Showing posts with label 2008 Canadian Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Canadian Election. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Top 10 Canadian News Stories of 2008

Every year has its big stories, but this year had many that I think Canadians will still be talking about years from now. You may not agree with the top 10 Canadian stories I’ve chosen, but it’s hard to say each of these weren’t major stories when they hit and that most of these don’t still resonate. I’ve reflected on each one (some “reflections” I guess could be posts in themselves) and they are listed in rough chronological order rather than importance.

1) Chuck Cadman Scandal: You don’t hear about it as much now, but you can’t say it’s not huge news when you hear allegations (which seem to be backed up on tape) that the Conservatives tried to literally bribe an MP to vote with them. And don’t forget Harper’s libel case against the Liberals over this is still before the courts, but given how that’s fared of late I’m thinking Harper’s hoping we do forget about that one.

2) In and Out Scandal: The RCMP raiding the governing party HQ and the ensuing frantic (and failed) attempt to control the media spin over the Conservatives apparent over-spending and shady dealings with local ridings during the 2006 election was certainly a sight to see. Conservatives are STILL spending millions fighting this in court so obviously they realize how bad it will reflect on them when Elections Canada does finally rule officially AGAINST them

3) Maxime Bernier's Bungled Foreign Affairs Tenure: I’m someone who believes it’s extremely important for Canada to maintain a positive reputation in the world and so it’s big news to me that this year we came to fully realize that Stephen Harper had appointed among the worst (if not the worst) foreign affairs ministers in Canadian history. From not knowing who the President of Haiti was, to blowing private negotiations to get a troublesome Afghan governor to step down, to promising C-17s that didn’t exist for deployment, it was clear the guy was just not up to the job. Amazingly enough it took him leaving confidential documents at his girlfriend’s place to bring him down, but even then Harper wouldn’t fire him, Bernier instead resigned. This was also the first and only cabinet resignation I believe we’ve seen so far from this government. That’s not a good thing given how many of Harper’s ministers have done things that should have warranted their dismissal.

4) The Green Shift: Like it or hate it, it was the most bold policy proposal of the year. Sadly the Conservatives AND NDP smeared it with disinformation and the Liberals were unable to successfully combat the onslaught. I’ve still yet to hear one person credibly argue how a cap-and-trade system would be a superior approach to tax shifting for reducing GHG emissions over the next several years when a cap-and-trade system could easily end up being (in the words of Andrew Coyne) "just as costly...twice as complicated… and probably half as effective (as a carbon tax)" and when we know that Europe has had a terrible time getting cap-and-trade off the ground and that the Western Climate Initiative here in North America isn’t scheduled to start till 2012. Yet as of this time an exclusively cap-and-trade approach seems to be the approach all parties (except the Greens) now want us to head in.

I HOPE the Liberals show some courage again and revive the Green Shift policy in a different more saleable form down the line (certainly the Green Shift policy on the whole could stand for some tweaking). After all it was originally Michael Ignatieff’s idea when he was the only leadership candidate in 2006 arguing for it. I understand how given the results of the last election he doesn’t want to touch a tax shift with a ten foot pole and I guess I can’t blame him if he doesn’t go back to it, but to date I’ve seen ZERO evidence in polling or anything that Canadians were voting against us SOLELY BECAUSE of the Green Shift. Is there really more than 1-2% of Canadians who would have said “I definitely would have voted Liberal but didn’t only because they were proposing a carbon tax”?

I think it’s foolish to boil down the election loss to that policy (or just who our leader was for that matter) when people could have voted against us for literally dozens of different reasons (I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually went to the polls thinking the Liberals were going to ban the bible or some other crazy nonsense perpetrated by Conservatives) and such a simplistic view allows us to learn little. I think we lost much more so due to weaker organization and GOTV efforts, the smearing of Stéphane Dion with millions of dollars in ads that we were unable to combat (due to our weaker fundraising abilities) and Harper successfully (falsely) portraying the Liberal platform as planning to spend tens of billions more than was available in the treasury (e.g., the infrastructure policy was portrayed as $70 billion over the short-term rather than over 10 years).

I hope Ignatieff thinks long and hard about what’s best for the country in the long-term, because the environment may not be top of mind for Canadians now but in 2-3 years it will definitely be back and I fear cap-and-trade alone simply won't be sufficient to make the greenhouse gas reductions we need to make and to avoid being seen as a laggard in the world eye on this issue.

Liberals ought to take a look at Norway, an oil-producing nation with HIGHER GDP per-capita (highest in the world right now), economic productivity and living standards than us and yet who have a dreaded carbon tax (though the Liberal Green Shift was actually a superior approach to what Norway put in place as I believe they had too many exemptions). We can catch up to them or we can fall further behind (the environment isn’t the only issue we can look to Norway on either).

If we KNOW the Green Shift (or an improved adaptation of it) is the best approach for the environment (combined in time with cap-and-trade), how can we as the “natural governing party” just abandon it completely just because of one election? If we used one election as the basis for whether to discard different policies then that really sets a bad precedent for any party to be bold. Trudeau discussed implementing a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1979 and lost, it’s a good thing we didn’t abandon it in the next election. I hope we don’t so easily discard tax shifting once and for all.

But alas, I feel this little tirade will fall on deaf ears and tax shifting will not be proposed again by any major party in Canada for a long time to come…So then on to the next news story of the year….

5) 2008 Federal Election: I honestly believe that if the election were held a week before (when polls had it at 33 Cons -30 Libs) or a week after (when Nanos again had it 32 Cons – 30 Libs) October 14 the result would have been dramatically different, but Stephen Harper called the election for when he did for a reason and it paid off. He wanted to avoid by-elections losses while having an e-day before the economic downturn he knew and before Obama could be elected in the US. Harper was clearly going to lose all 4 by-elections (and from what I heard on the ground we were on the verge of winning St. Lambert on the eve of Sept. 8) and he waited till the very last day before the by-elections so he could run ads unopposed outside the writ (to do an end run around election spending limits), wasting the maximum amount of public money possible. That he could do that AND break his promise not to call an election before October 2009 and almost not even release a platform and not be punished at the polls for any of that still bothers me.

As for the campaign itself, it started off slow for us, but I believe we did eventually hit our stride and our platform had the right priorities (I’ve still yet to hear a single Liberal state any specific policy aside from the Green Shift that we shouldn’t keep in the next platform), but perhaps we promised too much (in $ terms at least) or perhaps we didn’t communicate well enough what we were going to do. As I said above on the Green Shift, it’s simplistic to blame that for our loss or to blame just Stéphane Dion. In the debates everyone praised his performances and to me that still represents the real Dion, but in the end he could not overcome the negative caricatures (bought my an unprecedented character assasination campaign by the Cons) that even he recognized had been cemented in Canadians’ minds. That certainly hurt us, but what hurt us more was being outmatched in organizational and GOTV efforts and simply not being in play in many less ridings than the Conservatives. We have a lot of work to do to fix that in time for the next election (I’ll propose some more thoughts on how to do that in the new year). Apart from that, I think a lot of voters by the time e-day arrived were just looking for a steady hand to manage the economy and a plurality for whatever reason thought that would be Stephen Harper. I’m sure he was helped by the strong final weekend he had and the major market rallies that occurred on the final two days of the campaign.

Even so, a MAJORITY voted against Harper and if we had a system of proportional representation then the results would have translated into the Liberals, NDP and Greens having a majority of seats between them without needing any support from the Bloc to have formed a coalition. Only the Conservatives and the Bloc won a greater percentage of seats than their percent of the popular vote and that’s the second election in a row that’s happened. I hope the time will have finally come for the majority of Liberals to realize that electoral reform is not only the right thing to do but is also in our own party’s interests (I’ll also have more to say about that in the new year).

6) The Economic Crisis: It’s not quite true that no one saw an economic crisis coming (in fact I give Garth Turner credit for making dire predictions well before the bottom fell out on the market), but I think the magnitude of it has taken just about everyone by surprise. If you had said a year ago that Canada would have a $30 Billion deficit in 2009 and that all parties would agree that a fiscal stimulus package getting us to that point would be necessary (not forgetting the fact though that if it weren’t for Harper’s reckless GST cuts the prospective deficit would be MUCH smaller) you’d have been called crazy. Thankfully previous Liberal governments ensured that our banking system was one of the most solid in the world and Stephen Harper has a minority or else Canada would be in a HUGE amount of trouble that might take a decade or more to get out of. Liberals can’t let Canadians forget that the Harper Conservatives brought in 40 year mortgages and other reckless practices (before abandoning them when it was clear how damaging they were) that were the original source of the financial meltdown in the U.S. that dominoed into a global economic crisis and we can't let them forget either how recklessly Harper and Flaherty and Co. frittered away a strong surplus that would be have been enormously useful at a time like this.

These guys don’t know how to manage the economy and the evidence is overwhelming, we just have to make sure Canadians understand just how bad they have been and how disastrous it would be if they got a majority.

7) Fiscal Update/The Liberal-NDP Coalition: Stephen Harper came into Parliament enjoying the good will of the opposition parties. Many people were predicting he would likely get to govern until at least 2010. It’s his fault alone that he squandered that and now has the lowest ratings for “Best PM” than he’s ever had. The fiscal update had no solutions for the economic crisis, proposed bizarre (e.g., a firesale of public assets in a horrible market) and offensive (e.g., weakening pay equity and banning public strikes right after a collective bargaining deal was reached) policies while having the central goal of crushing the Conservatives political opposition through the elimination of the per vote subsidy.

Had the coalition not come about I have no doubt in my mind Harper would have dug in his heels on the update, as without a coalition, voting down the update would have meant an election that the opposition parties weren’t prepared to face. In all likelihood with no coalition one of the opposition parties would have been very likely to cave. Thankfully, because of the deal Dion negotiated with Layton, Stephen Harper had to shelve every negative aspect of that update. But for putting it forth in the midst of a crisis and at a time when the opposition was willing to work with him, Stephen Harper should have lost power. The coalition in turn would definitely have brought in a strong and popular budget by now instead of us having to be the last western country to bring in fiscal stimulus to revive our economy. I’m confident that even though they would have started with only about 40%-45% public support (which is still more than Stephen Harper enjoyed) their policies would have proved popular over the year ahead. Unfortunately, the Governor General was put in the unprecedented situation of being asked to allow Harper to dodge the will of Parliament. Stephen Harper’s head would have exploded if Paul Martin had tried the same thing, but I don’t think there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind now that he will do anything to retain his hold on power.

Now the coalition looks unlikely to happen because Stephen Harper’s scare tactics and disinformation have knocked its popularity down to below what we would have hoped for (though I think it’s disingenuous of this Globe article to call 40%-45% support for the coalition “widely unpopular” without also calling Stephen Harper “widely unpopular” after receiving only 38% support in the last election) and because Harper now desperately wants to survive past January so he can regoup without the threat of any looming coalition (as that threat can't really exist past February).

Though I do hope that if Stephen Harper doesn’t take dramatic steps to show he’s changed (that go beyond just putting out a strong budget) that those worried about voting him down realize that we may live to regret allowing him to live another day and that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc decide to end his career right at budget time in January. If the Harper Conservatives won’t be a responsible government in the worst times our country has faced in decades then there is ample justification for the coalition taking on that role instead and every single precedent that exists would compel the Governor General to allow that.

8) Provincial elections in Alberta and Quebec: The status quo prevailed in Alberta, but it was definitely surprising and disappointing (I’m sure all the more so for any Liberals living in Alberta) just how resounding Ed Stelmach’s victory was. Now that oil is plummeting to lows not seen in years and it seems like Stelmch spent the cupboard and never planned for something like this, I wonder if Albertans will finally see that perhaps they aren’t being best served by Conservative government after all. I’m sure somehow all the problems Alberta is facing for low oil prices will be blamed in Trudeau somehow.

As for Quebec, Jean Charest completed his political comeback with a majority, but Stephen Harper’s Quebec/separatist bashing the final week of the campaign almost blew it for him and definitely has helped revive PQ fortunes. Had Charest only won a minority I think his career in Quebec would have been over (since the only reason he called an early election was to win a majority) and I wonder if he wouldn’t have tried to go back to Ottawa to end Stephen Harper’s. The things will never know since a majority is a majority and I’m guessing Charest will retire at the end of his term (has any Premier ever won 4 consecutive terms in Quebec?), but I won’t be surprised if he tries some bold initiatives in next 4 years to cement his legacy.

9) New Liberal Leader: I was I was sad to see Stephane Dion go and not got the second chance every one of our other past leaders received, but I do believe he played important positive role as our leader and even as interim leader with the creation of the coalition. I think he would have made an excellent PM and still could have grown into the job of party leader (as was evident in the last half of the campaign) , but as he recognized the Conservatives so badly tarnished him that it would been very difficult to reverse that impresssion and thus he felt the mountain would be too high to climb.

While the ensuing Liberal leadership race was much shorter than expected and cut out what likely would have been some valuable debates, Liberals are now able to turn their guns away from each other and squarely on Stephen Harper MUCH sooner than expected.

10) Senate Patronage Spree: Ordinarily Senate appointments by a PM are hardly big news, but that changes when it’s done by a man who’s spent a lifetime campaigning against Senate patronage and who just shut down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote and when it also happens to also be the largest number of appointments in a single day. There being no gender or partisan balance in these appointments and the overwhelming number of hardcore party loyalists being appointed just made all the more cringe inducing. Whether the galling nature of these appointments will turn public opinion against him remains to be seen, but it was a pretty dramatic example of Harper will abandon any principle to hold on to power and use all the perks that come along with it.

Honourable mention: The inevitable end of John Tory’s leadership of the Ontario PC Party, though it comes a lot later than I, and the poll I conducted, had predicted. But since it’s not official yet, technically it can be a story for 2009. My endorsement for their leader still has not changed though: Randy Hillier all the way! And here’s hoping Baird, Flaherty, Clement and/or Van Loan (the more of them better) also race back to try to grab the Ontario PC Party brass ring as well - they will be doing their country a HUGE favour by leaving Ottawa for Queen’s Park and going back to the opposition benches where they belong!

World News Note: Obviously the biggest worldwide story (that eclipsed all Canadian stories) was the was the 2008 Presidential Election and the election of Barack Obama as President, but Canadian politics is still where my heart is so that’s what I stuck to in this list just like I did last year.


Recommend this Post

Friday, October 17, 2008

Bleeding Left


So I understand a former Liberal cabinet minister thinks the Liberals have "moved too far left". I happen think this is a total myth, but if you happen to think that moving the Liberals sharply to the right is a solution to its problems I invite you to take a look at the chart above which shows Liberals support from 1988 to 2008. From 1993 to 2008 we’ve gone from 41.3% to 26.2%. Over that same time the NDP has gone from 6.9% to 18.2%, while the Greens took another 7% from us in this last election. Liberals really ought to take into that into consideration when thinking about where they go from here.
Yes a divided right helped us win in 1993 and yes we won back some of the PC vote in 2004, but we can’t ignore that the combined Alliance-PC total was still 35% in the 1993 election that brought us back to power while the NDP went from 20.4% in 1988 down to 6.9%. So isn’t it pretty clear where bulk of our vote increase came from from 1988 to 1993?

And if you really believe the Liberals have gone “too far left” under Stéphane Dion just what “left wing” policies would you suggest Liberals discard? Fighting poverty? The Kelowna Accords? National child care? Do you think cutting income taxes or corporate taxes is too far left? A carbon tax has also never been a left wing idea. You can’t just make blanket claims that the party has gone too far left without giving even one specific policy example of what you think should be different.

I personally don’t like these right-left labels that some seem to fall for. Myself I prefer socially progressive and fiscally responsible policies and I was very proud of the platform we had in the last election. No one can credibly tell us we weren’t proposing sound public policy that wasn’t going to be good for the economy and the environment. We will have new policies I’m sure in the next election, but I would recommend tweaking rather than an overhaul as I’d hate to see the party just start pandering to what’s more politically palatable than what actually makes for good governance.

But back to the point at hand, Liberals are going to do worse in the next election if move sharply right. We ignore the rise of the NDP and the Greens at our own peril.

I believe there are three things to ensure they do not harm our electoral chances further in the next election:
1) Stand up to Harper vigorously in the next Parliament. We shouldn’t fear voting against him, I am 100% certain either the NDP or the Bloc will vote to keep him in power time and again.
2) Put out a similar progressive platform but that is communicated in more bite-sized fashion
3) Endorse holding a referendum on electoral reform

I will have more on each on those points in future posts.


Recommend this Post

What Was That About “Panicking”?

Didn't have great access to e-mail the past two days but IF I did, this is what I have had up earlier:
Don’t you just love it when an elected leader completely reverses him/herself within a day or two of the election? So when Stéphane Dion proposes a prudent 5 point plan for the economy Harper calls it “panicking” and “just a bunch of useless meetings”. Then days before an election Flaherty decides to copy the part of Dion’s plan that called for accelerated infrastructure spending and now Harper has copied all of the rest! And yet NONE of the headlines convey this obvious fact.

I do hope someone in the media calls Harper on this blatant reversal and questions how he feels about carrying out a plan he called useless less than a week ago. This reminds me again of the 2004 U.S. election where Bush was unwilling to admit he had made any mistakes in his first term and then all of a sudden just days after he won he was holding a press conference admitting different mistakes he made. It really builds trust in our leaders doesn’t it?

But seriously does Harper have ANY original ideas? What’s next is he going to introduce the Green Shift in his next budget? I won’t complain if he does, but even though the election is over and the people have spoken that’s no reason why the media and opposition should roll over and play dead and Harper’s actions do reinforce what we Liberals were saying all along: Stéphane Dion is a much stronger leader and knows better how to manage the economy than does Stephen Harper. I do wonder though just how many more reversals we will see from Harper before the week is over.


Recommend this Post

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Memories of 2004

There are A LOT of differences between what happened last night and what happened almost 4 years ago in the U.S., but I can’t help thinking that how I feel today must be similar to how dedicated Democrats felt in the U.S. after George Bush won a second term with increased numbers in the House and Senate to go with it. I know so many Democrats were optimistic that momentum was going their way again in the final weekend and that they would come out on top in Election night. That the rest of the country saw George Bush as they did. In the end they were wrong and it really wasn’t that close at all on Election night.

Now Harper only increased his vote by 1% last night but there is no question he will see this is a strengthened mandate just like Bush did and I won't be surprised if Harper similiar refuses to really work with other parties across the aisle. Two years later though Bush was dealt a crushing defeat in the midterm elections for his dismal performance in office. We have a very different system (as winning more seats in the House means ousting the head of government at the same time), but I won’t be surprised if we end back at the polls in two years time ourselves.

I take heart in knowing that the Conservative governments of Bush, Mulroney and Harris also were extremely unpopular by the end of the second terms because the real disastrous nature of their policies and leadership came to be realized more with the passage of time.

It may or may not turn out in progressives favour like it did for progressives in the U.S. in 2006 or the Liberals in 1993 or 2003 in Ontario, but we should be under no illusion that it will take a tremendous amount of work to win back power and any assumptions that a simple new coat of paint will win it again are naïve at best. I certainly agree with what Wells says here on what would NOT be an appropriate fix (I will have more on this later). Liberals are not entitled to power we must work incredibly hard to win Canadians trust again and we must work with, and win over, many more progressives to be successful.

I will be back soon with a couple more posts on my thoughts on the way forward from here.


Recommend this Post

Monday, October 13, 2008

What Would Another Year of Harper Mean? How Progressives Vote Tomorrow Could Shape the Next Decade

I’m convinced that IF the Liberals run a great ground game, place their final ads well, AND (more importantly) rally additional Green and NDP supporters to their side in the final hours of the campaign then we will see the most progressive PM in Canadian history, Stephane Dion, elected to lead our country. But part of that involves getting the message out about what an even miniscule victory for Harper would mean for Canada and the future prospects of ALL progressive parties.

If Harper comes out with the most seats on election night I believe he will strike a deal with the Bloc Quebecois, seeing it as his only opportunity to regain favour in Quebec after badly blowing it there this time. That means Harper would have a blank cheque on votes in the House for likely up to two years and there’s not much Liberals and/or the NDP could do to defeat his legislation.

So what would this mean policy wise? Well it would mean that for at least two years there would be...
- No progress towards any new child care spaces or a national program
- Increased poverty levels across the country with the government having no plan to address it
- No new investments in post-secondary education, leaving Canada ill-equipped to compete on the world stage. Each year that goes by we would fall further behind
- Further embarrassments on the world stage as a successor to the Kyoto protocol is formally drafted and we are left with an even worse environmental stance than the United States
- Continued rises in greenhouse gas emissions as Conservatives continue to hold to intensity based targets only to please the oil sands
- Further backsliding on human rights: ignoring the practices Canadian mining companies in the 3rd world, ignoring our own citizens facing the death penalty abroad (and possibly bringing it back here), and continued opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples
- Further head in the sand economic management so that our financial situation ends up like how Mulroney left it
- Extending of the Afghan mission beyond 2011 despite the fact that we will have done our part and likely could be used in other troubled regions of the globe
- Further gutting of press freedoms
- Further gutting of the Access to Information Act as Harper's penchant for secrecy reaches new bounds
- Further cuts to Status of Women
- Further weakening of the Gun Registry by stealth
- A continued carbon copy foreign policy that takes cues from elsewhere (remember most foreign policy decisions are not even subject to votes in Parliament)
- Paltry contributions to foreign aid and abandonment of Africa just as they need our help more than ever
- The final elimination of any spending room left to ever launch without needing to raise taxes (which no political party is ever willing to do) and much more that will have progressives realizing his second term is even worse than the first.

Now if you are a progressive and you think you can live with that for at least two years (possibly more) thinking that as long as Harper is defeated in the NEXT election after this one things would be fine and easily reversed, you would be mistaken to think the effects wouldn’t be linger long beyond another year or two mandate or that wouldn’t be even more difficult to defeat him in the next election.

The reason for this is that Harper would make every effort to spend the cupboard bare with further focus group inspired tax credits, maybe even another cynical 1% cut to the GST. That’s not only bad economic management, but it would leave ALL parties with less to offer in the next election.

For Liberals that should be obvious just look at how much financial room there was in our platform this time for child care, Kelowna and education compared to last time. There was less on all fronts because of Harper’s GST cuts and all his focus group tax credits that did nothing for our economy. Given the reality that no leader of any party (except the Greens I guess) is going to promise to raise taxes to create fiscal room for the aforementioned priorities any new tax cuts would likely not be reversed.

For those NDPers who think corporate taxes could be raised this election makes clear that that’s a non-starter for 80% of the Canadian population, not to mention all the recent NDP provincial leaders, who realize we need to corporate taxes to get our economy going again. I guarantee if Layton is around next time he won’t be promising to raise corporate taxes as he’ll follow the lead of every other NDP leader in the country. Even this time Layton has gone around claiming that he will never raise corporate taxes just cancelled planned ones.

Which means if Harper gets in this time, even for just one more year, it could take 6 or 7 years to bring us back to a financial situation where a national child care program, meaningfully investing in post-secondary education, a real poverty plan, and tackling the infrastructure deficit would and a host of other programs all progressives believe in become financially possible again.

So with less money available Liberals (and all progressive parties) would have less to offer Canadians in the next election and Harper would have ample time to re-tool just like Jean Charest did in Quebec when everyone counted him out. And he would obviously have no shame in calling another election at the most opportune time. Of course the potential is always there to defeat him next time (and all of us will hard just as hard to do so), but it’s naïve to think it would be any easier than this time and it’s naïve to think that whatever he did in his next mandate could be easily reversed.

Plain and simple many people will suffer under another Harper mandate, our reputation will worsen, and Canada will fall further behind compared to other countries who seem to better understand that fostering a green economy and investing in PSE and child care are essential to being competitive in today’s world. It would be very hard to catch up with each year that goes by with Harper in charge. I don’t think any progressive wants to see this happen to our country.

So it should be clear that the stakes are VERY high for all progressives this time out.

We can work together to elect a progressive PM that would work with the NDP (and any Green) MPs to work on common priorities in a minority Parliament. Harper will NEVER listen to NDP and Green priorities and Dion definitely will, they would have far more influence than if Harper was PM.

We could have the most progressive Prime Minister in Canadian history or the most regressive one.

I hope NDP and Green supporters realize that all our parties and, more importantly, all Canadians, would be better off if Stéphane Dion becomes Prime Minister tomorrow night rather than Stephen Harper. Only one of those two can come out with the most seats.

So if you were thinking of voting NDP or Green but live in a riding where they finished 3rd, 4th or 5th last time, if you vote Liberal this time, I know that a year from now you will not regret that decision and see that in fact your own party has played a bigger role in Parliament than ever before. For Green supporters this is exactly what Elizabeth May has asked you to do, and for NDPers you should know your party will have far more influence if you did the same. If this happens we will definitely have a progressive Prime Minister elected tomorrow night.

We share a lot in common and I hope we can work together bringing progressive policy for Canadians in the next Parliament. But that all depends on how things go tomorrow…

N.B.: I’ll be back later tonight with my last two posts of this election.


Recommend this Post

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Harper/Flaherty Follow Dion on the Economy

Flaherty and Harper become the last arriving at the party with Flaherty saying now that now all of a sudden he does want to speed infrastructure projects. This is after spending a week of saying that this pledge by Dion would be "panicking". Obviously Harper and Flaherty have no idea how to get out of this crisis when all they offerred initially was stock tips that would have led to massive losses for any Canadians that followed them as they insisted nothing needed to be done. Now with only days before an election we get a $25 billion quasi-bailout of the banks and Flaherty admitting that the Liberals five-point 30 day plan was the right approach all along.

When the world economy is in dire shape this is not the kind of judgement we need to steer out country our of these rough waters. Harper and Flaherty have been asleep at the switch and only seem to react when the polls tell them they have to. That is not leadership.

Harper why don't you just admit that Stephane Dion and the Liberals know how to manage the economy and get us out of this crisis better than you do? Because what we've seen this week proves it in spades.


Recommend this Post

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Harper Realizes He’s Failed Quebecers

Realizing he really has no positive reasons left to offer the people of Quebec to vote for him and that's has consistently let them down, Harper figures “at least I'm not the devil” will do to keep what support he has left:
---------------------------------------------------
Harper tells Quebecers he is not the 'devil'
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, October 11, 2008
LONGUEUIL, Que. - Stephen Harper, looking to stem the dramatic slide of his party in Quebec, reassured Quebecers on Saturday that he is not the "devil incarnate."
---------------------------------------------------
Somehow I don’t think this is how Conservatives in Quebec hoped their campaign would finish. With Harper now refusing to rule out that he may appoint more unelected Quebecers (including Fortier even if he loses) to the Senate to serve in his cabinet, it seems Harper is less optimistic about his chances in Quebec as he seems to be about those "great buys" on the stock market.

Quebecers clearly have a better option in Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada and I hope other Canadians take note that they seem to be the only party able to form a government with significant elected Quebec representation.










Recommend this Post

Some Perspective: Where Were We At This Point Last Time? Part 2

UPDATED: Strategic Counsel (including tonight's poll added)
I don’t generally like to blog about polls, but with it being so close to e-day they take on a lot more relevance. But we should also take into account how the polls were at this point last time and I remain disappointed that no media outlet has done so. So to give a more balanced view of the polls here are the polling results from the main companies at the equivalent point before E-day(Jan. 20th, 2006) last time compared to today:







Polling Company

Conservative

Liberal

NDP

Green

Bloc

Lib-Cons Diff

Nanos

36.2

29.4

17.3

6.1

11

6.8%

Ipsos-Reid

38

26

19

5

11

12%

Ekos

37.1

26.9

19.5

4.6

11.5

10.2%

Strategic Counsel38281771110%

Decima (Jan. 15)

37

27

18

---

11

10%

And here are the results as of today:


Polling Company

Conservative

Liberal

NDP

Green

Bloc

Lib-Cons Diff

Nanos

32 (-4.2)

28 (-1.4)

22 (+4.7)

8 (+1.9)

10
(-1)

4%(-2.8%)

Ipsos-Reid

34 (-4)

29 (+3)

18 (-1)

8 (+3)

9 (-2)

5%(-7%)

Ekos

34 (-3.1)

26 (-0.9)

19
(-0.5)

11 (+6.4)

10(-1.5)

8%(-2.2%)

Strategic Counsel35 (-3)28 (NC)19 (+2)9(+2)9(-2)7%(-3%)

Decima

35 (-2)

25 (-2)

18 (NC)

11

9 (-2)

10%(NC, but poll was taken 8 days before e-day last time

I couldn’t find the regional poll numbers from 2006 it would be interesting to compare how those compared as well, if anyone can find them please put them in the comments.

But with respect to the national numbers what’s changed compared to 2006? Well Conservative support is actually more down now in the polls than at this point last time than the Liberal vote is. The good news for Liberals is that Conservatives ended up doing worse on e-day than most of the pollsters pegged them and the Liberals ended up doing better.

NDP supporters might find it interesting to see that, with the exception of Nanos (ironically Dippers have been slagging the accuracy of Nanos all election and were talking up Decima not too long ago), they are exactly where they were last time despite having spent far more money and having run a much stronger campaign this time out. The Greens are the only ones
consistently up from where they were before.

But one thing is clear: the polls are showing a closer race between the Liberals and Conservatives than last time at this point. But it would seem that this time voter’s preferences are even more volatile as we’ve seen much more wild swings in support in the past week of the campaign this time around.

In the end though only Liberals or Conservatives can win and whichever one has the better final weekend, makes the most effective ad buys AND (most importantly) gets out the vote best on e-day will win.

Be back later with much more...

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Who Needs Scientists and Economists Anyway?

So I understand 230 leading Canadian economists and 120 of Canada's top climate scientists are calling for the federal government to adopt a Green Shift like Stéphane Dion has proposed. I wouldn’t listen to them though because they must all surely be “crazy” Liberal supporters. I’d much sooner put my trust in someone who confidently said a few weeks ago “My own belief is if we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.

And he’s right, everything is fine. So 5 major bank economists are saying they are expecting "worse than a recession" on the horizon, what do they know? As Rob Silver says they’re just “panicking” and “cheering for a recession”.

Really we would be insane to listen to the advice of “experts” at a time like this.

The TSX may be down over 35% since the summer but as Stephen Harper tells us, the lower the market goes the more that will open up wonderful buying opportunities. That sounds like “we’re better off with Harper” to me. How about you?


Recommend this Post

10X10 for Change, Part 3

I'll have a post up later on the Conservatives too little too late platform that surely will demonstrate that they don't really understand the Canadian economy, but for now he's another installment of why to cast for vote for the Liberals on October 14th.

Why Vote FOR the Liberal Party of Canada?
21) The Liberal Party has the strongest potential cabinet of any of the parties with front-bench experience that dwarfs the others
22) A Liberal government would fix the backlog in our immigration system and help ensure they succeed, without having to pick favourites and treat them like economic units
23) A Liberal government would do the most to help Canadians go Green in their homes (through financial support and Green mortgages)
24) A Liberal government would do the most to protect our natural resources and natural parks
25) A Liberal government would take greater efforts to ensure we have cleaner air, and continued fresh water supply
26) A Liberal government would hold an independent public inquiry into the listeriosis crisis and increasing funding for food safety inspection
27) A Liberal government would institute the first ever Commissioner for Gender Equality (as has been done in Australia, UK, and South Africa) to ensure all legislation is viewed with an equality lens
28) A Liberal government would restore the funding cut to Status of Women Canada and re-insert helping to achieve gender equality back into its mandate
29) A Liberal government will provide significant aid to the manufacturing sector during this difficult time with the Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund
30) A Liberal government would get smart on crime by providing additional resources to the RCMP, creating a gun violence and gang prevention fund, banning military assault rifles, and improving the Youth Criminal Justice Act (following the recommendations of experts)

Why vote AGAINST Harper's Conservatives?
21) Conservatives would give Canada the weakest cabinet in history, even weaker than the one they had in the last Parliament with Emerson, Solberg and Hearn all not running again.
22) Conservatives are content to have the powers of the immigration system wielded by a single cabinet minister to decide which immigrants get favoured over others which won’t fix the backlog and flies in the face of the principles of fairness and equality on which our immigration system
23) Conservatives don’t make helping Canadians go green a priority even though if would save them money in the long run
24) A Liberal government would do the most to protect our natural resources and natural parks
25) Conservatives won’t commit to banning bulk water exports
26) Conservatives are only willing to hold a scaled-down closed door inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak that would pale into comparison to what was conducted for past epidemics. All the while their ministers have been AWOL in dealing with the crisis have been joking about the crisis as people died.
27) Conservatives oppose a Commissioner for Gender Equality because they seem to believe that gender equality has already been achieved despite all evidence to the contrary
28) Conservatives cut funding to Status of Women Canada which severely weakened its operation and forced 12 regional offices to close
29) Conservatives only believe in miniscule aid to the manufacturing sector and only then after months of pressure to do so. They don’t believe in it and can’t be trusted to follow through on what little they have promised.
30) The Conservatives approach to crime flies in the face of all evidence and advice from experts as to what actually works in preventing crime. In fact what they propose has failed in the United States and their youth justice proposals have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada and fly in the face of international law.

Part 2 of the series
Part 1 of the series


Recommend this Post

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Intimidation Has NO Place in This Election

It's completely appalling that we are once again seeing stories of vandalism of Liberal supporter's homes and their lives being endangered. This is criminal behaviour that simply does not belong in any democracy. I would hope that as when this happened in Guelph all the candidates in St. Paul's and Parkdale High Park can release a joint statement condemning this kinds of behaviors.

And as I said the last time said the last time this happened this is serious enough that I believe all the party leaders should be loudly condemning it as well.

No supporter of any party deserves to be intimidated just because they want express their support for that party during an election. I would hope this is the last of these stories, but it is very saddening to see something like this happen at all in this country.


Recommend this Post

10X10 for Change, Part 1

With us in the homestretch I think we Liberals need to be giving just as many reasons to vote FOR us as to vote AGAINST Stephen Harper. In the spirit of this I am starting a 10 part series "Danielle's 10x10 Campaign for Change". Each part will give 10 new reasons to vote FOR the Liberals and 10 contrasting reasons to vote against the Conservatives (who I note have REMOVED their last platform from their website that used to be here – why’s that Steve? Didn’t you keep your promises?). Part 2 will be tonight, with parts 3 to 10 coming each night thereafter. By the end of the last night of the campaign I'll have listed 100 reasons (in no particular order) for each. The lists are far from exhaustive, so I encourage other Liberal bloggers to come up with their ows lists. There are literally hundreds of reasons to vote for our party and against Harper so we can have a government to be proud of again. So let's get the message out.

Why vote for the Liberal Party of Canada?
1) An environmental plan endorsed by environmentalists endorsed by environmentalists that could be implemented in the next budget (not waiting until 2012)
2) A short-term economic plan to deal with the financial crisis to ensure we don’t face the same fate as the U.S. (which no other party has stepped up to provide)
3) A costed long-term economic plan endorsed by economists that has succeeded in those countries where it’s been implemented
4) A long-term infrastructure plan, endorsed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that finally provides municipalities with the stable long-term funding they need to tackle the infrastructure deficit
5) A plan to cut the poverty rate by 1/3 and child poverty by 1/2 over the next 5 years
6) The Liberals will build a STRONGER relationship with our Aboriginal People and they will do more to lift them out of poverty and settle land claims, hold a First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal issues within 6 months of assuming office, and bring back the Kelowna Accords
7) The strongest commitment to running female candidates at 36.7% with plans to run more next election
8) A strong plan to reduce wait times and increase the number of trained and family doctors in this doctors
9) The strongest plan to strengthen our post-secondary education system and access for students
10) Enhanced financial support to families combined with the restoration of a national child care program to provide real choice in child care.

Why Vote Against Harper's Conservatives?
1) An environmental plan that in the words of Conservative columnist Andrew Coyne is "just as costly as the Liberals'...… twice as complicated… and probably half as effective." Not to mention it’s been panned by every independent group that’s evaluated it (see here, here, here, here).
2) Harper’s “don’t worry be happy” about the economy which leaves him as the ONLY G8 leader who isn't doing anything about the financial crisis
3) Harper has no long-term plan for our economy, only ideas to get himself to October 14th.
4) Harper has ignored the needs of municipalities for long-term stable funding and the growing infrastructure deficit. Harper’s finance minister’s only response to this being “we aren't in the pot hole business” and calling municipal leaders “whiners”.
5) No plan to cut poverty or any mention of it frmo Harper in this campaign
6) Harper tore up Kelowna, does not plan to re-visit it and has no plan to combat Aboriginal poverty
7) The weakest commitment to female candidates among all the parties. It’s not a priority at all for him to see more women in the House of Commons and/or give them a louder voice in making government policy.
8) Broken promises on wait times and no plan to reduce them (we may get a belated one on Tuesday, but we have no reason to believe Harper on this since he broke his word already)
9) No plan for post-secondary education and whatever is included in his eventual platform will surely not place it in high of priority as the Liberals do. Harper doesn’t understand how essential our PSE system is to our economy.
10) The failure to create any new child care spaces despite promising to create 125,000. His Universal Child Care benefit offers no choice to families as those looking for child care spaces can’t find them.


Recommend this Post

Saturday, October 4, 2008

"Vote for the Party You Think Can Actually Run the Economy"

Thank you Stephen Harper for letting all Canadians know that they really should be voting Liberal in this election. Any objective consideration of which party has had the best record managing the economy and which party has the best plan to get our current economy rolling get would see the Liberals come out on top. Are there any economists who would argue otherwise? Many have endorsed the Green Shift as being good for the economy (in fact Stephen Harper commissioned a government report that said as much), even the very recent TD report issued to the McGuinty government recommended this approach. Yet not a single economist has said it will be bad for the economy like Harper claims.

The Liberal platform as a whole has also been endorsed by economists, environmentalists, agricultural groups, student groups, police forces and municipal leaders. Can any other party say the same?

The Liberals also have a plan to deal with the current economic crisis within the first 30 days of taking office:

1. Call upon the heads of Canada’s financial regulatory agencies – the Office of
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), Canadian Deposit Insurance
Corporation (CDIC), the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Bank of Canada – to evaluate the status and appropriateness of Canada’s
financial regulatory framework within the context of the new global economic
circumstances.
2. Convene a meeting of leading independent private sector economists to report on the state of the economy and assess both domestic and international trends for the coming year.
3. Direct the Department of Finance to prepare an Economic and Fiscal Update to be presented no later than the end of the third week of a new Liberal government.
4. Convene a Meeting of Canada’s first ministers to address the new realities of Canada’s economic situation and to ensure the best possible coordination of efforts with the provincial and territorial governments.
5. Work in partnership with the provinces and territories to identify infrastructure projects and opportunities in the manufacturing sector that have the greatest potential to stimulate investment and create jobs. Support will then be provided through the accelerated flow of funds under our infrastructure program and the Liberal $1-billion Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund.

Number 1 and 2 the Conservatives refuse to do because they don’t seem to listen to experts and economists, Number 3 the Conservatives would likely delay, Number 4 is long overdue and Harper said he would likely postpone for several more months, and Number 5 the Conservatives refuse to do. In reality both the Conservatives and NDP have no real plan to deal with the economic crisis (in fact the NDP says their first act would be to raise taxes on the kinds of companies most hard hit by the crisis leading to even more job losses) so obviously they can’t help us through it.

Economists have also validated the Liberal platform numbers, can any other party say that? With revelations that there are many uncosted portions of the current NDP platform it's clear they can't be trusted to manage the books. The Conservatives meanwhile have cobbled together a platform at the last minute in response to being slammed on this during the debates. That hardly signifies confident economic management.

I remember the day the Liberals released their platform Harper's response was "if this was a CEO of a company he (Dion) would be fired" Well if Harper really wants the economy to be the main issue in this campaign let's run with that metaphor for a second thinking of Harper as the CEO of Canada. If a CEO took over a company that was a leader in its field and its stock plummeted and high company profits turned to being near the red and the company became dead last in its field what would happen to that CEO if their only response was "don't worry be happy"? Well Harper inherited a government that had never been in better financial shape and that was first in the G7 in economic productivity and it's now gone to the brink of deficit, the former $3 billion fiscal cushion is gone, we are now last in the G7 in economic productivity, forecasts of a recession are mounting and Harper's response is that nothing needs to be done. If Conservative supporters don't think that's a reason for being fired when their own leader believes economic management to the key issue in this campaign, I certainly hope they don't end up being CEOs one day. After all Harper obviously agrees with the CEO metaphor for a PM.

So Stephen Harper I agree with you: Canadians should vote for the party you think can actually run the economy. If they follow your advice Stéphane Dion will be the next Prime Minister.

Recommend this Post

Substance Please

Is it too much to ask that in the homestretch of this election we start hearing more who would actually make the best Prime Minister for this country? Watching the aftermath debate coverage yesterday it seemed instead the focus was on whether Harper "survived" despite the fact that he laid out no plan for the country (even as advance polls were opening yesterday) and who got the best "quips" in. Essentially the message is that substance shouldn't matter. Yet it was obvious that Stéphane Dion who laid out the most detailed and practical plans for moving this country forward. Harper could not defend his record and has no plan and Layton's plans would be disastrous. Raising taxes on employer's at the worst possible time and abandoning our allies and the Afghan people with hardly any notice would demolish our economy and standing on the world stage. And his nice little "quip" did nothing but try to provide a free pass to Harper's disregard for our democratic institutions. Not to mention Layton's claims that he could more effectively oppose Harper are a joke as he has nothing to show for his "opposition" and even NDP Strategist Gerald Caplan admits that no matter how many seats the NDP gains in this election they would completely cower from opposing the government in any fashion in the next Parliament because they'll have no money to wage another campaign.

If this NANOS poll is correct though Canadians do want to hear more, not less, substance from the party leaders. Stéphane Dion's leadership numbers and his party's standing soared the night after the debate, while Harper and Layton's did not. Instead though the media focus was on a shoddy poll that was taken as if the second hour of the debate never happened (at least there was one columnist who called them out for it). I know it's hard for the media to break a narrative they have been running with all election, but with 1.5 weeks left I hope we can hear more about who has the best ideas (is there a single economist or environmentalist endorsing the NDP or Conservative policies?) rather than who had the best sound bite for the day. The race is far from over. The stakes are high in this election and this country's economy is in serious trouble so Canadians deserve no less.


Recommend this Post

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Liveblogging the English Debates

Headed to the Lang gang's debate social. Andrew has a lot of enthusiasm and optimism, and has been very supportive of women and women's issues in the party. He'd be a much better representative for Toronto Danforth than Jack Layton! I think the bar where his social is taking place is called Rails and Tails which is on the Danforth.

It'll be my first time live blogging via my BlackBerry, which will be interesting, because as I'm someone with nails, I find typing fast on one of these things pretty tough (I don't know how Kady O'Malley does it!). My hopes for tonight are to keep this blog light hearted but I'm also hoping that
1) Dion does as good as he did last night, if not better - showing he is effective, decisive and a guy with the best, most practical ideas for this country.
2) If this is achieved, the media don't overlook it and don't give excuses for Dion's "fluke" greatness, and that they report it fairly.

I'll be updating this post throughout the night (as long as my fingers can take it!)

Just got off the subway - I'm shocked at how many ppl are out and about and not home with pens and paper planning to watch the debate. I can only hope that they're on their way home or heading to watch it out at a bar with friends. If I see a sports game or the US VP debate on any big screen at a bar enroute to Lang's party, I'll be appalled!

Where's Steves comfy sweater if he wants to wear them tonight is the night!

If I hear fundamentals of the econ one more time....Layton obviously trying to reach out to avg joe through the tv, smth no doubt palin wll do tonight as well.

- May seems alert and off to good start and effectively going after Harper on economy
LOL does Harper not care or is he incompetent? But it should be a rhetorical question - he doesn't care and is incompetent esp when it comes to the economy.

-Can they interrupt or cut in? They are letting Harper have free rein.

-Dion is spot on what the Conservatives inherited and squandered.

-Um what's with the gibberish bw duceppe and harper? They cant even listen to each other. Neither seems to list to cdns

-Dion is good to keep mentioning he's cutting taxes and combatting the Harper spin. Also calling Layton on his facts on corporate taxes and how Sweden has succeeded with low corporate taxes and carbon taxes.

- Ndp record of balancing budgets? He's crazy, HIS party has never held govt and the prov ones all cut corporate taxes.

First Q over: I think Dion wasn't the loudest but kept the most calm and seemed to be the only one ready to actually tackle the challenges of the economy.

Second section: Environment and fuel prices

9:37 PM: Harper obviously can't even read! Re greenshift tax comments. At least it gave Dion a chance to simply explain the plan to cdns.

9:42 PM: Good that Harper is being called on his "intensity targets." NO ONE thinks Harper can meet his absolute targets.

9:44 PM: Good of Dion to note the cost of waiting to act on the enviro.

9:46 PM: Dion keeps making the case for the Green Shift as good for economy and environment.

9: 48 PM: May gives Harper credit for something (national parks). Unfortunately for him her follow-up wasn't very nice...

End of section. Only one that credibly made the case of his plan is Dion...

Health Care now....

9:50 PM: Bloc going on with Ottawa bashing.

9:53 PM: Bashing of cuts in the 1990s that were necessary to clean up last Con mess. A bit rich for Harper to do this, he called for deeper cuts.

9:54 PM: Good for Layton! Called on Harper on what I just said - campaigned for private health care and wanted further cuts.

Yelling about who uses private clinics now. This is dumb...

I note Dion is the only one who isn't yelling and interrupting in this debate. That's more befitting a Prime Minister.

9:55 PM: Dion reminds what the q actually was - more doctors and what the Liberals will actually do.

9:58 PM: Catastrophic drug coverage.

10:00 PM: Good of Layton to mention Aboriginal health care. Layton says "trust us" to deliver he'll pay for it with corporate taxes that will lose jobs.

Next section: Arts

10:00 PM: Duceppe first, bashing Harper's cuts. May talks about how it's imp to the economy. Dion says how its part of identity and helps economy. Harper plays the piano and his family have artistic talents too, his son plays guitar, he'll give a tax credit. Layton's wife is a sculptor. Mentions most of artists are poor and Harper cuts them anyway.

I never knew our mps were so artistically talented - they should sell their art!

10:05 PM: Is Harper a barbarian is the next q! Dion plays it cool at least. Duceppe attacks notes Flaherty said cuts were political.

May gets specific on the programs cut and how it made no sense to cut. Duceppe: Harper refused to provide justification for cuts. Harper says he's getting "a bad rep", poor him, tries to play games with numbers to get his way out of it.

Layton gets the last word.

Now Crime....

Guy says the rate of violent crime is going way up. CPAC picked this? That's not even accurate.

10: 10 PM: May says it's false. May will ban handguns.

10: 12 PM: Dion will be tough on crime and causes of crime. Need more police and give them tools they need.

10:13 PM: Harper says some kinds of crimes have increased somewhere. Tougher sentences and more jails.

Layton notes shootings in this riding. Duceppe says Dion's right, putting children in jail not the sol.

10: 20 PM: Layton talks about problems for Aboriginals and how much they make up a bigger portion of the prison population. We have to do better, he's right. Layton talks about children and poverty almost reaching out to harper for help and understanding and harper looks very unsympathetic. Harper switches the topic again away from Aboriginals unfortunately.

Afghanistan now....

How do you justify pulling troops out in 2011?

.....A couple rude ppl in the bar who don't listen in general....

Dion makes the case clearly why we couldn't leave in 2009, Harper did nothing to prepare. Dion will give NATO notice it's 201, will Harper?

Harper refuses to admit he made a mistake on Iraq

May raises foreign aid and .7%. Topic switches again.

Harper says Dion changed his mind, Dion says Harper changed his.

End of session.

Next question: What's the first thing you'll do.

Layton: Replace corporate tax cuts as first thing? What his first action will be a budget? Does that make any sense? Has that ever happened? Layton has no idea.

Duceppe: He can't be PM, but he'll be there for Quebec.

May: Sorry missed it.

Dion: Will deal with the economic crisis right away. First thing is an economic update. Will have best cabinet, meet with regulators.

Harper: Doesn't answer question.

10:45 PM: Layton says Premiers and McGuinty don't agree with Green Shift. Not true. Dion gives excellent response to the interviewers q on provincial support saying the ppl support him if elected as do the worlds top economists and environmentalists, he's got the courage to do it.

Dion slams income trust broken promise....

Last section now...

How can we can trust you?

Duceppe doesn't ask for trust, just slams Harper broken promises

May is sad that politicians aren't trusted. Vote with your heart she says. We deserve better.

Dion says all parties are not the same. Liberals would build the country back up again.

Harper: We've followed our platform. This is a joke! Links will be up shortly (here you go: Harper sure did keep his promises).

Layton: Kitchen table again.

Should politicians will be able to change their mind?

Dion says yes it you can explain well.

Layton goes on about Red Book.

May slams Harper on Atlantic Accord.

Dion says Liberals delivered child care and Kelowna Layton killed it. Notes how Harper has fired anyone who disagreed with him, wants to walk all over farmers, etc.. We need leadership we can trust.

Harper finishes on Canadian Wheat Board. Not sure if that's how he wanted to finish.

My Libertarian friend here said no clear winner.

Lang said Dion showed that he is a true leader and we need to make sure he's the next leader of canada and...if possible, vote early and help get out the vote!

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device


Recommend this Post

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

We Need an Independent Foreign Policy Again

Canada proudly punched above its weight on the world stage for decades under Liberal and Conservative governments. On foreign aid, apartheid, peace-keeping, banning use of landmines (the Ottawa Treaty), we were admired for strong principled and independent stands. We made a difference and we were respected across the world. Stephen Harper has broken that proud tradition. He has embraced an ideology far to the right of where we once stood. If anyone had any doubts about that, revelations that Harper delivered an addresss which plagiarized huge portions of John Howard's speech on going into Iraq should make it crystal clear. For those who say it was five years ago, well candidates have been dismissed in this campaign for offensive things they did or wrote more than five years ago and Conservatives called for their dismissals. They may have apologized for what they did but what was done was still not acceptable. Unless we think plagiarism is acceptable (and it certainly isn’t for students or journalists who can be expelled or fired for these things) then we can’t dismiss this act of plagiarism on the part of our current Prime Minister either. Nor did past politicians get away with it. Joe Biden had to abandon his Presidential aspirations in 1988 because he plagiarized a speech from a British politician and it took him years to recover politically from that and he still apologizes to this day for it and says how unbelievably stupid it was. Barack Obama was given quite a hard time by Conservatives (probably blogging Tories too) for using a section of Deval Patrick’s stump speech (“just words”) in his own and had to atone for that. But in the latter case he was told to do so by Patrick who was working on his campaign team and Obama fully admitted who he stole the lines from. Did John Howard directly tell Harper to use the same speech in this case? If so, it just proves the main point here.

Because the real story here and is that Canada simply does not have an independent foreign policy under a Harper administration and we have even more clear evidence of that today. We see no evidence that Harper has moderated his views on foreign policy since 2003. Harper gets his cues from elsewhere and Canada deserves a real leader, not a follower. You would think that on an issue as important as going to war Harper could articulate his own views. If he throws the blame on a staffer (UPDATE: as appears to be what he has done) the fact remains Harper couldn’t come up with an original rationale himself and put very similiar material in numerous op-eds which he signed. Not to mention he would be refusing to take responsibility for words he was proud to take credit for before.

Our past Prime Ministers led on the world stage and this one has failed to the point where our world standing has NEVER been lower. Stéphane Dion would restore our standing on the world stage and make us a real world player again.

People can say the economy is the main issue in this campaign and that’s fine, but it would be a tragedy not to have a real debate on foreign policy as well. Canadians pride themselves on our international reputation and how we comport ourselves across the globe so we need to make sure Canadians know what kind of foreign policy a Liberal versus Conservative government would undertake and what inspires those kinds of policies.

If Conservatives say we should just stick to the economy (where they’ve shown incompetent management anyway) it’s simply because they desperately want to avoid Canadians discussing their foreign policy and how far we’ve veered from our proud international record over the past 2.5 years.





Here is Bob Rae's speech today on foreign policy following up on yesterday's solid speech by Ignatieff on the economy.

UPDATE: Wonderful international press for our country, courtesy of our current PM


Recommend this Post