Politics in 2013

[Edward Campbell]

And speaking of the Laurentian consensus and its cheerleaders, the Laurentian elites, here is another voice from the loony left, Linda McQuaig, explaining Stephen Harper's hidden agenda ® in a column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/07/harper_stokes_resentments_in_discreet_class_war_mcquaig.html
Quote
One hardly knows where to begin, but ... a significant minority of Canadians, probably 25% to 40% of them, will believe every word Ms McQuaig writes.



And still more from another voice of the Laurentian consensus, this time Heather Mallick whose column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star:


No comment; the Laurentian elites speak for themselves.

And, as David Akin reports, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Sun News Network, it is "Super Sunday" for the Liberals and NDP in downtown Toronto, last bastion of the Laurentian elites:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/09/20130915-072221.html

Super Sunday for political geeks in downtown Toronto

DAVID AKIN | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

September 15th, 2013

TORONTO — For political geeks, it's a kind of Super Sunday.

Liberals and New Democrats will pick their candidate Sunday to compete in a federal byelection likely to be held this fall in the downtown Toronto riding that used to be held by former Liberal leader Bob Rae.

And, though it's just one byelection and the outcome will not change the basic power structure of the House of Commons, the contest is expected to be closely watched for signs of things to come between Justin Trudeau's Liberals and Thomas Mulcair's New Democrats.

Between now and the next general election in 2015, both parties will be trying to prove they are the one and only alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Toronto Centre is the Liberals' to lose. Voters there have sent a Liberal to Ottawa since 1993 and Rae won in 2011 with 41% of the vote, beating the second-place NDP challenger by about 6,000 votes.

But Rae, in that 2011 election, was sandwiched between the NDP power couple of Jack Layton to his east in Toronto—Danforth and Olivia Chow in Trinity—Spadina to his west. Craig Scott is now the NDP MP for Toronto— Danforth.

Not only that, but New Democrats made some other serious dents in Metro Toronto, long seen as the last bastion of once-great Liberal dominance.

Political operatives of all parties believe Trudeau's Liberals are the presumptive favourite in Toronto Centre.

But, while the New Democrats would naturally like to win, many of them say privately it will be enough to simply narrow the margin of victory Rae enjoyed in 2011 to prove that the Trudeau juggernaut is not impregnable.

The riding includes one of Toronto's richest neighbourhoods, Rosedale, but also some of its poorest, like St. James Town.

Though Trudeau is officially neutral in the nomination race, many Liberals believe he and his inner circle of advisors hope that Chrystia Freeland beats Todd Ross and Diana Burke. Freeland is an author and international journalist who has worked out of New York for the last 10 years.

The NDP race also features journalists. Former CBC and MuchMusic journalist Jennifer Hollett is seen as the favourite of the NDP establishment as she squares off against Toronto Star columnist Linda McQuaig. The other NDP candidate is Susan Gapka, who has a high profile in the riding as a community activist.

Harper has yet to set the actual date of the byelection, but most expect it to come some time in November.

I suspect that the by-election, when it comes, will be a bruising battle between the Liberals and the NDP. Both leaders need to win.

 

[pbi]

I remain convinced that we, those of us in English Canada who are upset with Mme Marois' tactics, are actually playing into her hands... One of her allies, she believes (and so do I), is voluble English Canadian hostility to what many, many (most?) French Quebecers believe.

As appalled as I am by this mean-spirited proposed law, and its call to some of the worst aspects of Quebec nationalism, I have to admit that this possibility has crossed my mind. It would require a level of cunning on the part of the Marois government that I wouldn't have credited them with, but the danger is real.  I don't know how successful she would be : I had the impression that the separatist movement was gradually collapsing under demographic and social change and concerns about the economy, but you never know.

Because the rest of Canada is increasingly (and for the most part, peacefully...) multicultural/multi-ethnic, and our major urban centres are more and more diverse (and because the Tories prize their gains amongst the ethnic minorities in Canada), this proposed bill was bound to cause a very negative reaction in the rest of Canada. Perhaps this is just what Mme Marois is hoping for.

An excellent way, I suppose, to create that "backs against the wall" sensation that all ethnic nationalist movements thrive on: the pur laine selflessly defending the shining hope of a secular Brave New World against the medieval Rest of Canada, infested as it is by priests, imams and rabbis, whose real aim is to crush the Quebec nation once and for all, and restore the rule of Popery!

It is  a potentially dangerous dilemma, one that I'm sure Harper never wanted in his worst nightmare. But, that said, now we may  see just how far the federal government is actually willing to go to protect civil rights against the acts of a provincial legislature.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Brian Lee Crowley, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, is someone with whom I often agree on socio-economic issues. This opinion piece, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen resonates with me:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Quebec+charter+wrong+execution+principle/8910568/story.html

Quebec charter wrong in execution, not principle

BY BRIAN LEE CROWLEY, OTTAWA CITIZEN

SEPTEMBER 14, 2013

The verdict is in: the English-Canadian commentariat is unanimous that Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values is both a stupid and a bad idea, incompatible with a multicultural society.

They are half right. It is a bad idea (and incredibly ineptly handled). It is not, however, a stupid one.

In their justified rush to condemn the PQ’s fearmongering over the survival of the Québécois pur laine, these commentators have ignored that there is a legitimate debate to be had about how the private beliefs of state employees can and should intrude on their work.

Danielle Smith’s Wildrose Party harmed its chances in the last Alberta election by championing the idea that justices of the peace who were conscientiously opposed to performing gay marriages should be exempted from doing so. What was the objection to such an exemption? Presumably that people who work for the state must be prepared to act on and enforce the state’s policies, and be neutral and even-handed in their treatment of all citizens. If the state decides that gays should be allowed to marry, those who work for the state must be prepared to set their private feelings aside and faithfully execute their public duty.

So how far is the state entitled to go in enforcing this neutrality? This is not a stupid question. On the contrary, its importance is magnified in a multicultural society composed of many groups and individuals of widely differing backgrounds and moral assumptions. In those circumstances, the state must be even more scrupulous; it must be neutral and be seen to be neutral. Otherwise government can easily lose its ability to be a trusted arbiter in social conflict and reliable enforcer of the rules.

Nor is it stupid to think that how the servants of the state dress might matter enormously. Drunken brawlers on St. Patrick’s Day might be particularly resistant to being arrested by a policeman wearing his Orange Order sash. A feminist might reasonably have reservations about handing her child over to a Muslim woman teacher wearing a veil, fearing that this person would be unable to separate her private beliefs about the role of women from the official equality of the sexes professed by the state. A Tutsi, whose tribe suffered horrific massacres at the hands of the Hutus in Rwanda, might wonder what kind of care he would get from a surgeon who insisted on wearing traditional Hutu symbols.

So a policy that required government workers not to make ostentatious shows of their private beliefs in the course of performing their public duties could be justified. Nor would this, as many seem to believe, constitute “discrimination.” No one is forced to work for the government, and the devout of every religion have activities they are forbidden to engage in.

A pious Catholic wouldn’t work in an abortion clinic, a devout Jew could not accept a job that required her to work on Saturdays and an observant Muslim could not work as a bacon taster for a meat packer. Does that mean these jobs “discriminate” against such people? Not at all. It means that the devout have freely made certain choices that preclude some others. A person unwilling to subordinate their private beliefs to their public duties has made such a choice, understanding that there are both costs and benefits to their beliefs.

But requiring government employees to set aside the symbols of their private selves while on public duty is not the only possible policy consistent with state neutrality. The Canadian alternative is based on trust, the presumption of innocence and a “least harm” principle. We trust that people who agree to work for the state do so in good faith and with the intention of honouring their duties, and we presume they are doing so until we have evidence to the contrary. They may then be legitimately disciplined. We regard what they wear as largely immaterial until the individual’s behaviour gives us specific reasons to believe otherwise. We try to protect the neutrality of the state in ways that cause the least possible harm to people, including those who work for government. Requiring people to give up symbols of their beliefs does cause them harm, and we seek out alternatives that minimize that harm before hauling out the heavy cannon.

Finally, in this debate motivation matters. Where the Quebec government has gone so badly wrong is in putting forward a policy that could be reasonably justified, but doing so in a way that makes it clear that reasoned pursuit of the public good is not its goal. Instead the PQ is clearly seeking partisan political advantage by demonizing minorities and lending the prestige of the state to vastly overblown fears of cultural dilution among old-stock Quebeckers. That we must never accept.

Brian Lee Crowley (twitter.com/brianleecrowley) is the Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an independent non-partisan public policy think-tank in Ottawa: macdonaldlaurier.ca.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

I cherish freedom of conscience as a near fundamental or natural right (along with life, liberty and property,* which John Locke set forth as our natural rights) and I regard freedom of expression, including the freedom to express one's religious views as being nearly as important. But I also believe that the first duty of the sovereign is to protect me from the whims of her government and its minions. Thus I find the Quebec "solution" to be back-asswards in execution but, in a way, correct in its AIM. The problem is that the Government of Quebec is fundamentally illiberal, like many (most?) people of Quebec.

_____
* Which is just one of the reasons I dislike the Canadian "Charter of Rights" its "fundamental rights" are: Conscience and religion; Thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of press and other media of communication: Peaceful assembly; and Association. Our real, natural rights are relegated to the category of "legal rights," a very, very European (as opposed to English) view of rights and one which I believe to be fundamentally wrong.

 

[Kirkhill]

ERC:

There is a very simple solution.  Issue public servants uniforms.  (And while you're at it remove names from uniforms - there was a reason for identifying police officers solely by their badge number - names identified tribes, religions and homes).

 

[Edward Campbell]

ERC:

There is a very simple solution.  Issue public servants uniforms.  (And while you're at it remove names from uniforms - there was a reason for identifying police officers solely by their badge number - names identified tribes, religions and homes).

Isn't there already a civil service uniform?

 

But I agree we should standardize the ties ~ maybe one per department, maybe one per branch in large departments. How about coloured stripes: sloped down from right shoulder for useful departments (finance, defence, foreign affairs, etc) and down from the left shoulder for silly departments (status of women, etc).

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't forget the bowler and brolly. 

I think mufti is what you had in mind.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Note that the two princes' tie stripes slope down from their left shoulders ~ suggesting that the Household cavalry is useless.

 

[Kirkhill]

Note that the two princes' tie stripes slope down from their left shoulders ~ suggesting that the Household cavalry is useless.

Not completely useless.  Its always good to have a guardsman around if you need to knock on wood for luck.  "The best wood is hairy wood".

 

[Edward Campbell]

On Twitter, Rosemary Barton, a CBC journalists, ask LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, "Can you confirm you're now part of the Liberal team?"

Edit to add: And Michael Den Tandt says it's true. "General Andrew Leslie ... has joined Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s team as a senior adviser on foreign and defence issues, and is not ruling out running for a Commons seat himself in 2015," De Tandt says.

 

[The Bread Guy]

On Twitter, Rosemary Barton, a CBC journalists, ask LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, "Can you confirm you're now part of the Liberal team?"

Edit to add: And Michael Den Tandt says it's true. "General Andrew Leslie ... has joined Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s team as a senior adviser on foreign and defence issues, and is not ruling out running for a Commons seat himself in 2015," De Tandt says.

With this interesting Twitter tidbit from Sun Media's man on The Hill ....

Lots of buzz that Gen Leslie approached/was courted by (not quite sure) the Conservatives to run; chose #LPC

 

[Remius]

So didn't become CDS but might become MND...ugh.

 

[Old Sweat]

Both his grandfathers were Liberal Ministers of National Defence.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Both his grandfathers were Liberal Ministers of National Defence.

Interesting - who from his mom's side?

 

[Old Sweat]

Interesting - who from his mom's side?

Brooke Claxton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Claxton

 

[dapaterson]

Andrew Leslie?  Political ambitions?

[Casablanca]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that going on here.

[/Casablanca]

 

[Rifleman62]

His long term goal (well 5-7 years) is to be PM and reduce the size of the government in Ottawa and all the Departmental "Head Offices", as well as get rid of consultants etc.

Only HDHQ will survive the phoenix.

 

[pbi]

Andrew Leslie?  Political ambitions?

[Casablanca]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that going on here.

[/Casablanca]

Yes, quite. I almost spilled my gin and tonic on the  Times. How unexpected! What next? Sending messages through the air with electrical sparks? Devices that play music when you insert coins into them? What will Man think of next?

But, never fear...the track record of generals who become MNDs is such an excellent one in this country.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Army.ca member and Sun journalist David Akin tweets what I think will be the great lesson of 2013/14: "The #NDP and the #CPC have learned (both the hard way) that the Media is most definitely not their friend. Not yet sure about the #LPC."

My suspicion is that while M. Trudeau's "honeymoon" with the media (and the public) is longer than those of Messers Ignatieff and Dion, it will not last. Journalists will, eventually, want to "look under the hood" and my guess is that will not find much. Mr Harper never expected much in the way of sympathy, except for Sun News and the National Post, and even less empathy, although he gets it from Report on Business and the Financial Post, but M. Trudeau can count only on the Toronto Star and its reach is pretty limited outside Toronto, proper.

I think Mr Mulcair needs to deploy some of his bright, attractive, young members to challenge M. Trudeau, directly, on issues ~ something akin to the Liberal "truth squad" in the 1963 election. Think of:

 

and

                                        Anne Minh-Thu Quach                                                                                              Paul Dewar                                                                and                                                  Laurin Liu

M Trudeau is vulnerable on issues, that's why he's trying to build a cadre, but I think that is a problem for him, too, because it highlights is need for outside help, suggesting he's a lightweight.

 

[pbi]

My suspicion is that while M. Trudeau's "honeymoon" with the media (and the public) is longer than those of Messers Ignatieff and Dion, it will not last. Journalists will, eventually, want to "look under the hood" and my guess is that will not find much.  M Trudeau is vulnerable on issues, that's why he's trying to build a cadre, but I think that is a problem for him, too, because it highlights is need for outside help, suggesting he's a lightweight.

I think that you are probably right here. For as many people who might be inspired (or, at least, interested...) by the Trudeau name, I think there are many more who are very skeptical, including  or perhaps especially Quebec where his father was hated in some quarters. I don't see much in the way of substance either. His biggest appeal is probably to the demographic that doesn't traditionally vote much: the under 30's.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are two interesting, and loosely related, articles in this morning's papers: one is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post and the other, under the same provisions, from the Globe and Mail. The first looks at campaigning and, more specifically, at the efficacy of "attack politics," and, finally, arrives at a few 'principles:'

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/25/andrew-coyne-on-political-lessons-dont-blame-your-defeat-on-your-opponents-nastiness-or-the-public-for-your-failings/

Andrew Coyne on political lessons: Don’t blame your defeat on your opponents’ nastiness or the public for your failings

Andrew Coyne

25/09/13

There is a mournful tone to Brian Topp’s post-mortem on the last B.C. election, as one might expect: the NDP, whose campaign he directed, went down to defeat, though it led in every poll until the end. And yet it is not for himself or his party he weeps. It is for us.

Through its 42 carefully leaked pages, the document attempts a degree of self-criticism. Various strategic errors are confessed. There were opportunities missed, warning signs that should have been heeded. But mostly it is a lament for the state of modern politics. What has this world come to, it seems to ask, that good people like us could be defeated?

The Liberals were re-elected, he argues, because they played dirty, while the NDP took the high road. “We undertook a principled, admirable and well-intentioned attempt to conduct a positive campaign,” he writes, “in the face of an opponent playing by the right-wing populist playbook.” While the NDP made a point of avoiding personal attacks on Premier Christy Clark, the Liberals went after Adrian Dix with lusty abandon.

The lesson he draws from the experience: we should do the same. “This campaign demonstrates again that negative messages about leaders cut through and are remembered, unless they are countered in kind.” The next campaign, he writes, “must contrast the choices and remind voters of the government’s record in clear, compelling and straightforward language from the first day of the campaign,” including “engag[ing] the opposing leader by name, every day, and at every level.” Translation: attack, attack, attack.

Something of the same analysis, though without the “blood for blood” moral, emerges from Michael Ignatieff’s memoirs of his time in politics, Fire and Ashes. Again, he confesses his own errors and omissions. But here again you find repeated references to the mean things his opponents said about him. “I have to hand it to the prime minister,” he writes. “He didn’t attack what I said. He attacked my right to say anything at all. He denied me standing in my own country.”

There is of course a great deal of truth in both complaints. The B.C. Liberals did run an intensely negative campaign, while the federal Tories’ penchant for the low blow is well known, and relentless.

But it’s just a little too tidy to blame your defeat on your opponents’ nastiness. As an exercise in self-criticism, “we were too admirably principled” sounds a bit like those insufferable types who, asked to list their weaknesses in a job interview, reply “I think sometimes I care too much.”

Topp himself lists a dozen other reasons why the NDP lost: complacency, disorganization, internal divisions, an unclear message, an uninspiring vision, and of course, Dix’s own mistakes as leader, notably his sudden mid-campaign flip-flop on the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And the NDP were not above “going negative,” especially in the latter half of the campaign, as their lead started to fade, with a massive $1.5-million media buy attacking the Liberal record.

So far as the party chose to avoid direct attacks on the premier, Topp reveals, it was entirely a tactical decision: it had nothing to do with any principled aversion to getting their hands dirty. In part it was to give them something to talk about, “to make the right’s focus on negative politics a campaign issue in its own right.”

And in part it was because of nervousness about their own leader’s most prominent piece of baggage, what Topp calls “the circumstances of his resignation” as chief of staff to former premier Glen Clark — which is to say his doctoring of an incriminating memo to provide the premier with an alibi against conflict of interest charges. That’s why they were so negative on negativity. The emphasis on “positive politics,” Topp writes, was “an attempt to inoculate us against the obvious Liberal attack.”

When it became obvious this wasn’t working, they briefly contemplated reversing field (“We considered pivoting the campaign and turning directly to an attack on Christy Clark”): the only reason they didn’t was that the focus groups objected. The party having explicitly and repeatedly committed to staying positive, it seemed that people expected them to keep their word. Imagine that.

I agree with Topp on one point. If you’re going to go nice, don’t make it the centrepiece of your campaign. As he writes, “parties who ask for mandates to ’change politics’ risk sounding like they are talking about themselves instead of about the electorate.” Not only is the public more interested in pocketbook issues, but nattering on about how decently you’re behaving makes you look pious, asking to be congratulated for something that should come naturally.

Indeed, it reveals it for the tactical choice it is. So: don’t talk about it. Just do it. Show, don’t tell.

And: don’t blame the public for your failings. Ignatieff complains his attempts to make an issue of the Conservatives’ abuse of Parliament fell flat. “So instead of getting the democracy they deserve, voters end up paying for their own disillusion.”

Paying for their own disillusion — or for your inability to make it clear why they should care? It isn’t enough to say something’s a problem. You have to offer serious solutions before people will pay attention.

This is a point that eludes many people in politics. When a campaign fails, their first instinct (beyond blaming the public) is to “reposition” themselves — not to find a better way to persuade people to their point of view, but to find a new point of view.

Guys, guys: don’t be so easy on yourselves. You’re in the persuasion business. If you can’t persuade people, probably best to choose another line of work.

Postmedia News

The 'principles' are:

    1. "Don’t blame the public for your failings;"

    2. "It isn’t enough to say something’s a problem. You have to offer serious solutions before people will pay attention;" and

    3. "If you can’t persuade people, probably best to choose another line of work."


Regarding that last 'principle,' the polls show that relentless adherence to a persuasive message works:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/support-falling-for-liberals-and-ndp-holding-steady-for-tories-poll/article14539717/#dashboard/follows/

Support falling for Liberals and NDP, holding steady for Tories: poll

GLORIA GALLOWAY
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 26 201

Justin Trudeau’s star is slipping and Thomas Mulcair is faring no better, but the Conservatives have been unable to sway more voters to look their way, a new poll suggests.

While the Liberals are still ahead in public support, results of a rolling poll by Nanos Research suggest a declining number of Canadians would consider voting for either Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals or Mr. Mulcair’s New Democrats.

And an increasing numbers of respondents say they would not consider voting Liberal or NDP – or Green, for that matter.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, started off behind the Liberals and the New Democrats in terms of being an option for voters – and they are still behind. But they are holding their own.

“There’s been speculation on the Justin Trudeau honeymoon. And I think it would be fair to say that, in June, it was a honeymoon because the percentage of Canadians that would consider voting Liberal was actually exceptionally high,” Nik Nanos, the president of Nanos Research, said. “But we’ve seen a drop in what I will call the accessible pool of voters for the Grits even though their support has remained relatively stable,” he said. The same is true of the New Democrats, he added.

When the polling company asked 1,000 randomly selected Canadians in June whether they would consider voting for the Liberals, 62 per cent said yes while 26 per cent said no.

When respondents were asked the same question between Aug. 25 and Sept. 21, the proportion of people who said they would consider voting Liberal was down to 51 per cent while the number of those who would not consider voting Liberal was up to 38 per cent. The numbers for the NDP, meanwhile, took the same trajectory. Between June and September, the proportion of people who said they would consider voting NDP fell to 43 per cent from 58 per cent while the number of people who would not consider voting NDP climbed to 44 per cent from 30 per cent .

Over the same period, the number of voters accessible to the Conservatives changed only slightly and within the margin of error. The proportion of people who said they would consider voting for the Tories dipped slightly to 40 per cent from 42 per cent, while the number of people who said they would not consider voting for them fell to 49 per cent from 52 per cent.

The Green Party started off behind all the parties and, by September, just 24 per cent of respondents said they would consider voting Green while 63 per cent said they would not.

“It’s almost like a pox on the opposition parties,” said Mr. Nanos. “All three of the (national) opposition parties are down, only the Conservatives remain steady.”

Nanos recruited the poll participants by telephone and then asked them to complete a survey online. A sample of 1,000 national respondents is expected to accurately reflect the opinions of the broad Canadian public within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

The good news for the Liberals is that the overall support for the various political parties has not changed dramatically, said Mr. Nanos.

The new poll did not include those numbers but, in a survey released by Nanos earlier this month, the Liberals had the support of 35.7 per cent of decided voters, the Conservatives were at 29.5 per cent the NDP was at 24.8 per cent, the Greens were at 5.5 per cent.

In June, when the number of respondents who said they would consider voting for an opposition party was higher, a spending scandal in the Senate was causing headaches for the Conservatives. The government’s decision to prorogue Parliament, which has prevented the opposition from asking questions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers in the House of Commons, had reduced what was a daily stream of negative press.

Although there has been a shift in voting consideration, the opposition parties don’t have to worry because their potential is still good, said Mr. Nanos.

“What this does show is that there is not the same sort of excitement about the opposition parties today as there was in June,” said Mr. Nanos. “I think this is more likely the new normal.”

But, on the basis that "a week is a long time in politics" we are about 100 long times[/i[ away from polls that actually matter.