Friday, October 26, 2007
The Pure Politics of Harper's Senate Plan
Harper's plan to “Reform” the senate is perverse and entirely political. Being unable to “reform” the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing effective Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out an 8 year term. The problem is that people already in the senate would be free to serve until the age of 75. On the face of it the result of such nonsense would be either to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power, or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. None of those options are palatable, maybe not even to Harper. What I think Harper hopes to happen that is this. He will argue that only senators who were duely elected have any sort of legitimacy. Such being the case, he will argue that those unelected senators should resign, with the option of running in a future election. Many will refuse to do so and most, if not all, of those will be Liberal senators and presto Harper will have an issue by which to attack the Liberals.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Are the Liberals Masochists?
After the Quebec bye elections all the talk was about how the Liberals are self destructing. Now it is how long the Liberals can take the daily humiliation of keeping the government alive for no other reason then to save their electoral hides. You would think that the Liberal party would try to change the channel by introducing some headline grabbing measure, but alas. The Liberal party brass is either temperamentally conservative to the point of absurdity, or they are a bunch of masochists. Well, at least Dion has not embarked upon a “mad as hell tour”.
From a Policy Standpoint, The Conservatives are not a Serious Party
It has hard to take the Conservatives seriously from a policy standpoint.
Their crime bill is ridiculed by criminologists.
Their environment plan is dismissed by environmentalists as nothing more than window dressing.
Their plan to cut the GST is ridiculed by economists
….
For the entity formerly known as the “New government of Canada”, sound policy is not a distant second to politics; it is altogether irrelevant. In this respect, the entity formerly known as the “New government of Canada” resembles the Bush administration more than perhaps any other government around.
Their crime bill is ridiculed by criminologists.
Their environment plan is dismissed by environmentalists as nothing more than window dressing.
Their plan to cut the GST is ridiculed by economists
….
For the entity formerly known as the “New government of Canada”, sound policy is not a distant second to politics; it is altogether irrelevant. In this respect, the entity formerly known as the “New government of Canada” resembles the Bush administration more than perhaps any other government around.
Conservatives' perverse plan to Reform the Senate
The Reform people have always wanted to have cake and eat it too when it came to the senate. On the one hand they are argued the current senate is undemocratic. And on the other hand they have argued that the senate is “ineffective”. The problem is a body that adds nothing to the genuine "effective" democratic process can not take away anything either.
Still, that begs the question: would Canada be better off with two “effective” houses? The answer is of course not. As Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. This should be obvious. It certainly was obvious to the original supporters of the senate. The name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, is very telling in that regard. The purpose of having a House of Lords was to check the will of common people. One of the main purposes of the Canadian senate, which was modeled after the British system, was to do the same.
The class based nature of the senate has long since been forgotten though and we are left with a corpse destined to provide regional representation. Some believe that the regions need more say and an “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving such a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on a rep by pop basis, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously ony has 1 MP. The second reason is that comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. It is comparing apples to oranges. What one should be comparing is the political resources of people in any two ridings. When one does this it is abundantly clear that people in Canada’s urban centers in particular are getting the short end of the stick and that people living in the less populous regions of the country already have far more clout on a per person basis by virtue of the fact that the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in which they are a member or far less populous. Indeed, PEI and its population of 135,851 and 4 MPs, as a province, has revenue streams available to it that are simply not available to Oak Ridges Markham and its population of 169, 642 and 1 MP. Oak Ridges Markham does not get Federal transfer payments for one. Empowering 4 PEI senators to represent the interests of 135,851 people while only empowering 24 Ontario Senators to represent the interests of 12.1 million Ontarians simply adds insult to injury. It is also grossly undemocratic.
Update
I should have mentioned that even the means by which Harper hopes to “Reform” the senate is perverse. Being unable to “reform” the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. It is hard to image a dumber idea. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The problem is that people already in the senate would be free to serve until the age of 75. As a result the effect of such nonsense could be either to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power.
Still, that begs the question: would Canada be better off with two “effective” houses? The answer is of course not. As Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. This should be obvious. It certainly was obvious to the original supporters of the senate. The name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, is very telling in that regard. The purpose of having a House of Lords was to check the will of common people. One of the main purposes of the Canadian senate, which was modeled after the British system, was to do the same.
The class based nature of the senate has long since been forgotten though and we are left with a corpse destined to provide regional representation. Some believe that the regions need more say and an “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving such a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on a rep by pop basis, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously ony has 1 MP. The second reason is that comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. It is comparing apples to oranges. What one should be comparing is the political resources of people in any two ridings. When one does this it is abundantly clear that people in Canada’s urban centers in particular are getting the short end of the stick and that people living in the less populous regions of the country already have far more clout on a per person basis by virtue of the fact that the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in which they are a member or far less populous. Indeed, PEI and its population of 135,851 and 4 MPs, as a province, has revenue streams available to it that are simply not available to Oak Ridges Markham and its population of 169, 642 and 1 MP. Oak Ridges Markham does not get Federal transfer payments for one. Empowering 4 PEI senators to represent the interests of 135,851 people while only empowering 24 Ontario Senators to represent the interests of 12.1 million Ontarians simply adds insult to injury. It is also grossly undemocratic.
Update
I should have mentioned that even the means by which Harper hopes to “Reform” the senate is perverse. Being unable to “reform” the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. It is hard to image a dumber idea. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The problem is that people already in the senate would be free to serve until the age of 75. As a result the effect of such nonsense could be either to transform an unelected political body with no power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Senate Politics
Harper introduced the anti-terrorism bill in the Senate. So much for the senate being the chamber of "sober second thought". By the way, I wonder if the irony of those words were lost on MacDonald when he said them.
So why is Harper doing this? He is would like nothing better for the Liberal senate to touch his bill. Can he regard a senate vote as a matter of confidence? Make no mistake the Conservatives are tactically smart.
So why is Harper doing this? He is would like nothing better for the Liberal senate to touch his bill. Can he regard a senate vote as a matter of confidence? Make no mistake the Conservatives are tactically smart.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
"The Dion-endorsed Green Party will blow your mind"
This is on the Conservative website
http://conservative.ca/EN/2874/90714
HT http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/
May I sugggest the following caption: "Why not?"
False Liberal Optimism
Yes the Liberals are within 3 or 4 points in most National polls. However this is no cause of optimism. The Liberal situation is dire and policy overhaul is needed.
About the polls 4 things should be noted. One, the Conservative Party has more potential for growth than the Liberals. While the Liberals have remained stuck at around 30 for almost 2 years, the Conservatives numbers are up and down, Two, the Bloc vote looks like it is soft and while there are signs the Conservatives are positioned to pick up a Bloc voters outside of urban Montreal, there is no signs that the Liberals stand to pick up any of the Bloc vote, inside urban Montreal or outside, if it indeed collapses. Three, the Conservatives have more money and better ground presence than the Liberals. Four, Conservative vote is more efficient than the Liberal vote. Now, granted if you take away Alberta most polls would show the Liberals leading in the rest of the country. However, what Liberal supporters forget if you take away Toronto, Conservatives are ahead in the rest of the country. Moreover the Conservatives are competitive in virtually every province now. Last election they were above 30% in every province except two. In Quebec they were at 24.6% and in Nova Scotia they were at 29.69%. By comparison, the Liberals were at 27.6% in BC, 15.3% in Alberta, 22.4% in Sask. 26% in Manitoba and 20.7% in Quebec. In other words, in terms of population and in terms of the Provinces, in half the country the Liberals are well under 30%.
If Dion and company think they can win the next election without a major policy overhaul, they are delusional. The Liberals can start by going back to the modern roots of the Liberal party, i.e., social democracy and social liberalism. The last time the Liberals captured the imagination of British Columbians, for example, was when Person and later Trudeau were pushing ahead with Medicare, CPP and liberalizing divorce and abortion laws, and kicking the police out of the country’s bedrooms. The Liberals have made a fuss about the Conservatives taking steps to confine Federal government spending to, really, funding the military. However, they have not proposed the very kind of policies that Harper seeks to outlaw. Propose a universal dental Care. Propose a national pharmacare program the way the NDP are. By the way, if the Liberals think the can win over the hearts and minds of Canadians by reintroducing a child care plan that does not even come close to addressing the problem of a lack of affordable child care in this country, they deserve to loose. Go universal, or do not bother. It is time to bring the era of conservative Liberalism to an end.
About the polls 4 things should be noted. One, the Conservative Party has more potential for growth than the Liberals. While the Liberals have remained stuck at around 30 for almost 2 years, the Conservatives numbers are up and down, Two, the Bloc vote looks like it is soft and while there are signs the Conservatives are positioned to pick up a Bloc voters outside of urban Montreal, there is no signs that the Liberals stand to pick up any of the Bloc vote, inside urban Montreal or outside, if it indeed collapses. Three, the Conservatives have more money and better ground presence than the Liberals. Four, Conservative vote is more efficient than the Liberal vote. Now, granted if you take away Alberta most polls would show the Liberals leading in the rest of the country. However, what Liberal supporters forget if you take away Toronto, Conservatives are ahead in the rest of the country. Moreover the Conservatives are competitive in virtually every province now. Last election they were above 30% in every province except two. In Quebec they were at 24.6% and in Nova Scotia they were at 29.69%. By comparison, the Liberals were at 27.6% in BC, 15.3% in Alberta, 22.4% in Sask. 26% in Manitoba and 20.7% in Quebec. In other words, in terms of population and in terms of the Provinces, in half the country the Liberals are well under 30%.
If Dion and company think they can win the next election without a major policy overhaul, they are delusional. The Liberals can start by going back to the modern roots of the Liberal party, i.e., social democracy and social liberalism. The last time the Liberals captured the imagination of British Columbians, for example, was when Person and later Trudeau were pushing ahead with Medicare, CPP and liberalizing divorce and abortion laws, and kicking the police out of the country’s bedrooms. The Liberals have made a fuss about the Conservatives taking steps to confine Federal government spending to, really, funding the military. However, they have not proposed the very kind of policies that Harper seeks to outlaw. Propose a universal dental Care. Propose a national pharmacare program the way the NDP are. By the way, if the Liberals think the can win over the hearts and minds of Canadians by reintroducing a child care plan that does not even come close to addressing the problem of a lack of affordable child care in this country, they deserve to loose. Go universal, or do not bother. It is time to bring the era of conservative Liberalism to an end.
Liberal Prospects in BC; the Numbers
The Liberals are not in particularly good shape in BC. Their vote is very inefficient and in only one riding, Nina Grewal in Fleetwood-Port Kells, are they within striking distance (within 5,000 votes) of a Conservative MP. Needless to say, the Liberals are also in good shape to pick up David Emerson’s seat. By contrast, the Conservatives are well within striking distance of 5 Liberal MPs, Don Bell in North Vancouver, Blair Wilson, in West Vancouver, Raymond Chan in Richmond, Keith Martin in Esquimalt Juan de Fuca and Sukh Dhaliwal in Newton-North Delta.
The Liberals are in better shape when compared to the NDP. The NDP are within striking distance of Sukh Dhaliwal, and Keith Martin and they finished within 5,000 of David Emerson. However the Liberals are within striking distance of Bill Siksay in Burnaby Douglas and Peter Julian in Burnaby-New Westminster
Realistically, the high water mark the Liberals would be 11 seats in BC or 2 more than the won in 2006 and three more than they have now. On the flip side of things, the Liberals could be reduced to 3 seats in BC.
Update
I should have mentioned this right off the top.
1993 28.1 6 seats of 32 seats
1997 28.8 6 seats of 34 seats
2000 27.7 5 seats of 34 seats
2004 28.6 8 seats of 36 seats
2006 27.6 9 seats of 36 seats
The Liberal numbers in terms of the popular vote have been remarkably consistent for the province as a whole, but have gone up in places in the lower mainland at the expense of some of other parts of the province making the Liberal vote more efficient. I do not see any prospect for any kind of Liberal surge.
One has to go back all the way back to 1974 to see the Liberals above 30% in BC and the Liberals last won BC in 1968. That year they took 16 of 25 seats and took the popular vote with 41.6% of the vote. It should be noted that PCs were shut out that year and won a mere 18.9% of the vote the worst total in any province of Territory. By contrast the PCs won Alberta that year with 51% of the popular vote and 15 of 19 seats. The NDP had won BC in 1962, 63, 65 and 72. Outside of 1988, when the NDP took the province, since then, BC has been PC, Reform and Conservative.
The Liberals are in better shape when compared to the NDP. The NDP are within striking distance of Sukh Dhaliwal, and Keith Martin and they finished within 5,000 of David Emerson. However the Liberals are within striking distance of Bill Siksay in Burnaby Douglas and Peter Julian in Burnaby-New Westminster
Realistically, the high water mark the Liberals would be 11 seats in BC or 2 more than the won in 2006 and three more than they have now. On the flip side of things, the Liberals could be reduced to 3 seats in BC.
Update
I should have mentioned this right off the top.
1993 28.1 6 seats of 32 seats
1997 28.8 6 seats of 34 seats
2000 27.7 5 seats of 34 seats
2004 28.6 8 seats of 36 seats
2006 27.6 9 seats of 36 seats
The Liberal numbers in terms of the popular vote have been remarkably consistent for the province as a whole, but have gone up in places in the lower mainland at the expense of some of other parts of the province making the Liberal vote more efficient. I do not see any prospect for any kind of Liberal surge.
One has to go back all the way back to 1974 to see the Liberals above 30% in BC and the Liberals last won BC in 1968. That year they took 16 of 25 seats and took the popular vote with 41.6% of the vote. It should be noted that PCs were shut out that year and won a mere 18.9% of the vote the worst total in any province of Territory. By contrast the PCs won Alberta that year with 51% of the popular vote and 15 of 19 seats. The NDP had won BC in 1962, 63, 65 and 72. Outside of 1988, when the NDP took the province, since then, BC has been PC, Reform and Conservative.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Merits of the Throne Speech
Lost in the election speculation is just how bad the throne speech was. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/16/4581279-cp.html
There is hardly any proposal worth supporting. The Crime package: The mandatory minimums, for example, might appeal to Joe and Jane law and order and might be good politics, but they are disastrous stupid policy. The same can be said about the Conservatives environmental policies. The Conservatives intensity emissions based plan is a joke and the fact that the Conservatives are right to point out that Canada has no hope of meeting its Kyoto targets should not warrent the free pass the media is giving them on the subject. I can not think of single columnist or reporter that pointed out the obvious flaws of such an policy. That is not the only the thing media has given the Stephen Harper a pass on. Indeed, is the media so mesmerized by Stephen Harper’s tactical acumen that they let the Conservatives get repeatedly get away with ridiculous stupid talking points? For instance:
“Families now have real choice in child care through the Universal Child Care Benefit.”
Repeat after me; $100 a month is not a childcare plan. It is a redo of the family allowance, that Brain Mulroney, much to Stephen Harper’s delight, scrapped in the 1993. Harper, it should be noted, was against his “childcare” plan before he was for it. Stephen Harper: “Universality has been severely reduced: It is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. The family allowance program has been eliminated and unemployment insurance has been seriously cut back." http://www.canadians.org/wordwarriors/2006/jan-10.html He “flipped flopped”.
There is hardly any proposal worth supporting. The Crime package: The mandatory minimums, for example, might appeal to Joe and Jane law and order and might be good politics, but they are disastrous stupid policy. The same can be said about the Conservatives environmental policies. The Conservatives intensity emissions based plan is a joke and the fact that the Conservatives are right to point out that Canada has no hope of meeting its Kyoto targets should not warrent the free pass the media is giving them on the subject. I can not think of single columnist or reporter that pointed out the obvious flaws of such an policy. That is not the only the thing media has given the Stephen Harper a pass on. Indeed, is the media so mesmerized by Stephen Harper’s tactical acumen that they let the Conservatives get repeatedly get away with ridiculous stupid talking points? For instance:
“Families now have real choice in child care through the Universal Child Care Benefit.”
Repeat after me; $100 a month is not a childcare plan. It is a redo of the family allowance, that Brain Mulroney, much to Stephen Harper’s delight, scrapped in the 1993. Harper, it should be noted, was against his “childcare” plan before he was for it. Stephen Harper: “Universality has been severely reduced: It is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. The family allowance program has been eliminated and unemployment insurance has been seriously cut back." http://www.canadians.org/wordwarriors/2006/jan-10.html He “flipped flopped”.
Google: Canada 1 # in “marijuana” and “Tom Cruise” searches.
"BERLIN, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Internet users in Egypt, India and Turkey are the world's most frequent searchers for Web sites using the keyword "sex" on Google search engines, according to statistics provided by Google Inc.
Germany, Mexico and Austria were world's top three searchers of the word "Hitler" while "Nazi" scored the most hits in Chile, Australia and the United Kingdom, data from 2004 to the present retrievable on the "Google Trends" Web site showed.
Chile also came in first place searching for the word "gay", followed by Mexico and Colombia.
The top searchers for other keywords were as follows (in order from first to third place):"
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSPAR75016820071017?pageNumber=1
Germany, Mexico and Austria were world's top three searchers of the word "Hitler" while "Nazi" scored the most hits in Chile, Australia and the United Kingdom, data from 2004 to the present retrievable on the "Google Trends" Web site showed.
Chile also came in first place searching for the word "gay", followed by Mexico and Colombia.
The top searchers for other keywords were as follows (in order from first to third place):"
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSPAR75016820071017?pageNumber=1
Dion Fails to Inspire
Dion needed to lay down some semblance of a vision and give some hope to the party faithful. He failed miserably.
He leveled the same tired and worn out criticisms and promised more of the same tepid policies. To date the only thing the Liberals have offered the faithful is the promise of “deep” corporate tax cuts. Harper mocked the political optics of such a move and so shall I. The Liberals are not going to out tax cut the Conservatives. If this the best the party can offer, they are doomed to loose the next election and doomed to loose badly.
It is hard to believe this hopelessly temperamentally conservative party was once lead by Trudeau. I have no trouble, however, believing that it was once lead by Paul Martin and John Turner and neither do other Canadians.
He leveled the same tired and worn out criticisms and promised more of the same tepid policies. To date the only thing the Liberals have offered the faithful is the promise of “deep” corporate tax cuts. Harper mocked the political optics of such a move and so shall I. The Liberals are not going to out tax cut the Conservatives. If this the best the party can offer, they are doomed to loose the next election and doomed to loose badly.
It is hard to believe this hopelessly temperamentally conservative party was once lead by Trudeau. I have no trouble, however, believing that it was once lead by Paul Martin and John Turner and neither do other Canadians.
Harper calls The Liberals out on Afghanistan.
The Liberals have tried very hard to muddy the Afghan waters. They have said that they want to see Canada abandon its combat role in Kandahar province by February 2009. They have not, however, said that this means they want to see Canadian troops out of Kandahar by 2009. Stephen Harper called them out. He said the current Kandahar mission is curently focused on training and thereby implied that the Liberals can call the mission what they will it will involve combat so long as Canada is in Kandahar. He all but went on to say that the current mission, whatever the Liberals want to call it, will continue until 2011. I am glad he did this. It is high time Liberal Party commit to pulling Canadian troops out of Kandahar province by February 2009. If they think Canadians, especially Quebecers, will be fooled if they leave the troops in Kandahar province and proclaim the mission a non combat one, they are delusional. So long as Canadian troops are in Kandahar province, they will see combat.
G&M’s Jeffrey Simpson right “It's time to draw a federal line in the parliamentary sandbox”
“Or maybe Mr. Dion will pick a social program - national pharmacare, say - and stand on the other side of Mr. Harper's line by insisting Ottawa use its constitutionally affirmed spending power to negotiate a federal-provincial deal in an area of direct concern to all citizens.
It would be a fine national debate. On one side would stand the Conservatives opposing pharmacare as (a) an expensive, unnecessary program, (b) an intrusion into the sacred provincial jurisdiction over health, (c) a further expansion of government into the lives of Canadians, and (d) an insult to Quebec.
On the other would stand the Liberals proposing pharmacare as (a) a necessary extension of medicare, (b) a program once supported by at least five premiers during Mr. Martin's time as prime minister, (c) an affirmation of the federal government's relevance to citizens, and (d) the best way to restrain soaring drug costs.”
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071017/COSIMP17/Columnists/columnists/columnistsNational/1/1/3/
It would be a fine national debate. On one side would stand the Conservatives opposing pharmacare as (a) an expensive, unnecessary program, (b) an intrusion into the sacred provincial jurisdiction over health, (c) a further expansion of government into the lives of Canadians, and (d) an insult to Quebec.
On the other would stand the Liberals proposing pharmacare as (a) a necessary extension of medicare, (b) a program once supported by at least five premiers during Mr. Martin's time as prime minister, (c) an affirmation of the federal government's relevance to citizens, and (d) the best way to restrain soaring drug costs.”
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071017/COSIMP17/Columnists/columnists/columnistsNational/1/1/3/
Universal Dental Care: It is Time
Justice Emmet Hall, whose 1964 report in many ways formed the foundation for Medicare , recommended that dental care be included. It is time Liberal Party commit itself to making Emmet Hall’s vision for a better healthy and fairer Canada more of a reality.
In Case Of An Election, Signs That Blogsephere Has Come Of Age.
It remains to be seen how big an impact the blogsephere might have on the next Federal election. However one sign that the blogsephere has arrived is if Layton employs the same target the Liberals first strategy that he employed during the last election, and there is some kind of popular black lash. Bloggers of all progressive stripes will not react kindly to such a strategy and will be the first to let Layton know.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Liberal's Political Hand: Policy
Atlantic Accord: The Atlantic Accord is good short term politics, terrible long term politics and even worse policy. Judging by all available evidence the Harper Williams feud will likely mean a Liberal sweep of Newfoundland. In this respect it without a doubt good short term politics. However, the absurdity of not including oil revenues as part of the equalization calculations is really beyond description. One can only wonder what kind of firestorm political and otherwise would be set off, if Alberta were to ask for similar deal.
Kyoto Accord: The Conservatives announced that the targets set under the Kyoto protocol are unattainable. The opposition parties disagree and there will be a lot of righteous indignation heard from them over this. The thing is, though, the targets are unattainable. Canada is not going to meet the 2012 Kyoto targets without buying emission credits and this just will not sell domestically. That is just the half off it. So long as Kyoto is the focus, the question will arise as to why Canada is not going to meet its targets and this will allow the Conservatives to offer up Liberal inaction as the reason why. There is no use going to war over something that is glaring false and the Liberals would do well to move on. Indeed, what the Liberals need to do is to focus the debate on how the various parties plan to reduce carbon emissions going forward. The Liberals have a plan, the semblance of a plan anyway, and the Conservatives have potential political piñata known as intensity based emissions. Call into question the effectiveness of the Conservative plan and then sit back and watch as environmentalists, academics, pundits and yes bloggers break it into a million pieces. Under intense scrutiny, I give such a plan no more than month and half, maybe two. As for the other parties, the Bloc’s reason for being means it is no position to offer up a plan and the NDP poise no realistic challenge to the Conservatives. Whether they have a good plan or not is moot. The NDP will not win the next election. The underlying message is thus this. Only the Liberals are both able and willing to tackle global warming and the Liberals will be in a position to commit Canada to the second round of Kyoto talks.
Early childhood education: The problem with the Liberals early childhood education was that it was not universal. As a result, the more the Liberals talked up the need for such a program the more inadequate and lackluster their proposal appeared and the attractive the Conservatives universal baby bonus became. Indeed many voters hedged their bets. They figured that a $1200 bird in their hand was better than 15% chance of nailing two in the bush. If the Liberals want to capture the imagination of Canadians by again promising an national early childhood education program they better make sure that they are able to deliver universal program and that they are able to deliver and all at once.
Afghanistan: Until recently the Liberals did not even have any decent Afghan talking points. The childish and silly “its their turn” has at long last morphed into something much more weighty. It has become the following: If other NATO countries are unwilling to share the economic, political, and military costs of deploying in the South, the mission is doomed. Either way, Canada will abandon its military mission in the South under a Liberal government in 2009. Either because someone else has assumed the burden or no one has and the mission is doomed to fail. However the policy is yet to catch up to their talking points. Liberals are still hedging their bets and have yet to commit to pulling Canadian troops out of Kandahar province by 2009. The party is playing semantics and seems willing to sanction a deal with the Conservatives that would see Canadian troops stay in Kandahar, but not in a non combat role, as if this is distinction with difference. Such a policy might not have immediate short term implications, but the party should note that should it sanction a longer stay in Kandahar, no matter what role, the party base, especially what is left of it in Quebec, will never forgive them.
Kelowna Accord: I do not have anything positive to say about the Kelowna Accord. It is just more money thrown after bad. The root cause of native poverty is not a lack of government money, but can rather be sourced back to the emphasis placed on communal property to exclusion of private property and manner by which government monies are distributed by the bands. That said, the fact that Kelowna Accord does nothing to address the underlying causes of Native poverty does not mean that Native poverty is any the less real and any effort to fight poverty, however superficially, is usually welcomed by the public. Furthermore, there is political payoff to pursuing a policy that has been agreed upon by all the principle players.
“Deep” Corporate Tax Cuts: A small reduction, such as the one the Conservatives are suggesting, will do just fine thank you very much. The Canadian corporate earnings are higher than anywhere else in the industrialized world and cost of doing business in Canada is cheaper than in Britain, the US, Italy, Germany, Japan, France. The promise of corporate tax cuts is nothing new for the Liberals. Beginning in 2000 the Liberals cut the corporate tax rate by 8%. That said, the optics of such a cut look better in 2007 than they did in 2005 for two reasons. One, the dollar is real concern and two the Liberals have rolled out much more effective talking points this time around. Indeed, Dion all but short circuited Layton's most likely line of attack.
All and all, should the Liberals force an election anytime they would not exactly be playing with the strongest hand, both from a policy perspective and from political perspective.
Kyoto Accord: The Conservatives announced that the targets set under the Kyoto protocol are unattainable. The opposition parties disagree and there will be a lot of righteous indignation heard from them over this. The thing is, though, the targets are unattainable. Canada is not going to meet the 2012 Kyoto targets without buying emission credits and this just will not sell domestically. That is just the half off it. So long as Kyoto is the focus, the question will arise as to why Canada is not going to meet its targets and this will allow the Conservatives to offer up Liberal inaction as the reason why. There is no use going to war over something that is glaring false and the Liberals would do well to move on. Indeed, what the Liberals need to do is to focus the debate on how the various parties plan to reduce carbon emissions going forward. The Liberals have a plan, the semblance of a plan anyway, and the Conservatives have potential political piñata known as intensity based emissions. Call into question the effectiveness of the Conservative plan and then sit back and watch as environmentalists, academics, pundits and yes bloggers break it into a million pieces. Under intense scrutiny, I give such a plan no more than month and half, maybe two. As for the other parties, the Bloc’s reason for being means it is no position to offer up a plan and the NDP poise no realistic challenge to the Conservatives. Whether they have a good plan or not is moot. The NDP will not win the next election. The underlying message is thus this. Only the Liberals are both able and willing to tackle global warming and the Liberals will be in a position to commit Canada to the second round of Kyoto talks.
Early childhood education: The problem with the Liberals early childhood education was that it was not universal. As a result, the more the Liberals talked up the need for such a program the more inadequate and lackluster their proposal appeared and the attractive the Conservatives universal baby bonus became. Indeed many voters hedged their bets. They figured that a $1200 bird in their hand was better than 15% chance of nailing two in the bush. If the Liberals want to capture the imagination of Canadians by again promising an national early childhood education program they better make sure that they are able to deliver universal program and that they are able to deliver and all at once.
Afghanistan: Until recently the Liberals did not even have any decent Afghan talking points. The childish and silly “its their turn” has at long last morphed into something much more weighty. It has become the following: If other NATO countries are unwilling to share the economic, political, and military costs of deploying in the South, the mission is doomed. Either way, Canada will abandon its military mission in the South under a Liberal government in 2009. Either because someone else has assumed the burden or no one has and the mission is doomed to fail. However the policy is yet to catch up to their talking points. Liberals are still hedging their bets and have yet to commit to pulling Canadian troops out of Kandahar province by 2009. The party is playing semantics and seems willing to sanction a deal with the Conservatives that would see Canadian troops stay in Kandahar, but not in a non combat role, as if this is distinction with difference. Such a policy might not have immediate short term implications, but the party should note that should it sanction a longer stay in Kandahar, no matter what role, the party base, especially what is left of it in Quebec, will never forgive them.
Kelowna Accord: I do not have anything positive to say about the Kelowna Accord. It is just more money thrown after bad. The root cause of native poverty is not a lack of government money, but can rather be sourced back to the emphasis placed on communal property to exclusion of private property and manner by which government monies are distributed by the bands. That said, the fact that Kelowna Accord does nothing to address the underlying causes of Native poverty does not mean that Native poverty is any the less real and any effort to fight poverty, however superficially, is usually welcomed by the public. Furthermore, there is political payoff to pursuing a policy that has been agreed upon by all the principle players.
“Deep” Corporate Tax Cuts: A small reduction, such as the one the Conservatives are suggesting, will do just fine thank you very much. The Canadian corporate earnings are higher than anywhere else in the industrialized world and cost of doing business in Canada is cheaper than in Britain, the US, Italy, Germany, Japan, France. The promise of corporate tax cuts is nothing new for the Liberals. Beginning in 2000 the Liberals cut the corporate tax rate by 8%. That said, the optics of such a cut look better in 2007 than they did in 2005 for two reasons. One, the dollar is real concern and two the Liberals have rolled out much more effective talking points this time around. Indeed, Dion all but short circuited Layton's most likely line of attack.
"Some will say that a cut in corporate taxes is a right wing policy. I’m sure my friend Jack Layton will say this. But to believe this is to believe that Sweden, with its low corporate tax rate, is the hot bed of neo-conservatism while the United States, with its very high corporate tax rate, is a socialist paradise – or to quote Stephen Harper when he described Canada – “a second tier socialistic country”. A low corporate tax rate is not a right wing policy or a left wing policy. It is a sound policy."
All and all, should the Liberals force an election anytime they would not exactly be playing with the strongest hand, both from a policy perspective and from political perspective.
The Green Party Moves Around the NDP's Left Flank
With the release of their party platform, the Green Party has moved around the NDP’s left flank in two key areas and has matched the NDP in three other areas. In so doing the Green Party has challenged the NDP's claim to be Canada's most socially democratic party.
Whereas the NDP is still committed merely decriminalizing Marijuana, the Green party will legalize it.
Whereas the NDP remains silent on the "vacation gap” between Canada and Europe, the Green party will address the "vacation deficit" by giving Canadians an extra week of vacation a year.
The Green Party will match the NDP on several other issues.
Both the NDP and Green party support ban on all hand guns, semi automatic and fully automatic guns.
Both the NDP and Green party support a National pharmacare plan.
Both the NDP and Green party support a national $10 an hour minimum wage indexed to inflation.
Whereas the NDP is still committed merely decriminalizing Marijuana, the Green party will legalize it.
Whereas the NDP remains silent on the "vacation gap” between Canada and Europe, the Green party will address the "vacation deficit" by giving Canadians an extra week of vacation a year.
The Green Party will match the NDP on several other issues.
Both the NDP and Green party support ban on all hand guns, semi automatic and fully automatic guns.
Both the NDP and Green party support a National pharmacare plan.
Both the NDP and Green party support a national $10 an hour minimum wage indexed to inflation.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Liberals Should Take Their Lumps On Tuesday; In The Long Run They Will Be Better Off.
The Liberals have no choice but to suffer the humiliation of not voting against the throne speech on Tuesday and worse being the one party keeping the government alive for the next couple of months.
This is not all bad. Consider the so called poison pill: the Conservatives are going to announce that targets set under the Kyoto protocol are unattainable. The thing is they are unattainable. Canada is not going to meet the 2012 Kyoto targets without buying emission credits and this just will not sell domestically. That is just the half off it. So long as Kyoto is the focus, the question will arise as to why Canada is not going to meet its targets and this will allow the Conservatives to offer up Liberal inaction as the reason why. The Liberals need to focus the debate on how the various parties plan to reduce carbon emissions going forward. The Liberals have a plan, the semblance of a plan anyway, and the Conservatives have potential political piñata known as intensity based emissions. Call into question the effectiveness of the Conservative plan and then sit back and watch as environmentalists, academics, pundits and yes bloggers break it into a million pieces. Under intense scrutiny, I give such a plan no more than month and half, maybe two. As for the other parties, the Bloc’s reason for being means it is no position to offer up a plan and the NDP poise no realistic challenge to the Conservatives. Whether they have a good plan or not is moot. The NDP will not win the next election. The underlying message is thus this. Only the Liberals are both able and willing to tackle global warming.
As for what Conservatives crime agenda etc, let them spend their wad. Only make sure to make plenty of noise while they are doing so. How do you make noise? You roll out policy. You include a nice mix of policy designed to tackle the big issues and controversial policy to catch the media’s and public’s attention. Hopefully by the time the Conservatives are finished, they will have run out of things to do just as the Liberals have wetted the public’s interest for their new policies.
This is not all bad. Consider the so called poison pill: the Conservatives are going to announce that targets set under the Kyoto protocol are unattainable. The thing is they are unattainable. Canada is not going to meet the 2012 Kyoto targets without buying emission credits and this just will not sell domestically. That is just the half off it. So long as Kyoto is the focus, the question will arise as to why Canada is not going to meet its targets and this will allow the Conservatives to offer up Liberal inaction as the reason why. The Liberals need to focus the debate on how the various parties plan to reduce carbon emissions going forward. The Liberals have a plan, the semblance of a plan anyway, and the Conservatives have potential political piñata known as intensity based emissions. Call into question the effectiveness of the Conservative plan and then sit back and watch as environmentalists, academics, pundits and yes bloggers break it into a million pieces. Under intense scrutiny, I give such a plan no more than month and half, maybe two. As for the other parties, the Bloc’s reason for being means it is no position to offer up a plan and the NDP poise no realistic challenge to the Conservatives. Whether they have a good plan or not is moot. The NDP will not win the next election. The underlying message is thus this. Only the Liberals are both able and willing to tackle global warming.
As for what Conservatives crime agenda etc, let them spend their wad. Only make sure to make plenty of noise while they are doing so. How do you make noise? You roll out policy. You include a nice mix of policy designed to tackle the big issues and controversial policy to catch the media’s and public’s attention. Hopefully by the time the Conservatives are finished, they will have run out of things to do just as the Liberals have wetted the public’s interest for their new policies.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Dion with the Line of Week: "I cut bait and went fishing."
Stephen Harper said that the Liberals have a choice;“They have to fish or cut bait,”
Dion's comback was the best line of the week.
"I hope you have had a very good Thanksgiving,” Liberal leader Stephane Dion began, his entire existence, as usual, seeming to hang in the balance. “Some of you may ask where I went. Well, I decided to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. I cut bait and went fishing.”
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20071010_145259_10124
This is Dion at his best. A little Impish. A very nice contrast to Angry Dad Harper.
Dion's comback was the best line of the week.
"I hope you have had a very good Thanksgiving,” Liberal leader Stephane Dion began, his entire existence, as usual, seeming to hang in the balance. “Some of you may ask where I went. Well, I decided to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. I cut bait and went fishing.”
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20071010_145259_10124
This is Dion at his best. A little Impish. A very nice contrast to Angry Dad Harper.
Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of wanting to rush into an election before more information is revealed about three investigations involving the Conservative party.
"I think the prime minister has a lot in his hands and I'm not surprised he's so willing to go into an election before Canadians know more about it," Dion said Friday.
Dion referred to an Elections Canada investigation into whether the Conservatives may have broken election financing laws during the Conservative party's 2006 election campaign, something the Tories deny and are fighting in Federal Court.
Dion said Harper must also deal with an OPP investigation into allegations that the municipal election in Ottawa was tampered with and that it involved the Conservative party's top organizer. The Conservatives have denied any involvement.
Dion also pointed to the federal privacy commissioner's launch of a preliminary inquiry following several complaints that Harper compiled a mailing list of Jewish Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/12/dion-harper.html
The Jewish thing is a none starter and only serves to distract from the other two. It should not have been mentioned. Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad though. My only complaint is why was released on a Friday afternoon and not earlier in the week? Something has happened to the Liberals late this week. Their messaging today is hundred times better than what it has been. It is clearer and more sophisticated.
"I think the prime minister has a lot in his hands and I'm not surprised he's so willing to go into an election before Canadians know more about it," Dion said Friday.
Dion referred to an Elections Canada investigation into whether the Conservatives may have broken election financing laws during the Conservative party's 2006 election campaign, something the Tories deny and are fighting in Federal Court.
Dion said Harper must also deal with an OPP investigation into allegations that the municipal election in Ottawa was tampered with and that it involved the Conservative party's top organizer. The Conservatives have denied any involvement.
Dion also pointed to the federal privacy commissioner's launch of a preliminary inquiry following several complaints that Harper compiled a mailing list of Jewish Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/12/dion-harper.html
The Jewish thing is a none starter and only serves to distract from the other two. It should not have been mentioned. Two Out Of Three Ain’t Bad though. My only complaint is why was released on a Friday afternoon and not earlier in the week? Something has happened to the Liberals late this week. Their messaging today is hundred times better than what it has been. It is clearer and more sophisticated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
