would only be a "technical recession," while Canada's outlook is strong.

"Even if it's true, I don't think it's a real recession. ... There are job losses, but overall employment is pretty stable."

... especially when you compare it to this statement by John McCain's top economic advisor:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

Don't worry. Be happy.

Tick Tock Chess: Harper Moves His Queen

Well, that solves THAT problem:

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

August 26, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to Represent Canada at the Paralympic Games Opening Ceremony

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that His Honour the Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, will represent Canada at the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games, to be held on September 6, 2008.

The Lieutenant Governor will travel to China instead of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

Unbelievable.

Tick Tock

David Akin has the timeline for the next month and a half all laid out for handy reference, and thereby answers the rhetorical question everyone is asking themselves today: Gee, Steve, what's the hurry?

Here's a clue:

Sept. 5 - Latest date Governor General Michaelle Jean heads to Beijing for Paralympics.
Sept. 11 - Governor General Michaelle Jean back in Ottawa (and ready to dissolve Parliament, if need be.)

Not only are those two dates on either side of the by-elections on the 9th, but if you count forward 36+ days from when Harper seems to want the writ dropped (the 5th), and given that an election will be on a weekday, you end up with October 13th or 14th as the earliest election day.

If he doesn't manage to catch Jean before she leaves for China, then we'd be looking at October 20th. What happens between those two dates?

Oct. 14 - Tentative release date for Julie Couillard's autobiography

There ya go. Not the whole answer, but certainly one of the more entertaining scenarios.

Inspector Clouseau Does Digby

I just love those politicians from down east - they have such a colourful way of expressing themselves. That, and their low tolerance for bullshit.

The Liberals knew right away who the stranger was - Michael White, 28, a long-time senior communications aide to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan who recently joined the Harper PMO as a media officer.

"He's wandering around looking like Fifi hit Paris in Digby," Saint John MP Paul Zed said

Mr. Zed said Mr. White was "pretending to be a tourist" but did not get into any meetings or attend receptions.

"This is like Richard Nixon and the dirty tricks department of Donald Segretti," Mr. Zed said. "I mean it makes no sense. If the guy wanted to come into the room, all he had to do is take off his secret squirrel outfit.

Heh.

_________________

On another topic entirely, RealNews has this excellent video explaining the many ways in which "clean coal" is an utter fraud. If you are an American and a Democrat, could you please forward a copy of this to Barack Obama and BEG him to remove this nonsense from his energy platform? Thank you.

Barbara Boxer is My Hero

You may recall this incident back in January down at the U.S. Senate Environment Committee. At the time, Senator Barbara Boxer took EPA head Stephen Johnson to task for his decision to deny the State of California a waiver allowing them to independently impose stricter GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act. This, despite the unanimous recommendation by his own staff that the waiver be granted.

At the time, Johnson was taking some pretty extraordinary obstructionist measures to cover his own ass and the asses of his bosses in the Whitehouse - including covering relevant documents with reams of white tape.



Today, Sen. Boxer and her fellow Committee members finally decided they'd had enough and formally called for Administrator Johnson's resignation.

"Mr. Johnson has consistently chosen special interests over the American people's interests in protecting health and safety. He has become a secretive and dangerous ally of polluters, and we cannot stand by and allow more damage to be done. We have lost all confidence in Stephen Johnson's ability to carry out EPA's mission in accordance with the law. I call on Administrator Johnson to immediately resign his position."

On top of all that, they are also calling upon the Attorney General to investigate "inconsistencies" in Johnson's testimony that could potentially lead to charges of perjury.

In sworn testimony before the Committee, Administrator Johnson stated that he based his decision on California's failure to meet criteria required under the Clean Air Act, and said that the decision was "mine and mine alone."

... However, former Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett testified last week that Mr. Johnson had in fact determined that California had met Clean Air Act criteria necessary for approval of the waiver, and had communicated to the Administration that he intended to grant the waiver in part. Mr. Burnett further testified that Administrator Johnson only reversed course and denied the waiver after White House officials informed him of President Bush's "policy preference" for a single regulatory system - even though the Clean Air Act clearly contemplates a dual system in cases where the statutory criteria for the waiver are met.

Wow. It's all starting to come apart, isn't it? Makes you wonder how many other Bush loyalists who were 'just following orders' might find themselves facing charges in the months and years to come.

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

Stephen Harper just bought himself a province today. Cheap. So, how much is a province worth these days?

Oh, about $800 million or so.

N.S. to get $870M from feds in Crown share dispute

Nova Scotia will be receiving a windfall of about $870 million as part of a deal resolving the Crown share dispute over offshore oil royalties with the federal government.

... [N.S. Premier] MacDonald spoke to CTV Newsnet Sunday and said that the deal puts to rest a dispute that goes back to 1986, when Ottawa promised to compensate the province for giving up its ownership interest in offshore oil and gas revenues.

"I can't tell you how excited I am, not only for today's announcement, but for what it means for the future of our province," he said.

I'll bet you are. Still, $870 million is a big chunk of change. Gee, I wonder how the Conservatives are going to pay for all that...

Sask. drops legal challenge of equalization

Saskatchewan's government is dropping a court challenge of the federal equalization program, saying the case has been "the elephant in the room" in talks with Ottawa.

The government will withdraw a reference the previous NDP administration made to the provincial Court of Appeal, Saskatchewan Party Justice Minister Don Morgan said Thursday.

Morgan said the challenge has been hampering federal-provincial negotiations.

... There have also been suggestions from Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Saskatchewan drop the case. Premier Brad Wall has said Harper "made it clear" in a meeting in January that the legal challenge should be withdrawn. Wall said he took it under advisement.

... At stake is about $800 million in federal transfers annually, according to provincial calculations.

Mind you, that's $800 million per year, so there should still be plenty left over to buy BC, the rest of the Maritimes, and whatever they can bribe out of Ontario and Quebec.

As I mentioned in the comments over at Garth's place, the west doesn't need Stephane Dion and the Liberals to screw them. The Conservatives they keep electing are doing a fine job of fucking them over already.