Fear v. Love

The air has a decidedly warmer feel to it, and despite the often heavy spring rains that April brings, one senses that summer is on its way.


One can smell change everywhere, and the current federal election is no exception.

Yours truly did scrutineer duties at a local advance poll, and even before the news media crowed about high turnout, the phenomenon was noticeable there. Some quipped that election day would be quiet as everyone had gone ahead and voted already.

High voter turnout. In an age of declining attendance, it does stick out like a sore thumb when it happens. The political scientists and aged campaign veterans will tell you that it means only one thing – a concerted will to turf the party in power.

In this world, anything is possible, but there is a difference between possibility and likelihood. Usually high turnout coincides with a series of polls over a period of time that telegraphs a spanking for the governing party. This time, however, the Tories have maintained an 8 to 14 point lead consistently during the campaign. Some polls are better than others (and yours truly follows one particular poll produced by a former colleague and personal friend) but even if the numbers are not identical, the relative position of each party and the overall trend appears to be consistent. The trend ceteris paribus leans to a particular scenario, of a Tory government straddling the 155 mark - a strong minority or a tenuous majority.

That, of course, fits with my earlier prognostication. What does not, however, is the recent positioning of Jack Layton’s New Democrats in the catbird seat.

Some random thoughts on the situation lend themselves to being teased out.

Conventional wisdom would contend that Jack Layton could become anything from Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Prime Minister. Clearly the trend, at first blush, left unabated would deliver such results.

Being a natural contrarian, I believe that regardless of what drove the turnout at the advance polls, that surprising result will almost assuredly guarantee a high turnout on May 2nd. Tories are so close to a majority that they can smell it, the New Democrats smell blood in the water, and the Liberals can look to the old adage that “nothing sharpens the mind like a hanging in the morning.”

The NDP support should, however, be taken with an enormous grain of iodine. Overall popular vote does not equal seats. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives received over 2.1 million votes and got two seats for their trouble. Conversely, the Bloc garnered 54 seats on nearly 400,000 fewer votes. Votes count, but where they lie is just as important. While the NDP is showing growth in all regions, the lion’s share of the phenomenon is in Quebec, and at the expense of the Bloc.

Outside Quebec is more interesting. First, while young voters are excited by Layton and his team, anyone in Ontario or BC over a certain age remembers NDP provincial governments – and not necessarily with great fondness. People in Ontario over 35, politically motivated or not, remember what “Rae Days” were. Secondly, Layton’s commitment to open the Constitution may have put his Quebec candidates in the driver’s seat, but it may have also served to throw Ontario, Western and BC candidates under the bus.

One also has to consider that, like in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Surging NDP poll numbers plus record turnout at the advance polls equals a full court press from both Tories and Liberals. The Conservative message is that only a strong majority will act as an insurance policy against an NDP coalition, while the Liberals will argue that upping the NDP vote does nothing but place ridings in the hands of Stephen Harper.

The Liberals are, by the situation, the most disadvantaged. While fighting head-on with the NDP for the liberal-left of the spectrum, they must also convince their right-wing to hold fast and not defect to the Tories in order to guarantee that Jack Layton gets nowhere near the front door of 24 Sussex.

In this instance, we will learn next week what is a stronger phenomenon – the passionate idealism of young NDP supporters disenchanted with the other parties, or the cold-blooded fear of those who lost four years of their lives and property the last time a New Democrat government held sway in their part of the country.

If you believe Machiavelli’s dictum that “it is better to be feared than to be loved,” and you recognize the demographic profile of the likely Canadian voter, then expect the over-35 crowd to line up around the block in order to nullify every ‘vote mob’ organized on every college and university campus in the Dominion.

From the shore of Cole Lake right this moment, it seems likely that the three opposition parties may end up with roughly the same number of seats, and the Tories somewhat short of their majority target.

So, we’ll have a coalition, right?

Uh, no.

The assumption with the coalition scenario was that the Liberals would be the senior partner. Any distribution that makes the Liberals co-captains or second fiddle to the NDP would be DOA – after all, the only thing more important than the temporary leadership of the government would be the permanent leadership of the centre-left. Add to that the fact that the Liberal and NDP caucuses may still not equal the Tory contingent.

Make nice with the Bloc? Not likely. Kiss of death for federalists, and the Bloc would be hard pressed to play nice with a party that had just dropkicked half their MP’s to the unemployment line.

So, while yours truly is feeling punchy, let’s throw out something really off the wall. Lets assume that the Tories are a half-dozen short of a majority, and the NDP have taken over the number two spot. The Liberals will no doubt be reduced in many ways – in representation in the House, in hard cash, and most likely a leader. What remains of the Liberal caucus may be caught in a squeeze. Some left-leaning Grit MP’s might consider a move to the NDP. Conversely, some “Paul Martin” Liberals may decide that crossing the floor to shake hands with Stephen Harper is a small price to pay to stop a socialist future. What if ten Liberal MPs – who may be fiscally conservative, or pro-life, or anti-gun registry – decide to make that trip? What starts out as a minority could very well become a majority before the House adjourns for the summer.

Life, by its very character, is unpredictable. As much as politics excites and motivates, your truly can only tolerate the sudden twists and turns knowing that some things never change – like the lapping waves and cooling breezes by the shore of the lake.

Tell them that Michael Ignatieff says "Bob Rae sleeps with the fishes"

Leadership conventions.

There have been many of them in our nation’s history. Each party has renewed itself through these events which are, in essence, a celebration of grassroots democracy. Many have provided some of the more dramatic moments in our nation’s political history. Party members drawn from every corner of the country, whether it be from downtown Toronto, fishing outposts in Newfoundland, or small towns on the prairies, decend upon a central location to meet and discuss the impending succession. Canadians from all walks of life, bound only by their party ties and commitment to democracy, put prospects to the test, and prepare themselves for yet another generation.

It never used to be this way. Parties, similar to the British model, would simply hole up their MP’s and Senators in a room, and pick one from among them to be their champion.
It was the Liberal Party of Canada that broke from this practice, and invited its rank-and-file members to be part of the process. In 1919, they elected Mackenzie King as their new leader, and, over time, every major political party in every province has adopted the same means of selection.

Some have delegated conventions, with a dozen or so people from each riding. Some have an open popular vote, while some apply some equal weighting to constituencies. The point is that for almost 90 years, the expectation of card-carrying members of Canadian political parties is that they personally, or a dozen of their friends and neighbours, will vote to select a person who could very well be Prime Minister, or Premier.

Now, ironically, the same party that first subjected national leadership to a grassroots vote, has decided that a conference call among some MP’s and Senators will suffice in the ratification of Pierre Trudeau…I mean, Michael Ignatieff, as Leader of the Liberal Party.

Sure, it wasn’t going to be much of a race with only one candidate in the running. Mind you, we had three eager beavers last week, and one of them, Bobby Rae, was talking tough as recently as the weekend. How do you go from criss-crossing the nation, doing the rubber chicken circuit and pressing the flesh, to saying “on second thought, no thanks.”?

Rae, ever the team player, isn’t saying much, but what he has been saying gives me the impression that the problem wasn’t one of desire or motivation.

I get the impression that the people on Iggy’s team are fans of the Godfather movie trilogy, because I see in Bobby Rae someone who was politely told that pushing things any further would result in the political equivalent of waking up with a horse head in your bed, or getting a shot like Moe Green when his rubdown was so rudely interrupted.

So, it appears that there is happiness in the land as the Grit-erati all line up to kiss the ring of Michael ‘Corleone’ Ignatieff, and declare and end to the truce between the three families…Oops, I mean, parties.

There are doubtless many in Liberal Land who are ready to uncork the sparkling cider and celebrate the beginning of their triumphant return to 24 Sussex. While such scenarios are not outside the statistical possibility, let’s be a bit more pragmatic.

First, your party is flat broke. Pledge drives for PBS stations bring in more cash, and what you do get is largely due to the stipends you receive from Elections Canada.

Second, you screwed up big time with the amateur hour putsch, and the PR damage will take more than a couple of months to repair.

Third, you burned your grassroots by making the leadership convention a moot point. You made your peace with Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, but I can’t imagine their supporters don’t feel like they just got screwed over.

Fourth, you have vacated the high ground, because you can’t wax philosophical about democracy when you rear-end your own rank-and-file to obtain power.

Fifth, you are twenty points back, and will probably have to contend with all of the above – less money, fewer foot soldiers, and diminished status – while at the same time answering why your leader, in his writings, identified himself as ‘American’, not Canadian. Of course, don’t get me started on his published views of Ukrainians (read ‘Blood and Belonging’) and how that will bump up the Grit vote in the West.

A new name on the doorplate, or a new logo, or an new PR stunt will not save the Liberal Party. An commitment to old ideas like democracy and accountability might, in the long run.

Come to the Liberal BBQ, and bring plenty of gasoline!

Former British Prime Minister Ted Heath coined the observation that “a week is a lifetime in politics.” Nothing that has occurred in Ottawa this past week served to refute this bold statement.

At the beginning of last week, it was the call that “the Conservative government is dead. Long live the coalition.” Today, that sort of statement is supported by those who were out of the country for the last seven days, and those who - well, we won’t go there.

Stephane Dion’s YouTube moment, which easily would have gotten any Grade 9 student an ‘F’ in computer class, only served to reinforce the view that the gap between his ambition and ability is greater than the chasm between Liberals and Tories.

This weekend, of course, we had the display of support for both sides.

The pro-coalition forces turned out about 3000 people to Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, while at least 3500 came to Ottawa to oppose the deal. In other words, public support is overwhelmingly anti-coalition.

Think of it, you have people like Mary Walsh, of 22 Minutes fame, rock bands like Broken Social Scene – who appeal heavily to a particular demographic – and all organized with money and material from the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as Liberal and NDP riding associations. What’s more, you hold it in the middle of Canada’s largest city, where coalition partnered parties hold virtually every riding. They get 3000 brave souls.

The anti-coalition people, devoid of the backing of CanCon celebs, trade union coffers, and enjoying the support of only one party – not three – hold an event in an urban area less than a fifth the size of the GTA, and they turn out 500 more people.

So, now that the cracks in the Thousand-Year Coalition are starting to form and widen, what comes next, you may ask? Actually, plenty more, and far more interesting than what we’ve seen so far.

Now, we hear that Dion’s retirement is being fast-tracked. The “Natural Governing Party” seems so eager on this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ignatieff and Rae backers heading over to Stornoway and throwing Stephane’s suits out onto the snow-covered front lawn, just like the wronged spouse in some bad Hollywood romatic comedy.

Unfortunately, haste makes waste. Get rid of Dion today, and you better have someone in place ASAP.

Grit flunkies think that Iggy should get the job, and they argue that the caucus and the party’s inner sanctum can rubber stamp that move. Apparently Dominic LeBlanc has already fallen on his sword for the erstwhile MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which is just as well. His bid for the Liberal leadership had the lief expectancy of one of those no-named red shirted crew members on the original ‘Star Trek’ series – the ones that got vapourized before the first commercial break.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party had already set in motion a leadership convention, slated it for May in Vancouver, and got people like Bobby Rae all excited about the prospect of becoming the Defender of Confederation.

Saving money on renting a convention centre, subsidizing delegates, and using up all that political donation tax room for a love-in when it would be better used for an election battle is, under the circumstances, pretty smart – except for the fact that hundreds of Liberal party members signed on for a convention, not a coronation.

Thus, Iggy has his own version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Accept the crown, and you can no longer be the defender of democracy. The champion of the 28%+17%+10%+6% coalition will have become leader on the support of less than 1% of the party membership.

Beyond that, I am not sure that the people who signed on to back that Champion of Democracy, Bobby Rae, are going to want to join hands and sing kum-by-yah any time soon – including before the next election.

Burning Liberal voters is bad enough. It makes the difference between winning, or losing, a competitive election. Burning Liberal party members is fatal. They are the folks that man your phone banks, put up signs, and give you money. Tick them off and you are “Dead Man Campaigning.”

Dion made several egregious mistakes, and the consequences will play out for quite some time. That is done, and cannot be undone. What comes next, however, could be a good dose of kerosene on an already large campfire.

Luckily for Tories like me, we are close enough to get warm, but not enough to get sent to the emergency room…

Canada's biggest set of 'huevos' belong to Bobby Rae

On Thursday night, people watching Mike Duffy’s programme on CTV NewsNet were treated to a great deal of righteous indignation from one Bob Rae.

At the best of times, I have a great deal of difficulty choking back the bile that builds at the back of my throat when this man speaks, but this man really does have quite the set of huevos to presume some moral high ground on the current situation.

When Duffy asked him whether or not he would back the government if elements of the Coalition’s manifesto were reflected in the budget, he displayed his typical open-mindedness and said no. Duffy gave the example of cutting the two week waiting period for those needing to claim Employment Insurance. Of course, Mike made the innocent mistake of saying that many would view this as a ‘gift’.

Rae, clearly in a feisty mood, switches his anger from the Prime Minister to Duffy, hectoring him on the insensitivity of labelling such a thing as a gift. Did Duffy not understand that these are real people who are suffering?

Nice display, Bob, but I entered the work force about the same time you became Premier of Ontario. I know what kind of highly indebted soup-kitchen economy you created, and I know how many once-thriving businesses ended up going underwater. Indeed, my father-in-law’s business was a victim of your useless half-backed schemes, and I am sure that you would not want to be going door-to-door canvassing on his street – especially during Christmas dinner when he is wielding the carving knife.

I lost 3 to 4 years of my working career, but I was the rule, not the exception – which is sad to say.

Personally, Mr. Rae, I think your grubby little paws are all over this Coalition scheme, and that Monsieur Dion was gullible enough to front it for you.

Consider the evidence.

The last time a federal Conservative government was brought down in this manner was the Clark government in 1980. Does anyone remember the name of the NDP Member of Parliament that moved the Non-Confidence motion? Yep, Bob Rae.

And what did we get? A return of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the dreaded NEP, and deficit spending that was so profligate that it took all of the Mulroney, Campbell, and Chretien governments time in office to get it under control.

Then, in 1985, Ontario Premier Frank Miller, just after having won a minority government, gets taken out by Liberal leader David Peterson, under an agreement signed with Ontario NDP Leader….wait for it….Bob Rae.

And what did we get from that arrangement? The incompetence of the Peterson government was followed by the even more pathetic Rae administration that, in one budget, increased Ontario’s debt load by more than all previous governments since 1867 combined – a government that gave young people the kind of Depression-era economy that at least they had something to talk to their grandparents about.

Such a dire situation required medicine so bitter, that today, it is not Bob Rae who gets vilified by many memory-deficient Ontarians, but his predecessor, Mike Harris – the guy who swept up all the beer bottles and declared ‘last call’ after Rae’s gang trashed the joint.

So, now – today – it seems that Bob Rae is trying for a Hat Trick, but in what, is the real question.

Is it a Hat Trick in brining down Conservative governments? Maybe, and if that is the case, then he suffers from some pathological neurosis that I am not familiar with. I suppose that he may just simply move to a province with a Tory government, establish himself long enough to get elected to their legislature, then try to bring the Premier down. Twice in Ottawa, and once in Ontario – maybe Ed Stelmach should be wary.

Then again, maybe he wants to destroy the free market capitalist system. Well, he opened the door for Trudeau to ramp up the debt between 1980 and 1984, and he put it on life support in Ontario between 1990 and 1994 – who knows?

Maybe he’s a New Democrat in Liberal clothing. I know he quit his old party, but he seems pretty wedded to this pact with Jack Layton, so maybe Liberals should be looking a little more closely.

In any event, Bob Rae is the last human being in Canada that can claim the moral high ground, whether it be democracy, or the economy.

Taking lessons on either one from him would be akin to taking sobriety lessons from a raging alcoholic.

Sounds harsh, but you see, I’m not the gentleman that Mike Duffy is.

And the winner is...

Robert Fife of CTV News!

"Huh?", you ask?

Well, like many Canadians, the boob tube in Cole Lake was turned on to see the sales pitches from the various leaders over the current crisis.

Even if I am biased, Harper looked professional and poised. He even indicated that he was open to input from the opposition parties. I see Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail characterized it as mean-spirited. I guess unless Harper is willing to lay down on the centre line of Rideau Street and let all manner of traffic run over him, he's not showing enough contrition for them.

Anyhoo, great move by Dion - air a grainy YouTube styled video that looks like it was produced by a Grade 9 student in their parents basement (my apologies, they would have had better production values) and have it sent to the networks at least 10-15 minutes late - lots of time for the various anchors and reporters to ad-lib until somebody finally mentions that this doesn't look very good on Dion.

They all said that, and it was painfully obvious to anyone exposed to it.

The award goes to Robert Fife because he was the first journalist to point out the thing that made my wife and I laugh...The spine of a book on the shelf to the upper left of Dion's head that read in bold letters "HOT AIR".

I wondered who would mention it, and indicate that it wasn't very smart to have that sitting within the gaze of the cameras.

Hat's off to you Bob. You said it loud, and you said it first!

A Moment of Truth for some...

I am not a particularly religious man, but I am often struck by the simple philosophy that many religions offer. In particular, the events in Ottawa over the last couple of days reminded me of an oft-cited verse that asks “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Democracy is a messy business, and the design of our institutions does allow for the kind of arrangement that the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, in conjunction, have conceived. That is not the question that Canadians must ask themselves, unless they wish to adopt another form of government that prohibits this possibility.Whether or not such an arrangement should take place is the real question that Canadians must grapple with.

The idea to alter the public funding arrangement for political parties may, admittedly, have been hamfisted and lacking in a cooperative spirit, but the sheer opportunitstic and cravenly self-aggrandizing response by Messrs. Dion, Layton, and Duceppe appear to be both conveniently rapid and massively over-reactive.

The coalition partners, to be sure, cannot sell a government led by Monsieur Dion, and backstopped by separatists solely on the grounds that their parties cannot survive on the voluntary political contributions of Canadians, and that they need government money to exist. Unfortunately, that appears to be the excuse, even if the ‘cri de coeur’ is economic salvation.

The fall of a Conservative government is a transitory event. Governments rise and fall numerous times in a democracy, and at some point in the future, those who sit in opposition eventually get their chance to demonstrate leadership. As disappointing as it may be for many, it will pass, and they will take stock. What may not be so temporary, or fleeting, is the damage done to those parties that have assented to this scheme.

Those who count themselves as Liberals, either as card-carrying members, or as voting supporters, must now ask themselves just what that means. What distinguishes a Liberal from a New Democrat when that party will possess Cabinet Ministers within a Dion government, and have the right, by signed agreement, to determine policies that you voted against just two months ago? What does national unity mean to you, as a Liberal, when your party has struck a faustian bargain with those who seek to vivisect the country? What is the definition of leadership in the Liberal Party when a man who has lost the confidence of the Canadian people a mere two months ago, and the confidence of his own colleagues even more recently, can still become Prime Minister?

People join parties for a myriad of reasons – for personal profit, or personal beliefs. Depending upon what rationale led some of you to become Liberals, you may not be bothered in the least. On the other hand, you may wonder whether or not the Liberal Party you see today is the one you have supported in good faith in the past.

Although I continue to be a Conservative partisan myself, it would be a lie for me to deny that I have considered what the limits to my loyalty are. Long ago, I decided the conditions under which I would willingly tear up my membership card, and declare to my colleagues that being a party member was no longer compatible with my core beliefs or my conscience.

Whether or not Liberal supporters agree, I would argue that such is the moment of truth for them. Each supporter of that party needs to ask themselves whether or not this is the kind of leadership that they can accept in good conscience. They need to ask themselves whether or not the accommodations to the NDP and to the Bloc Quebecois are a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, or do they reflect a base desire to hold power whatever the moral cost.

The bottom line is that if the Liberal Party of Canada represents nothing more than a cadre of political insiders keen on wresting power for its own sake, is that a party you can be proud of? Is that a party that you can vote for, campaign for, and – more importantly – defend over the course of the coming months?

If not, there is no disloyalty in walking away from a party that abandoned you first.

Thoughts on the "Green Shift"

So, Stephane Dion has released what he hopes will be, to borrow a computing term, the 'killer app' that delivers the Liberals back to power in Ottawa.

There are, of course, three approaches I could take:

1. To say "Hey, way to go with the copyright infringement!";
2. Say "What global warming? It's all sunspots, or farting cows"; or,
3. Argue some major concerns about the plan

Since there is a tendency to dumb down rhetoric as it is, I really think I should attempt to follow #3 as closely as my pea-sized brain allows.

The main thrust of the plan seems to be to tax people for the production of CO2, and then offset the tax with cuts to income tax. Sounds reasonable. You punish bad behaviour (pollution) and reward good behaviour (hard work) with one stroke of the pen. Heck, on that level, there's something attractive about it to an old Tory soul like me.

Unfortunately, as Newton discovered in Physics, in politics and economics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The questions are these - Who pollutes? Who pays? What are the unintended consequences? Last, but certainly not least, will it make a difference?

First, who pollutes? Well, cities do. They have all of the factories, manufacturing plants, and over 80 percent of Canada's population. Sure, we rural people 'pollute' as we grow the food that other eat, but according to author Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse", the typical US farmer grows enough to feed 125 people (I am sure the Canadian number is similar). If people are going to divide the 'carbon footprint' of a charter flight that takes rich boomers to deep glaze their torsos in the Dominican Republic among the passengers, I am sure that we can divvy up the carbon that the 'dirty' farmer produces among all those who fill their faces without ever having to drive a tractor or pull a weed.

Unfortunately, while the urban dweller can hop on a bus or subway, the farmer cannot. While the urban dweller's employer - depending on the industry - may have the option of reducing their use of fossil fuel, the farmer does not (although if sweat and tears had some octane content, those who feed us would have enough fuel to be self-sufficient).

So, while the 80 percent of Canadians who live in the world of concrete and glass could do a little 'substitution strategy' to reduce their carbon tax hit, those who live in the rural areas, where incomes are generally lower, and where transportation costs are higher, will not be so lucky.

As with anything in economics, higher production costs will get passed on, and even the burghers of Toronto will end up paying more for their burgers. With oil at nearly $140, they are already.

But I'll get my income tax cut, and that will make up for it, you will say. Well, according to the Liberal "Green Shift" site, my rural family will save about $130 a month in income tax, and a comparable urban family would get about $110 per month extra.

Okay, so the good folks that ragged out Harper about the Child Care Benefit, saying "$100 a month won't cover the cost of a sitter or daycare" now argue that $10 more than that will cover higher fuel prices for your car, higher prices for everything that has to be shipped by a truck, or grown in a field, as well as the very stuff that warms your house prevents you and your family from suffering hypothermia during those wonderful Canadian winters of ours.

Of course, that's if you even file income tax, otherwise you are doubly screwed.

Well, at least we'll get our CO2 emissions under control...But wait, according to the experts, the impact will be negligible...If we fully implemented Kyoto, we would only delay, and not stop, the trend, and it would only be a 5 year stall.

The Green Shift is really nothing more than bad economics and bad policy wrapped up in good intentions, making it all the more worse as it assumes a "holier-than-thou" mantle.

Want an alternative? Well, Statistics Canada says that 55 percent of commuters in Toronto drive to work. Well, how about you leave the Land Rover in the driveway and ride the Red Rocket / GO Train / TTC bus to work every day, and quit expecting others to pick up the tab for your environmentally unsustainable lifestyle. Expand that to every Canadian city with a population over 200,000 and a good public transit infrastructure, and see how quickly the CO2 drops.

That is the only shift that we need. Anything else is a shaft.