Jeff wonders if Harper really gets Canadians

With my one-day political blogging hiatus over, and my stomach full of turkey (although sadly no apple sauce this year) I was greeting this morning by the following headline:

Harper wonders if Canadians really get Afghanistan

MURRAY BREWSTER
The Canadian Press
December 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
EST

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he is uncertain whether Canadians at large understand the importance of remaining involved in Afghanistan.

His observation in a recent year-end interview with The Canadian Press comes after almost two years of combat operations in Kandahar, the deaths of 73 soldiers and one diplomat, and bitter, often partisan debates back home.

Parliament will be asked by spring to vote on what kind of mission
Canada should undertake after the current mandate expires in February, 2009.

Asked whether he believes Canadians truly appreciate what is at stake in the decision, Mr. Harper said: “I don't know, the short answer is I don't know.”
(more)

You know, I wonder if Stephen Harper really gets Canadians, or if he’s just playing politics.

Anyway, a couple of points. Firstly, if Canadians don’t “really get” Afghanistan then Harper has no one to blame but himself, and maybe Gordon O’Connor and Peter McKay. Particularly once they decided to push through an extension of the mission for politically-motivated reasons, it has been the Harper government’s responsibility to explain to Canadians why the mission is important, necessary and worthy of support. Not only have they failed to do so, instead they’ve used the war to play political games.

From pushing through an extension solely to embarrass the Liberals, to the bungling of the detainee file, to the support the troops/with us or against us rhetoric, the Conservative focus has been politics, not consensus building, and indeed has served to only deepen the divisions.

Secondly, when Harper questions whether Canadians “get it” what he’s really lamenting is that we don’t agree with him. Canadians “get it” Mr. Harper. We understand what’s at stake in Afghanistan, we want to see democracy take hold and flourish in the region, we want to see rebuilding happen. But we don’t necessarily agree with Harper’s methods, and are turned-off by his rhetoric.

There’s something vaguely insulting about Harper’s comments here. If we don’t agree with him then we’re dumb, we just don’t get it… Clearly, if anyone doesn’t get it, it’s Harper.

My own views on Afghanistan have been fairly consistent. I supported us going there, and I support the mission. We should focus more on re-building, but I recognize stability is needed for that to happen. However, we can’t stay there forever. We aren’t a big enough country to support an open-ended mission. We’ve done our share, and when the current mission expires another NATO country needs to replace us in the combat role.

I think a lot more Canadians are totally opposed to the mission though then share my view, and it disappoints me that the government has failed to make a case for supporting it. Their political rhetoric only serves to further harden that opposition, and is counter-productive to their supposed goal. Which makes me wonder, does Harper really want to build support for this mission, or does he just want its failure as a political issue to appeal to a certain segment of the population?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Merry Christmas

A Merry Christmas to everyone, and thanks for reading!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Access to information: Conservative rhetoric and Conservative reality

We're likely to be in an election campaign this spring, and I suspect the Harper Conservatives are going to have a much harder time getting Canadians to take their sanctimonious piety at face value, or believe much of anything they say.

Take, for example, this recent story on the Conservatives and access to information requests (Steve also has thoughts):

Public requests for documents are being slowed by lengthy reviews in the central department that reports to the prime minister, the Information Commissioner says.

While Stephen Harper's Conservatives campaigned on opening up the access-to-information system, Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said the government's own statistics show that responses to the public's requests for information are slowing down “across the board.”

A far cry from what the Conservatives promised in their last election platform:

Strengthen Access to Information legislation

The Liberal government has consistently rejected attempts to provide Canadians with better access to government information. The present Information Commissioner has gone to court several times to force the government to open its windows.

The plan

A Conservative government will:

• Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

• Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information.

• Expand the coverage of the act to all Crown corporations, Officers of Parliament, foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers’ money or perform public functions.

• Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner.

• Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions.

• Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government.

• Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules.

• Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information.

As Judge Judy would say, Stephen, I wouldn't believe you if your tongue came notarized.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Je me souviens

Stephen Harper on immigration today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper heaped praise on Canada's record of both accommodating and integrating immigrants, rejecting the notion that the country is facing a crisis involving newcomers who won't embrace Canadian values.

“Notwithstanding the debate in Quebec and some of the debate during the Ontario election campaign, I first of all think immigrants come to this country to belong to this country,” Mr. Harper said in a lengthy answer. “I also think that the Canadian approach to this, which is a mixture of integration and accommodation, for lack of a better term, is the right approach.”

And Stephen Harper in immigration just six years ago:

"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fundamental change...to media narratives

Was just flipping through the channels and CTV's Craig Oliver was on Newsnet, talking about the year ahead in federal politics. He was also trying his best, unsurprisingly, to minimize recent polls that have shown the Conservatives and Liberals neck in neck.

Oliver cautioned people from reading too much into the poll numbers, saying Canadians aren't ready to throw-out the Harper government yet, and we shouldn't read any kind of “fundamental change” from just a few polls.

The fact is these polls aren't showing anything new. The media has just been slow to recognize the consistent numbers, since they were busy for most of the year trying to squeeze everything into their “Conservatives inching towards majority” narrative.

No one is saying Canadians are ready to toss Harper out, I think Oliver is being deliberately obtuse there. But the fact is, going back to the last election, the Conservatives have failed consistently to build and hold a substantial lead, despite all the advantages of incumbency and the public purse. While Liberal numbers have, yes, been aggravatingly and disappointingly stagnant, Conservative numbers have yo-yo'd, with any lead more than the margin short-lived.

Indeed, numbers for all the parties have been relatively stagnant since the last election, with the possible exception of the Greens. Canadians aren't enamored with Harper, but he hasn't burned the place down yet and the situation the country is good, so he gets the incumbents' bump and a short leash. The Dion Liberals have failed to inspire, Canadians are taking a wait and see. And the Layton NDP has also failed to gain any ground, despite (or because of?) their attack the Liberals first policy.

The trend Oliver and his colleagues don't seem to have recognized is that Canadians aren't particularly excited about any of their options, and don't much care either. And, barring something unforeseen, we'll continue to see these same “none of the above” numbers until the next election. Once the campaign starts, all bets will be off.

P.S. Oliver now says not forcing an election last fall was “the best decision Dion ever made.” That's nice Craig. I won't go back and check what you were saying about that decision at the time...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Crown vs. Willy Wonka

The Globe breaks the news today on the great chocolate caper. Apparently the federal Competition Bureau alleges Canada's major chocolate-bar makers have been colluding for years to fix prices:

Senior executives at Hershey Canada Inc., Mars Canada Inc. and Nestlé Canada Inc. met secretly in coffee shops, restaurants and at industry conventions to set prices, the documents say. At one point, the chief executive of Nestlé Canada is alleged to have handed envelopes stuffed with pricing information to a competitor, instructing the person not to be seen picking up the material in his office.

The collusion began in 2002 and continued until a few weeks ago, the documents allege. It also involved a major food distributor, ITWAL Ltd., whose president sent regular updates to participants.

I'm glad the feds are keeping the world save for chocolate bar lovers anywhere, I really am. But I just find it amazing that, while they can expose alleged price fixing in the candy bar industry, why is it every time they look for evidence of collusion in the gasoline industry they come up empty?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A Merry Christmas from Decima

Not that we should get too excited, but this recent polling news from the folks at Decima certainly should help to warm Liberal hearts a little the week before Christmas.

A new poll suggests Stephen Harper's Conservatives have lost their big lead over the Liberals, plunging six percentage points in popular support in just one week.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey puts the Tories at 30-per-cent support, in a statistical tie with the Liberals, who are up four points to 32 per cent.

Support for the Tories dropped across all regions and demographic groups.

The striking shift comes in the wake of several controversies which may be taking a toll on the governing party:

• Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's admission that he accepted cash-stuffed envelopes from arms lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.
• Heavy criticism of Canada's position at the climate-change summit in Bali.
• The political fallout from a critical shortage of medical isotopes due to the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor.

In other polling news, Decima also says while the public doesn't believe Brian Mulroney in this whole Schreiber business, they also don't want a public inquiry.

I'd submit though that the decision to go forward shouldn't be based on polls, but on whether or not there are grounds for an inquiry and issues that still need to be explained. I think there are still serious unanswered questions here that perhaps can only be addressed by an inquiry.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why they've been hiding Tony Clement

Putting aside the whole nuclear safety thing, which is a pretty serious issue and what not, Tony Clement's explanation here for why the Conservatives decided to make the whole Chalk River reactor thing a partisan issue is rather hilarious, in a pathetic and childish grade two kind of way:

In an interview on CTV's Question Period, Mr. Clement was asked to explain why the government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, launched a personal attack on Linda Keen, the commission chair, alleging she was a Liberal appointee who was putting lives in danger by not permitting the restart of the reactor, the world's leading supplier of medical isotopes.

"At the time, we had some concerns that perhaps the Liberal opposition was toying with the idea of making this a partisan activity," Mr. Clement said. "We were concerned that we would not be able to get the legislation through in order to start up the reactor on time to deliver the isotopes."

"In politics . . . sometimes you've got to fire a couple of shots across the bow to make sure the opposition knows that you're serious about the issue," he continued.

Or, in other words, we were afraid they were going to make it a partisan issue, so we decided to make it a partisan issue before they could make it a partisan issue. Or maybe the Liberals knew the Conservatives knew we were going to make it a partisan issue, and we tricked them into making it a partisan issue first to make them look bad, because we're sneaky like that.

Bad attemped spin, Tony. It's back to the Harper minsiter relocation and hiding program for you.

Of course even better is the fact the Conservative spin was completely out to lunch, emphasized by the news today the Harper government bypassed the recommendation of an independent hiring committee to appoint a former Canadian Alliance fundraiser and party hack, Michael Burns, as president of Atomic Energy of Canada.

He's left the job though, so it would seem there's an opening. Maybe Homer Simpson is available...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't tase the lobbyists bro

Remember that whole ending the lobbying revolving door thing? Well, more developments from the it's a small world after all front, with the CBC's Political Bytes blog pointing-out highly-placed Conservative Ken Boessenkool has registered to lobby the government behalf of Taser International, supplier of the stun guns used by the RCMP and other forces.

Ken Boessenkool worked as a senior adviser to Stockwell Day when he was treasurer of Alberta. Day, of course, is now the minister of public safety, responsible for the RCMP.

In his lobbyist registration, Boessenkool lists among his duties promoting an awareness campaign to educate decision-makers on the facts of Taser International's products.

Among the government institutions to be contacted? The department of public safety, headed by his former boss.

At least Ken shouldn't have much trouble getting Stock on the phone to talk tasers.

Ken's Conservative connections don't stop with Stock, however. As Politics Watch pointed out, Ken was a senior policy advisor to then opposition leader Stephen Harper from 2002 to 2005. After that he went into lobbying with Hill and Knowlton, where his clients interestingly included the Canadian Association of Income Trusts. (Hmm, maybe his influence isn't too great after all.)

Boessenkool was also a key player in the last Conservative war room. And he co-authored the infamous Alberta firewall letter with Harper, Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton and others, and is a long-time Harper confidant.

Anyway, just glad to see that Conservative anti-lobbyist rhetoric isn't stopping well-placed Conservatives from trading on their connections to lobby on behalf of their clients. Everyone knows the Conservatives only had a problem with Liberal lobbyists, after all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

CTV omits global warming/environment from top stories list

I'm back in the Comox Valley, B.C. for the the holidays after managing to escape the East before the storm hit. I did a semi-mileage run on the way out, flying from Buffalo through Philadelphia, Baltimore, Phoenix and Vancouver to ensure I'd have enough miles to re qualify for Aeroplan Elite with Air Canada next year. Because I need my Maple Leaf Lounge. Amazingly, every leg went off without a hitch (really tasty steak sandwich in Phoenix) until my Vancouver to Comox leg, which was delayed four hours by strong winds on Vancouver Island.

I'm here now though, and I was watching CTV Newsnet this morning. 'Tis the season for year-end list stories, and CTV is early out of the gate with its list of the top Canadian news stories, as follows:

1. The high-flying loonie

2. Canadian casualties in Afghanistan

3. Media baron Conrad Black's legal saga

4. Chinese product recalls

5. The deadly, and controversial, use of tasers

6. The trial and conviction of Robert Pickton

7. The hunt for Canadian pedophiles in Thailand

8. RCMP shootings

9. Multiple births -- sextuplets, quadruplets -- recorded this year

10. The scandal surrounding former prime minister Brian Mulroney

I'd take issue with at least one of these choices, but first to one of the stories omitted. The Newsnet anchor had CTV News president Robert Hurst on to discuss the list, and she (I think rightly) gave him a hard time about the multiple births one.

More interesting though was when she asked why the environment/global warming wasn't on the list. It was certainly a big story this year, from Conservative fumbling on the file to Bali and the UN conference to Al Gore's Nobel prize and the rise of the Green Party. Hurst, however, said CTV editors were “skeptical of the importance of global warming” as an issue on the top ten list.

If we were just talking the size of the news made as criteria I'd cut Hurst some slack, although I'd still disagree with him. But he made the criteria importance. And yet, and here's where I take issue with the list, he included the Conrad Black trial?? Generated lots of coverage? Yes. Important story? Hells no. And more important than climate change? Not a chance.

I continue to be surprised by the Canadian media's obsession with all things Conrad. As a journalist myself I naturally have mild interest, as this is a guy that for better or worse largely helped to reshape the industry in which I work, but my interest isn't enough to warrant the media orgy that has surrounded the trial. I'm of the firm belief though that average, non-journalist Canadian doesn't give a crap about Conrad and Babs. It's a case of the media's own interests driving their coverage, and not the public's.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Environmental leadership

I like this picture. We have the guy that should have been president, and the guy that should soon be Prime Minister. I'm hoping things will work out much better for Stephane Dion then they did for Al Gore on that front, as Stephen Harper doesn't have a brother that's Premier of Quebec.

But seriously, as unfortunate as the performance that John Baird has been turning-in on Canada's behalf in Bali, and as bad as the black mark he has been giving our international reputation has been, it has been good to do that Dion, Elizabeth May and others have been there to let the world know the Conservative opinion isn't the majority in Canada. Don't give up hope, voices of sanity remain.

Dion's Bali Blog has certainly been interesting reading, and for those who were concerned he might be going over to do embarrassing partisan mudslinging, I think most would agree Dion's performance has been positively Prime Ministerial, and a telling contrast to Baird, and the guy that's currently Prime Minister, for now anyway.

I'm expecting to have more details on the Dion/Gore meeting tomorrow. I'll say this though. Seeing them together should encourage all Liberals to work hard to make sure we return a Liberal government in the next election. Let's not be like the Democrats, watching Bush run amok in the White House and dreaming of what could have/should have been. We have a chance to get it right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The CIA view on Canada

While surfing the Web the other day during some rare down time at a busy conference the other day, I learned the CIA publishes a Web encyclopedia on nearly every country in the world. So, naturally, I wanted to have a look at how the good folks at the spy agency view the Great White North, at least for public consumption.

A land of vast distances and rich natural resources, Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 while retaining ties to the British crown. Economically and technologically the nation has developed in parallel with the US, its neighbor to the south across an unfortified border. Canada faces the political challenges of meeting public demands for quality improvements in health care and education services, as well as responding to separatist concerns in predominantly francophone Quebec. Canada also aims to develop its diverse energy resources while maintaining its commitment to the environment.

Nothing shocking really, but still interesting, and certaintly a lot of useful and comprehensive demographic data assembled in one place, with easy tools to compare to other countries.

They also identify two transnational issues when it comes to Canada:

Disputes - international:
managed maritime boundary disputes with the US at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Rock; US works closely with Canada to intensify security measures to monitor and control legal and illegal personnel, transport, and commodities across the international border; sovereignty dispute with Denmark over Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland

Illicit drugs:
illicit producer of cannabis for the domestic drug market and export to US; use of hydroponics technology permits growers to plant large quantities of high-quality marijuana indoors; increasing ecstasy production, some of which is destined for the US; vulnerable to narcotics money laundering because of its mature financial services sector

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Umm, Jim Flaherty...

...surely you mean it's the Liberals blocking the GST cut right, and not the NDP? Surely you were misquoted. Forget the facts of the thing. I mean, after all, it's the Liberals that are responsible for everything bad that happens in Canada. I know I still haven't forgiven Jean Chretien for costing the Canucks the Stanley Cup in 1994. I think Jim owes the NDP an apology here. Which would be nice for the dippers for a change, no?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On apologies

A short blog entry, I apologize for that. And I haven't had time to write much of late, it's been a busy time at work, and with work related parties by some of the vendors and media relations firms that we work with. So, apologies for that, although it has been fun.

In other apologies news, I think Liberal MP Karen Redman owes me one (and one for James too) for jumping on this dumbass James Moore story the other day, and therefore not allowing me to get on my righteous high horse and savage the NDP for trying to be our self-appointed morality police. Good on the NDP for their apology on that thing though, although really, what a very stupid incident that whole thing was. It's a hard knock life for Jimmy Moore.

It's days like that I'm glad I don't make a living in politics because honestly, having to pretend to be all indignant and care about crap like that would have to eat away at the soul.

And speaking of apologies, nice to see the NDP correcting a long-term wrong, albeit by court order, and apologize for their smearing of a Liberal candidate in the last election:

NDP House leader Libby Davies formally apologized Thursday on behalf of her party for spreading allegations that a Liberal candidate in the last federal election tried to bribe his NDP rival to drop out of the race.

“The New Democratic Party admits we seriously erred in making the allegations public and in putting a young and inexperienced candidate in a position where he felt justified in making those allegations and to repeat them on some 40 occasions to media across Canada,” Ms. Davies told the Commons.

Rather overdue, I think. It would be nice to see Paul Martin apologize as well for joining the mob, bowing to the pressure and punting the guy overboard. Failing that though, as the current leader Stephane Dion could certainly step up to the plate and right a wrong here.

Just one question though. I see the NDP put up Libby Davies to offer the apology for the party. I like Libby. As a student journalist back in the day she always had time for the student media, and I appreciated that. I have to wonder, where was Jack Layton?

Apoligiupdate: I need to withdraw my "good on the NDP" for apologizing over GirlfriendPictureGate, and for that withdrawal I apologize. But it seems the NDP's Irene Mathyssen is turning her apology into a non-apology apology. At least in her hometown paper, not knowing they have the Interweb out there now too.

And so the stupidity continues. I think clearly Moore needs to post these photos of his significant other so we can judge ourselves the appropriateness of the pics for the commons chamber. Failing that, perhaps the NDP could publish a hand of acceptable photo standards. Skirts ok, but hems not higher than the knee, etc.

I'll leave with this quote from the first episode of The West Wing, when President Bartlett takes on some conservative morals types:

John Van Dyke: When our children can go to any street corner in America and buy pornography for five dollars, don't you think that is too high a price to pay for free speech?

President Josiah Bartlet: No. On the other hand, I think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On value for money

If there's one thing Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have made abundantly clear, it’s that they don’t give a tinker’s damm about polls and don’t you forget it, they’re people of action. Rrrarrrr.

* "We don't make decisions in our governments based on polls," Harper said.

* "This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion.” (Stephen Harper)

* “Certainly if we've learned anything, this prime minister doesn't govern by polls..." (Jay Hill on Stephen Harper)

Given their fairly firm position on polling, and their refusal to be guided by it, this news today was quite interesting:

Under Stephen Harper's Conservatives, the federal government spent more money on polling and focus groups last year than in any other since it began tracking the total costs of public opinion surveys.

More than $31 million was spent sampling opinions in 2006-07, the first full fiscal year under a Tory government, according to a Public Works and Government Services Canada report.

The Tories out-spent all the previous Liberal governments on public opinion research.

Hmm, interesting that. Also interesting:

The Privy Council Office - the prime minister's department - spent more than $1.3 million on public opinion research, more than quadrupling the figure posted by Privy Council Office in 2004-05, and putting the government nerve centre the fourth-ranked department in polling spending.

Given that we all know This Prime Minister doesn’t govern by polls, I have to ask isn’t that kind of a waste of $31 million?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More Greg Weston hackery

I could probably do a scathing blog post each time Sun Media columnist/Conservative propagandist Greg Weston does a column. That would get tiring though, so I’ll save my ire for when he really annoys me, like when he implied Ontarioins and women are twits.

Or when he so dishonestly distorts facts its laughable, like he did today in his latest anti-Dion screed. There’s much I could object too, but in the interests of brevity I’ll focus on this section:

Dion talks about the coming year as a "whole new ballgame," and his supporters promise his leadership will undergo an extreme makeover.

There is certainly no shortage of precedents for mid-term political rebirths -- Stockwell Day, Joe Clark, Preston Manning, John Turner, to name a few. But perhaps worth noting is that none ever went on to win a national election.

Yeah, and here’s two that did Gregory: Jean Chretien and your matinee idol, Stephen Harper. Do you really think just naming people that support your statement while ignoring the very obvious choices that don’t is going to convince anyone? That goes beyond intellectual dishonesty to just plain silliness, not to mention really sub-par propagandizing.

It would be like be saying "there have certainly been no shortage of Conservative/Alliance party leaders -- Kim Campbell, Peter McKay, Stockwell Day, to name a few. But perhaps worth noting is that none ever went on to win a national election."

Perhaps more worth noting is that you are a hack, Greg.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

McGuinty stands up for the troops, and their families

I'm really pleased to read about this move from the McGuinty Liberal government. This is going beyond saying you support the troops, this is actually doing it. Hopefully this will spur similar legislation across the country. Kudos too to the opposition parties for giving unanimous consent.

Ontario extends health care for military families
The Canadian Press
December 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM EST

Toronto — Ontario is poised to become the first province to ensure that out-of-town military families get immediate access to free health care.

Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced the legislation today, earning unanimous consent from the opposition parties.

The bill also legislates job security for reservists when they're called to duty.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A forgettable year later

This time one year ago I'd just left the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal for a work conference in sunny Las Vegas. Unfortunately the luck of the weekend didn’t carry over to the gaming tables, and it seemed like the luck faded quickly for Stephane Dion and the LPC as well. The honeymoon, such as it was, was very short.

It had certainly been a euphoric weekend. I was a very early Dion supporter but I’d never thought we’d actually win, and as I got to Montreal and things began to roll it did almost seem unbelievable, even as it was happening. It was a historic achievement, a weekend I’ll never forget. A year on though how far away that weekend, and those emotions, now seem.

As a Dion supporter I want to be fair in my evaluation of the past year, but I also don’t want to be unfairly harsh. It has certainly been a forgettable year; indeed, it has seemed like a year of one step forward, two steps back. Bottom line is while we remain neck and neck with the Conservatives in most polls, we haven’t gained an inch of ground either.

As the leader, Dion needs to shoulder a great deal of the blame for where we are. That comes with the mantle of leadership and besides, he hasn’t done a good job of leading our party.

There has been little to no progress on party reform; Dion was elected by a grassroots groundswell against the party elites yet nothing has changed. The communications strategy of the OLO has been a mess. We’ve let the Conservatives set the agenda, and get the better of us on most issues. The caucus and party bureaucracy haven’t come together’ leaks and backbiting have been rampant, critics haven’t stayed on message, and those that have gone off the reservation haven’t been smacked-down.

More importantly, we’ve let the Conservatives define us. Their ‘not a leader’ ads have been proven a valuable investment, but their impact was magnified by the lack of any sustained, coherent counter-messaging on our side. We’ve made little to no effort to define Dion, so the Conservatives have been more then happy to do it for us.

That’s the bad, in short form. And while, as I said, Dion needs to take his fair share of blame as he is the leader and, frankly, he hasn’t gotten it done, much of the problems lay much deeper. We’re a party still fractured from the civil war of the Chretien/Martin era, still suffering from post-sponsorshipitis, still needing to find our way. These challenges were going to be there, and were going to be very difficult to overcome, no matter whom we elected a year ago.

To say things would be much different today if we’d elected someone else a year ago would be naive, simplistic, and just plain wrong. I won’t go through and list the negatives of all the other candidates, we all know what they are and they aren’t insubstantial. Suffice to say, the Conservatives had a game plan ready to go and attack ads in the hopper for all of them, with the possible exception of Joe Volpe.

To say it would be different with another leader is to paper over the real issues we were facing, and still face, as a party. It’s the attitude of those who still see our last election loss as a mere aberration, a temporary setback before we return to electoral majority glory and all is once again right in the world.

I say again, as I have before, that it was no mere aberration. What happened to the momentum for party reform, for reclaiming the Liberal Party? It seems we’ve become so tunneled-in on the next election it’s been forgotten. It’s probably too late now, but we really need a policy convention; the needed soul searching still hasn’t happened.

Anyway, despite the negatives of this year, and the missed opportunities, things aren’t really as bad as some would have us believe. While we’ve failed to grow, we’ve held back Conservative growth and we’re in the thick of the fight. We’ve got good issues to tackle the Conservatives on, we’re well positioned on certain key issues, and with the notable exception of Quebec (and Alberta) we’re in very good shape in the polls, with growth potential in B.C., the Prairies, Ontario and the Maritimes.

Mock me if you must but examine the numbers and you’ll see if we run a solid, error-free campaign we have a decent shot at a Liberal minority government. Of course, that’s a helluva big if. Still, it’s a much more plausible scenario then the one I would paint in the spring of 2006 when people asked me how in the heck Stephane Dion could ever ascend to the leadership.

The opportunity is there but only if we, and if Dion, are ready to seize it. We need to come together as a party, as it’s going to need to be all hands on deck. We need to rally behind Dion but, more importantly, he needs to really us behind him. Get back to his core strengths; going to Bali is a good start. Start talking clear and detailed policy alternatives, don’t just be attacking all the time. Chose your spots, and oppose with class. Get the whole team involved but make sure it’s clear who the boss is, and ship-out those that won’t shape-up.

The last two opposition leaders to become PMs had very forgettable first years as well. A success in the next election and this past year will be forgotten. The fact is our destiny is still very much in our own hands. What we do with it is up to us.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers