Some Liberals still don't get it

I've not blogged for several months, given the distractions of moving, settling in, and certain other challenging issues, but I cannot resist responding to the following comment by John Ibbitson, who writes about the infighting occurring within the Opposition parties:

And then there are the Liberal MPs who question the wisdom of the proposal to open up every riding to nomination contests. Once MPs are elected, these MPs contend, they should be safe from nomination challenges so that they can focus on representing the party in Ottawa. [my emphasis]

If Ibbitson has portrayed such MPs' complaints accurately, then those MPs represent part of the Liberal problem.

An MP's primary duty is to represent his or her constituents - every one of them, not just the Liberal-friendly. Their primary duty is NOT to represent the party in Ottawa.

Such MPs need an attitude adjustment. Protection of incumbents, for the above purported reason or any other, is anti-democratic. Political parties with ambition to lead a democratic nation should be themselves, at their very foundation, transparently democratic.

Recommend this post

Post Revival 2.0: We are Separatists

This is starting to become an annual event!

What is it about this time of year that makes Canada's federal parties suppose they can write off citizens' rights, in the service of their own self-interests? Perhaps they think we won't notice.

The prompt for this reprise of a reprise of an original post written two years ago is another collective, self-interested act by all parties, done in full knowledge of its result being further erosion of the democratic rights of a large swath of the electorate.

***
January 2009

For a long time, I've pondered the benefit of my community, now Vancouver Island, being part of the political entity that is the Dominion of Canada. Not because of any dislike for Canada's land, waters or people - that aspect of being Canadian makes me go all mushy inside - but because I can't see how a nation so large, structured as Canada is politically, can fairly represent and administer and distribute justice to all of its people.

As long as Canada maintains the power structure that it has now, then I would prefer that British Columbia be a nation unto itself - i.e., separate from Canada. Even better, that Vancouver Island go it alone.

Our top-tier government has only grown more powerful over the decades, not less. It has been steadily sucking political power from the nation's provinces, territories, regions and municipalities. Thus the federal government, together with its puppet masters, has steadily been eroding the ability of citizens in their communities to directly influence change.

More and more, citizens are taken as irrelevant by our politicians. The support of the federal government by large corporations powers the agenda of Canada's politicos. Their concern for the people functions only as an electoral device to "win" a mandate to govern, one that is rigged by our outdated voting system. And then the winning party governs for the CEOs. For "ordinary" Canadians (to which our political parties so fondly refer), to think otherwise is to be delusional.

Recently, I emailed these reflections to Daphne, and asked: Have you ever thought about things like this?

We don't always agree and I wasn't expecting agreement here.

"Yes," replied Daphne, "have pondered this and have talked to others over the years... At one time, I printed T-shirts which depicted Vancouver Island as forming the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization, hence breaking away from the rest of Canada."

Vancouver Island Liberation Organization T-shirts, anyone?

We are not alone in wanting to detach ourselves from the rest of Canada, friend Daphne explained. An emerging notion is that of Cascadia. The boundaries of Cascadia vary but in most proposals, all or part of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington state are included.

While some notion of Cascadia might be workable in the future, Daphne and I prefer thinking only in terms of BC or Vancouver Island separating from Canada.

Seriously, we're fed up with successive governments which are supposed to be OF, FOR and BY the people being instead OF, FOR, and BY Canada's CEOs. And a heckuva job those CEOs have been doing lately!

Consider one example which exemplifies the joined-at-the-hip relation between Canada's government and big business.

Successive governments have been selling off our¹ resources under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreement" endorsed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the USA. (Don't be fooled. The name keeps changing, but the agenda remains the same.)²

Instrumental to the SPP is our very own Grand Ayatollah, one Tom d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino is one busy guy! Read the article. You'll understand why we two, having trashed our rose-coloured glasses long ago, prefer to divorce ourselves from Canada Inc.

¹ A sizeable chunk of "our" natural resources are on and in traditional native land and water.
² Excellent Canadian sites for information on the SPP include Global Research and the Council of Canadians.

[This post was co-written by Daphne Moldowin and Chrystal Ocean.]

Recommend this post

IggyLibs and HarperCons: Ottawa's sabre rattlers

Bob Rae says, "You can't promote peace unless you put force behind the law and behind the collective will of the international community."

First, times have been when the "international community" has been wrong.

Second, right or wrong depends on whose interests shape the agenda.

Military superpowers head the so-called international community. Such powers, rather than promoting peace through example, prefer instead to use violence to promote more quell violence. They have found this useful for boosting their own economies.

Recommend this post

I really don't get this logic

The Young Liberal president in Yukon has written of his embarrassment in being a Liberal, citing the party's latest failure, that of allowing the omnibus budget to pass in the Senate, and stating that "it's getting really hard to support the party as a whole."

Yet Conal Slobodin also writes:

The Liberal Party will always be my party, we have amazing MPs, hardworking volunteers, and a great legacy. I have always felt it to be a strong and loyal family representative of its members, but perhaps that is the problem. We need to start representing Canadians instead.

Note the tension in that one paragraph. Will Slobodin always be faithful to the party no matter what, despite his misgivings, embarrassment and thoughts about what should be, but isn't getting done?

This attitude reminds me of voters who say their family has always voted Conservative or Liberal; and that, therefore, regardless of how much they disapprove of that party's policies or actions, they'll remain loyal to it. Aren't these party loyalists, both partisans and voters, as bad as those who bow down to the opinions of certain authority figures, rather than doing their own thinking?

Shouldn't partisans and voters owe their loyalty first to CANADA and how it serves Canadians?

Recommend this post

UPDATE - A Message from Ignatieff's Liberal Senators

"Fuck you, Canada!"

Courtesy of the following, no-show Liberal senators, on the matter of the Conservatives' 900-page omnibus 'budget' bill:

* Tommy Banks
* Sharon Carstairs
* Pierre de Bane
* Francis Fox
* Serge Joyal
* Nick Sibbeston
* David Smith

Source (of the names, not the message): the great Kady O'Malley.

Let us not forget also the Liberals in the House of Commons, who undertook their duties in similar abysmal fashion.

Given the Ignatieff Liberals' fear of Harper's Conservative bullies in government, voters are likely to suspect they'd be as fearful of said bullies in Official Opposition. On either side of the HoC, the HarperCons are more effective than the Iggy-Lib wimps currently occupying the latter position and vying to form government dreaming nostalgically of their days of former glory.

ETA: Before Liberal partisans start shouting "but it's the CONSERVATIVES who're introducing these policies!," let me remind you that the Conservatives form the government and as such are doing what they think to be right for the country. Whereas your leader and his kowtowing MPs form the Official Opposition; he and they are supposed to be OPPOSING. VIGOROUSLY. An effective Official Opposition is Canada's only defence against a tyrannical government. Which is why Canada has one right now!!!

ETA2: I've probably nixed the chance of getting a Liberal t-shirt, eh? Darn!

ETA3: "Travel commitments" prevented at five of the seven Liberal senators from their commitment to Canadians. Must be nice to have vacation time, something that many 'ordinary' Canadians don't have; they're too busy working two and more part-time jobs, just trying to survive.

Recommend this post

Free T-Shirts

There's a Twitter conversation going on amongst journalists regarding the arrival in their post boxes of opposing Iggy t-shirts, one each from the Liberal and Conservative camps. The latter, apparently, says 'Just visiting'. Dunno what the other says - perhaps some reference to a whiff of sulfur.

Anyway, Rosie Barton just complained that she hadn't received one of the Liberal t-shirts. To which I responded, Neither have I!

Why should journalists get all the freebies, eh? Why shouldn't Canadian bloggers and citizen journalists be included? I mean, my t-shirt supply has worn down (literally) to one, the others having been converted to dust rags.

I therefore submit this suggestion to Canada's political parties (including the provincial ones): send bloggers free t-shirts too!

Myself being a non-partisan and an equal-opportunity enthusiast, I assure all political parties that their t-shirts will be given equal exposure.

Recommend this post

If the Liberal Party Aims to be Rid of the Elitist Label

... then it had better rethink postures like this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snubbing opposition parties by ending a long established practice of inviting foreign heads of state to meet with them.

No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has met with U.S. President Barack Obama and he also met Mexican President Felipe Calderon in May.

“It seems totally normal to me that the leader of the official opposition would have meetings, and the leaders of the third and fourth parties would not,” Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron said.

Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.

If the label fits, wear it: elitist.

Recommend this post

NOW what is our Ineffectual Opposition going to do?

The Harper Government - yes, let's call it what it is; over 60% of Canadians are unrepresented by this government - will make official on Tuesday that political staffers are now banned from testifying before parliamentary committees.

The purported reason, according to political staffer Dimitri Soudas: "Ministers are the ones who are accountable and answer to Parliament."

To Iggy & Layton, neither of whom "want an election" (the Canadians that I know DO): How are you going to work your next climb-down? Without enabling more damage to our democracy?

ETA: The manoeuvrings by Canada's political parties to avoid an election in order to ensure their own survival, actions that risk our country's democratic institutions, is why I dislike party politics and favour the Single Transferable Vote, a proportional representation electoral system. STV is not only the fairest system for voters; it also enables more independents to be elected.

Recommend this post

Iggy Blames Opponents for Dismal Polling Numbers

Michael Ignatieff says his political foes have "done a number on me," an observation he made before seeing the latest EKOS numbers which have the Liberal Party down to 25.1 percent.

Well, the Conservatives defined Stéphane Dion before the Liberal Party got its act together too.

Who's fault, truly, was that?

Blaming one's opponents for one's own dismal showing and plummeting popularity does not demonstrate leadership.

Recommend this post

Lessons on Framing - Coalition Governments

As important as the question regarding whether the Liberal Party and NDP would consider being part of a coalition government is whether the Conservative Party would.

Why are virtually all media, journalists, other writers and democratic reformers ignoring this?

Just because Canadians won't vote in enough MPs to give a single party a majority is no reason why Canada must be stuck with perpetual minorities.

Coalition governments are majority governments.

If the Liberals and Conservatives want a majority government all they need do is be honest with Canadians and negotiate with the third- and/or fourth-place parties after an election.

Unfortunately, given the political environment Canada's party leaders have created, in collusion with most media, honesty and negotiation are unlikely democratic tools to be removed from their toolboxes. Indeed, those tools must be rusty from disuse.

Recommend this post

Canada, the Liberals and Iggy's (mis)Fortunes

"There is a magic number circulating among Liberals these days: 25 per cent. If their party sinks to this number in the polls, then all bets are off."

All those Liberals who decried the crowning of Michael Ignatieff just months ago; all those Liberals who pushed for one-member-one-vote ... and were denied it by the party's backroom boys and powerbrokers: You know what to do when next a pollster comes calling.

In the event that you don't, you might read this and this.

Your country needs you to do the right thing.

Recommend this post

On Leadership Popularity

... and party (mis)fortunes.

Despite issue after issue, which should have brought an end to his reign, Stephen Harper continues to lead in the popularity contest among leaders of the four major national parties. His party also leads the dismal pack.

That both leadership and Conservative party numbers are out front is not surprising. The two stats almost always go in tandem, in terms of place.

In leadership numbers, Michael Ignatieff has, more often than not, done worse than his party.

The same cannot be said of Harper.

You'd think the hapless Liberals would put two and two together.

Recommend this post

On Liberals' Proposed National Food Policy

Don't be fooled by the big numbers. Here's what the Liberals propose to be included in their national food policy as reported by the CBC:

* $50 million to improve food inspections and ensure imported foods meet domestic standards
* $80 million to promote farmers markets and local food
* $40 million to help 250,000 low-income children get healthy food (my emphasis)

Let's look at that last one, shall we?

Any program has administrative costs, so it's not clear that the entire $40 million would go to 250,000 children. However, let's assume it does.

The numbers reduce to this: $160 per year per child, or $13.33 per month, or 44 cents per day.

Wow.

Food costs are higher where people of low income live. Most of us haven't the means - a vehicle or bus fare - to get to where the bargains are. We must walk everywhere or transport ourselves in a four-wheeled scooter (if we're so fortunate to have one and live in a building that provides plug-in facilities). If we've a scooter, then accessibility to, from and in stores becomes a further barrier.

How much do you suppose someone can buy for 44 cents in a neighbourhood where there's only one grocery store and accessibility for people with disabilities is an issue?

Here's another bone to pick. Children under a certain age don't have income. Their parents or guardians do.

You can bet that hungry children have even hungrier parents. Parents will deprive themselves first of food before they'll let their children starve.

Politicians and poverty activists should stop the "child poverty" crap. Because you can't lift a child out of poverty unless you treat the whole family - hell, unless you treat the whole community.

Incidentally, by the time the Liberal plan would come into being, inflation would have eaten up all or a good chunk of that 44 cents.

[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous.]

Recommend this post

Andrew Coyne's Suggestions for Resurrection of Liberal Party

Andrew Coyne has some excellent suggestions for the Liberal Party of Canada, six in fact, which the party might use to re-brand itself. All have merit, however the following are my particular favourites; I've suggested them all myself on this blog:

• The party of democratic reform. How we nominate candidates, how we choose leaders, how we elect members, how Parliament functions—there’s clearly lots of work to do here. This used to be a Conservative issue. Today, not so much.
• The party of taxpayers. Former Liberal MP Dennis Mills used to campaign vigorously for the flat tax, complete with postcard-sized tax form. A corollary would be reform of EI and social assistance, along the lines recommended by the impeccably Liberal Macdonald commission: a simplified, streamlined universal income guarantee.
• The party of the environment. Yes, that means a carbon tax. It’s a good idea, the only way Canada is ever going to come close to meeting its carbon emissions targets, and everyone knows it. Was it the carbon tax, as myth holds, that doomed the Liberals in the last election? Or was it because it was poorly designed and poorly presented? A better plan, better presented—a real “tax shift,” as implemented by Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in B.C. - might be a winner.

True, that last.

Although the BC NDP tried to incite electors against the BC carbon tax, James & Company failed abysmally. In fact, the party's disingenuous (to put it politely) Axe the Tax™ campaign was among the reasons the party failed to defeat the Liberals in May 2009. British Columbians essentially agreed that a carbon tax was necessary. While the majority of us dislike the Liberals (again, putting it mildly), we are perfectly capable of separating the person or party from the essential principle.

Will the LPC re-brand itself with any or all of Coyne's suggestions? Not unless it's grown a spine, the lack of which has been evident these past few years.

I strongly recommend that all members of the LPC read Coyne's article in full.

Recommend this post

Reflections on Liberal Canada 150 Conference

Living in BC, I arrived late to the CAN150 webcast each of the three days. Still, I managed to capture and participate via Twitter for about half the time. Since all panels have been archived, I can catch up with the other half should I feel moved to do so.

Shall start off with the positive:

1. Considerable credit must go to the Liberal Party of Canada for making its conference available via the web, Skype, Twitter, live chat, and so on.

Due to affordability, I have no television, radio or phone. My only means to connect with others, to services, to my community and of accessing learning opportunities and getting news is via the Internet. People like me are normally left out of such events, even if we'd like to participate. As was mentioned during the conference, broadening access is crucial to engaging the full citizenry.

Comments to the live chat - it also picked up tweets - were accepted as is, unfiltered or moderated other than for technical reasons.

This type of accessibility and openness is a tremendous coup for a major political party and an example that other Canadian parties should follow.

2. Kudos to the LPC also, despite a number of members' squirming, to listening to panel recommendations on issues uncomfortable for the party. (Of interest to me, those recommendations often got online support from Liberal grassroots.) Two examples: the need for a carbon tax and Robert Fowler's apt presentation on the LPC's rudderless direction in recent years. (Robert Fowler is my new hero.)

In contraposition to the above were two major negatives:

A. The chosen conference themes presupposed the issues deemed key by party brass: jobs or a "productive society"; "How do we care?" which seemed largely focused on retirement and healthcare; the environment and energy; "Culture & the Digital World," a panel which seemed mostly intent on broadcasters' interests with a bit thrown to the issue of copyright; and Canadians, especially non-profits, exporting their knowledge and helping throughout the world. (I particularly enjoyed the last panel and the one on the environment.)

For the conference to have been truly open to "new ideas," there should have been solicitation of suggestions for topics from the public and Liberal grassroots.

B. There appeared to be little, if anything, on housing, the cost of which is driving so many people into poverty. There was also no panel dedicated to democratic reform, which must include electoral reform - and yes, Canadians DO care about process; witness the protests against prorogation 2.0.

All of which makes me wonder what an open, accessible conference by the NDP or Greens might look like...

ETA: Michael Ignatieff's closing speech was dull, certainly not what I was expecting or hoping for. It neither lived up to the conference nor to the introduction of Ignatieff as a former journalist, etc., etc.

Recommend this post

The New, Improved Michael Ignatieff

Aaron Wherry asks: What, precisely, has gotten into the leader of the Her Majesty’s loyal opposition?

Answer: Michael Ignatieff has finally found his backbone.

First was Ignatieff's response re prorogation, a shift for the leader from a view he'd expressed only a week before. The man listened, heeded, and re-thought his position. That's what good leaders do; they don't work to stifle dissent and undermine democratic processes.

I agree with Wherry. Ignatieff has had a heck of a good week, with bold new statements and new policies announced almost daily, for example, on unemployment, restoring Status of Women Canada and daring Stephen Harper to support abortion rights, starting up a national childcare program and reforming the Senate.

Am kinda liking Michael Ignatieff 2.0. If he says what he means and keeps to what he says, then there may be hope for a decent Canada after all.

Recommend this post

Oh, the Irony!

What on earth are we to do?

How can we persuade Canadians to vote for us?

Where, oh, where have we gone wrong?

So cry the Martinite backroom boys who, come to think of it, didn't do so well with Paul Martin either.

Similar hand-wringing is portrayed here.

Scott Reid, who was director of communications for former prime minister Paul Martin, said the Liberals are actually doing worse than the polls show.

The problem is that Liberal support among those likeliest to vote is soft, while Tory support is strong.

"We've got to really start to pay attention to committed voters," he said Wednesday. "The sad truth of our democracy at this moment in time is that 60 per cent of people tend to vote, particularly when cynicism is running as high as it is with respect to the prospect of an election. So how are we doing among the committed voters, those who say they are likely to vote? Those numbers are even tougher for us. And that has got to change before we get to a ballot box."

Mr. Reid said the party needs to figure out a strategy to "identify a coalition of voters that allows it a victory."

Here's a thought...

How about the Liberal Party of Canada offering something to attract MORE PEOPLE TO THE BALLOT BOX?

How about a meaningful policy to dump our single member plurality voting system in favour of a multi-member system that delivers proportional representation?

How about making the votes of all those who visit the ballot box count? Instead of what it is now, like 27 percent of eligible voters electing a party to a minority or false majority and getting a Prime Minister NONE of us had the opportunity to vote for?



Guess not.

(Doncha love the straw man arguments of the status quo?)

NB: As Ed Broadbent said recently on a September 2009 CPAC/Macleans discussion on democracy, until the Liberals or Conservatives back proportional representation, it won't happen. And that means, I ain't holdin' my breath. (H/t to nbcdipper for prodding my memory.)

Recommend this post