Ipsos' Record

Yesterday on Politics, Don Martin was tickled pink that Ipsos had Harper in majority territory. Surely the pundits should know which pollsters have a record of accuracy and which not. Check out this site from the last election. http://esm.ubc.ca/CA06/index.php Remember that SES was spot on in the last election http://www.sesresearch.com/main.asp.

I Knew He Would Be Up to No Good

Mr. Kenney - the man of ethnic lists - double-edged sword - what if he gets mad at one of these identities, then he'll know where to find them (just kidding).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071016.TARGET16/TPStory/National

The real horror of course is that the cons have no sense of Canadians and Canada that is more than the sum of its potential con voters and the sum of its oil patches. They really don't love Canada as something greater than the sum of its parts, as a great country - that's why they will always be bad for this country.

And as I blogged before on Mr. Kenney and his so-called multiculturalism tasks, he's being paid by us to basically run an on-going election campaign amongst these target groups - shame on you Mr. Kenney.

Ryan's Comments Part 2

Part 2 of Ryan's comments: when I said that the Canada the Liberals want is one that includes social justice, the Charter, peacekeeping not war making, etc..., Ryan said The previous Liberal government is the government that put us in Afghanistan. The current Liberal opposition does not want us leaving before 2009. Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley is the new chair of an Afghan Advisory Committee.The Liberals are, and were, no less 'war-making' than the Conservatives are.

I guess in all my posts I should say the Liberals under Chretien or before Martin. It was Martin that started me posting. I followed Inkless Wells, who had the same sense of disappointment when Martin took over and commented there that he would bring down the party. As Chretien has made clear in his latest book, he would not have sent Canadian troops to Kandahar because it was a war zone. As for Manley, I think he got lost and entered the wrong door, I have no idea why he thinks he's a Liberal - he's all for integrating us with the US!!

So the obvious response someone might make to what I am saying is that I think I can define who is a true Liberal and who isn't, but that isn't the point. Under Trudeau and Chretien we developed a country that put our country and our people first and resisted the trends to put money, power and war first. Then, after Chretien, the people who were set to take over the party were more the latter, Martin, Manley, McKenna. People said McKenna should have been the leader, that would not have been good either, he was on the board of the Carlyle Group, one of Cheney's arenas, and is very pro American style politics.

But this is not just what I think, it seems that this is what is going on in the Liberal party now. The elements that favour the go-with-the-US approach are on one side and the ones that want real renewal and a radical new approach to the economy are on the other. I really believe that Dion can take the old Liberal approach - putting country and citizens first - and remake it to give us a prosperous and sustainable future. Harper makes fun of him being a professor but it is smart people who think things through that can shape the new ideas and new ways we need in what is going to be a very different world.

Too Bad

Dion should not have listened to the nervous nellies.

Dion Should Go Now

Nothing else to say really except he will win if he gets to speak directly to Canadians.

Ultimately We Are All Guilty

A Polish man died at Vancouver airport for no reason, an immigrant to our country, unable to speak English, by news accounts travelling for many unbroken hours, and then, and this is where it gets fuzzy, held in immigration for a long time, so long his mother gave up waiting for him and went back to Kamloops. He was asking for police help and according to an eye witness they double tazered him, one on either side at the same time. This same eye-witness by her account was able to calm him somewhat before the police arrived, one unarmed female.

Our absurd fear-mongering and, it would seem - by the changes at airport security - directives from our version of homeland security, have made innocent individual's experiences at Canadian border points and airports degrading and downright scary. Maybe it's just BC, but I have heard of two bizarre experiences just in the last two weeks, a BC resident travelling within BC asked to take off more clothes than she was comfortable with in a security line up including people she knew (ruined her whole holiday), and a First Nations Canadian returning to Canada from Alaska (missed Thanksgiving dinner, it took so long to go through customs.) No terrorists caught but lots of good people treated like criminals.

We as Canadians have let these measures go through and Mr. H. is trying to push through the more draconian ones again after parliament convenes. As long as we think it is OK to push people to the brink just for wanting to travel, the more we will be guilty of such results as these.

A Decentralized Canada

Ryan posed some thoughtful questions on my recent post "Is This It Then?" and I thought I'd reply to them one at a time.

First, here is his post against a strong federal government:

"Susan wrote... Then new people would join the Liberals and keep alive what the Liberals have always stood for: a strong united Canada, a strong central government that respects the provinces and works with them as a group, etc...

Ryan wrote: Quebec has never truly wanted a strong central government in Ottawa. They've always favoured a more decentralized approach as that gives them a greater degree of autonomy. There are a lot of soft federalists in Quebec that want Quebec to remain in Canada due to the many privaleges that come from Canada, and perhaps even due to some degree of pride in being Canadian. However, these same soft federalists also recognize that Quebec is a distinct soceity, and as such, they want a more decentralized government. These folks voted either BQ, or Liberal, during the 90s, while holding their nose - both parties represented a viewpoint on Quebec's role relative to Canada that they didn't like (either complete seperation, or part of a strong centralized government), but since those were the only two viable alternatives during the 90s, they voted for one or the other.

Now the Conservatives offer a genuine decentralization option and not suprisingly, Quebece soft federalists are going for it.The question I would ask you, and Liberals who share your viewpoint here, is why do you fear decentralization so much. Canada is a geographically huge country with a relatively sparse population. The differences between the issues facing Ontario and the issues facing Newfoundland, or the differences between the issues facing Quebec and the issues facing British Columbia, can often be quite large. With that in mind, stronger provinces makes perfectly good sense, particularly if it serves to erode BQ support in Quebec by costing them the votes of decentralists who don't mind having Quebec remain in Canada.

This is my reply:

I think Ignatieff put it well when he said that Canadian citizenship needs to be the same for all Canadians no matter where they live. I don't think we want Canada to be like the US where the laws, the policies and the quality of life vary dramatically from one state to another. The only way to ensure that all Canadians benefit from what Canada has worked so hard to become and is respected for world wide is to have a strong federal government. Why should one province dictate the redefinition of a country? There are other ways to acknowledge Quebec's concerns. Dryden made allowances for Quebec's position in his national daycare negotiations, for example.

Moreover, Quebec is one of the main reasons Canada is great - Quebecers are strong supporters of the Charter, they promote peace, keep arts and culture centre stage and remind us that life is about working to live, not living to work. In a decentralized country their influence on the rest of the provinces would be lessened to the enormous detriment of the other provinces.

V for Vendetta

Can't control the media - then bypass them. I blogged about how the press should have boycotted Mr. H.s deign-to-speak-to-you press conference at the press theatre and got panned. Now look at what he is planning http://www.thestar.com/News/article/266854. A few thoughts: why does Harper need so much security, all our previous PM's went among the people - it's just more of the bs - using security blah blah to justify an increasingly authoritarian state. Will the press let this one go as well and dutifully come when they are called and use his feed when they are told? Will he next get his own channel so that he deliver his edicts anytime and any way he wants?

A whole bunch of cliches come to mind: 1984, slippery slope, or is it just that he wants to "harmonize" his approach to media with that of Mr. Bush as part of the 'integration by stealth' project.

To help make my point, the North American Forum apparently held their annual meeting in Mexico last week and there has been a complete media blackout.

Et Tu Manley

Many are saying Manley is a pawn in Harper's game, that he has been duped. Do you know how stupid one would have to be not to figure out Harper's agenda? Really, really stupid. I don't think Manley is that stupid, so he knows that he is the latest in Mr. H.'s jabs at Dion and the Liberals. If he knows this, then he has chosen to either a) use his inside position to keep the Liberals apprised and to express the current Liberal position or b) to move into the cons camp and do a little damage in the process, a sort of 'Emerson deluxe' manoeuver.

The possibilities of the first, highly unlikely - he was generally known to be at the far right of the Liberal party and he appears to love the US (his support of a common currency, etc.). Is he still even a member of the Liberal party?

I opt for the second: I think he still wants to be a big political cheese and this is a perfect opportunity to position himself, check out how much room for growth there might be with the cons, and push his personal (not the Liberal) position on staying in Afghanistan. There is no problem switching parties - it's still a free world, he has no constituents to disappoint - but why then make such a big deal about claiming to be a Liberal and taking this on as a public duty? What a joke, is his ego really so big that he thinks that if Mr. H. is mean to him he can return to the Liberal fold and that Liberals are so stupid as to ever want him back?

Is This It Then?

I feel like I am being dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion it is no longer possible to avoid: the Liberal Big Tent is collapsing. The elements that Chretien held together are separating off - the keep Quebec happy at all costs group, the hawks, the anti-gays, the law and orders, the right of center but don't want to be Conservatives, the decentralists - they are all getting ansy, muttering, trying to get their way, trying to get Ignatieff to help them get their way, nattering to the press, shoving people out, it's a mess.

Dion's problem is not that he doesn't represent what Canadians want, it's that he doesn't represent what certain elements in the Liberal party want. When everyone spoke of renewal, I guess they didn't realize how hard core some of the old guard are and how they would put getting their way ahead of keeping the party strong. It's very foolish, they should have just left the party and gone over to Harper, because that's where they would be happier.

Then new people would join the Liberals and keep alive what the Liberals have always stood for: a strong united Canada, a strong central government that respects the provinces and works with them as a group, social justice, the Charter, peacekeeping not war making, genuine respect for women and minorities, medicare for all, daycare for all, government subsidized research and innovation, support for the arts, respect for culture, strong ties with Europe, caution in dealings with the US, and a deft hand at economic stability and innovation - among many other values and approaches.

Dion can still pull it off. I guess that's why Layton is attacking him with such ferocity - he doesn't want to lose turf, but then like the defecting Liberals, he should realize that what he is doing is contributing to the destruction of what he says he stands for.

Dion needs more new people, strong-minded people who can look ahead and who can communicate to Canadians over the head of the media the way Chretien used to and the way Rae did yesterday. There's hope but it's going to be tough.

Harper Quote of the Day

In the context of justifying his bizarre little commission, study group, whatever, Mr. H. said this: "the unhealthy politics of a minority parliament". Pearson's minority parliaments were healthy, the voters chose a minority parliament, what the h... does he mean? Oh right, that annoying place where he doesn't get called "brilliant" (an all time low for Don Newman), where he is actually asked to explain, back up, his positions (not that he ever does).

Deconstructing that telling phrase: 1. this is one of the PMO's new themes - minority = bad, unhealthy, watch for new adjectives over the next few months; 2. Harper's really not big on parliament - give out a handbook to make committees inoperative; answer every question with attacks on the questioner; prorogue it to kill existing bills; start it late for political advantage, and, all the while, move the business of governing into other arenas, especially secret ones like the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Manley's new gang, and all the processes hidden away under the growing umbrella of "national security". Harper's agenda is to change Canada at its very core, to de-democratize it (to coin an awkward phrase) and who better to help him than the wolf in sheep's clothing, Mr. Manley, one of the key players in the "integration by stealth" (of the US and Canada) movement, the one who has been pushing for a single currency for North America for years, the one who might as well be Mr. H.'s . . . . twin.

The Media

I really don't want to become an anti-MSM blogger but I have to comment - belatedly because I'm still stewing over it - on the way the dutiful little puppies attended the PM's press conference. Did they not stop and think that they could have boycotted it?! There he was, smirking and self-satisfied, relishing his taming of the great and powerful media and then simply using them to get out his latest machiavellian message: "I'm going to make a throne speech and then everyone has to get out of the way and let the god do his thing." Nobody asked, "but isn't parliament part of our political process, isn't that a bit dictatorial?", nobody asked if he still follows his mentor Flanagan's every word and if so, does he think that's what Canadians want. No they just all went off muttering about how relaxed he was and did that mean that an election was imminent.

My biggest problem with the media is that they have become the spin. They don't seem to know what's really going on and they take no responsibility for what they say. Rex Murphy waxing eloquent about Dion after he was elected then ripping him to shreds a year later - how can a person claim any credibility when he simply says what is in the wind today and contradicts it tomorrow?

Let us never forget that these are the people who thought a man in a jumpsuit on a seadoo could win the hearts of Canadians.

My apologies to those journalists who are responsible and don't allow their need for air time to overwhelm their integrity.

So What About Those NDP'ers

Remind me why the NDP party exists - oh right, they are the Liberal-bashing party and when they can't figure out what specifically to bash - they just copy the cons (practically verbatim as with their comments on Coderre and Afghanistan). Well, the party of principle, the party that cares about people, the party of "working families" - if it was ever such a party - is gone. So from now on I'm going to try and make sure everyone (I should say anyone who reads this blog, probably not quite everyone) notices the time the NDP'ers spend on Liberal-bashing and echoing the cons on the taxpayers dime.

Is Repression Mr. Day's Real Goal or Just a Nasty Side-effect?

I watched two senators on Politics yesterday. It was hard to hear every word the Liberal senator Baker was saying because the con Statton (sp?) was talking over him and Newman was going on about managing the time, but what Baker was trying to point out was why the passage of the law-and-order bills is being held up. Apparently, just like the innocents who have to be humiliated by airport security, now police with a suspicion that one might be driving high on drugs will be able to ask you to hop along a straight line and pee in a bottle. Baker, bless his heart, found this an unacceptable way to treat someone who is presumed innocent. Clearly someone is looking out for us as Mr. Day weaves his tangled web of repressive legislation.

One of Canada's great qualities is that its citizens can live their lives with dignity - that is, they could until Mr. Day embraced the fear-mongering right and started to initiate regulations and laws that have little effect except to repress and humiliate law-abiding citizens, ordinary people who have lived their lives without any contact with any forces of enforcement in this society.
The change started with so-called airport security. Trust me, we are no more secure than we ever were. My daughter summed it up when she said "don't you realize it's not about security, it's about training us to bow to authority". That is the foundation of authoritarian states, having the citizens live in a state of wariness and fear, always on guard for the potential loss of their freedom.

I am starting to hear airport stories now that make me realize I am not alone in the intense anger I feel every time I fly, strangers pawing through my personal belongings with rubber gloves that have been who knows where, having to stand in bare feet on floors that hundreds of pairs of shoes have just crossed, being threatened with not being allowed to fly if I complain.

And now anyone with doe eyes at the wheel of a car will be ordered to hop along a line and pee in a bottle.

Update: oops got the wrong show Mike Duffy not Politics!

Maybe It Is Ignatieff

I thought all the rumours about Ignatieff sabotaging Dion were absurd, but in yesterday's Globe and Mail Joan Bryden said that Ignatieff had been after Dion to dismiss Mr. Carroll since early this year. Since when does a Deputy Prime Minister give advice presumably without being asked and then not take no for an answer? In October of last year I predicted here that the Liberals would never win under Ignatieff because he was arrogant, said willy nilly that we should re-open the constitution to acknowledge Quebec's nationhood, and also said that he was the right person for Quebec. Dion is the leader and if he doesn't agree with Ignatieff (thank heavens), he can shuffle him off. I think Dion is going to have to give up his dream team. It was a dream - Ignatieff has to go and I'm not sure Ray has been all that loyal either, publicly criticizing Dion's decision not to renew the extreme anti-terrorism laws. Too bad, it could have been amazing but egos sure get in the way.