There was an interesting (and much better written) column in the Star yesterday which discusses pretty much everything I discussed in my post of the same day; Dion’s ineffectiveness, Liberal disorganization, Harper’s relatively-free reign of the public debate, etc. Ironically, the author thinks that this is the time for silence. He suggests that Dion can use this time to regroup and let Harper catch some heat in the spotlight. This argument relies on two assumptions: that Harper will look bad in the public eye when this is all said and done, and subsequently lose support; and that time away from the spotlight will help Dion and the Liberals.
I can certainly see how he could draw that conclusion, but I believe that this is a case where the media is perhaps having trouble seperating itself from the public. (more…)
If you guessed “The Liberal Party,” you are correct.
Ok, I know that’s an appalingly easy riddle, but it seemed like a good way to convey what I am feeling. Every time I see Harper’s commercials about Dion I am incensed, not because it’s a cheap and offensive way to play the game, and not because it’s dishonest, but because there has been no coherent response from the Liberals whatsoever. The Liberal party is broke; I get it… but I find it hard to believe that they are so starved of resources that they can’t mount any sort of visible offensive, on public policy grounds or otherwise. If they are so starved, then that really says more about Dion’s leadership than any unfortunate statements he makes in the House of Commons.
Lets assume for a moment that they are not then, and consider what that means. Everyone is making hay of the fact that the Liberals are only a few points behind Harper, but “close second” doesn’t matter much when social programs are being eliminated and opportunities for action are being wasted, as has happened for over two years now. As near as I can tell, the Liberal inaction is being driven by two things: organizational confusion stemming from leadership tensions, and a “keep a low profile” attitude. The latter is a reflex response to Martin’s “lets air the Liberals-under-Chretien Garbage” approach, which was an unmitigated disaster; and the former is again most likely a result of a lack of strong leadership.
Not having any ties to the Liberal Party (I tried to join in order to throw my support behind Bob Rae, but the party AND Bob Rae’s campaign never processed my seperate applications) it’s hard for me to comment on what is supposedly going on behind closed doors; but I choose to do so anyways. I am not one to simply demand that Dion drop so the Liberals take another kick at the can. Dion is not a loser, I do believe that he is capable of effectively leading the Liberal Party of Canada, but it is clear that he is failing to do so at this time.
“The best defense is a good offense” is not necessarily true in Politics. Dion doesn’t need to be Harper-lite to win back voters (and the Government.) However, he does need to do more than be the loudest member of the Opposition in the House of Commons, right now that’s all that he is; and that’s not what he was elected as leader for.
I have mixed feelings regarding Remembrance Day, and they are invariably tied to the statement above: Lest We Forget. I try to respect and honour Canada’s veterans, and the contributions they have made over the decades, but I am never quite sure how I feel about it. “Lest we forget” is dramatic and an almost tangible statement, but it (like Remembrance Day) is a Monument without context.
Why should we remember, and what lessons are we supposed to take from it? My reasons are personal, but the general “message” can best be summarized as “sometimes fighting for what’s right is necessary; and sometimes that means dying for what’s right.” A noble sentiment perhaps, if an unfortunate byproduct of humanity’s state of affairs. But how is someone without a personal motivation supposed to embrace this reasoning, and more importantly, what lessons can we all learn from it? Aphorisms are nice, but they are catchy for a reason: they are easily digestible and lacking in substance. (more…)
I’ve been avoiding the whole Mulroney-Schreiber scandal for the last week or two, in part because I didn’t feel I was fully qualified to comment. Other (more “read”) bloggers have offered a variety of insightful (and uninsightful, naturally) posts on the subject.
Harper’s decision to open an investigation however alleviates any concerns I may have had about drifting towards demagoguery… This decision is a mistake in every way possible. Not because he shouldn’t open an investigation, but because the timing and optics of it are terrible. Now, why does that sound familiar?
In reality the political fallout from this kerfuffle will be minor when compared to the Gomery inquiry, regardless of how it develops: The Liberals were the majority, Mulroney had no legislative ties to the PC party, and was not lobbying them… the PC Party no longer exists, and none of the current big-name (and visible) Conservatives had anything to do with Mulroney at the time. More importantly, it has nothing to do with Quebec…
Still, one can’t help but wonder at Harper’s timing on this one. How could a level-headed politician refuse to open an investigation into a former mentor and claim his reasons were not political, and finally give in only when that politician’s name is implicated in court papers… and still claim politics are not the motivation? Of course none of this is surprising. This is a politician who has basically created a “cone of silence” around the legislative building to deflect criticism and otherwise prop up his minority.
Of course, none of this would be a problem if anyone on the other side of the hall had any cajones, or the media properly did it’s job…
Whoops… see, almost slipping into irrational raving there! Media and opposition parties checking the power-hungry minority? Pie-in-the-sky optimism that is!
I’m doing something today that I haven’t done in a very long time… I’m writing something out by hand. Granted, I will eventually type this up (and that is presumably how you’re reading it) but for now I’m enjoying a more tangible writing process.
Harper, Stephen Harper,
Head of the Conservative Party;
From the ‘burb of Leaside,
Pretends to be from the Prairies.
If he’s running from the Press Gallery,
Someone probably said “Minority.”
Harper, Stephen Harper,
He’s a douche-bag stone-age Blue Tory!
Take a bow Stephen Harper, you’ve earned it. What did you do to earn such a dramatic flourish you ask? You proved once and for all that your ideology is all that matters. Not only did you cut the GST despite the fact that it made no economic sense to do so, not only did you repackage crime legislation that already had parliamentary approval in order to add in measures that the opposition doesn’t support, not only did you turf your only candidate that had a chance of representing the 8% of all Canadians who live in Toronto, you did it all while only making one small concession to progressive or enlightened ideas; you had a state visit with the Dalai Lama. Naturally, China is supremely pissed; and if America is a sleeping elephant then China is quickly becoming sort of stalking predator which in no way resembles a crouching tiger. Normally I would applaud such a move, but in this case it is clear that Harper is conducting his government without any clear strategy for achieving what Canadians in general want for this country. (more…)
So I haven’t been blogging much of late. I’m working a new job which requires me to leave at 7:45 in the morning; and I don’t get back here until around 11 hours later. More importantly (and I’m not necessarily proud of this), the batteries ran out in my keyboard a while back, and I was too lazy/disinterested to replace them. Hard to type without the keyboard…
But I’m juiced up again and running out of excuses; so when I see something irritating (see below) I should be able to point it out for all to see and mock. Like this “letter” in the Toronto Star this morning.
Ian Urquhart hopes we won’t be hearing about electoral reform for a long time. He believes the defeat of the referendum on MMP indicated a willingness to keep heading down the same road we are on. But he missed the most important fact about last week’s provincial election: Half the population were so turned off, they didn’t even bother to vote.
Democracy is the responsibility of citizens, no doubt about it. But if Urquhart’s democracy is so good, why did half the population stay home?
Say what you will about MMP; I’m not a fan. The fact of the matter is that democracy is only as vibrant as its citizens, and you need look no further than that for the cause of participation ‘woes.’ We all view our governments as impositions on our lives instead of the wonderful and unique institutions that our ancestors fought so hard for… and that is WHY half the population stays home. (more…)
Just a quick hit for now.
I’ve frequently lamented the way that modern political thinking has somehow become dominated by this idea that taxes are regressive and wrong-headed; and the elimination thereof represents the cure to all of our social ills. The white-wash of history and economics continues… You’d have a hard time convincing Mike Harris that Adam Smith decried large-scale corporations,
Dan Sawyer wrote an editorial in the Star reminding us that taxes are used to create the decent, humane and prosperous society we all value and benefit from.
Well leave it to the knuckle-draggers to chime in… in this case a gentleman by the name of Mayur Shah.
Don Sawyer’s article implies that if we didn’t have national heath care, people would still be dying from sanitation-related diseases. He ignores the technological changes and medical discoveries that took place over the last 100 years. Does any reasonable person assume that without taxes, penicillin and other medicines would not have been discovered? And sanitary water systems would not have been developed?
Anyone else see the massive, gaping, BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS hole in this person’s argument? Research may be tied to innovation, but I don’t recall reading about private companies lining up to build sewers in the early 20th century, or citizens banding together to encourage private health-care organizations. Taxes have ALWAYS been the source for public infrastructure financing. The Romans used taxes to build roads, and so has every successive government in the following 2000 years… at least until the last twenty years. That people would actually not appreciate this change as a fundamental one boggles the mind.