The liberal left - right divide
The latest kerfuffle within the Quebec liberal fold, between Coderre and Cauchon seems to go down the above mentioned demographic, its almost like there is a battle going on by the left wing of the party to take control.
Coderre isn't what I'd call a blu-lib, he's more of the Chretien style politico. Hitch your wagon to the leader and do his dirty work for him so he doesn't get any dirt on him, in spite of what ideology he carries. Cauchon, the guy that wants to decriminalize marijana and possibly some other laws, is classic lefty. He and Bob Rae, Gerrard Kennedy, Justin Trudeau, and Hedy Fry all see the way to go is to take the country further left than its ever been.
So here's how I see it. Cauchon is just the current figure head for the leftwing, just as Coderre is to the blu-lib establishment.
The sad thing about this is that the sides are lining up for the public to see.
If Bob Rae openly declares what the leader should do about this, its an admission that he and Iggy don't really get along too well, heck there may even be some plausibility to the suggestion the rivalry which began in that shared dorm room so many years ago at Uof T hasn't died down but has been fueled by recent events. But its better than that. The Iggy-Rae feud, and the Coderre - Cauchon feud are merely pretexts upon which the two sides within the LPC will use to blame the other if the wheels go off the bus during the next election campaign.
Let me take this further.
If after the next election, the libs have experienced an even bigger defeat, there will be a push to merge the left again. I have only one small bit of advice if you guys want to make it work.
You need to have Justin Trudeau on board or else it will never get off the ground.
Anyways, good luck with that.....you'll need it.
Labels: May's little green monster
Obligatory HST post
Lots of "outrage" over the move to harmonize the two sales taxes.
The liberals of course are saying they oppose this.....
So?
Does this mean that if they are government they would reverse this decision?
Perhaps reduce the federal portion....sort of what Harper promised to with the GST.....and followed through on?
Or will they recommit to Chretien's classic promise to kill the fed tax?
Perhaps this is another issue they are against until its time to commit to speedy passage through the senate.
Hey guys, seeing as you have decided to have your senators not hold up legislation anymore, perhaps you could get that senate reform legislation passed.
Labels: Conservative ad
The most unsurprising announcement ever
PET inducted into queer hall of fameNuff said.
Labels: beer and popcorn
Talkng point - election campaign (door knocking)
Before I go further I'd like to state that there are two items I want to see as platform.
- A pledge to eliminate Chretien's vote subsidy.
- Reform or remove the HRC's.
Now then, as to the subject matter. Should one of the candidates come knocking at my door be sure that my questions will be to find out what you want to do if your party forms a government. Not grand idea's and vague generalities, I want specifics.
Also know this, especially if you're a liberal candidate. I'll be asking which piece of legislation that the Harper government has passed, or was pending, that your party is opposed to. Do not say all of it, I'll remind you that the NDP and the Bloc where more than willing to vote against the government many times, but all those times you're party allowed those laws (which you say you oppose) to pass. So I'll ask again, please be specific, on which one of those laws you want to reverse that you think are so bad.
Is it raising the age of consent?
The GST cut, so you'll want to raise the GST then?
Elected Senators? You either want reform to be a big constitutional package like Charlottetown, or you like it just the way it is....so all that noise about Harper's senate appointments was just more flatulance?
I think you get the point.
BTW
One more thing I'd like to see in the next election. Is if Harper indicates that he is only willing to debate one representative of the opposition....and they can figure out which one gets to go head to head with him. Oh I can hear the accusations of divisive already. Here's the phsycological two by four that you'll get hit with. If you guys where willing to go into a coalition in the fall and have one leader speak for all of you, whats the problem now? If it happened I can just imagine the opposition tearing each other apart if Harper refused to relent. Want a bet the liberals will be hard pressed to justify to Bloc voters that they should speak for them.
The beauty of a suggestion like this is that the leaders debate is not held by law, its a tradition that the leaders have agreed to participate in. Thats the catch, they agree to be there, but they don't have to be there. The thing is run by the broadcasting consortium, and they negotiate with the leaders to arrange a debate.
Last time when Lizzie May demanded a spot, Harper almost refused. This time with the justification that only one representative of the coalition be present so that the odds are fair will have the opposition foaming at the mouth. What it could also do is cut off attempts by the liberals doing what they always do when the campaign comes apart at the seams and plead with the NDP to lead them their vote. It would definitely harden up the NDP base and not allow the liberals to raid it.
But hey, I'm just speculating. No truth in anything I've posted. Not one word.
Labels: beer and popcorn, May's little green monster, Quebec politics, the free lunch crowd at it again, useful idiots
The national media's past time - election watch
Before everyone gets gung ho about an election, I'd like to make one or two meager points.
The commons hasn't even sat, and the politicians will be wanting to test drive their narrative during QP. I fully expect Iggy to do some grandstanding, however if he's not careful Harper will end up giving him a wedgie.
Second point. To have an election, the liberals have to have the Bloc and the NDP on side. Two issues now make that more difficult for him to do that. Some of hte NDP and Bloc MP's may still be po'd at Iggy for dissing the coalition after they stuck their neck out, just as well there may be some lib MP's that will have a hard time holding their seat because they like Iggy went along with the rest of the lemmings and signed the damned thing. But I digress....if the NDP can manage to come away with something better than a blue ribbon panel on EI, Jack can stand before the microphones and say he got parliament to work. Iggy will be able to say he didn't back down, and the government keeps on.
Lets throw out another scenario. What if Jack and Gilles don't back down and tell canadians that though they never wanted an election, they don't want to support the government.
Then there's the other scenario, Harper chooses the hill on which his government will fall with a piece of legislation that the opposition has a hard time justifying voting against....like the reno credit. The liberals must then make some very tough choices, vote it down to save the rep of their leader, or vote in favour and watch Iggy get painted a wimp. Of course if the liberals say they can do better than this, its very hard to expect a leap of faith from voters when they force an election because they don't want a conservative government giving out tax breaks.
The conservatives need only remind voters about the track record of how many tax cuts the liberals promised to follow through on and the ones that Harper did follow through on.
Here's my prediction:
Harper is going to table a confidence motion before the liberals get to test run their talking points. Iggy will be pressured by just about anyone in the liberal braintrust and his MP's to back down on the election threat.
If he does, he loses any momentum he may have garnered and he also gets to wear the wimp moniker.
Busybodies, killjoys, and nancyboys
Labels: beer and popcorn
the liberal bland ad
Will it work?
Depends on the message they want delivered.
My guess is the "message" is not about any particular policy, its about making people not be afraid of Ignatieff. He may be an elitist snob, but hey don't he just look so harmless in his blue shirt sitting in a meadow, this guy can't possibly have some agenda to tax the hell out of you with a new carbon tax.
What I'm expecting though is a rebuttal from somewhere, (and just so you know that until the writ is dropped anyone, yes anyone can produce an ad) to juxtapose this latest statement with that historic one he made during that leadership debate against Dion.
Now he says they can do better, but the last time they had government Ignatieff tells us "we didn't get it done".
So what Iggy is saying is, they will do better than what they did last time which was to do nothing at all.
It writes itself folks.
Labels: useful idiots
Talking point on Foreign policy
I've mentioned in a previous post that that paragon of liberal propaganda the Toronto Star is less supportive of the current leader of the LPC than the party itself.
Case in point
The explanation may lie in who he is. His specialty is not domestic politics but foreign policy, on which he's on the wrong side of Canadians (having backed both the Afghan and Iraq wars, "coercive interrogation," excessive executive power, American imperialism, etc.).He is like John Kerry in 2004, unable to shed the burden of having backed George W. Bush. Given the clarity of Canadians on much of post-9/11 politics, Ignatieff is even less likely to win as Harper Lite than Kerry could as Bush Lite.Which brings me to the point, of what direction the parties have on foreign policy...and that niggling little problem I keep coming back to that the LPC still hasn't addressed.
The Conservative approach is that we need to keep our borders strong, and here is the crucial point, recognized internationally.
The NDP is the same boilerplate its always been, get out of (
insert international agreement here) and join the (
insert left wing cause here).The Bloc approach is too easy and reinforces a fact that they will never form a government. Whatever is in the interests of Quebec (going to have to do some work to burst that rhetorical bubble soon).
The liberals.....well unfortunately the liberals don't really have a specific policy or platform other than to say what a great guy Lester Pearson was. If you take the Toronto Star columnists word for it, the LPC has a policy, but the guy leading the party is some Bush clone that hasn't the skill set or the roots to really be believed when he expounds on it.
The lesson learned here is that foreign policy is based on a nations ability to project its influence internationally.
So ask yourself, what action or policy would make other nations sit up and take notice when you make your way on stage?
The one that comes to my mind is the example of the US carrier fleet.
Can't say which US president said it (may have been Clinton) but the statement was that if there was some crisis somewhere the pres would ask "where are the carriers?".
The fact that a nation is able to "express" its wishes beyond its borders in this way is an impressive thing, but the wherewithal to build up a carrier fleet much less man it, is beyond the capabilities of a nation of 33 million let alone our tax base....its unrealistic.
So that leaves us restricted to acting within our borders or in concert with those nations that reflect our nations values.....our closet neighbour comes to mind as the one nation we would be closest to in foreign policy, if its beneficial for them its going to benefit us. Add the grain of salt that I'm specifically responding to foreign policy.
The other factor would be our reputation to deal in good faith. One administration (or its members) not openly mocking another would be a good thing, so if a certain party has a history of being warm and fuzzy to a country one day but dissing them when they think they are not paying attention probably isn't going to to be taken as an honest broker. The fact is that our closest neighbour / trading partner is a superpower, and we need to choose wisely when we are going to object to their acts or deeds.
But I digress, just because I'm drifting.
Foreign policy should be based on doing those things that enhance and strengthen your nations legitimacy internationally. The framing of which should also be cognizant of three pillars.
- International recognition of you borders.
- Capability to maintain and protect your territory.
- The population's willingness to recognize and obey your laws
It stands to reason that if it came to the crunch, our success or failure may hinge on whether we have the US at our back....*cough*arctic territorial dispute*cough*
I guess my point is this, the conservative foreign policy is a willingness to work with other partners, but when required to go it alone has done so in a way that is not confrontational. They also understand that global agreements to be global must include all the global players equally.
The liberal policy, which is ambiguous, is based on two points; glorify Lester Pearson, and appeasement of terrorists. Seriously, the position the liberals take is totally dependant on the audience at that particular moment, so there isn't anything they really believe in other than whats fashionable at the moment (i.e.:Kyoto accord).
But its not going to matter apparently as the left leaning faction of the liberal party (the ones that will drift into the NDP the longer Ignatieff stays around) will never believe whats coming out of Ignatieff's mouth when he speaks about the one subject he's supposed to be an expert on because of his past....or as our TORSTAR editorialist suggests, Micheal Ignatieff was for the Afghan mission before he was against it.
Labels: Conservative majority
Talking point on a possible election
First off lets just toss the idea of whether voters want an election or not, its not our choice its always Parliament that gets that choice. So lets just not bother flogging that deceased equine.
Point is that an election is always defined by one or two burning issues.
So if there is going to be one in the fall, what would that "burning issue" (tm) be?
But I'll be specific, what is the issue as defined by the parties themselves.
Lets start with the government party, the Conservatives. Their pundits are describing this election as one that the liberals dearly want because they just have not been able to adjust to being in opposition, the election will cause uncertainty and that just as the country is starting to regain its way having the threat of an election hanging over our heads is not good for our economy. They want to continue to govern, and that everyone should be concentrating on whats best for the country.
The liberals, claim that Harper has been bad for Canada, and they want to stop supporting the government. They say they want to make the country the very best in the world. They say they will need a mandate for eight years to undo what Harper has succeeded in doing with only a minority.
The NDP has stated that they don't want to be supporting the government, but wants to make parliament work, nobody wants an election and that if there is one they will be ready.
The Bloc is not saying anything yet.
The Green's......well it matters not what they say because Lizzy May is still their leader, so until they ditch her, they have no chance of winning evein one seat.
Now its my turn to disect the entrails.
Before Ignatieff went before the liberal host, he had a meeting with Bob Rae, Denis Coderre, Dominic LeBlanc, and David McGuinty. No one mentions at whose behest the meeting was called, but it happened before the caucus meeting where all the MP's get to air their feelings about the coming session.
Here's where I inject my subjective opinion, which means it can't be verified but its a plausible scenario.
Bob, Denis, Dom, and David, read the riot act to Iggy and "advised" him that they have heard rumours that if he didn't come out with guns blazing his leadership was going to be undermined.
Lets expand on that.
The four most likely leadership rivals get a private meeting with Iggy to advise him that some unnamed sources have informed them that some unnamed leadership rival is plotting against him if he doesn't stop propping up the government. The catch in all this is that the prime suspects of a possible coup are all in the room so nobody can finger the real culprit when the dust settles. Its that old code of silence that the libs used for Adscam. Nobody can say what was going on because nobody has up and said it, its all understood, Iggy grow a pair or get out of the big chair.
But enough of that, back to what the "big issue"(tm) will be if there is an election.
Its going to be about leadership, more specifically, good government.
The liberals will need to be a little more specific when they say the country is going down the tubes. As an aside, I'm surprised that WK didn't balk at this platform, methinks Iggy may have decided on his own to sideline Warren.
Frankly that strategy worked in Trudeau's day, it won't work now what with the internet blogs, and Youtube.
Here's how it's going to be shot down.
The loose cannons in the LPC will say anything to the prospective voter that they think the prospective voter wants to hear.
Iggy's strategy is to convince Harper's base that Harper isn't conservative enough.
They want the conservatives to stay home.
But Iggy has one problem.
If Harper isn't conservative enough, is the liberal party too far left to entice small-c conservatives to vote for them?
Lets pare it down a bit more.
Iggy says Harper hasn't accomplished anything, but says he wants to reverse what the conservative government has achieved.
So when that liberal candidate comes knocking at my door with the scripted introduction, my question will be this.
Your party insists that Canada is broken, you say you want to correct whats wrong, fine, please tell me what the liberal party wants to change and how.
Is it all the new military equipment the conservative government is buying to re-equip the military after years of liberal neglect?
Would it be all that stimulus spending the opposition threatened to take down the government over if they didn't spend it fast enough?
Would it be section 13 of the Human rights act brought in to existence by a previous liberal government?
Would it be to withdraw our troops in Afghanistan on a mission Ignatieff himself voted with the government to extend, a mission which was mandated by a previous liberal government without a vote in Parliament?
Would it be that reduction in the GST, a tax that a previous liberal government promised to "kill' but didn't?
Would it be greater incursions into provincial jurisdictions, which would bring me to the granddaddy.
If the constitution "repatirated" by a previous liberal government is one of the wrong things about this country, what parts or additions does Mr Ignatieff want a mandate to for?
Special status for Quebec perhaps....he's hinted at it, but knows damn well that after that coalition thing his chances of retaining even Toronto ridings becomes a long shot.
It comes down to this, you wanted an election, now you have to tell me why, other than you think you're entitled to power why you wanted an election.
I'll close this post in response to something Marlene Jennings stated yesterday.
The s0-called parliamentary crisis last year that precipitated the porougation of Parliament was caused by the prospect of a sitting government being brought down and replaced without a vote with one that was dependant on the Bloc vetting any new legislation. A coalition may be legitamate, but one that included a party bent on making sure Parliament did not work is a treasonous act. Harper would have been neglegent in his sworn duties to let that happen, and yes Ms Jennings, I hold you to blame as well as every MP that signed that agreement.
The CPC will use this info to their advantage and hammer home to Canadians that if the liberals can't get enough seate they will try again to form an alliance with the Bloc. The only way to prevent this from happpening again is to have a Conservative majority. It matters not whether you actually would or not, its now plausible that you would, or in terms everybody understands, there is enough objective evidence that you would make a deal with separatists to gain power. Which by the way is what brought the old federal PC down to 2 seats in the 93 election, the belief that they would "roll the dice" with the stability of the nation. Mattered not that they may or may not, the narrative was entrenched in the voters minds and they where in a punishing mood.
So slap as much lipstick on the pig as you want liberals, but you will wear the coalition.
Labels: 2009 predictions
