Our raison d'être can't be opposing

The always bubbling in the background chatter about the dream of a few to see the Liberals and NDP to merge or form some sort of coalition came to the surface again recently with comments made by Liberal MPJustin Trudeau in Victoria and broadcast by Sun TV. Here’s a snippet:

“By 2015, with the election approaching, if neither party has gotten their act together enough to shine or be the obvious alternative, then there will be a lot of pressure for us to start looking at that. I think there’s not anyone in parliament outside of the Conservative Party of Canada that is willing to risk seeing Stephen Harper become Prime Minister one more time.”

Since as it stands the choice would likely be between Harper and Prime Minister Mulcair, or maybe Prime Minister Nash, I think many would actually have to seriously consider that question.

Anyway, I reject the idea of merger or coalition along the motivations as floated by Trudeau. First of all, our raison d'être can't be opposing. I joined the Liberal Party because it best represented by beliefs and worldview, and that’s why I remain an active supporter today. I didn’t join because I hated Brian Mulroney, and I don’t remain active because I think Harper is a devil.

Wanting to stop the Conservatives is no reason to mash two groups with very different philosophies and beliefs together. It’s like a couple that don’t love each other getting married for the good of their child. In the long run, an unhappy marriage won’t do the kid any good, and you probably divorce anyway. The Liberals and the NDP aren’t the Progressive Conservatives and Reform. Reform split off from the PCs and then came back together; Liberals and NDP have always been very separate, and different.

And the laundry list of irreconcilable policy differences, from Quebec to the Middle East, is just too great. There's also the fact that the math just doesn't work. As the NDP grew in support in the last election, Liberal support began to bleed to the Conservatives as well. One plus one does not equal two in this case.

We all need to offer something more to Canadians than “we’re not Stephen Harper.” That’s not going to engage anyone but the most ardent partisans and, besides, most Canadians don't dislike Harper as much as Trudeau and other partisans do. Offer Canadians a more compelling alternative and you’ll get somewhere; a negative option will get you nowhere, even with all the coalitions in the world.

Mashing apples and oranges together under some kind of “not Harper” banner is no path to relevancy, and we need to stop looking for short cuts. 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

After several years of ignoring opposition warnings about the price, suitability and lack of competitive tender around the F-35 program, the Harper Conservatives are now finally beginning to admit what we’ve all known all along: this purchase isn’t set in stone, the F-35 program has issues, and this may not be the jet for us. (The fact they're about to get slammed by the AG may be a factor.)

After several years of belligerent “you’re with us or you hate the troops” rhetoric and Red Menace propaganda from Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino anytime someone raised very valid questions, we’ve seen a massive climb-down for the government. Of course, they’ll never admit the critics were right all along, and this whole drama points to a serious lack of judgement by the government. Which I suppose is the point the Liberals try to make with this cheeky video.

Frankly, though, I think focusing on the flip-flop aspect is wrong, particularly when they’re finally (maybe) getting it right. Yes, they should have listened to us all along but, frankly, no one cares.

Where I would instead focus is using this as an opportunity to reset the process. Well, not so much reset it since there was no actual needs analysis and procurement process around the F-35 to begin with, so instead let’s argue for an actual process this time.

We need to have a public debate here, and it needs to start with the basic question of what role do we want our military, and fighter jets in particular, to play in Canada and the world in the 21st century. 


Just saying “we want the best of everything” is simplistic and foolish. You don’t buy the most expensive car with all the optional features, you buy the best vehicle you can afford that best fits what you’ll be primarily using it for: a car with good highway mileage if you have a long commute, or an SUV with storage space if you have kids to take to soccer practice.

We need to decide what role we want our Air Force to play going forward. Do we want to be focused solely on continental air defence and sovereignty? Or do we want the capability to intervene and attack ground targets in a conflict such as Libya?These are the kind of questions we need to answer first, as our needs will dictate the choices we make. If our primary concern is air defence, an air superiority fighter like the new F-15 Silent Eagle may be a better, and more affordable, option. If we want ground attack capability, a multi-role fighter like the F-35 or other options may be a better fit.


Once we've determined what our needs are in a next-generation fighter, we need to design a request for proposals and put it top tender through a competitive bidding process. Get the manufacturers competing to offer us the best deal and best price, and we can pick which is the best deal and best suits our needs. And then insist, as every other country does with major military procurement, that a significant portion of the work and related contracts go to Canadian industry.

All three of these elements -- needs analysis, competitive tender, industrial benefits -- were missing from the initial Conservative process around the F-35. If all options are indeed “on the table” as Fantino has said, then, rather than gotcha videos, we should be demanding these elements form the basis of a re-started procurement process.

Frankly, I think our primary mission needs to be continental air defence and we should consider an air superiority option that can performance that task better than the F-35, and at a fraction of the price. But let’s have that debate and evaluate all the options, instead of simply settling on the coolest-looking toy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

“Dion syndrome” is revisionist history masking self-interest

Leadership races are always places for amusing and nonsensical spin, and the current NDP race is no exception with some participants warning against a supposedly deadly, but entirely fictional, new malady: Dion syndrome.

Named for former Liberal leader Stephane Dion, it’s meant to describe the horror of a candidate that finished third on the first ballot going on to win because of their strong second-choice support. Or in other words, winning because more members like them than like the other choices.

Here it is in common ussage:

* An NDP MP is warning party members to be wary of the “Stéphane Dion Syndrome.” .. “I’m behind Thomas Mulcair,” he said. “However, I’d prefer if the winner were Brian Topp instead of everyone’s second choice.”

* Last week party officials were warning about "Stephane Dion syndrome," referencing the third place Liberal contender who won his party's leadership because of divisions between Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae supporters.

First of all, it’s amusing to see the notion of preferential balloting degraded by supporters of a party that has made electoral reform and the evils of first past the post a key policy plank for years. Preferential balloting is fairer; I won’t bother repeating the argument as they've already made them ad nauseum.

But a look at who is pushing this narrative (primarily Mulcair supporters) reveals why they’re tossing-out past arguments of fairness: self-interest. It’s in the interests of the two media-anointed front-runners (Mulcair and Brian Topp) to do everything to frame this as a two-way race, and force members to make a polarized choice. While they may like one of the supposed second-tier candidates better, if there are only two “real choices” they’re forced to choose between them.

Ironically, it’s the same strategy the Liberals and NDP have ran against each other at the riding level for years. Only we can stop the Conservatives, so vote for us or you’re electing the Conservatives/throwing your vote away. Just hold your nose and pick the lesser evil…

However, they can’t just come out and say “we’re the only real candidates and those other guys suck” because, besides not being true, they do actually need the support of people that like those other candidates. Hence the invention of “the Dion Syndrome” to frighten people about the evils of electing a third-place candidate. While I would take many lessons from Stephane’s leadership, this isn’t one of them.

Let’s look back and look at the numbers. Going into Montreal in 2006 much of the media had framed it as a two-way race: Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. This offered a compelling media narrative for a number of reasons. For one, a two-way race is easier to cover. Also, their personal history made it compelling: former roommates who went off and made good in the world, now battling for the leadership. And like it is for Topp and Mulcair, it was in Ignatieff and Rae’s interests to promote this narrative. One was right of centre, one left, and both were polarizing figures. And neither had strong second-place support. So make it a two-way race and let the chips fall.

Except, once the members began to vote it was clear this was anything but a two-way race. Going into the first round of voting, Ignatieff campaign members told me they’d be in the high 30s. Rae would be within striking distance, was the word.

Instead, we got Ignatieff 29.3%, Rae 20.3%, Dion 17.8%, Kennedy 17.7% on the first ballot. Ignatieff’s results were nowhere near his campaign’s over-spin, and just a few per cent separated supposed also-rans Dion and Kennedy from the supposed front-runners.

Now, to follow the logic of those diagnosing “Dion Syndrome” everyone but Rae and Ignatieff should have dropped-out because of a difference of 121 votes out of 4,815. Of course, they didn’t, and with Ignatieff and Rae’s support stalled Dion would take the lead on the third ballot and win on the fourth.

Now, there are lessons to learn from Dion’s leadership. He won with the support of the delegates (not the wider membership, which is why we went to WOMOV a few years later) but little support from caucus, which would prove a problem. And some supporters of other candidates declined to down tools, preferring to wait him out. But to think picking one of the supposed front-runners would have changed that is incorrect; first past the post would have elected a candidate with less support from the membership, not more.

The lesson is the same as it is from any leadership race: respect the will of the membership and work together to support the new leader or we won’t get anywhere. I’d actually call that Liberal Syndrome, and its one non-fictional malady that, speaking from experience, the NDP would do well to avoid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Vikileaks and the death of the journalist as news gatekeeper

I was in Las Vegas for a work trip and tuned-out of all news from back in Canada, so it was only Friday that I returned and caught myself up on the “Vikileaks” drama, and it was fascinating to read some of the commentary and follow the tweets on the topic, particularly those from hill journalists and political sorts.

I won’t pass judgment on whether or not the information about Vic Toews should have been published or not, except to say it’s not how I would chose to do politics. Which I guess is passing judgment, so there you go. This sort of thing is par the course in modern politics though, and for the Conservatives, who have taken it to new levels, to now wring their hands is silly. And, for the record, it is only an ethical question, and we are talking about publicly available information and documents.

What really interests me though is the reaction of the proverbial “main-stream media” to the Vikileaks story, with an Ottawa Citizen piece attempting to trace the IP address of the “@Vikileaks30 leaker” spurring endless speculation and demands to identify the person or persons responsible. It should be noted that had @Vikileaks30 given their documents to a journalist who chose to publish a story based on them, then the media would be reminding us how important it is to protect the confidentiality of their sources. Even competing outlets wouldn’t try to unmask another journalist’s confidential source. That’s just not cricket, old boy.

What the media reaction to @Vikileaks30 really shows though is how angry, and perhaps frightened, they are about losing their traditional role as the gatekeepers of news, the people that get to decide what we, the unwashed masses, need to know and what we don’t need to know. Journalists are used to being in the know, to having the inside details, the scoop. It helps make up for the low pay, long hours and heavy drinking.

Journalists made judgment calls every day on what is news and what isn’t, what people have a right to know, and what isn’t relevant. It's part of the job in one sense; there's always more news than column inches or air time. And they see it as a public service. But no one elected them as the arbiters of good taste. They’re accountable to no one but their publisher and the shareholders. It’s a lot of trust, and a lot of responsibility.

The internet, blogging and social media are changing all that however. Now you no longer need a printing press or a television or radio station to publish information to the masses. Anyone with an Internet connection can publish anything they want, and potentially find an audience. And the market will, in a way, make its own judgment on its news worthiness. If people find it relevant, they’ll share or re-tweet it and the news finds a wider audience; if they deem it inappropriate it will wither and fade away, perhaps after first being soundly condemned.

What it means, though, is that the role of the traditional media as gatekeeper is drying, if it’s not already dead. With their breadth of reach and size of audience, the regular media is still the fastest way for news to be disseminated to the wider public. But thanks to social media, even if the press deems something “un-newsworthy,” if it gets enough traction online they eventually have no choice but to cover it anyway.

Whether or not you think publishing details of Vic Toews’ divorce as a form of protest against privacy-invading Internet snooping legislation is appropriate, what this drama shows about the eroding power of the media gatekeeper is very much a positive, in my opinion.

But back to the moral media tut-tutting around this story. Here’s the National Post editorial board weighing-in, for example, with a reflex attack on the always handy partisan scarecrow:

… their partisan opponents wouldn’t care. Rightly or wrongly, to embrace, promote or even acknowledge Vilikeaks — as a remarkable number of opposition MPs have done — is to accept yet further debasement of the Canadian political conversation. There is no way around it. The ends may justify the means in some people’s minds, but all politicians’ private lives are less private today than they were on Monday.

The media’s role in this is more tricky. The content of the Vikileaks tweets has been widely known in Ottawa since the events occurred. Yet not a word of it was breathed in the mainstream press, in accordance with the basic Canadian understanding described above.
But now it is all over the news — if not the particulars of Mr. Toews’ situation, then the fact that someone is publishing those particulars at a Twitter account called @Vikileaks30.

Attacking evil partisans is always easy for journalists, or in this case anonymous editorial writers, but the fact is the Post’s statement that “not a word of it was breathed in the mainstream press” is easily and demonstrably wrong, as a simple search of any newspaper archive service shows.

* May 17, 2008, Mia Rabson in Winnipeg Free Press

Sources suggest Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants Toews to step down because of concerns about issues in his personal life -- he's currently in the midst of a divorce. An appointment to the bench makes sense because of Toews' background as a former Crown prosecutor in Brandon and lawyer for the Manitoba government.

* May 17, 2008, Don Martin in Calgary Herald

But the 55-year-old Toews' public face of self-righteous morality is now clashing with his troubled private life. An MP dubbed the "minister of family values" by Liberals is embroiled in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

That's his business, frankly, yet it might explain why Mr. Toews was demoted to the Treasury Board and immediately cloaked by invisibility, stewing in question period silence while his junior parliamentary secretary juggles tough questions on election financing irregularities.

* May 23, 2008, Joan Bryden in Waterloo Region Record

As well, Tories have been whispering that Treasury Board President Vic Toews, embroiled in a messy divorce, has fallen into disfavour with Harper.

In June of 2009, Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe even wrote a column headlined “U.S. 'affairs' so much more interesting.”

And last year, then-Justice Minister Vic Toews split with his wife of 33 years after having fathered a child with a political staffer. A Winnipeg newspaper called it "messy personal stuff.

Toews since has been re-elected and appointed Treasury Board president. His website features nothing personal beyond "Vic enjoys roller blading and jogging. He resides in Steinbach.

In fact, here’s a May 21, 2008 story from the National Post with Toews reacting to a story about his divorce proceedings, in, you guessed it, the National Post (I guess the op/ed writers missed this one):

Mr. Toews, appearing at a news conference for a joint federal-provincial program for aboriginal youth sport, was also asked about a report in Saturday's National Post indicating he is currently involved in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

"I don't talk about my personal life," Mr. Toews replied.

Perhaps Vic, but the media sure does an awful lot. It seems obvious that the media tut-tutting has nothing to do with publishing such personal details; it’s just the feeble protests of the dying news gatekeepers.


UPDATE: An earlier post along these lines that has relevance to this one: On Adam Giambrone, morality vs. privacy, and the media as gatekeeper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If we’re betting everything on leadership, Bob Rae must be clear on intentions

Reflecting on last weekend’s Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention, where delegates voted against reducing the powers of the leader and put much of their hope for rebuilding into one key initiative – admitting supporters into the party ranks and giving them a vote for the next leader – it seems clear to me we’re betting much of our hope for a revival and return to relevance on a leadership race that will culminate with a vote by all members and supporters sometime betweenMarch 1 and June 30, 2013.

We’ve long been a party that is obsessed by leadership, so perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. By refusing to even limit the leader’s ability to appoint candidates and to set and veto policy, this weekend we rejected several opportunities to not only make the role of the individual Liberal member more powerful, but to see every member to take greater responsibility for the party’s success or failure. We’ve long been a party beset by leaderitis, always in search of a Messiah. We crown a leader and invest our hopes and dreams in them, feting them for our collective success and, conversely, blaming them for our collective failure. It’s why we’re so quick to dump leaders after a setback; it allows us to avoid taking collective responsibility.

By opening the leadership selection to a new non-member category – supporters – members lessened their collective ability to hold the leader accountable (leaders will no longer owe their mandate to the party membership, the folks that knock on the doors) and, offered an opportunity to balance that by devolving some of the leader’s powers to the membership, said no. Liberals will again invest their hopes in the leader.

Betting on a vibrant, open, fair leadership race

While the ability of the incoming executive to implement a bold agenda of party restructuring and reform shouldn’t be discounted, it’s clear delegates chose to put a lot of faith in the next leadership race to bring the Liberal Party back from the brink. We want to welcome thousands of Canadians into the fold as supporters, and the shiny lure we’re dangling is a say in picking our next leader. Which means we need an exciting, dynamic and open race. A coronation isn’t going to attract any supporters.

If we’re going to attract a diverse field of highly qualified candidates, they’ll need to feel it’s a fair and open contest. But the large elephant in the room is interim leader Bob Rae’s unwillingness to give a clear and unequivocal answer on his intentions regarding the permanent leadership.

When Rae agreed to take the interim leadership he promised not just the party executive, but members, that he would not seek the permanent job. Why is that important? Because the interim job gives its holder enormous advantages over potential opponents, as I’ve outlined in the past. Now, Bob is free to change his mind and seek the permanent job. No rules have to be changed – that’s a smokescreen thrown up to deflect the issue. He just needs to resign the interim position and he’s free to run for the permanent gig.  All that holds him back is his word; he’d need to explain to Liberals and to Canadians why he’s breaking his promise. And we're free to accept his arguments and vote for him, or reject his arguments and vote for someone else.

Despite his promise upon taking the job, he continues to play coy on his long-term intentions. His answers in Friday’s convention press conference illustrate it plainly: he is asked point-blank multiple times if he will rule out seeking the permanent leadership. And each time, he refuses to do so.

Rae is too smart not to know refusing to give a definitive answer will only ensure the distracting speculation will continue, and discourage other potential leadership candidates. If he has no intention of running, there’s no reason for him to not say, clearly and simply “I am not going to run. I will not be a candidate” That would end it. But by playing coy, and by deferring to rules that don’t really exist, the most charitable explanation is that he is at least keeping open the possibility of running.

You won’t find one Liberal, myself included, to say Bob Rae hasn’t done an amazing job as our interim leader. But between his unwillingness to be clear on his future intentions, the unwillingness of him and his office to ever include the word *interim* in speeches and communications, and a televised speech to caucus inexplicably defending his personal record as the NDP premier of Ontario, the mounting speculation that he will seek the permanent leadership has become too much of an issue to ignore.

The time has come

The selection of the next permanent Liberal leader is over a year away, but the race will be ramping-up sooner than that. Potential candidates will be gauging support, and once the new supporter system is in place, potential candidates will move to sign up supporters and members. And with no expiry on a supporter’s “membership” they’d be foolish not to begin immediately. But they won't, if they feel the fix is in.

We need a wide, qualified field to contest the race. And for that to happen, Bob Rae needs to stop playing word games. He needs to level with Liberals, and with Canadians. He must either clearly and plainly rule-out running, or announce he is considering it and sit down with the national executive to negotiate the timeline for a final decision and potential resignation as interim leader, so as to facilitate an open and competitive race.

It would be patently unfair and unacceptable to run for the permanent job from the interim office, and equally unacceptable to play coy until the last possible minute, squeezing every drop of advantage from the interim office and its party and taxpayer-funded budget before pulling the trigger on a leadership campaign.

We're the party of the Clarity Act, and we need a little clarity right now ourselves. We can’t move forward without it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers