Finance Minister Flaherty is starting to look like an onion undergoing a slow motion unpeeling. Every week, it seems, more facts are revealed, and one more layer of the Tory onion is peeled back, to reveal several things, all of which should concern Canadians.
There is the denial of reality syndrome that the Harper Tory government seems to have displayed for more than a year now. The Globe & Mail has a nice analysis of the series of inaccurate statements and projections put forward by the Tories.
Then there is disturbing reasoning of the Tory finance minister as to what has caused the deficits, and how unexpected such deficits are.
There is also the lack of detail. At a time when deficits are important items for Canadians to consider, we find our government releasing information reluctantly, and with little detail.
What Canadians have a right to know from their government is:
1. Why did the government not realize that deficits would balloon? Is it that incompetent?
2. Is the government stalling with respect to the expected position of our government's finances, and trying to deceive the public with half-truths, withheld-truths and absolute lies?
3. What is the deficit made up of?
4. What is a realistic expectation of government finances for the next 3 to 5 years?
5. Just how much of the deficit is caused by spending as part of the stimulus package, and how much by other things?
We as citizens have a right to know what our money (our taxes) are being spent on.
We expect our government to march in step with other countries by stimulating our economy through judicious stimulus spending. But we also want to be sure that the deficits so caused are 'good deficits'. A good deficit is one caused by expenditure to soften a recession, with the expenditure doing more than just shovelling money out of government coffers into trinkets. When Harper spends our money, we have the right to expect it to be spent on projects which will have an impact on jobs and which will be of long lasting, structural benefit to our society.
There is very little in the government's information to date which gives us the details to judge fairly whether the $50 billion plus deficits Flaherty has suddenly discovered looming over him, is a good deficit or a bad one.
And the government's main test (no long term deficits at all costs) does not comfort us. The test is not whether the government can balance the budget within 4 years but whether (1) the money was spent on the proper things (see above) and (2) whether in fact we need to raise taxes after the recession to restore financial viability to our federal government.
Harper and is fellow-ideologues have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in gutting the ability of our government to play a meaningful role, but their slashing of government income (through the tax reductions, including the asinine GST reduction), has made us weaker just when we needed a strong central government.
It seems to the Cat that it is now time for us to turf out this incompetent government, and put a better one in power. And we should expect our political parties to do everything that might be needed to achieve that objective.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Gap means get ready for Round 2 of Coalition talks
Michael Ignatieff might have changed his mind on the Coalition agreement he and all other Liberal MPs signed with the NDP, but sooner or later (and most likely sooner) he will find himself in talks with the NDP on the contours of a coalition government.
The Gap guarantees that he will have to enter into such talks.
What is the Gap?
Consider the current seat allocations in Parliament. The Tories have 143 seats (10 in Quebec, 51 in Ontario). The Liberals have 77 (38 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec). The NDP has 36. The Bloc has 48 (of Quebec's total of 75).
The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the Liberals is 66 seats.
The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the combined Liberal and NDP 113 seats is 30 seats.
The political party with the most seats after the next election will be asked by the Governor General to attempt to form a government, and to pass a vote of confidence in the House. For the Liberals on their own to become the party with the most seats and so be asked by the GG to form a government, they will need to close the gap of 66 seats between them and the Tories.
The LPC can close this gap by taking 34 seats away from the Tories.
This means they would have to take (say) all 10 Tory seats in Quebec and 23 other seats (from the Tories 51 in Ontario, or the other provinces). If they could do this (and current polls make this very unlikely), the LPC would end up with 111 seats and the Tories with 110 seats.
In order to win its first vote of confidence, and so become the government, the LPC would need the support of either (1) both the Bloc and the NDP, or (2) the NDP with the Bloc abstaining from voting, or (3) the Bloc (whether or not the NDP abstains from voting).
The LPC might also close the gap by taking seats from both the Tories and NDP (a more likely scenario, given that the NDP seems to be at its high water mark of seats, and its tide is ebbing daily). But to be asked by the GG to become the government, the LPC will still need 112 votes to the Tory's reduced 110 votes.
It is highly unlikely at this stage that the LPC will take seats away from the Bloc.
How probable is it that the Bloc will support the Liberals? It is possible. The Bloc would be relatively indifferent to whether the Tories or Liberals are the government, provided the governing party does not attack its funding, and is taking steps to boost the Quebec economy. It has in the past supported the Tories, and was prepared to support the Coalition before Ignatieff unilaterally broke the agreement between the Coalition and the Bloc. However, it is also possible that the Bloc will refuse to vote for the Liberals, and abstain or vote against the LPC government, in order to punish Ignatieff for breaking that agreement. It might decide it could wring more concessions for Quebec from a suitably chastened Tory minority government, and so throw its support behind Harper when the Liberal government fails its first confidence vote and the GG turns to Harper to form a government.
What is clear from the above analysis is that the LPC and NDP are locked in a self-destroying mutual fight, with both losing, and the Tories benefiting.
Harper showed strategic brilliance in his early analysis that the only way the Liberals had become the 'naturally governing party' was because the opposition to the LPC was divided. So he set about uniting the opposition parties, and with the help of Peter MacKay merged the Progressive Conservative Party (actually a reverse takeover) with the Alliance Party. And ended the decades-long honeymoon of the Liberals.
For Ignatieff to become Prime Minister, he will need to show similar strategic brilliance. The clearest way for the Liberals to become the government is through an agreement with the NDP which provides for the NDP to support the LPC.
Layton would consider such an agreement, provided that the NDP gained something significant from this. A formal merger (for a set period) similar to the one Ignatieff killed, might do the trick. However, if the LPC took seats away from the NDP in the next election, the willingness of the NDP to support the LPC would be significantly reduced.
The chances are higher that the NDP would consider an electoral pact, in writing, entered into before the next election (that is, before any vote of confidence in the Harper government being held), made public, and linked to the retention by the NDP of its current seats in the House as well as a formal coalition.
Right now it seems that Ignatieff his concentrating on proving to Harper that he is as tough as Harper, and is talking about confidence votes. But sooner or later he and his senior advisors will need to consider the realities of the political strengths of the various parties should we have an election.
Those realities currently favour another Tory minority government.
Unless Ignatieff thinks strategically, and has a Harper flash of inspiration regarding changing the game, rather than fighting an election on ground which favours the Tories. If he does, the best bet would be coalition talks now with the NDP. However, to avoid any problems of perception (such as those he claims made him change his mind about the last Coalition), he could cut a deal with the NDP but not cut any formal deal with the Bloc, and hope that between them the LPC and NDP can win more seats than the Tories in the next election.
The Gap guarantees that he will have to enter into such talks.
What is the Gap?
Consider the current seat allocations in Parliament. The Tories have 143 seats (10 in Quebec, 51 in Ontario). The Liberals have 77 (38 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec). The NDP has 36. The Bloc has 48 (of Quebec's total of 75).
The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the Liberals is 66 seats.
The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the combined Liberal and NDP 113 seats is 30 seats.
The political party with the most seats after the next election will be asked by the Governor General to attempt to form a government, and to pass a vote of confidence in the House. For the Liberals on their own to become the party with the most seats and so be asked by the GG to form a government, they will need to close the gap of 66 seats between them and the Tories.
The LPC can close this gap by taking 34 seats away from the Tories.
This means they would have to take (say) all 10 Tory seats in Quebec and 23 other seats (from the Tories 51 in Ontario, or the other provinces). If they could do this (and current polls make this very unlikely), the LPC would end up with 111 seats and the Tories with 110 seats.
In order to win its first vote of confidence, and so become the government, the LPC would need the support of either (1) both the Bloc and the NDP, or (2) the NDP with the Bloc abstaining from voting, or (3) the Bloc (whether or not the NDP abstains from voting).
The LPC might also close the gap by taking seats from both the Tories and NDP (a more likely scenario, given that the NDP seems to be at its high water mark of seats, and its tide is ebbing daily). But to be asked by the GG to become the government, the LPC will still need 112 votes to the Tory's reduced 110 votes.
It is highly unlikely at this stage that the LPC will take seats away from the Bloc.
How probable is it that the Bloc will support the Liberals? It is possible. The Bloc would be relatively indifferent to whether the Tories or Liberals are the government, provided the governing party does not attack its funding, and is taking steps to boost the Quebec economy. It has in the past supported the Tories, and was prepared to support the Coalition before Ignatieff unilaterally broke the agreement between the Coalition and the Bloc. However, it is also possible that the Bloc will refuse to vote for the Liberals, and abstain or vote against the LPC government, in order to punish Ignatieff for breaking that agreement. It might decide it could wring more concessions for Quebec from a suitably chastened Tory minority government, and so throw its support behind Harper when the Liberal government fails its first confidence vote and the GG turns to Harper to form a government.
What is clear from the above analysis is that the LPC and NDP are locked in a self-destroying mutual fight, with both losing, and the Tories benefiting.
Harper showed strategic brilliance in his early analysis that the only way the Liberals had become the 'naturally governing party' was because the opposition to the LPC was divided. So he set about uniting the opposition parties, and with the help of Peter MacKay merged the Progressive Conservative Party (actually a reverse takeover) with the Alliance Party. And ended the decades-long honeymoon of the Liberals.
For Ignatieff to become Prime Minister, he will need to show similar strategic brilliance. The clearest way for the Liberals to become the government is through an agreement with the NDP which provides for the NDP to support the LPC.
Layton would consider such an agreement, provided that the NDP gained something significant from this. A formal merger (for a set period) similar to the one Ignatieff killed, might do the trick. However, if the LPC took seats away from the NDP in the next election, the willingness of the NDP to support the LPC would be significantly reduced.
The chances are higher that the NDP would consider an electoral pact, in writing, entered into before the next election (that is, before any vote of confidence in the Harper government being held), made public, and linked to the retention by the NDP of its current seats in the House as well as a formal coalition.
Right now it seems that Ignatieff his concentrating on proving to Harper that he is as tough as Harper, and is talking about confidence votes. But sooner or later he and his senior advisors will need to consider the realities of the political strengths of the various parties should we have an election.
Those realities currently favour another Tory minority government.
Unless Ignatieff thinks strategically, and has a Harper flash of inspiration regarding changing the game, rather than fighting an election on ground which favours the Tories. If he does, the best bet would be coalition talks now with the NDP. However, to avoid any problems of perception (such as those he claims made him change his mind about the last Coalition), he could cut a deal with the NDP but not cut any formal deal with the Bloc, and hope that between them the LPC and NDP can win more seats than the Tories in the next election.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Harper's path to becoming the next government: the economy
If Ignatieff had lived up to his signature and supported the NDP-LPC Coalition agreement earlier this year, we would now have a minority government headed by the Coalition, supported by the Bloc for 18 months through its agreement not to vote against the Coalition on confidence matters, and busily implementing a realistic, timely stimulus program and an enhanced, fairer EI program.
Instead we have Harper's Tories dragging their heels, resisting changes to a fairer EI system, lying about opposition programs, and relying on dissension among the three opposition parties to give it time (18 months will do) to weather the recession and restore their fortunes.
And meanwhile chipping away at Ignatieff's qualifications as a possible prime minister, and doing very nicely at that, as the latest poll shows:
"The latest survey, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National, shows the Harper Conservatives have edged up two percentage points in recent weeks, to capture a slim lead with 35 per cent support.
The Liberals, while significantly ahead of their showing under former leader Stephane Dion, have dropped three points to 33 per cent support of decided voters.
Ontario is responsible for the slight reversal of fortunes for the two lead parties, according to the telephone poll of 1,000 adults, conducted May 20-24 by Ipsos Reid.
Pollster Darrell Bricker attributed the Conservative climb in Canada's most populous province --where the party captured 39 per cent support to the Liberals' 37 per cent -- to a slightly improving economy.
The NDP garnered 14 per cent of support among decided voters nationally.
The Green party and Bloc Québécois held steady at eight and nine per cent respectively."
Note the significant conclusion in the quote above of the pollster: the Tories are up in Ontario due to a "slightly improving economy."
There you have Harper's game plan: stall for time, call the Liberals' bluff, and wait for the recession to fade, then choose a time to go to the voters, claiming to have managed the country successfully through a recession, by steady supervision from a decisive, seasoned 'born and lived in Canada' leader.
And all the time chipping away at Ignatieff with a steady stream of framing ads.
Not a pretty sight, but a possibility nonetheless.
What a pity the Liberal caucus joined Ignatieff in turning its back on a Coalition government.
Instead we have Harper's Tories dragging their heels, resisting changes to a fairer EI system, lying about opposition programs, and relying on dissension among the three opposition parties to give it time (18 months will do) to weather the recession and restore their fortunes.
And meanwhile chipping away at Ignatieff's qualifications as a possible prime minister, and doing very nicely at that, as the latest poll shows:
"The latest survey, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National, shows the Harper Conservatives have edged up two percentage points in recent weeks, to capture a slim lead with 35 per cent support.
The Liberals, while significantly ahead of their showing under former leader Stephane Dion, have dropped three points to 33 per cent support of decided voters.
Ontario is responsible for the slight reversal of fortunes for the two lead parties, according to the telephone poll of 1,000 adults, conducted May 20-24 by Ipsos Reid.
Pollster Darrell Bricker attributed the Conservative climb in Canada's most populous province --where the party captured 39 per cent support to the Liberals' 37 per cent -- to a slightly improving economy.
The NDP garnered 14 per cent of support among decided voters nationally.
The Green party and Bloc Québécois held steady at eight and nine per cent respectively."
Note the significant conclusion in the quote above of the pollster: the Tories are up in Ontario due to a "slightly improving economy."
There you have Harper's game plan: stall for time, call the Liberals' bluff, and wait for the recession to fade, then choose a time to go to the voters, claiming to have managed the country successfully through a recession, by steady supervision from a decisive, seasoned 'born and lived in Canada' leader.
And all the time chipping away at Ignatieff with a steady stream of framing ads.
Not a pretty sight, but a possibility nonetheless.
What a pity the Liberal caucus joined Ignatieff in turning its back on a Coalition government.
Will Ignatieff back Layton's EI Bill and trigger election?
We have heard Duceppe, Layton, Ignatieff and Harper growl about lines in the sand regarding unemployment insurance, and the media have been scrambling to decipher the growls. Do they really mean that there could be a summer election over a vote of confidence on the EI which the Tories lose?
Or will either Layton or Harper or Ignatieff back off when confronted, and seek another way out?
The sticking point, according to Harper's Tories (who have been clearer than either Layton or Ignatieff on whether they will fight an election) appears to be the use of a common 360 hours test before anyone can start claiming EI. The Tories have distorted the positions of the NDP and LPC on this issue, with Baird comically fulminating about 'socialism' (does that man actually know what socialism is about? I doubt it).
However, come June 4 – less than two weeks away – we the voters will see which of these leaders have been blustering and which have actually meant what they said.
The opportunity will be the vote on the NDP bill C-280, as Layton explains:
"Jack Layton: Bill c-280 has received first reading in the House and is being debated on June 3rd. The vote on Second Reading will be on June 10th. If it passes, it will go to the Standing Committee for consideration and amendments. That is where I hope that a compromise can be found so that we can get it back for the Third Reading vote before the end of June, allowing unemployed workers to get help. The key elements of the Bill are: lowering the hours needed to qualify to 360 hours everywhere in Canada, eliminating the 2 week penalty period and increasing the benefit rates.
9:55 Jack Layton: The NDP motion calling for the measures found in our Bill, and more - such as allowing self-employed people to participate in EI - was passed by the House of Commons two months ago. Mr. Harper used to say that any Prime Minister had a moral obligation to respect the will of the House of Commons. I guess he lost that morality along the way somehow!
9:55 Bruce Campion-Smith:
If I could ask Mr. Layton a question, do you see a scenario where the opposition parties could come together in the next few weeks on this issue and press the government?
9:58 Jack Layton: I believe that our Bill provides the context for such an agreement, Bruce. Talk is one thing, and not worth much. Legislation is the key tool of Parliament to get things changed. That's why we started with a motion on EI, to test the will of the House. It passed. The government failed to legislate, therefore, we converted our ideas into Legislation and ensured they came to the House in a timely way, putting aside other business to get our Bill into the schedule of the House. It is now too late for other parties to bring forward legislation this June, so our Bill has to become the focus for the efforts to fix EI by the time the House rises."
Note the following:
1. The NDP bill was passed as a motion by the LPC, NDP and Bloc. Why would any of these parties not now pass the bill to convert that motion into legislation?
2. Passing the NDP bill will be a confidence measure, triggering an election.
3. No other party has time available under the rules of Parliament to introduce their own legislation.
4. The NDP bill has the change to a uniform 360 hour requirement that all three opposition parties want.
5. Layton has indicated elsewhere that he hopes that if the bill is passed, then the Tories can introduce amendments at the Standing Committee. He has offered Harper a fig leaf by saying he thinks that amendments may be possible which meet Harper's concerns and still get the amended bill passed into law. This is Layton's strategy to avoid an election at this time, but to honour his party's commitment to the earlier NDP motion which the three opposition parties passed. Time will tell if Layton is reading Harper correctly.
So, battle is joined.
Let us now see what the four bristling party leaders say when the rubber hits the road.
Get yourself some popcorn and settle down to enjoy the show!
Or will either Layton or Harper or Ignatieff back off when confronted, and seek another way out?
The sticking point, according to Harper's Tories (who have been clearer than either Layton or Ignatieff on whether they will fight an election) appears to be the use of a common 360 hours test before anyone can start claiming EI. The Tories have distorted the positions of the NDP and LPC on this issue, with Baird comically fulminating about 'socialism' (does that man actually know what socialism is about? I doubt it).
However, come June 4 – less than two weeks away – we the voters will see which of these leaders have been blustering and which have actually meant what they said.
The opportunity will be the vote on the NDP bill C-280, as Layton explains:
"Jack Layton: Bill c-280 has received first reading in the House and is being debated on June 3rd. The vote on Second Reading will be on June 10th. If it passes, it will go to the Standing Committee for consideration and amendments. That is where I hope that a compromise can be found so that we can get it back for the Third Reading vote before the end of June, allowing unemployed workers to get help. The key elements of the Bill are: lowering the hours needed to qualify to 360 hours everywhere in Canada, eliminating the 2 week penalty period and increasing the benefit rates.
9:55 Jack Layton: The NDP motion calling for the measures found in our Bill, and more - such as allowing self-employed people to participate in EI - was passed by the House of Commons two months ago. Mr. Harper used to say that any Prime Minister had a moral obligation to respect the will of the House of Commons. I guess he lost that morality along the way somehow!
9:55 Bruce Campion-Smith:
If I could ask Mr. Layton a question, do you see a scenario where the opposition parties could come together in the next few weeks on this issue and press the government?
9:58 Jack Layton: I believe that our Bill provides the context for such an agreement, Bruce. Talk is one thing, and not worth much. Legislation is the key tool of Parliament to get things changed. That's why we started with a motion on EI, to test the will of the House. It passed. The government failed to legislate, therefore, we converted our ideas into Legislation and ensured they came to the House in a timely way, putting aside other business to get our Bill into the schedule of the House. It is now too late for other parties to bring forward legislation this June, so our Bill has to become the focus for the efforts to fix EI by the time the House rises."
Note the following:
1. The NDP bill was passed as a motion by the LPC, NDP and Bloc. Why would any of these parties not now pass the bill to convert that motion into legislation?
2. Passing the NDP bill will be a confidence measure, triggering an election.
3. No other party has time available under the rules of Parliament to introduce their own legislation.
4. The NDP bill has the change to a uniform 360 hour requirement that all three opposition parties want.
5. Layton has indicated elsewhere that he hopes that if the bill is passed, then the Tories can introduce amendments at the Standing Committee. He has offered Harper a fig leaf by saying he thinks that amendments may be possible which meet Harper's concerns and still get the amended bill passed into law. This is Layton's strategy to avoid an election at this time, but to honour his party's commitment to the earlier NDP motion which the three opposition parties passed. Time will tell if Layton is reading Harper correctly.
So, battle is joined.
Let us now see what the four bristling party leaders say when the rubber hits the road.
Get yourself some popcorn and settle down to enjoy the show!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Duck Island MP quacks apology
Having taken a beating in the press for trying to get the taxpayer to pay for a duck island he built to keep his ducks happy, a UK MP has now seen the error of his ways:
"Sir Peter Viggers, MP for Gosport, has already said he would stand down at the next election after his expenses claims were published in the Daily Telegraph.
Among his claims were £30,000 for gardening, including £500 for manure, and £1,645 on a floating duck island.
He said: "I have made a ridiculous and grave error of judgment. I am ashamed and humiliated and I apologise.""
What amounts to salt in his wounded ego is that the ducks turned tails down on his idea:
"I paid for it myself and in fact it was never liked by the ducks and is now in storage."
Just goes to show that he who walks with the ducks, and quacks with the ducks, might still be duck-challenged.
"Sir Peter Viggers, MP for Gosport, has already said he would stand down at the next election after his expenses claims were published in the Daily Telegraph.
Among his claims were £30,000 for gardening, including £500 for manure, and £1,645 on a floating duck island.
He said: "I have made a ridiculous and grave error of judgment. I am ashamed and humiliated and I apologise.""
What amounts to salt in his wounded ego is that the ducks turned tails down on his idea:
"I paid for it myself and in fact it was never liked by the ducks and is now in storage."
Just goes to show that he who walks with the ducks, and quacks with the ducks, might still be duck-challenged.
Should we cross our fingers for a new UK PR system?
Having seen the BC revision go down in flames, reformists can take heart from the fact that there is a flicker of interest now in the UK for changing from the first past the post (FPTP) system to a modified proportional representation one:
"Gordon Brown should hold a national referendum on electoral reform, Health Secretary Alan Johnson has said.
Writing in the Times, he said Mr Brown should offer the public a "genuinely radical alternative" to the current system of first-past-the-post."
The referendum could be held soon:
" Mr Johnson, who has been widely tipped as a potential successor to Mr Brown, urged the prime minister to involve the public in "a root and branch examination" of the political system in order to regain trust following the expenses scandal. "We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," he wrote. "
And a very sensible and elegant system of PR might be in the offing as an alternative to FPTP:
"The new system Mr Johnson favours is known as Alternative Vote Plus and was first suggested by the Independent Commission on Electoral Reform, led by Lord Jenkins, in 1998.
Under AV Plus, voters would have two ballot papers: one for their constituency representative and a second for their favoured political party.
Most seats in the Commons would be filled with locally elected MPs, but the remainder would be allocated by proportional representation according to the number of votes cast for each party.
The Jenkins Commission referred to the second ballot as a "corrective top-up" which would allow the make-up of Parliament to more accurately reflect voters' overall party preferences.
Calling this an "elegant" option, Mr Johnson said: "This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.""
Go for PR, PM Brown.
Electoral reform might be just the thing to give Labour a chance to be elected government again.
And what a boost to electoral reform it would be if our mother parliament changes to an elegant proportional representative system!
"Gordon Brown should hold a national referendum on electoral reform, Health Secretary Alan Johnson has said.
Writing in the Times, he said Mr Brown should offer the public a "genuinely radical alternative" to the current system of first-past-the-post."
The referendum could be held soon:
" Mr Johnson, who has been widely tipped as a potential successor to Mr Brown, urged the prime minister to involve the public in "a root and branch examination" of the political system in order to regain trust following the expenses scandal. "We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," he wrote. "
And a very sensible and elegant system of PR might be in the offing as an alternative to FPTP:
"The new system Mr Johnson favours is known as Alternative Vote Plus and was first suggested by the Independent Commission on Electoral Reform, led by Lord Jenkins, in 1998.
Under AV Plus, voters would have two ballot papers: one for their constituency representative and a second for their favoured political party.
Most seats in the Commons would be filled with locally elected MPs, but the remainder would be allocated by proportional representation according to the number of votes cast for each party.
The Jenkins Commission referred to the second ballot as a "corrective top-up" which would allow the make-up of Parliament to more accurately reflect voters' overall party preferences.
Calling this an "elegant" option, Mr Johnson said: "This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.""
Go for PR, PM Brown.
Electoral reform might be just the thing to give Labour a chance to be elected government again.
And what a boost to electoral reform it would be if our mother parliament changes to an elegant proportional representative system!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Labour Peer accuses Archbishop of talking rubbish on MP expenses
The daily drip drip drip of revelations of the unwise, ridiculous, in some cases illegal, and generally questionable expensing by MPs of Britain's mother parliament has evoked a call by the Archbishop of Canterbury to spare the feelings of the MPs:
"But Labour peer Lord Campbell Savours, one of the original campaigners for the Freedom of Information Act, said the archbishop's claims that the expenses controversy threatened democracy were "rubbish".
"It's not undermining democracy at all. It's not threatening democracy," he said. "It will lead to a change in the expenses system in the House of Commons, which many Members of Parliament would welcome.""
The Cat agrees with the Peer – the Archbishop is wrong on this score.
The press should continue to name them and shame them; that is the best way to lance the abscess of immoral expense claims, and usher in a better system.
Oh, and just when can Canadians expect similar incisive investigatory journalism regarding any defects in our system of remunerating our own MPs?
"But Labour peer Lord Campbell Savours, one of the original campaigners for the Freedom of Information Act, said the archbishop's claims that the expenses controversy threatened democracy were "rubbish".
"It's not undermining democracy at all. It's not threatening democracy," he said. "It will lead to a change in the expenses system in the House of Commons, which many Members of Parliament would welcome.""
The Cat agrees with the Peer – the Archbishop is wrong on this score.
The press should continue to name them and shame them; that is the best way to lance the abscess of immoral expense claims, and usher in a better system.
Oh, and just when can Canadians expect similar incisive investigatory journalism regarding any defects in our system of remunerating our own MPs?
Ignatieff blinks on EI reform
After talking tough for a week or so, the Liberals have started signalling that they will back off opposing Harper's Tories on changes to the 'unfair' EI rules.
The established pattern of sabre rattling followed by ignominious back tracking with tail between the legs is yet again showing itself, as this comment by Goodale shows:
"The Liberals and minority Conservatives have cited the proposal, estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, as a potential election trigger, though there is some evidence the Liberals may not let it come to that.
The Liberals could enshrine the proposal in a motion the government could deem a non-confidence measure - potentially triggering an election if all opposition parties vote for it. But, they may avoid that by simply making their case through committees and in the daily question period.
“We have tried our best to prevent it becoming a political standoff because the most important thing is to correct the problem,” Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said in an interview.
“The critical thing is not to have some kind of a political showdown. The crucial thing is to get EI changed. That is our principal objective.”
This type of behaviour (barking like a small lapdog but then fleeing when Harper harrumphs) is demeaning for the Liberal Party, and telegraphs to voters political ineptitude and lack of leadership acumen.
Ralph Goodale is wrong on this issue. The crucial thing is to replace the mean spirited, do-nothing Tory government with a government which, supported by the other opposition parties if needs be, can provide Canadians with progressive government.
Want to fix the EI unfairness? Replace the government, and fix that and a whole lot of other things as well.
The established pattern of sabre rattling followed by ignominious back tracking with tail between the legs is yet again showing itself, as this comment by Goodale shows:
"The Liberals and minority Conservatives have cited the proposal, estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, as a potential election trigger, though there is some evidence the Liberals may not let it come to that.
The Liberals could enshrine the proposal in a motion the government could deem a non-confidence measure - potentially triggering an election if all opposition parties vote for it. But, they may avoid that by simply making their case through committees and in the daily question period.
“We have tried our best to prevent it becoming a political standoff because the most important thing is to correct the problem,” Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said in an interview.
“The critical thing is not to have some kind of a political showdown. The crucial thing is to get EI changed. That is our principal objective.”
This type of behaviour (barking like a small lapdog but then fleeing when Harper harrumphs) is demeaning for the Liberal Party, and telegraphs to voters political ineptitude and lack of leadership acumen.
Ralph Goodale is wrong on this issue. The crucial thing is to replace the mean spirited, do-nothing Tory government with a government which, supported by the other opposition parties if needs be, can provide Canadians with progressive government.
Want to fix the EI unfairness? Replace the government, and fix that and a whole lot of other things as well.
How the Liberal Party can increase the size of funds raised
With release of its ambitious fund raising campaign, aimed at pulling in $25 million each year to finance elections, the Liberal Party has started to put its money where its mouth is. The Harper Tory electoral machine cannot be beaten by talk alone; money to grease a modern election campaign is a must.
The Cat has two suggestions for the party on how to raise money by increasing the size of individual donations to the party.
These ideas capitalize on the management truism that it often costs less to get more business from existing customers than to win new customers. This does not mean that the party should not try to increase the number of individual donors; of course it must do so. But a big whack of money can be raised if you can persuade an individual donor to increase the size of his or her donation.
For example, if you can persuade a donor to add $1 to his or her usual $10 monthly donation, you have increased the cash obtained by a whopping ten percent.
These two ideas are based on the enormously successful McDonalds' marketing tactic of asking one simple question after each order (Do you want fries with that?), and on our deep rooted desire to get something for nothing.
The suggestions are:
1. Ask existing donors if they will agree to make a Matching Pledge by ticking off a box which says that they will increase their monthly donations by $1, $2, $5 or some other amount if the party does meet some stated target of increased donations (in a province and/or nationally). Asking this simple question is the equivalent to McDonalds' Do you want fries with that?, and also can be pitched to donors as their choice to reward the party for actually meeting its fund raising targets; and
2. Include a monthly lottery which pays prizes (lots of relatively small ones) to randomly selected winning donors.
And then sit back and watch the money flow in.
The Cat has two suggestions for the party on how to raise money by increasing the size of individual donations to the party.
These ideas capitalize on the management truism that it often costs less to get more business from existing customers than to win new customers. This does not mean that the party should not try to increase the number of individual donors; of course it must do so. But a big whack of money can be raised if you can persuade an individual donor to increase the size of his or her donation.
For example, if you can persuade a donor to add $1 to his or her usual $10 monthly donation, you have increased the cash obtained by a whopping ten percent.
These two ideas are based on the enormously successful McDonalds' marketing tactic of asking one simple question after each order (Do you want fries with that?), and on our deep rooted desire to get something for nothing.
The suggestions are:
1. Ask existing donors if they will agree to make a Matching Pledge by ticking off a box which says that they will increase their monthly donations by $1, $2, $5 or some other amount if the party does meet some stated target of increased donations (in a province and/or nationally). Asking this simple question is the equivalent to McDonalds' Do you want fries with that?, and also can be pitched to donors as their choice to reward the party for actually meeting its fund raising targets; and
2. Include a monthly lottery which pays prizes (lots of relatively small ones) to randomly selected winning donors.
And then sit back and watch the money flow in.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
How the Liberals can raise $25,000,000 to fight Harper
The latest news of the accelerated Liberal fund raising programs is very positive:
"The Liberals are rushing ahead with a major change to the party’s organization, which only two weeks ago they had planned for the autumn, so they can be ready for a much more robust summer of activity. Emergency meetings of the Liberals’ various governing bodies are underway, with more planned for next week. The goal: a $25 million annual war chest and a vastly expanded grassroots organization to pay for it…
The fundraising plan is extraordinarily ambitious.
The Liberals would seek, within a year, to nearly quintuple the party’s revenues from private donations over the 2008 level. The new goal: an annual war chest of $25 million, built on a massively increased pool of donors who, in most cases, agree to give at least annually, and often several times per year.
Three mechanisms will be used for this objective:
• Membership in the Laurier Club, which is for people who contribute the maximum of $1,100 a year to the party, would be more than tripled to 10,000 members. A Leaders’ Circle will be created, with at least one member in every community in Canada with more than 50,000 people, to sign up new Laurier Club members.
• The Victory Fund, a more broad-based group of Liberal supporters who authorize monthly donations of $10, would get a major push with the goal of an eight-fold increase to 25,000 members within a year.
• Finally, the party would “make use of direct mail, telemarketing and established online/social media techniques to reach out to the millions of actual and potential Liberal supporters and sympathizers across Canada,” with the goal of raising $10,000,000 a year in small, one-off donations.
To say the least, it is not clear the Liberals can meet such ambitious targets."
Kudos to the Liberals’ new party president, Toronto lawyer Alfred Apps, and Rocco Rossi, who as the party’s executive director is in charge of fundraising for these ambitious efforts.
To help them achieve their aggressive but necessary aims, The Cat offers some hints, based on the proven management principle that 'what is measured, improves':
1. Let the public see what is happening with the fund raising efforts of the Liberal Party.
2. Publish (starting now with the history for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008) statistics of fund raising by the party on the LPC website, broken down into the categories set out below.
3. Then publish current fundraising efforts (same categories) for each month of 2009.
4. Also publish the targets for each riding for each of the next 3 years (2009, 2010 and 2011) which must be met for the $25 million per year to be reached.
5. At the same time, compare the Liberal results (on a riding by riding, province by province and nationally) with the fund raising results of the Bloc, NDP and Tory parties.
6. Show the statistics for each of the 308 ridings.
7. Have each of our 77 MPs adopt on average 3 other ridings to support in their fund raising efforts, so that each of the 308 ridings have an MP publicly responsible for raising the targets set for each riding. The allocation of ridings to sitting MPs could be made based on their location compared to the ridings held by the other 3 parties, and, if needed, by random allocations. The purpose is to fit in with the Liberal 308 riding strategy, and to avoid any 'orphan ridings' when it comes to fund raising efforts and responsibility.
8. Make sure that the statistics published identify each MP responsible for each riding, plus the Presidents of the local party organization. We will then be able to see at a glance which MPs are meeting targets, and to give those who are struggling more help to achieve their targets.
9. All the statistics should show the following break downs:
a. The total dollar funds raised (or to be raised in order to meet our $25 million target) in each riding.
b. That total divided by (i) the total voters in each riding, and (ii) the number of donors to the LPC in each riding.
c. Similar figures for each riding for each of the other 3 parties.
d. The amounts donated (broken down into size categories).
We will be able to compare relative fund raising efforts by riding, province and nationally, so as to identify problems and allocate resources to remedy shortfalls.
"The Liberals are rushing ahead with a major change to the party’s organization, which only two weeks ago they had planned for the autumn, so they can be ready for a much more robust summer of activity. Emergency meetings of the Liberals’ various governing bodies are underway, with more planned for next week. The goal: a $25 million annual war chest and a vastly expanded grassroots organization to pay for it…
The fundraising plan is extraordinarily ambitious.
The Liberals would seek, within a year, to nearly quintuple the party’s revenues from private donations over the 2008 level. The new goal: an annual war chest of $25 million, built on a massively increased pool of donors who, in most cases, agree to give at least annually, and often several times per year.
Three mechanisms will be used for this objective:
• Membership in the Laurier Club, which is for people who contribute the maximum of $1,100 a year to the party, would be more than tripled to 10,000 members. A Leaders’ Circle will be created, with at least one member in every community in Canada with more than 50,000 people, to sign up new Laurier Club members.
• The Victory Fund, a more broad-based group of Liberal supporters who authorize monthly donations of $10, would get a major push with the goal of an eight-fold increase to 25,000 members within a year.
• Finally, the party would “make use of direct mail, telemarketing and established online/social media techniques to reach out to the millions of actual and potential Liberal supporters and sympathizers across Canada,” with the goal of raising $10,000,000 a year in small, one-off donations.
To say the least, it is not clear the Liberals can meet such ambitious targets."
Kudos to the Liberals’ new party president, Toronto lawyer Alfred Apps, and Rocco Rossi, who as the party’s executive director is in charge of fundraising for these ambitious efforts.
To help them achieve their aggressive but necessary aims, The Cat offers some hints, based on the proven management principle that 'what is measured, improves':
1. Let the public see what is happening with the fund raising efforts of the Liberal Party.
2. Publish (starting now with the history for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008) statistics of fund raising by the party on the LPC website, broken down into the categories set out below.
3. Then publish current fundraising efforts (same categories) for each month of 2009.
4. Also publish the targets for each riding for each of the next 3 years (2009, 2010 and 2011) which must be met for the $25 million per year to be reached.
5. At the same time, compare the Liberal results (on a riding by riding, province by province and nationally) with the fund raising results of the Bloc, NDP and Tory parties.
6. Show the statistics for each of the 308 ridings.
7. Have each of our 77 MPs adopt on average 3 other ridings to support in their fund raising efforts, so that each of the 308 ridings have an MP publicly responsible for raising the targets set for each riding. The allocation of ridings to sitting MPs could be made based on their location compared to the ridings held by the other 3 parties, and, if needed, by random allocations. The purpose is to fit in with the Liberal 308 riding strategy, and to avoid any 'orphan ridings' when it comes to fund raising efforts and responsibility.
8. Make sure that the statistics published identify each MP responsible for each riding, plus the Presidents of the local party organization. We will then be able to see at a glance which MPs are meeting targets, and to give those who are struggling more help to achieve their targets.
9. All the statistics should show the following break downs:
a. The total dollar funds raised (or to be raised in order to meet our $25 million target) in each riding.
b. That total divided by (i) the total voters in each riding, and (ii) the number of donors to the LPC in each riding.
c. Similar figures for each riding for each of the other 3 parties.
d. The amounts donated (broken down into size categories).
We will be able to compare relative fund raising efforts by riding, province and nationally, so as to identify problems and allocate resources to remedy shortfalls.
Canada's best financial sleuth?
If ever Canada develops a Sherlock Holmes Prize for the best financial sleuthing by journalists, the Cat nominates David Baines of the Vancouver Sun for the award.
Who is David Baines?
"David Baines has been uncovering white collar crime, stock fraud in particular, for the past 23 years. He has an MBA from the University of Western Ontario and has won four National Newspaper Awards, a National Magazine Award and five Jack Webster Awards. His column appears regularly on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and on other days as events occur."
That is what his website says.
But those readers of the Sun who turn to his articles with delight know that he is much more than those prosaic words convey. They know him as a highly competent professional, who does his homework, and who is not afraid of taking on any of the powers that be in pursuit of truth, justice and the Canadian way.
If we have crooks in our back yard (and heaven knows BC has more than its share of good, bad and indifferent scoundrels) then you can be sure that sooner or later Baines will track them down and expose them.
Even if it means pointing out the systemic errors in the BC justice system or security laws and institutions.
And he writes about events and people in a refreshingly direct and entertaining way.
Take this, for example:
"He bragged that reporters are easy dupes: "I can say anything to you. Whether I practise it or not, you won't know. That's the thing with the media. All those things I was doing [drugs and alcohol] ... I was saying something completely different. Who knows? I might still be.""
Or this:
"On Nov. 26, I reported that the New York-based American Watercolor Society was having second thoughts about the gold medal they awarded Ottawa artist Sheryl Luxenburg last spring.
The society had learned that her entry, called Impermanence, had been derived from two photographs from Shutterstock.com, a California company that licenses the use of stock photography.
When I called Luxenburg on it, she became quite indignant: "You've got be kidding. You're just paparazzi looking for excitement. You're sensationalizing a situation that is ridiculous. Goodbye."
The society is now reporting that Luxenburg admitted contravening the rules and has returned her gold medal, plus the $4,000 cash prize. Still unrepentant, she dismisses the whole fiasco as "an innocent mistake.""
Thanks, David, for protecting investors.
And may you be the first to be awarded the Sherlock Holmes Prize, should we ever have one.
Who is David Baines?
"David Baines has been uncovering white collar crime, stock fraud in particular, for the past 23 years. He has an MBA from the University of Western Ontario and has won four National Newspaper Awards, a National Magazine Award and five Jack Webster Awards. His column appears regularly on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and on other days as events occur."
That is what his website says.
But those readers of the Sun who turn to his articles with delight know that he is much more than those prosaic words convey. They know him as a highly competent professional, who does his homework, and who is not afraid of taking on any of the powers that be in pursuit of truth, justice and the Canadian way.
If we have crooks in our back yard (and heaven knows BC has more than its share of good, bad and indifferent scoundrels) then you can be sure that sooner or later Baines will track them down and expose them.
Even if it means pointing out the systemic errors in the BC justice system or security laws and institutions.
And he writes about events and people in a refreshingly direct and entertaining way.
Take this, for example:
"He bragged that reporters are easy dupes: "I can say anything to you. Whether I practise it or not, you won't know. That's the thing with the media. All those things I was doing [drugs and alcohol] ... I was saying something completely different. Who knows? I might still be.""
Or this:
"On Nov. 26, I reported that the New York-based American Watercolor Society was having second thoughts about the gold medal they awarded Ottawa artist Sheryl Luxenburg last spring.
The society had learned that her entry, called Impermanence, had been derived from two photographs from Shutterstock.com, a California company that licenses the use of stock photography.
When I called Luxenburg on it, she became quite indignant: "You've got be kidding. You're just paparazzi looking for excitement. You're sensationalizing a situation that is ridiculous. Goodbye."
The society is now reporting that Luxenburg admitted contravening the rules and has returned her gold medal, plus the $4,000 cash prize. Still unrepentant, she dismisses the whole fiasco as "an innocent mistake.""
Thanks, David, for protecting investors.
And may you be the first to be awarded the Sherlock Holmes Prize, should we ever have one.
Friday, May 22, 2009
British MPs jump over expenses cliff
""Stealing," said one man pushing a baby in a pram. He is out of work and struggling to feed a growing family. Trade at Bailey's Cafe was brisk this lunchtime as people scurried in to escape the rain. Patricia Barber, one of the waitresses, summed up the mood of many. "Sack them all and start again," she said as she ferried out steaming plates of corned beef hash."
Those are the views of some of the constituents of a British MP about the expenses debacle which has enveloped Britain.
And the MP's view?
""This bloodfest has got to stop...otherwise we will have no democracy left," he said."
What lies behind the expenses mess in Britain? Hidden expenses, a lax system, and an enterprising newspaper which exposed the mess:
"Most MPs have to live in two places - in their constituencies and in London where they attend Parliament. They are allowed to claim expenses to cover the cost of running a second home. Details of what has been claimed on second home expenses have never been revealed before the Daily Telegraph got hold of a leaked copy of all the claims. Many MPs have been accused of extravagance, of over-claiming and avoiding tax on home sales."
And the reasoning of the committee of the House of Commons about the expenses of MPs? Laughable:
"The Commons authorities checked claims through basic steps like checking the identity of people who claimed, that claims were an "allowable item" and that receipts were provided if necessary. But ultimately the system of MPs' allowances was "self regulatory", as MPs were accountable to Parliament and their constituents at the ballot box, they argued."
However, the Commons authorities are partially correct, and judgment will be levied on MPs during coming elections. The initial views of voters can be gauged from opinion polls, and that message is dire: Labour will lose power next year.
Sir Peter (Duck Island) Viggers is an early victim:
"Sir Peter Viggers, whose gardening claims totalled £30,000, is to quit at "the direct request of David Cameron"."
One MP at least has a very realistic view of who is to blame:
"In an interview with the BBC, Ms Dorries, who was a nurse before she came into politics, said MPs were walking around "with terror in their eyes" and likened the atmosphere to that surrounding Senator Joseph McCarthy's "witch-hunts" of Communists during the 1950s. But speaking on the BBC's Today programme, Mr Pound dismissed the analogy as "facile" because "Senator McCarthy's victims were innocent". He acknowledged that the mood at Westminster was "very, very dark", adding: "It's like a slasher movie where every morning we come in and see who's still alive." But he said MPs had no-one to blame but themselves, and accused his colleagues of revelling in a sense of entitlement fostered by fees office staff who saw it as their job to maximise members' claims. "They were helping us over the cliff, but it's our fault for jumping," Mr Pound said."
Some cliff.
Some jump.
And it leads to a question for us: do we have a similar sense of entitlement on the part of our Canadian MPs? And a similar cliff?
Those are the views of some of the constituents of a British MP about the expenses debacle which has enveloped Britain.
And the MP's view?
""This bloodfest has got to stop...otherwise we will have no democracy left," he said."
What lies behind the expenses mess in Britain? Hidden expenses, a lax system, and an enterprising newspaper which exposed the mess:
"Most MPs have to live in two places - in their constituencies and in London where they attend Parliament. They are allowed to claim expenses to cover the cost of running a second home. Details of what has been claimed on second home expenses have never been revealed before the Daily Telegraph got hold of a leaked copy of all the claims. Many MPs have been accused of extravagance, of over-claiming and avoiding tax on home sales."
And the reasoning of the committee of the House of Commons about the expenses of MPs? Laughable:
"The Commons authorities checked claims through basic steps like checking the identity of people who claimed, that claims were an "allowable item" and that receipts were provided if necessary. But ultimately the system of MPs' allowances was "self regulatory", as MPs were accountable to Parliament and their constituents at the ballot box, they argued."
However, the Commons authorities are partially correct, and judgment will be levied on MPs during coming elections. The initial views of voters can be gauged from opinion polls, and that message is dire: Labour will lose power next year.
Sir Peter (Duck Island) Viggers is an early victim:
"Sir Peter Viggers, whose gardening claims totalled £30,000, is to quit at "the direct request of David Cameron"."
One MP at least has a very realistic view of who is to blame:
"In an interview with the BBC, Ms Dorries, who was a nurse before she came into politics, said MPs were walking around "with terror in their eyes" and likened the atmosphere to that surrounding Senator Joseph McCarthy's "witch-hunts" of Communists during the 1950s. But speaking on the BBC's Today programme, Mr Pound dismissed the analogy as "facile" because "Senator McCarthy's victims were innocent". He acknowledged that the mood at Westminster was "very, very dark", adding: "It's like a slasher movie where every morning we come in and see who's still alive." But he said MPs had no-one to blame but themselves, and accused his colleagues of revelling in a sense of entitlement fostered by fees office staff who saw it as their job to maximise members' claims. "They were helping us over the cliff, but it's our fault for jumping," Mr Pound said."
Some cliff.
Some jump.
And it leads to a question for us: do we have a similar sense of entitlement on the part of our Canadian MPs? And a similar cliff?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ignatieff fails the framing tests set by the Tory ads
George Lakoff is very specific about what to do and what not to do when your political opponent attacks you with an attempt to frame the discussion, or to frame the public perception of you.
And his advice is clear, commonsensical, and difficult to apply in some situations.
Michael Ignatieff has responded to the Tory framing ads (aka as 'attack ads') with a response which clearly shows that (1) he has not read Lakoff, (2) he does not understand the battle of framing, and (3) he is failing to respond properly to the Tory framing ads.
His response, in other words, plays into the trap set by the Tory ads, and allows them to continue to colour him their way.
Take these 'commandments' from George Lakoff, and compare the Ignatieff response to the Tory ads, and the Tory response to Ignatieff's response:
"In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant. There are four morals.
Moral 1. Every word evokes a frame.
A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. The word elephant evokes a frame with an image of an elephant and certain knowledge: an elephant is a large animal (a mammal) with large floppy ears, a trunk that functions like both a nose and a hand, large stump-like legs, and so on.
Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame.
The word trunk, as in the sentence "Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk," evokes the Elephant frame and suggests that "Sam" is the name of an elephant.
Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame.
Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame.
Every frame is realized in the brain by neural circuitry. Every time a neural circuit is activated, it is strengthened."
Ignatieff's response fits into the No-no of Morals 3 and 4: his response evokes the frame decided upon by the Tories (Ignatieff is a carpetbagger who was out of the country for years and years and only came back to become prime minister and who, if he failed, might leave Canada again), and reinforces that frame.
Ignatieff's response also gives the Tories another crack at spinning out the frame, as these responses show:
"The six TV ads the Conservatives are running across Canada paint Mr. Ignatieff as a pretentious political carpetbagger who returned home to satisfy political ambitions. One, called "Just Visiting" includes a clip of Mr. Ignatieff on U.S. TV referring to himself as an American.
Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said last night the issue is not the years Mr. Ignatieff spent abroad, but that he came back only to try to become prime minister.
"Canadians who chose to work outside the country don't pretend that Canada is not their country," he said."
And this Tory response:
"Ryan Sparrow, a spokesperson for the Conservative party, said the Liberal leader is evading the point of their ads.
"The issue is not that Ignatieff worked outside the country," Sparrow said in an email. "The issue is that while outside the country he slammed Canada, Canadians and our flag - and perhaps most disturbingly - admitted that he would (again) leave Canada if unsuccessful in his political career. In other words, he's just visiting. Canadians should be able to expect more from their Prime Minister.""
The Tories are clearly winning this little spat, with significant negative consequences for Ignatieff and the Liberal Party.
The Cat's advice to Michael Ignatieff is short and simple: Get ahold of Lakoff's book Don’t Think Of An Elephant, and study it carefully.
Then order every Liberal MP to get a copy, and hold sessions (lead by Lakoff himself) to really really learn it.
Before it is too late and you become, in the minds of many Canadians, the itinerant carpetbagger that the Tories are framing you as.
And his advice is clear, commonsensical, and difficult to apply in some situations.
Michael Ignatieff has responded to the Tory framing ads (aka as 'attack ads') with a response which clearly shows that (1) he has not read Lakoff, (2) he does not understand the battle of framing, and (3) he is failing to respond properly to the Tory framing ads.
His response, in other words, plays into the trap set by the Tory ads, and allows them to continue to colour him their way.
Take these 'commandments' from George Lakoff, and compare the Ignatieff response to the Tory ads, and the Tory response to Ignatieff's response:
"In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant. There are four morals.
Moral 1. Every word evokes a frame.
A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. The word elephant evokes a frame with an image of an elephant and certain knowledge: an elephant is a large animal (a mammal) with large floppy ears, a trunk that functions like both a nose and a hand, large stump-like legs, and so on.
Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame.
The word trunk, as in the sentence "Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk," evokes the Elephant frame and suggests that "Sam" is the name of an elephant.
Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame.
Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame.
Every frame is realized in the brain by neural circuitry. Every time a neural circuit is activated, it is strengthened."
Ignatieff's response fits into the No-no of Morals 3 and 4: his response evokes the frame decided upon by the Tories (Ignatieff is a carpetbagger who was out of the country for years and years and only came back to become prime minister and who, if he failed, might leave Canada again), and reinforces that frame.
Ignatieff's response also gives the Tories another crack at spinning out the frame, as these responses show:
"The six TV ads the Conservatives are running across Canada paint Mr. Ignatieff as a pretentious political carpetbagger who returned home to satisfy political ambitions. One, called "Just Visiting" includes a clip of Mr. Ignatieff on U.S. TV referring to himself as an American.
Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said last night the issue is not the years Mr. Ignatieff spent abroad, but that he came back only to try to become prime minister.
"Canadians who chose to work outside the country don't pretend that Canada is not their country," he said."
And this Tory response:
"Ryan Sparrow, a spokesperson for the Conservative party, said the Liberal leader is evading the point of their ads.
"The issue is not that Ignatieff worked outside the country," Sparrow said in an email. "The issue is that while outside the country he slammed Canada, Canadians and our flag - and perhaps most disturbingly - admitted that he would (again) leave Canada if unsuccessful in his political career. In other words, he's just visiting. Canadians should be able to expect more from their Prime Minister.""
The Tories are clearly winning this little spat, with significant negative consequences for Ignatieff and the Liberal Party.
The Cat's advice to Michael Ignatieff is short and simple: Get ahold of Lakoff's book Don’t Think Of An Elephant, and study it carefully.
Then order every Liberal MP to get a copy, and hold sessions (lead by Lakoff himself) to really really learn it.
Before it is too late and you become, in the minds of many Canadians, the itinerant carpetbagger that the Tories are framing you as.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
All Canadians are equal but Prime Ministers are more equal than everyone
Did we learn today the application by federal tax authorities of the Orwellian value system introduced in Animal Farm?
Courtesy of the Oliphant Commission into the three cash payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to former prime minister Brian Mulroney?
In Animal Far, the pigs who emerge as leaders of the animals set out the values to guide the new society, declaring that All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Our tax authorities seem to have similar system of values (unless I am missing something) when it comes to how much tax a former prime minister has to pay on earnings.
How so? Consider this:
"Brian Mulroney only paid taxes on half of the $225,000 Karlheinz Schreiber paid him to act as a high-profile pitchman for an armoured vehicles project, a public inquiry has heard.
According to an agreement with the Quebec tax authorities, Mulroney paid income tax on $112,500 as part of a procedure called voluntary disclosure.
Mulroney's lawyers confirmed the revelations on Tuesday, which came during the former prime minister's fifth day of testimony at the Oliphant inquiry.
During the testimony, inquiry head Justice Jeffrey Oliphant appeared puzzled.
"Let me get this straight ... He ended up with a voluntary disclosure paying tax on only half of what he would have paid had he declared it in the year earned?"
Mulroney lawyer Guy Pratte said his client declared the full amount, but Quebec tax officials only assessed income tax on half of the $225,000.
Mulroney told the inquiry that his accountants took care of the matter.
"I referred the matter to my tax advisers in 1999," he said. "They resolved the matter with the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. "
And after their discussions and negotiations, all I was advised of was that the matter had been resolved and that certain monies were to be paid, and the cheques were issued. That was the extent of my involvement in it.""
Hmmm ….
Wonder where I can get such a tax break ….
Wouldn't it be nice if my MP asked the Minister in Parliament to explain why Brian Mulroney only was allowed to pay tax on half his declared earnings.
Is there some kind of 'phantom discount' which only PMs can use, to cut their taxable income in half?
Courtesy of the Oliphant Commission into the three cash payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to former prime minister Brian Mulroney?
In Animal Far, the pigs who emerge as leaders of the animals set out the values to guide the new society, declaring that All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Our tax authorities seem to have similar system of values (unless I am missing something) when it comes to how much tax a former prime minister has to pay on earnings.
How so? Consider this:
"Brian Mulroney only paid taxes on half of the $225,000 Karlheinz Schreiber paid him to act as a high-profile pitchman for an armoured vehicles project, a public inquiry has heard.
According to an agreement with the Quebec tax authorities, Mulroney paid income tax on $112,500 as part of a procedure called voluntary disclosure.
Mulroney's lawyers confirmed the revelations on Tuesday, which came during the former prime minister's fifth day of testimony at the Oliphant inquiry.
During the testimony, inquiry head Justice Jeffrey Oliphant appeared puzzled.
"Let me get this straight ... He ended up with a voluntary disclosure paying tax on only half of what he would have paid had he declared it in the year earned?"
Mulroney lawyer Guy Pratte said his client declared the full amount, but Quebec tax officials only assessed income tax on half of the $225,000.
Mulroney told the inquiry that his accountants took care of the matter.
"I referred the matter to my tax advisers in 1999," he said. "They resolved the matter with the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. "
And after their discussions and negotiations, all I was advised of was that the matter had been resolved and that certain monies were to be paid, and the cheques were issued. That was the extent of my involvement in it.""
Hmmm ….
Wonder where I can get such a tax break ….
Wouldn't it be nice if my MP asked the Minister in Parliament to explain why Brian Mulroney only was allowed to pay tax on half his declared earnings.
Is there some kind of 'phantom discount' which only PMs can use, to cut their taxable income in half?
Attack ads, framing and Michael Ignatieff: A suggestion
The Tories have launched a series of ads on television which refer to a website and which contain printed extracts of past writings or sayings of Michael Ignatieff, and also actual videos of past interviews during the time he was in the USA.
In particular, one video has Ignatieff talking to Americans and calling himself an American.
Liberals are rightly disconcerted by the advertisements, because the Tories effectively using Ignatieff's own words against him, and because they remember how the Tories managed to hammer into the ordinary conversation of ordinary Canadians the themes they chose with respect to Dion.
That is clearly what Harper wants to happen with Ignatieff, and judging by the timing of the television ads and the press and media reports, he has made a good beginning.
The problem of Liberals is that they have made a mistake in labelling the new Tory ads. Both in blogs, in speeches and in articles by the media, the Tory ads are called 'attack ads'. The Tories are assailed for launching 'attack ads'.
The difficulty with the Liberal label is that it misses the thrust of Tory policy.
Using Ignatieff's own words against him is fair game. Drawing erroneous conclusions from his own statements should be exposed and attacked. Drawing possibly correct conclusions from his own statements is less open to effective attack.
And, above all, attack ads are an accepted and acceptable part of political discourse in 2009 in Canada. Liberals themselves will use attack ads against the Tories, the Bloc and the NDP, both before and during formal election periods.
We, as Liberals, must understand what the Harper Tories are doing with their Ignatieff ads. They have started their election campaign, expecting an election some time this year, or perhaps next year. And the ads are simply one of the two election strategies they are now (and will continue to) adopting.
Harper has been enormously successful in defeating two Liberal leaders in the past few years by fighting on two fronts.
They have successfully managed to convince the Canadian voters that the major fight in the elections is on the issue of leadership, and that Harper is the better leader. And, at the same time, they have engaged in micro-targeting, offering trinkets to a wide range of carefully selected voters, and basically avoiding 'grand theme' policies.
Harper has trounced Martin and Dion in the leadership stakes. The Tories managed this because they successfully framed Martin and Dion as ineffective leaders of their own party, and of the country. And having used this frame, they have also successfully framed Harper as an effective, decisive leader.
The new 'attack ads' (as the Liberals are calling them) or, more precisely, 'framing ads' (which is what they are) launched against Ignatieff are part of the same framing strategy, and are designed to set up in the minds of Canadians certain troubling questions about the validity of Ignatieff's quest to become prime minister. Having done this, the Tory attack will then move on to contrast the now-framed Ignatieff with the decisive, positive Harper figure, and so turn the next election into a question about the two leaders and not about the policies of the two parties.
Ignatieff is a relatively blank slate to most Canadians (as several polls have shown). And so the Tories have a wonderful opportunity to colour him in, with crayons of their own choosing. If they wish, they can smudge his outlines a bit, move the picture a bit to the left or right, and make him seem to be what they want in this pre-campaign part of the election.
And how should Liberals respond to this?
Firstly, by choosing their own battlegrounds, and forcing Harper and the Tories to fight on them. And the main attack should be against the Tory strategy of making the next election a quasi-presidential one of choosing a 'Canadian president', rather than an election of political parties with differing policies.
Liberals need to add colour to the blank Ignatieff slate.
And the best colour they can use is one which speaks to his positives as a person, and which moves the battle to policies and not just a choice between two men.
If Michael Ignatieff wishes to avoid the fate of Martin and Dion, he needs to bring to the battle which is now engaged his own personality, armed with a vision of where he will take Canada.
And that vision needs to be one voters can identify with him. Not all that matters is the man, the man must also have a plan.
Ignatieff will not win if he simply allows the Liberals to cobble together a hodge podge of poorly linked issues as the Liberal platform, and then drop this on the electorate a few weeks before the next election.
Ignatieff will win if he brings forth a strong Liberal platform, with his own stamp on it, and delivers it to the voters now, articulating where he will take the country over the next decade.
By doing so, he will have coloured himself in, rather than let Harper do that, and will force Harper to talk policies, and not just resort to framing one man in order to win.
It will be interesting to see if Ignatieff confronts the very real threat to him posed by the Tory framing, and succeeds in dictating the battleground. Both Martin and Dion failed in this, and went down to defeat. In this respect, Ignatieff's position is very different from that of any previous Liberal leader, who lived and fought in Parliament and out, and who were not colourless politicians in the eyes of most Canadians. Because of his absence from Canada, Ignatieff has to establish that he does indeed speak for Canada, and can be trusted to be prime minister. And he has to do this in a very, very short timeframe.
In particular, one video has Ignatieff talking to Americans and calling himself an American.
Liberals are rightly disconcerted by the advertisements, because the Tories effectively using Ignatieff's own words against him, and because they remember how the Tories managed to hammer into the ordinary conversation of ordinary Canadians the themes they chose with respect to Dion.
That is clearly what Harper wants to happen with Ignatieff, and judging by the timing of the television ads and the press and media reports, he has made a good beginning.
The problem of Liberals is that they have made a mistake in labelling the new Tory ads. Both in blogs, in speeches and in articles by the media, the Tory ads are called 'attack ads'. The Tories are assailed for launching 'attack ads'.
The difficulty with the Liberal label is that it misses the thrust of Tory policy.
Using Ignatieff's own words against him is fair game. Drawing erroneous conclusions from his own statements should be exposed and attacked. Drawing possibly correct conclusions from his own statements is less open to effective attack.
And, above all, attack ads are an accepted and acceptable part of political discourse in 2009 in Canada. Liberals themselves will use attack ads against the Tories, the Bloc and the NDP, both before and during formal election periods.
We, as Liberals, must understand what the Harper Tories are doing with their Ignatieff ads. They have started their election campaign, expecting an election some time this year, or perhaps next year. And the ads are simply one of the two election strategies they are now (and will continue to) adopting.
Harper has been enormously successful in defeating two Liberal leaders in the past few years by fighting on two fronts.
They have successfully managed to convince the Canadian voters that the major fight in the elections is on the issue of leadership, and that Harper is the better leader. And, at the same time, they have engaged in micro-targeting, offering trinkets to a wide range of carefully selected voters, and basically avoiding 'grand theme' policies.
Harper has trounced Martin and Dion in the leadership stakes. The Tories managed this because they successfully framed Martin and Dion as ineffective leaders of their own party, and of the country. And having used this frame, they have also successfully framed Harper as an effective, decisive leader.
The new 'attack ads' (as the Liberals are calling them) or, more precisely, 'framing ads' (which is what they are) launched against Ignatieff are part of the same framing strategy, and are designed to set up in the minds of Canadians certain troubling questions about the validity of Ignatieff's quest to become prime minister. Having done this, the Tory attack will then move on to contrast the now-framed Ignatieff with the decisive, positive Harper figure, and so turn the next election into a question about the two leaders and not about the policies of the two parties.
Ignatieff is a relatively blank slate to most Canadians (as several polls have shown). And so the Tories have a wonderful opportunity to colour him in, with crayons of their own choosing. If they wish, they can smudge his outlines a bit, move the picture a bit to the left or right, and make him seem to be what they want in this pre-campaign part of the election.
And how should Liberals respond to this?
Firstly, by choosing their own battlegrounds, and forcing Harper and the Tories to fight on them. And the main attack should be against the Tory strategy of making the next election a quasi-presidential one of choosing a 'Canadian president', rather than an election of political parties with differing policies.
Liberals need to add colour to the blank Ignatieff slate.
And the best colour they can use is one which speaks to his positives as a person, and which moves the battle to policies and not just a choice between two men.
If Michael Ignatieff wishes to avoid the fate of Martin and Dion, he needs to bring to the battle which is now engaged his own personality, armed with a vision of where he will take Canada.
And that vision needs to be one voters can identify with him. Not all that matters is the man, the man must also have a plan.
Ignatieff will not win if he simply allows the Liberals to cobble together a hodge podge of poorly linked issues as the Liberal platform, and then drop this on the electorate a few weeks before the next election.
Ignatieff will win if he brings forth a strong Liberal platform, with his own stamp on it, and delivers it to the voters now, articulating where he will take the country over the next decade.
By doing so, he will have coloured himself in, rather than let Harper do that, and will force Harper to talk policies, and not just resort to framing one man in order to win.
It will be interesting to see if Ignatieff confronts the very real threat to him posed by the Tory framing, and succeeds in dictating the battleground. Both Martin and Dion failed in this, and went down to defeat. In this respect, Ignatieff's position is very different from that of any previous Liberal leader, who lived and fought in Parliament and out, and who were not colourless politicians in the eyes of most Canadians. Because of his absence from Canada, Ignatieff has to establish that he does indeed speak for Canada, and can be trusted to be prime minister. And he has to do this in a very, very short timeframe.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Will our press examine our MPs expenses and perks?
Over in Britain, a furor has erupted over the claims by MPs from both the ruling Labour Party and opposition Tory Party for expenses:
" A week after its opening salvo, the Daily Telegraph is still reaping great benefit from its exclusive expose of MPs' expenses.
It is a story that has shaken Westminster to its foundations and which continues to lead most news bulletins and broadsheet front pages.
When the Telegraph's assistant editor, Benedict Brogan, appeared on BBC One's Question Time this week, it attracted its highest ever audience - 3.8 million viewers tuned in to see Margaret Beckett and Sir Menzies Campbell being heckled, more than a million up on its average audience this year.
The paper itself has boosted its sales and web traffic."
The results have been catastrophic for the governing party, with opinion polls showing that the bottom has fallen out of the support for PM Brown.
Even the Speaker is under attack, because officials reporting to him appear to have given MPs of several parties advice on how to milk the British taxpayer.
We are probably witnessing the death throes of Brown and his Labour government.
Now, Canadian media, how about some equally distinguished in depth articles about exactly how insulated our MPs are from ordinary Canadians, and how this probably makes it easier for them to be heartless regarding the jobless and disadvantaged? How about a few comparisons of an MPs total earnings and benefits versus the average Canadian's? Include by all means things like expense accounts and pension plans and tax exempt payments.
And then let us see which parties will come forward with policies designed to make our MPs live like ordinary Canadians …
" A week after its opening salvo, the Daily Telegraph is still reaping great benefit from its exclusive expose of MPs' expenses.
It is a story that has shaken Westminster to its foundations and which continues to lead most news bulletins and broadsheet front pages.
When the Telegraph's assistant editor, Benedict Brogan, appeared on BBC One's Question Time this week, it attracted its highest ever audience - 3.8 million viewers tuned in to see Margaret Beckett and Sir Menzies Campbell being heckled, more than a million up on its average audience this year.
The paper itself has boosted its sales and web traffic."
The results have been catastrophic for the governing party, with opinion polls showing that the bottom has fallen out of the support for PM Brown.
Even the Speaker is under attack, because officials reporting to him appear to have given MPs of several parties advice on how to milk the British taxpayer.
We are probably witnessing the death throes of Brown and his Labour government.
Now, Canadian media, how about some equally distinguished in depth articles about exactly how insulated our MPs are from ordinary Canadians, and how this probably makes it easier for them to be heartless regarding the jobless and disadvantaged? How about a few comparisons of an MPs total earnings and benefits versus the average Canadian's? Include by all means things like expense accounts and pension plans and tax exempt payments.
And then let us see which parties will come forward with policies designed to make our MPs live like ordinary Canadians …
Ignatieff, Harper, Lakoff and Liberal stupidity: Illustration #2
In my last post I berated the Liberals brains trust and their blogging supporters for failing to read and apply the lessons on framing given by George Lakoff (Don't Think Of An Elephant).
The Liberal folly continues.
The Tories have tweaked the 'Ignatieff is a carpet bagging absentee and elitist Canadian' framing in a second (and very effective) attack on the Liberals. This tweaking is successful, because it forces the discussion of the merits of Ignatieff as a leader of the Liberals (and as a potential prime minister of all Canadians) into the frame the Tories have settled on.
The Tories have achieved this with one posting by a Tory blogger:
" “The ads will backfire”, “Canadians are turned off by negative ads”, “This isn’t the United States (oops)” are the sounds coming from the Parliamentary Press Gallery and other members of the media elite in this country. They claim to tell us what we think when it’s clear that they’re out of touch with the effect that those ads will have on us as Canadians."
And, whoops, there the Liberal commentators go, racing after the Tory hare.
Bloggers attack the premise that the Canadian media is biased against the Tories. Liberal party members join the chase.
And meanwhile, Harper smiles his cold little smile as the Liberals adopt his framing of Michael Ignatieff, and dance to his tune.
Round Two to Harper and his Tories.
When will Liberals ever learn?
The Liberal folly continues.
The Tories have tweaked the 'Ignatieff is a carpet bagging absentee and elitist Canadian' framing in a second (and very effective) attack on the Liberals. This tweaking is successful, because it forces the discussion of the merits of Ignatieff as a leader of the Liberals (and as a potential prime minister of all Canadians) into the frame the Tories have settled on.
The Tories have achieved this with one posting by a Tory blogger:
" “The ads will backfire”, “Canadians are turned off by negative ads”, “This isn’t the United States (oops)” are the sounds coming from the Parliamentary Press Gallery and other members of the media elite in this country. They claim to tell us what we think when it’s clear that they’re out of touch with the effect that those ads will have on us as Canadians."
And, whoops, there the Liberal commentators go, racing after the Tory hare.
Bloggers attack the premise that the Canadian media is biased against the Tories. Liberal party members join the chase.
And meanwhile, Harper smiles his cold little smile as the Liberals adopt his framing of Michael Ignatieff, and dance to his tune.
Round Two to Harper and his Tories.
When will Liberals ever learn?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Ignatieff attack ads and Liberals' error
At long last Harper has started his campaign for the next election with a series of ads portraying Ignatieff as an absentee Canadian, a carpetbagger returning to the north expecting the plum of the prime ministership to fall into his lap, a man with multiple nationalities, and an out of touch elitist writer and speaker with a deft touch for capturing in words a misguided, Americanized philosophy.
Oh, and even an elitist coffee drinker!
And the predictable reaction of Liberals?
Outrage, concern, fear.
And stupidity.
Why stupid?
Because they have learned nothing over the past five years.
While the Democrats have for close to decade been whipped into shape by the formerly ferocious Karl Rove attack machine, we have sat back, supremely confident that eventually the vast bulk of the voters here will see the error of Stephen Harper's ways, realize that they made a bad mistake in electing a Tory minority government, and flock to the polls to elect our latest Trudeau-clone leader by giving him a blank cheque to form the next government (anybody see any Liberal policy in front of the voters telling them exactly what the party would do if it was governing?).
This, of course, is exactly what Harper wants.
While Ignatieff is touring the country promoting his latest family history, Stephen Harper has been brooding on Parliament hill, thinking of ways to defeat this new threat to his government. He knows that Jack Layton will never be prime minister, nor Duceppe. He knows that he can always somehow buy off the NDP or the Bloc with some trinkets in a budget. And he knows that come the next election (most likely some 18 months time), the threat lies with the Liberals.
And his brooding contemplation of Michael Ignatieff is paying off.
He has measured Michael, and to date has made him dance to Harper's tune, whenever he wanted. He knows that in a month or so, he will once again make Ignatieff dance, by forcing him to back away from the new threats of the Liberal caucus to go to the polls over the employment insurance. He has calculated that he will be able to drive a wedge between the Bloc and NDP positions on changes to EI and the Liberals (probably with the Liberals backing off because those parties want permanent changes while Ignatieff has said the changes should be temporary).
And this means Harper has time to define Ignatieff.
And his little advertisements have shrewdly done exactly what they were designed to do.
Why does the Cat say the Liberal response is predictable and stupid? Because the Cat has read a book a whiles back and understands what Harper is doing to successfully.
Take this for example:
"When I teach the study of framing at Berkeley, in Cognitive Science 101, the first thing I do is I give my students an exercise. The exercise is: Don't think of an elephant! Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant. I've never found a student who is able to do this. Every word, like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.
Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, "I am not a crook." And everybody thought about him as a crook. This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame — and it won't be the frame you want."
That is George Lakoff, author of the book every Liberal absolutely must read: Don't Think Of An Elephant.
And that illustrates exactly what Harper is achieving with his ads. He has made the Liberals and the media think of an elephant. And the media and the Liberals are falling right into his trap by talking within Harper's frame about his mean attacks on poor Michael.
We are all talking about the elephant.
And the elephant is the elitist, absentee-Canadian, out of touch Michael Ignatieff.
Round one to Harper.
And a smack on the side of the head of Ignatieff (for also talking about the elephant) and his Liberal advisors (for being to stupid, and for not studying Lakoff and applying Lakoff).
Oh, and even an elitist coffee drinker!
And the predictable reaction of Liberals?
Outrage, concern, fear.
And stupidity.
Why stupid?
Because they have learned nothing over the past five years.
While the Democrats have for close to decade been whipped into shape by the formerly ferocious Karl Rove attack machine, we have sat back, supremely confident that eventually the vast bulk of the voters here will see the error of Stephen Harper's ways, realize that they made a bad mistake in electing a Tory minority government, and flock to the polls to elect our latest Trudeau-clone leader by giving him a blank cheque to form the next government (anybody see any Liberal policy in front of the voters telling them exactly what the party would do if it was governing?).
This, of course, is exactly what Harper wants.
While Ignatieff is touring the country promoting his latest family history, Stephen Harper has been brooding on Parliament hill, thinking of ways to defeat this new threat to his government. He knows that Jack Layton will never be prime minister, nor Duceppe. He knows that he can always somehow buy off the NDP or the Bloc with some trinkets in a budget. And he knows that come the next election (most likely some 18 months time), the threat lies with the Liberals.
And his brooding contemplation of Michael Ignatieff is paying off.
He has measured Michael, and to date has made him dance to Harper's tune, whenever he wanted. He knows that in a month or so, he will once again make Ignatieff dance, by forcing him to back away from the new threats of the Liberal caucus to go to the polls over the employment insurance. He has calculated that he will be able to drive a wedge between the Bloc and NDP positions on changes to EI and the Liberals (probably with the Liberals backing off because those parties want permanent changes while Ignatieff has said the changes should be temporary).
And this means Harper has time to define Ignatieff.
And his little advertisements have shrewdly done exactly what they were designed to do.
Why does the Cat say the Liberal response is predictable and stupid? Because the Cat has read a book a whiles back and understands what Harper is doing to successfully.
Take this for example:
"When I teach the study of framing at Berkeley, in Cognitive Science 101, the first thing I do is I give my students an exercise. The exercise is: Don't think of an elephant! Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant. I've never found a student who is able to do this. Every word, like elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge: Elephants are large, have floppy ears and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.
Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, "I am not a crook." And everybody thought about him as a crook. This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame — and it won't be the frame you want."
That is George Lakoff, author of the book every Liberal absolutely must read: Don't Think Of An Elephant.
And that illustrates exactly what Harper is achieving with his ads. He has made the Liberals and the media think of an elephant. And the media and the Liberals are falling right into his trap by talking within Harper's frame about his mean attacks on poor Michael.
We are all talking about the elephant.
And the elephant is the elitist, absentee-Canadian, out of touch Michael Ignatieff.
Round one to Harper.
And a smack on the side of the head of Ignatieff (for also talking about the elephant) and his Liberal advisors (for being to stupid, and for not studying Lakoff and applying Lakoff).
Friday, May 15, 2009
Give the mean Harper government the boot
In today's Globe & Mail there is an article about the last shift on the GM truck line in Oshawa. Workers were sad as they put the finishing touches to the last vehicles to roll off the assembly line which had, for many, played such a significant role in their lives:
"The Stewarts gathered for a service that was nothing less than an industrial funeral: The last truck – a Chevy Silverado with every option – was set under a spotlight at the end of the assembly line as managers delivered eulogies to a lost way of life.
“They told us it wasn't our fault,” said Mr. Stewart, who has spent 31 years at GM. “We made the best trucks in the world, but we still couldn't compete.”
Mr. Stewart and his wife reflected on the middle-class lifestyle his work at GM had brought them: an education for their two children, a house with a backyard pool, and his-and-hers motorcycles. Mr. Stewart wore a black T-shirt silk-screened with an image of a GM pickup truck and a slogan: “Pride and Dignity – The Last Truck Rolls off the Line.”
“Everyone's hurting,” he said. “A bad day all round.”"
The G&M article has a photograph which is very sad to look at: boots and shoes worn by GM workers on their last shift hung on a fence outside the Oshawa truck assembly plant.
We know that the Harper government is dragging its feet in allowing the billions of dollars of stimulus funds to be injected into the economy. They want to milk the allocation of those stimulus funds for their own political gain, by having a Tory present at a public announcement of the funds being used, even if their inexcusable delay means that thousands of Canadians are hurt by not having new jobs created to replace those lost at places like the GM Oshawa plant.
We also know that the Tory government is mean-spirited when it comes to the employment insurance payments.
Here is an idea for everyone to consider (especially those workers who have lost their jobs in this recession).
Why not send your boots and shoes to your local Tory MP?
Or hang them on fences outside their local constituency office?
Or hang them on fences before Parliament?
Or pile them up before Parliament?
Give the Tory government the boot for their mean-spiritedness, and their slow response to injecting the stimulus funds into our economy.
"The Stewarts gathered for a service that was nothing less than an industrial funeral: The last truck – a Chevy Silverado with every option – was set under a spotlight at the end of the assembly line as managers delivered eulogies to a lost way of life.
“They told us it wasn't our fault,” said Mr. Stewart, who has spent 31 years at GM. “We made the best trucks in the world, but we still couldn't compete.”
Mr. Stewart and his wife reflected on the middle-class lifestyle his work at GM had brought them: an education for their two children, a house with a backyard pool, and his-and-hers motorcycles. Mr. Stewart wore a black T-shirt silk-screened with an image of a GM pickup truck and a slogan: “Pride and Dignity – The Last Truck Rolls off the Line.”
“Everyone's hurting,” he said. “A bad day all round.”"
The G&M article has a photograph which is very sad to look at: boots and shoes worn by GM workers on their last shift hung on a fence outside the Oshawa truck assembly plant.
We know that the Harper government is dragging its feet in allowing the billions of dollars of stimulus funds to be injected into the economy. They want to milk the allocation of those stimulus funds for their own political gain, by having a Tory present at a public announcement of the funds being used, even if their inexcusable delay means that thousands of Canadians are hurt by not having new jobs created to replace those lost at places like the GM Oshawa plant.
We also know that the Tory government is mean-spirited when it comes to the employment insurance payments.
Here is an idea for everyone to consider (especially those workers who have lost their jobs in this recession).
Why not send your boots and shoes to your local Tory MP?
Or hang them on fences outside their local constituency office?
Or hang them on fences before Parliament?
Or pile them up before Parliament?
Give the Tory government the boot for their mean-spiritedness, and their slow response to injecting the stimulus funds into our economy.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Nine lawyers, Brian Mulroney, and one unasked question
Today former PM Mulroney faced cross examination in the commission inquiring into the payment by Karlheinz Schreiber of thousands of dollars in cash in hotel rooms to Mulroney.
One question in particular appears to be a difficult one for Mulroney:
"Commission counsel Richard Wolson hammered away at Mulroney's failure to explain his ties to Schreiber.
"As a former prime minister of the country, knowing that you had a legitimate business relationship, you didn't think you should say . . . I had a business relationship?" Wolson asked.
Mulroney said he was following the instructions of his lawyers: "Answer the questions truthfully. Do not volunteer information."
He said he would have answered fully had he been asked if he had a business deal with Schreiber. He said the nine government lawyers questioning him hadn't done their homework.
But Wolson noted that no lawyer could have asked the question because only four people knew of the deal: Mulroney, Schreiber, lobbyist Fred Doucet and an unidentified official at the German company Thyssen.
"How in the world would nine lawyers or 900 lawyers know about a commercial business relationship? You were the only one in the room who knew."
Mulroney simply insisted that he was prepared to answer all questions and that he was truthful in all his answers. Had he been asked directly if he had a commercial relationship with Schreiber, "the answer would have been yes.""
There we have it: Mulroney says he would have answered any question asked to him at an earlier proceeding if he had been asked whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber.
But only four people knew about the relationship at that time – Mulroney (and he did not volunteer anything); Schreiber – who also was not volunteering anything at that time; Doucet – no information volunteered by him, and possibly someone in Germany. Therefore, says our former PM, he did not have an tell anyone he had a business relationship with Schreiber, and so did not have to tell anyone then about the three cash payments in three different hotels.
What a pity none of the 'nine lawyers' hovering around the room at the time did not have sudden blinding prophetic flash of insight and decide to ask Mulroney whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber as well as a cup of coffee.
This exchange also came up during the cross examination:
"Early on, Mr. Wolson raised past reports of a comment Mr. Mulroney allegedly told his friend Luc Lavoie on his way into the Palais de Justice in Montreal for that 1996 hearing.
“Luc, do you know what Sheppard's problem is going to be today?” Mr. Mulroney reportedly said of government lawyer Claude Armand-Sheppard.
“No, boss,” Mr. Lavoie replied.
“He is going to ask me questions and he expects me to answer them.”
Mr. Wolson asked Mr. Mulroney Thursday to explain that comment.
“If Mr. Lavoie says it was said, I'm sure it was. It would also have been said in jest,” Mr. Mulroney explained. “My recollection of that one was with Mr. Lavoie entering the House of Commons before question period, and that's where I believe that that took place. If Mr. Lavoie said it was at that occasion as well, then I would have said it, but it would have been in jest, obviously. … As you know sir, sometimes in these areas of life, you get through a lot of it with a sense of humour.”"
Interesting stuff. If you get a chance, watch it.
One question in particular appears to be a difficult one for Mulroney:
"Commission counsel Richard Wolson hammered away at Mulroney's failure to explain his ties to Schreiber.
"As a former prime minister of the country, knowing that you had a legitimate business relationship, you didn't think you should say . . . I had a business relationship?" Wolson asked.
Mulroney said he was following the instructions of his lawyers: "Answer the questions truthfully. Do not volunteer information."
He said he would have answered fully had he been asked if he had a business deal with Schreiber. He said the nine government lawyers questioning him hadn't done their homework.
But Wolson noted that no lawyer could have asked the question because only four people knew of the deal: Mulroney, Schreiber, lobbyist Fred Doucet and an unidentified official at the German company Thyssen.
"How in the world would nine lawyers or 900 lawyers know about a commercial business relationship? You were the only one in the room who knew."
Mulroney simply insisted that he was prepared to answer all questions and that he was truthful in all his answers. Had he been asked directly if he had a commercial relationship with Schreiber, "the answer would have been yes.""
There we have it: Mulroney says he would have answered any question asked to him at an earlier proceeding if he had been asked whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber.
But only four people knew about the relationship at that time – Mulroney (and he did not volunteer anything); Schreiber – who also was not volunteering anything at that time; Doucet – no information volunteered by him, and possibly someone in Germany. Therefore, says our former PM, he did not have an tell anyone he had a business relationship with Schreiber, and so did not have to tell anyone then about the three cash payments in three different hotels.
What a pity none of the 'nine lawyers' hovering around the room at the time did not have sudden blinding prophetic flash of insight and decide to ask Mulroney whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber as well as a cup of coffee.
This exchange also came up during the cross examination:
"Early on, Mr. Wolson raised past reports of a comment Mr. Mulroney allegedly told his friend Luc Lavoie on his way into the Palais de Justice in Montreal for that 1996 hearing.
“Luc, do you know what Sheppard's problem is going to be today?” Mr. Mulroney reportedly said of government lawyer Claude Armand-Sheppard.
“No, boss,” Mr. Lavoie replied.
“He is going to ask me questions and he expects me to answer them.”
Mr. Wolson asked Mr. Mulroney Thursday to explain that comment.
“If Mr. Lavoie says it was said, I'm sure it was. It would also have been said in jest,” Mr. Mulroney explained. “My recollection of that one was with Mr. Lavoie entering the House of Commons before question period, and that's where I believe that that took place. If Mr. Lavoie said it was at that occasion as well, then I would have said it, but it would have been in jest, obviously. … As you know sir, sometimes in these areas of life, you get through a lot of it with a sense of humour.”"
Interesting stuff. If you get a chance, watch it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
New Zealand's experience with proportional representation
I found this article very interesting:
"The disquiet engendered by these results led the Labour government elected in mid-1984 to establish a Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Its 1986 report, Towards a Better Democracy, recommended the adoption of a voting system similar to Germany’s. The commission argued strongly that, on the basis of the ten criteria it had established for judging voting systems, MMP was ‘to be preferred to all other systems’.
Neither of New Zealand’s major parties favoured the proposal and the matter might have died had the National Party’s 1990 election manifesto not promised a referendum on the topic. In an initial referendum, held in 1992, nearly 85 per cent of voters opted ‘for a change to the voting system’; 14 months later, the new electoral system was adopted after a second referendum in which 54 per cent favoured MMP (while 46 per cent voted to retain FPTP).
As in Germany, in parliamentary elections in New Zealand the electors have two votes—one for a political party (called the party vote in New Zealand) in a nationwide constituency, and one for a candidate in a single-member district. Whereas representatives for single-member districts (called electorates in New Zealand) are elected by FPTP, the overall share of the seats in Parliament allocated to political parties stems directly from and is in proportion to the number of party votes they receive. If a party wins 25 per cent of the party votes, it will be entitled to (roughly) a quarter of all the seats in the 120-member Parliament, that is, about 30 seats. If a party that is entitled to a total of 30 seats has already won 23 electorate seats, then it will be given another seven seats drawn from the rank-ordered candidates on its party list who have not already been elected in a single-member district. Likewise, if a party entitled to 30 seats has won only 11 single-member district seats, then it will acquire another 19 MPs from its party list.
There are two thresholds for MMP in New Zealand.
To win a share of the seats in Parliament based on the party votes, a party must either win at least 5 per cent of all the party votes cast in a general election or win at least one single-member district seat.
In the 1996 general election, five parties crossed the 5 per cent threshold and one won a single-member district seat but did not clear the 5 per cent threshold. Three years later, five parties again cleared the 5 per cent threshold. Two other parties failed to do so but won single-member district seats, which qualified one of them for an additional four seats in Parliament (it had won 4.3 per cent of the party votes cast in the election).
In the 2002 general election, six parties cleared the 5 per cent party vote hurdle, and a seventh party won a single-member district seat that enabled it to bring one other person into Parliament from the party’s list.
These figures point to one major change caused by the introduction of MMP.
Established, at least in part, to ensure ‘fairness between political parties’, the new voting system has seen the index of disproportionality plummet from an average of 11 per cent for the 17 FPTP elections held between 1946 and 1993, to an average of 3 per cent for the first three MMP elections. Every FPTP election in New Zealand from 1935 until 1993 saw one of the country’s two larger parties—Labour or National—gain an absolute majority in the House of Representatives. One consequence of MMP has been that, in the three elections to date, no single party has won more than half the seats in Parliament. In 1996, the largest party won 44 out of the 120 seats; in 1999 the largest party won 49 seats; and in 2002 the largest party won 52 seats.
Not surprisingly, then, New Zealand has changed from being a country accustomed to single-party majority governments to being a country governed by coalitions.
After the first MMP election, two parties formed a coalition government that commanded a small majority (61 out of 120 seats) in Parliament. Since that coalition disintegrated in August 1998, New Zealand has had minority coalition governments that have had to rely on either formal or informal supporting arrangements (negotiated with other parties or, on occasion, with individual MPs) to ensure that their legislative programmes have been able to win majorities in Parliament.
One of the other criteria used by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was ‘effective government’. The commission noted that electoral systems should ‘allow governments ... to meet their responsibilities. Governments should have the ability to act decisively when that is appropriate’.
In this regard it should be stressed that MMP governments in New Zealand have had little trouble governing: all have had their budgets passed without any real difficulty, and none has faced the likelihood of defeat in a parliamentary vote of no confidence. At the same time, New Zealand parliaments have fulfilled another of the royal commission’s criteria by also becoming more effective. Governments can no longer rely on (indeed, they seldom have) majorities on parliamentary committees, and there is a far greater degree of consultation—of give and take—between government and opposition parties in MMP parliaments."
What I could not find is how other countries have sold the concept of proportional representation to voters. Anyone have any ideas or sources on this topic?
"The disquiet engendered by these results led the Labour government elected in mid-1984 to establish a Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Its 1986 report, Towards a Better Democracy, recommended the adoption of a voting system similar to Germany’s. The commission argued strongly that, on the basis of the ten criteria it had established for judging voting systems, MMP was ‘to be preferred to all other systems’.
Neither of New Zealand’s major parties favoured the proposal and the matter might have died had the National Party’s 1990 election manifesto not promised a referendum on the topic. In an initial referendum, held in 1992, nearly 85 per cent of voters opted ‘for a change to the voting system’; 14 months later, the new electoral system was adopted after a second referendum in which 54 per cent favoured MMP (while 46 per cent voted to retain FPTP).
As in Germany, in parliamentary elections in New Zealand the electors have two votes—one for a political party (called the party vote in New Zealand) in a nationwide constituency, and one for a candidate in a single-member district. Whereas representatives for single-member districts (called electorates in New Zealand) are elected by FPTP, the overall share of the seats in Parliament allocated to political parties stems directly from and is in proportion to the number of party votes they receive. If a party wins 25 per cent of the party votes, it will be entitled to (roughly) a quarter of all the seats in the 120-member Parliament, that is, about 30 seats. If a party that is entitled to a total of 30 seats has already won 23 electorate seats, then it will be given another seven seats drawn from the rank-ordered candidates on its party list who have not already been elected in a single-member district. Likewise, if a party entitled to 30 seats has won only 11 single-member district seats, then it will acquire another 19 MPs from its party list.
There are two thresholds for MMP in New Zealand.
To win a share of the seats in Parliament based on the party votes, a party must either win at least 5 per cent of all the party votes cast in a general election or win at least one single-member district seat.
In the 1996 general election, five parties crossed the 5 per cent threshold and one won a single-member district seat but did not clear the 5 per cent threshold. Three years later, five parties again cleared the 5 per cent threshold. Two other parties failed to do so but won single-member district seats, which qualified one of them for an additional four seats in Parliament (it had won 4.3 per cent of the party votes cast in the election).
In the 2002 general election, six parties cleared the 5 per cent party vote hurdle, and a seventh party won a single-member district seat that enabled it to bring one other person into Parliament from the party’s list.
These figures point to one major change caused by the introduction of MMP.
Established, at least in part, to ensure ‘fairness between political parties’, the new voting system has seen the index of disproportionality plummet from an average of 11 per cent for the 17 FPTP elections held between 1946 and 1993, to an average of 3 per cent for the first three MMP elections. Every FPTP election in New Zealand from 1935 until 1993 saw one of the country’s two larger parties—Labour or National—gain an absolute majority in the House of Representatives. One consequence of MMP has been that, in the three elections to date, no single party has won more than half the seats in Parliament. In 1996, the largest party won 44 out of the 120 seats; in 1999 the largest party won 49 seats; and in 2002 the largest party won 52 seats.
Not surprisingly, then, New Zealand has changed from being a country accustomed to single-party majority governments to being a country governed by coalitions.
After the first MMP election, two parties formed a coalition government that commanded a small majority (61 out of 120 seats) in Parliament. Since that coalition disintegrated in August 1998, New Zealand has had minority coalition governments that have had to rely on either formal or informal supporting arrangements (negotiated with other parties or, on occasion, with individual MPs) to ensure that their legislative programmes have been able to win majorities in Parliament.
One of the other criteria used by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was ‘effective government’. The commission noted that electoral systems should ‘allow governments ... to meet their responsibilities. Governments should have the ability to act decisively when that is appropriate’.
In this regard it should be stressed that MMP governments in New Zealand have had little trouble governing: all have had their budgets passed without any real difficulty, and none has faced the likelihood of defeat in a parliamentary vote of no confidence. At the same time, New Zealand parliaments have fulfilled another of the royal commission’s criteria by also becoming more effective. Governments can no longer rely on (indeed, they seldom have) majorities on parliamentary committees, and there is a far greater degree of consultation—of give and take—between government and opposition parties in MMP parliaments."
What I could not find is how other countries have sold the concept of proportional representation to voters. Anyone have any ideas or sources on this topic?
Electoral reform lives on
The BC-STV referendum result is a crushing defeat of that particular reform concept, and most disappointing. It joins the other recent failures to reform the silly and antiquated first past the post system of electing political representatives.
But all is not lost.
If we think back ten or so years, electoral reform was not a topic of everyday discussion. Proponents were regarded as slightly loopy, and most people would cross the road and walk on the other side to avoid being accosted by a reformist.
But now? Now people talk about it. Now we debate different types of reforms. Now we consider the ironical results of the FPTP system. Now we have politicians wringing their hands over regional alienation, and wondering aloud how to ensure that the centrifugal forces in Canada do not splinter the country.
Let us take heart from earlier reform movements. Think about how long it took for women to gain the vote. How about them suffragettes? Not even the Cat and Mouse Act could deter those dogged reformers:
"The so-called Cat and Mouse Act was passed by the British government to prevent suffragettes from obtaining public sympathy; it provided the release of those whose hunger strikes had brought them sickness, as well as their re-imprisonment once they had recovered."
So let us lick our wounds, commiserate with each other, reflect upon what happened, and then put our heads together to come up with new ways to achieve that most worthy end: making every vote count, and improving democracy in our country.
And above all, don't let the bastards grind us down.
But all is not lost.
If we think back ten or so years, electoral reform was not a topic of everyday discussion. Proponents were regarded as slightly loopy, and most people would cross the road and walk on the other side to avoid being accosted by a reformist.
But now? Now people talk about it. Now we debate different types of reforms. Now we consider the ironical results of the FPTP system. Now we have politicians wringing their hands over regional alienation, and wondering aloud how to ensure that the centrifugal forces in Canada do not splinter the country.
Let us take heart from earlier reform movements. Think about how long it took for women to gain the vote. How about them suffragettes? Not even the Cat and Mouse Act could deter those dogged reformers:
"The so-called Cat and Mouse Act was passed by the British government to prevent suffragettes from obtaining public sympathy; it provided the release of those whose hunger strikes had brought them sickness, as well as their re-imprisonment once they had recovered."
So let us lick our wounds, commiserate with each other, reflect upon what happened, and then put our heads together to come up with new ways to achieve that most worthy end: making every vote count, and improving democracy in our country.
And above all, don't let the bastards grind us down.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Troubling questions for Ignatieff about the NDP-LPC Coalition
The Coalition cobbled together by two opposition parties and supported by a side deal with the Bloc, gave Harper pause because he suddenly realized that his government was really just a minority one, and could be tossed out.
It also gave many Canadians hope that the regressive, do-nothing Tory government could be replaced by a centre left progressive coalition government, which would have at least 18 months of durability to implement policies to protect Canadians from the recession.
Now Ignatieff seems to be entering into a revisionist phase, by having second thoughts about what he thought at the time of the coalition, as so ably described by Don Macpherson of The Gazette:
"And on the weekend, Ignatieff said the coalition government would have been unstable, politically illegitimate to many Canadians and divisive - one report quoted him as saying it would have "profoundly, profoundly and durably divided the country."
Maybe it would have been better for Ignatieff to let the coalition be forgotten. Because his remarks on the weekend raise questions about when he reached those conclusions about the coalition. And none of the answers make him look good.
If Ignatieff reached his conclusions after he signed that petition last Dec. 4, what took him so long?
Many others had reached similar conclusions three days earlier, when the opposition parties announced their agreement. It wasn't as if Dion shoved the petition under Ignatieff's nose and demanded that he sign it on the spot without giving him time to read it and think about it.
And if Ignatieff had already concluded that the coalition would be unstable, of questionable political legitimacy and "profoundly and durably" divisive before he signed the petition, why did he still go ahead and sign it?
Did the self-described "true patriot," who has lately been so critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for dividing the country, place party loyalty ahead of the national interest?
Or was it his own personal ambition that came first, and a calculation that to refuse to sign Dion's petition might be seen as an act of disloyalty that might hurt his chances of becoming leader?"
These are valid questions, and Ignatieff will have to address them head on and give a credible explanation of his change of course. When did he see the light and become converted to the "Deal with the Bloc is evil, no Coalition government is good" mantra? And why? And what made him change his mind?
Letting these questions linger will simply make the issue fester.
Siding with the Harper demonization of the Bloc MPs will, however, run the risk of the implosion of Quebec support for the Liberals (once they realize that Ignatieff holds the same views about their Bloc MPs' rights to enter into coalition support agreements) as has now happened to the Tories.
When exactly did Ignatieff and his closest advisors decide that any agreement with Bloc MPs was a really really bad thing for the country?
It also gave many Canadians hope that the regressive, do-nothing Tory government could be replaced by a centre left progressive coalition government, which would have at least 18 months of durability to implement policies to protect Canadians from the recession.
Now Ignatieff seems to be entering into a revisionist phase, by having second thoughts about what he thought at the time of the coalition, as so ably described by Don Macpherson of The Gazette:
"And on the weekend, Ignatieff said the coalition government would have been unstable, politically illegitimate to many Canadians and divisive - one report quoted him as saying it would have "profoundly, profoundly and durably divided the country."
Maybe it would have been better for Ignatieff to let the coalition be forgotten. Because his remarks on the weekend raise questions about when he reached those conclusions about the coalition. And none of the answers make him look good.
If Ignatieff reached his conclusions after he signed that petition last Dec. 4, what took him so long?
Many others had reached similar conclusions three days earlier, when the opposition parties announced their agreement. It wasn't as if Dion shoved the petition under Ignatieff's nose and demanded that he sign it on the spot without giving him time to read it and think about it.
And if Ignatieff had already concluded that the coalition would be unstable, of questionable political legitimacy and "profoundly and durably" divisive before he signed the petition, why did he still go ahead and sign it?
Did the self-described "true patriot," who has lately been so critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for dividing the country, place party loyalty ahead of the national interest?
Or was it his own personal ambition that came first, and a calculation that to refuse to sign Dion's petition might be seen as an act of disloyalty that might hurt his chances of becoming leader?"
These are valid questions, and Ignatieff will have to address them head on and give a credible explanation of his change of course. When did he see the light and become converted to the "Deal with the Bloc is evil, no Coalition government is good" mantra? And why? And what made him change his mind?
Letting these questions linger will simply make the issue fester.
Siding with the Harper demonization of the Bloc MPs will, however, run the risk of the implosion of Quebec support for the Liberals (once they realize that Ignatieff holds the same views about their Bloc MPs' rights to enter into coalition support agreements) as has now happened to the Tories.
When exactly did Ignatieff and his closest advisors decide that any agreement with Bloc MPs was a really really bad thing for the country?
Monday, May 11, 2009
NDP assumes electoral reform mantle, displaces Liberals
The Liberals now have a new leader with Michael Ignatieff's coronation, and past promises of reforms to the way our democracy functions will now have another opportunity to be fulfilled. It is a bit disappointing to the Cat the Ignatieff's team have so far failed to step forward with any inspirational vision concerning fixing the rot in Parliament.
In the meantime, Carole James, leader of the BC NDP, has assumed the mantle of electoral reform in that province, as this letter from her reveals (kudos to challengingthecommonplace blog for posting it):
Dear Chrystal Ocean,
As I wrote before, I think this crucial debate is too important to get mired in partisan politics, so I will not be commenting on STV prior to the referendum.
However, I am firmly committed to implementing STV if the referendum passes. And, if it does not pass, I remain committed to offering British Columbians the opportunity to vote on MMP.
Sincerely,
Carole James, Leader
Official Opposition
With Campbell's rightwing Liberal Party and the provincial Conservative Party conspicuously absent on the question of electoral reform, James has put her NDP squarely in the forefront of reform, promising another referendum on a modified proportional representation system if the BC STV referendum fails to achieve a 60% vote on Tuesday.
How about it, Michael?
Care to put before all Canadians a significant platform of electoral reform for our federal politics? A system with some form of proportional representation will do far more to reduce regional tensions and empower ordinary citizens than any number of speeches you might make to Calgarians.
Why not back real reform instead of simple lip service to the concept?
Canadians deserve to have their votes counted, and to have their votes made significant. Today's system (first past the post or FPTP) reeks of illegitimacy.
In the meantime, Carole James, leader of the BC NDP, has assumed the mantle of electoral reform in that province, as this letter from her reveals (kudos to challengingthecommonplace blog for posting it):
Dear Chrystal Ocean,
As I wrote before, I think this crucial debate is too important to get mired in partisan politics, so I will not be commenting on STV prior to the referendum.
However, I am firmly committed to implementing STV if the referendum passes. And, if it does not pass, I remain committed to offering British Columbians the opportunity to vote on MMP.
Sincerely,
Carole James, Leader
Official Opposition
With Campbell's rightwing Liberal Party and the provincial Conservative Party conspicuously absent on the question of electoral reform, James has put her NDP squarely in the forefront of reform, promising another referendum on a modified proportional representation system if the BC STV referendum fails to achieve a 60% vote on Tuesday.
How about it, Michael?
Care to put before all Canadians a significant platform of electoral reform for our federal politics? A system with some form of proportional representation will do far more to reduce regional tensions and empower ordinary citizens than any number of speeches you might make to Calgarians.
Why not back real reform instead of simple lip service to the concept?
Canadians deserve to have their votes counted, and to have their votes made significant. Today's system (first past the post or FPTP) reeks of illegitimacy.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
The Cat bets on another 'Schreiber Surprise'
Little bits of information are making their way past the restrictions imposed on the Harper government commission into the payments made by Karlheinz Schreiber to former PM Mulroney. The commission has a mandate which surprisingly limits it inquiries to the recently disclosed cash payments to our former prime minister in assorted hotel rooms.
Under no circumstances is it supposed to widen its inquiry into what happened to the payments allegedly made by Schreiber to various Canadians from the fees he was paid when Airbus sold planes to Canada.
But – like the proverbial little Dutch boy who tried to stem the leaking dyke by putting his finger in the fissure – driblets of information keep making their way from the Airbus fees into the discussion of exactly what Mulroney did to justify his $300,000 cash payments (Schreiber's amount) or $225,000 payments (Mulroney's number).
The Cat makes a fearless forecast: Karlheinz Schreiber will surprise the commission (and delight hordes of media types thirsting for the opening of the Airbus inquiry) by somehow placing into public view further evidence which tantalizingly suggests that the Airbus matter has not been finally resolved by the Mounties' investigation (an investigation which, by the way, did not turn up the cash payments in the hotel rooms to the former PM).
And then Karlheinz will sit back and wait for the public pressure to get to the bottom of the missing millions to swell yet again, perhaps resulting in a new inquiry.
And perhaps his disclosures, if he does make any and can make any, might lead the three opposition parties to legislate a new inquiry, designed to get to the bottom of Airbus in a full and frank way.
After all, everyone who is a stakeholder (Schreiber, Mulroney, Canadians whose faith in democracy need bolstering) has an interest in putting this to bed, after all possible facts and angles have been thoroughly explored.
Under no circumstances is it supposed to widen its inquiry into what happened to the payments allegedly made by Schreiber to various Canadians from the fees he was paid when Airbus sold planes to Canada.
But – like the proverbial little Dutch boy who tried to stem the leaking dyke by putting his finger in the fissure – driblets of information keep making their way from the Airbus fees into the discussion of exactly what Mulroney did to justify his $300,000 cash payments (Schreiber's amount) or $225,000 payments (Mulroney's number).
The Cat makes a fearless forecast: Karlheinz Schreiber will surprise the commission (and delight hordes of media types thirsting for the opening of the Airbus inquiry) by somehow placing into public view further evidence which tantalizingly suggests that the Airbus matter has not been finally resolved by the Mounties' investigation (an investigation which, by the way, did not turn up the cash payments in the hotel rooms to the former PM).
And then Karlheinz will sit back and wait for the public pressure to get to the bottom of the missing millions to swell yet again, perhaps resulting in a new inquiry.
And perhaps his disclosures, if he does make any and can make any, might lead the three opposition parties to legislate a new inquiry, designed to get to the bottom of Airbus in a full and frank way.
After all, everyone who is a stakeholder (Schreiber, Mulroney, Canadians whose faith in democracy need bolstering) has an interest in putting this to bed, after all possible facts and angles have been thoroughly explored.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
BC can lead to a more democratic Canada with STV vote
Next week, if all goes well, more than 60% of British Columbians casting votes will vote to change the archaic, undemocratic and ridiculous first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system in that province, and will select a new form, the single transferable vote (STV).
If that happens, BC voters will usher in a new wave of democracy for Canadians, finally giving ordinary voters better choices. After an election or two in BC using the STV, Canadians in other provinces will push for a similar choice (perhaps STV, perhaps mixed proportional representation), and politicians in those provinces will be forced to allow a vote on a replacement for the ludicrous FPTP system.
And within a decade or two, most provinces will have adopted a voting system which gives the power of choice to the people, not to political party hacks.
And then the pressure to bring democracy into our federal votes will start mounting.
If you know any voters in BC, email them or phone them and ask them to vote for STV next week, and to in turn email or phone or twitter others that they know, to bring out the voters and make this sensible choice.
If you twitter, then start a Twitter for STV movement by twittering everyone you know and asking them to do the same. Let twitter power help pass the STV in BC!
If that happens, BC voters will usher in a new wave of democracy for Canadians, finally giving ordinary voters better choices. After an election or two in BC using the STV, Canadians in other provinces will push for a similar choice (perhaps STV, perhaps mixed proportional representation), and politicians in those provinces will be forced to allow a vote on a replacement for the ludicrous FPTP system.
And within a decade or two, most provinces will have adopted a voting system which gives the power of choice to the people, not to political party hacks.
And then the pressure to bring democracy into our federal votes will start mounting.
If you know any voters in BC, email them or phone them and ask them to vote for STV next week, and to in turn email or phone or twitter others that they know, to bring out the voters and make this sensible choice.
If you twitter, then start a Twitter for STV movement by twittering everyone you know and asking them to do the same. Let twitter power help pass the STV in BC!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
