Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
A picture to caption, and possibly my most favourite video ever
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Monday, June 28, 2010
I don't know what this HST is, but I know it's bad
Interesting HST-related survey results from Ipsos Reid this morning out of British Columbia. Well, not interesting in that everyone hates it. That's no surprise. What's interesting is that, while they hate it, they also don't seem to know anything about it.
The top line numbers are no surprise. Some 78 per cent of BCers are opposed to the HST, 65 per cent of them strongly and 13 per cent of them somewhat. Some 80 per cent think the HST will have a negative impact on them personally and 85 per cent on the province in general. 62 per cent think it will be negative for small business. 40 per cent think it will be negative for big business. 55 per cent think it will be bad for the provincial economy. 59 per cent think it will put some small business owners out of business.
So, pretty much everyone thinks the HST will be bad for, well, everyone.
Here's what I found interesting, though. While British Columbians seem to feel strongly the HST is bad, they also don't seem to know anything about it, what is covered and what is not, and just how it will actually impact them.
Of a list of 10 exempt items, very few residents (6-35%) were able to correctly identify them. For example, only one-third correctly identified the exemption for basic groceries (35%), about the same number are aware that residential rent (32%), children’s items such as clothing, footwear and diapers (31%) and prescription drugs (25%) will be exempt from HST. At the bottom end, only 17% are aware of child care service exemptions, 8% for legal aid as well as books, and only 6% for music lessons.Despite these numbers, 62 per cent said they had a good understanding of the benefits of the HST, and 75 per cent said they had a good understanding of the drawbacks. And while they think they know about the HST even though they don't, they also blame the government and the media for not communicating better about the HST. So it's a little all over the place.
I definitely agree the BC government has done a poor job communicating the nuts and bolts of the HST, and the media certainly has no interest in substantive policy-analysis. These numbers are also evidence that the deliberate misinformation and distortion campaign of the BC NDP/Bill Vander Zalm petition drive combo is working. Confuse the people and make them angry. That's their strategy, and it's clearly working.
(For those of you in Ontatrio, the provincial government has a list of specific items and how their tax treatment will change (or not), and they’ve also put out information on how it will impact people, and impact businesses.)
Queen Elizabeth II, Canucks fan
With Queen Elizabeth II arriving in Halifax today to kick-off a royal visit to Canada, I thought I'd share some pictures I took during her 2002 visit to Canada. That trip included a stop in Vancouver, where I was living at the time, and came the fall after Canada's double Olympic gold-medal hockey win in Salt Lake City.
After the puck-drop, ably won by Canucks captain Markus Naslund, the royal party headed up to a special royal box to watch the game. While she was only scheduled to stay for the first period, the Queen enjoyed the game so much she stayed into the second period, and when she got to the Hotel Vancouver, reportedly asked if she could watch the rest of the game on television.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Early Fake Lake reviews, photos
We seen the vaunted G20 Fake Lake, and the thing stinks.The National Post:
The $57,000 pool and $2 million set up to give journalists a true feel of Muskoka is built and ready to go for this weekend but our interlopers said it looks more like there was a small flood on the floor of the Direct Energy Centre at Exhibition Place.
“It’s really pathetic,” said one staffer. “It’s almost like a wading pool for kids — and not a very good one.”
“Our bosses went to go see it,” said an RCMP officer sitting nearby. Said another: “I wonder if they’ll import any mosquitoes?” And a third: “What a waste of money.”And the CBC:
And then there it was: the majestic fake lake, or most of it, since an amicable though vigilant young security person denied the Post a full, unfettered frontal preview.
“You guys aren’t supposed to be in here,” she said. “You aren’t even supposed to get close enough to smell the chlorine.”
Huntsville Mayor Claude Doughty...figures the display is sure to inspire foreign visitors to travel to the Muskoka area.
"If you're sitting here, how can you not want to go there?" he said.
If that was meant as sarcasm from the good Mayor, I say bravo. Sitting in front of a six-inch chlorinated kiddie pool in a cavernous convention centre would make me me want to get the heck out of there and head for cottage country too. Sadly, I think he was being serious.
HST Powerplay: Bill Vander Zalm vs. Carole James?
I don't mean to keep writing on the HST -- not when there's Chinese spies to identify, and early reviews of the fake lake to discuss -- but Vaughn Palmer has some interesting news about the anti-HST fight in B.C. this morning that should be shared with you.
I've heard predictions from New Democrats that they will recall the Liberals in numbers sufficient to deprive the government of its majority in the legislature, and force an immediate election, clearing the way for an NDP government by this time next year.
Some say that they will also move Vander Zalm aside and take control of the anti-HST movement, once the current petition campaign is over.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Caption this photo of Stephen Harper
Ontario numbers that will make Gordon Campbell cry
I was writing yesterday about the politics of the debate around the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). Well, interesting to see some polling numbers for Ontario drop this morning for Ipsos Reid. Here they are:
BC NDP: 46 per cent
BC Liberals: 26 per cent
Greens: 14 per cent
BC Conservatives: 8 per cent
Monday, June 21, 2010
The HST affair showcases all that’s wrong with politics today
If you’re looking for a case-study for all that’s wrong with modern politics in this country, one issue that is a microcosm of all the practices, methods and tends contributing to the degradation of political debate in Canada, then you can’t do any better than the “debate” around the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST).
At the federal level, you’ve got the Conservatives who have sent billions of dollars to Ontario and B.C. to sweeten the deal encouraging them to harmonize, while their backbenchers insist no, that’s a provincial thing, nothing to do with us, we think it sucks. You’ve got the Liberals who pushed harmonization in government and don’t want to piss-off their cousins in Ontario but, at the same time, would dearly love to capitalize on the populist anti-HST feeling, result: a muddied position that pleases few. Luckily the NDP aren’t troubled by ideological consistency, the party that never met a tax it didn’t like will oppose this one in Ontario and B.C. for pure politics, while ignoring that the Nova Scotia NDP government just jacked-up their HST to the highest level in Canada. And the BQ say we’re cool with the HST, just as long as you give a few billion to Quebec because they made changes to their tax system that aren’t really the same but, hey, give us money.
Then there’s the provincial level. In Ontario, you’ve got the McGuinty Liberals only seeming to start to get serious about selling this thing to the public and counter-acting some of the hysteria out there. You’ve got Tim Hudak’s Conservatives breaking with their federal cousins to oppose the HST, even though they can’t seem to articulate why it’s bad policy and won’t even promise to repeal it if elected. And then there’s the Ontario NDP, blind in their opposition and happy to distort and misinform.
Out in BC, Gordon Campbell’s Conservaliberals are facing more public outcry because they seemed to rule out harmonization during the last election, then announced they were harmonizing mere days after the ballots were cast. They thought they could ride-out the storm but are now waking-up to some serious trouble. Former Socred Bill Vander Zalm, of all people, who left the premiership in disgrace, is leading a popular revolt against the tax, with the support of the BC NDP (strange bedfellows) that could lead to a referendum to repeal the HST there. But Vander Zalm and the BC NDP (unlike their Ontario cousins, they could actually form government so they need to face a few more serious questions) don’t seem willing to address how this would happen: how would you revert the tax system back, and how about the billion dollars in harmonization funding the feds will want back. Which hospitals will you close to find that money? They just want you angry, they don't want you thinking.
Instead of a debate of facts around the HST, we’ve been treated to mass hysteria. It’s like the ugly baby with no parents. The federal government doesn’t want it. Ontario has been low-key about selling it; B.C. even more so. And the opposition parties have all been more interested in stoking populist fervor to paint this as a tax hike instead of opposing on policy grounds, and proposing reforms or alternatives, or just what they'd do differently. Or even how they'd repeal it, and what that would mean.
Myself, I think the timing was bad (and in BC, it was handled stupidly) but sales tax harmonization is good policy. It’s more efficient, and will save government and business money. Value-added taxes are just more efficient than taxes on production, or on income. Some items will cost more for consumers in the short-term, but it will net-out in the long-run as savings are passed on, investments are made and new jobs are created. This has been the case in every other jurisdiction in Canada where the HST has been implemented. I think there is room for tinkering and adjustment, but overall it’s good policy that should be supported.
There’s plenty of room to debate that, I just wish the debate would be on the facts and on the policy, not on hysteria. To that end, I found this list from the Ontario government on specific items and how their tax treatment will change (or not) to be interesting. They’ve also put out information on how it will impact people, and impact businesses.
Will Fox News North protect whistle-blowers?
Former Sun Media reporter and Parliament Hill veteran Elizabeth Thompson, who was laid-off last week from Quebecor's Hill Bureau (along with Christina Spencer and Peter Zimonjic) raises an interesting point in The Hill Times today, and points to some of the inherent conflicts in having a news organization run by the Prime Minister's former communications director:"At least I can stop wondering what would happen the first time the PMO called my bosses because they didn't like a story or what I would do if Kory asked me for the name of a confidential source or a whistleblower," she said.
This is a very serious question. If a Sun/QMI reporter writes or airs a story critical of the Harper government, based on a leak or whistle-blower either from within the Conservative government or the civil service, just how will this be handled by the editors, and by Kory Teneycke? Will the PMO pressure Teneycke and QMI to disclose their sources? Will Teneycke pressure his staff to name names?
These are some of the inherent conflicts this new venture is going to have to deal with because of Teneycke's involvement, and were I a serious journalist at QMI I'd want some strong assurances around process, and Chinese walls. This doesn't necessarily have to be a problem if Teneycke makes clear up-front that editorial is editorial, he'll leave those decisions to his editors, and he doesn't want to know about sources. There are stories though when legal and management need to be involved, and it would be hard to cut him out entirely.
And even with those assurances, there are two other problems here. One Thompson identified: what happens when I do stories that piss off the PMO? The inherent risk there is of self-censorship to avoid consequences, real or imagined. The other is if people will be less likely to go to QMI with scoops or inside information, fearful they won't be protected. That makes it harder for their journalists to do their job, and do it well.
These problems aren't unsurmountable. And as I've said, I support any organization that wants to invest in journalism in this country. But only as long as they let journalists be journalists. And I'm sure people like David Akin would have gotten some assurances before signing on. But it will be interesting to see how Sun TV handles these conflicts, and how they do will be a significant factor in their success or failure.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Stephen Harper's ego is writing checks our bodies can't cash
I missed what I hear was a very successful Liberal policy forum in Toronto with Michael Ignatieff on Sunday, as I was on my way to Washington, DC to cover a conference for work. Well, in National Harbor actually, but it doesn't start until Tuesday morning so I have two days to explore the city. First time here, and it's awesome for a politics and history junkie. It's crazy hot here (over 40 with the humidity), but on day one I already saw the Washington Monument, the Capitol, the White House, and I toured the Air and Space Museum. Top of the list for Monday is the Newseum, and some more of the monuments around the mall. I'd also like to get out to Arlington Cemetery, weather and time-permitting.
“Harper’s fake lake is part of his $1-billion boondoggle, Canada’s most expensive photo-op at a time of massive debt and out-of-control deficits,” the radio and television ads say. “So when you head to the lake this summer, remember you’re paying for Harper’s trip, too. An ego trip Canada can’t afford.”
"The ad's premise is that the average Canadian can afford to spend weekends at the lake. An understandable assumption, no doubt, by someone who vacations outside Canada and owns a summer villa in the south of France," said Mr. Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas."What Mr. Ignatieff fails to appreciate is that the vast majority of Canadians do not own recreational property. This is just another gaffe that shows he is grossly out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians."
Sunday, June 13, 2010
It's time for the party saints to step into the light
The leader of the Liberal Party is against a merger with the NDP. So is every MP who has spoken on or off the record about it, including those seen as the most likely heirs apparent. Every party executive I've heard from is opposed. The leader of the NDP, the party we'd supposedly merge with, is firmly against it, along with every one of their MPs that has spoken on or off the record about it. The media pundits think it's ridiculous (usually a cause for closer consideration, to be honest). And as for the grassroots, if you want to believe polling, most Liberals are opposed, most NDPers are opposed, and so are most Canadians. Which echoes the bulk of the conversations I've had.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Some thoughts on “Fox News North”
I did an interview last night with Rob Breakenridge of Calgary’s AM770 on Quebecor/Sun Media’s new “Fox News North” television network, so I thought I’d share my thoughts on the subject here as well.
You know, if having a national news network run by Stephen Harper’s former communications director means I never have to ever listen to another Conservative drag out the tired canard of the so-called “Liberal media” then I think this whole Fox News North thing might just be worth it. Frankly, I thought they’d give up that sad persecution complex when they sent Mike Duffy to patronage heaven to become the most partisan shill the Senate has seen in years, but I underestimated their lack of bashfulness at making ridiculous arguments that fly in the face of all logic (my mistake, really).
But seriously, say what you will about Quebecor and Sun Media, but they’re businesspeople and they're not dumb. Launching a new news network requires a significant investment in infrastructure, resources and talent and I’m sure they’ve done their homework. They must have done the research and come to the conclusion there’s a sound business case here.
I’ll admit, I’m sceptical though. This would be the third national news network for Canada (sorry ROBTV, you don’t count) after CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet. I think all those networks have changed their names, but I don’t really watch them often enough to keep up. The CBC couldn’t afford chairs for awhile, I do remember that. Peter Mansbridge isn’t getting any younger, guys.
We’re not the United States though, which is able to (barely, I think) support CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Canada has a fraction of the population and the advertising revenue to support three networks and there are only so many Alpacas to be farmed, and only so many times Patrick can take out life insurance.
I also don’t believe we’re as conservative a country as the U.S., so I wonder how much of an audience this network will hold once the novelty wears off. And, frankly, setting out to design a network with a particular bias seems silly to me. I have to wonder, just how interesting would it be?
If you like having your worldview constantly reinforced, if you never want your opinions or assumptions to be challenged, then conservatives may enjoy such a network. Fox South certainly has an audience; it’s an undeniable business success. But for me, I certainly can’t speak for all Liberals, but I’d find it boring never being challenged in my beliefs. I like a little intellectual stimulation; it’s good for the soul, and for my beliefs. And I don’t think echo chambers make for particularly compelling television either.
I also reject the premise this network seems founded on, that a liberal media bias permeates the rest of the press. I’ve been a journalist for over 10 years now (not covering politics obviously, but the IT industry) and I can say with some authority the only thing most journalists are biased towards is a good story. Bad for Liberals, Conservatives, Natural Law, they don’t care if it will get the ratings.
I get pissed off at the media all the time for alleged conservative bias. Often the same media my conservative friends complain about being liberally biased. Which either means those media outlets are just giving it to all as deserved and we're both wrong, or they're just really, really crappy and we're both right.
But as a journalist, I’m perhaps not as hostile to this new network as some of my progressive brethren may be. The media is hurting in this country; the profession of journalism is hurting. So if Quebecor wants to invest millions of dollars to hire journalists and build a new media organization, I view that as a positive. Jobs for journalist = good.
I think designing it with a bias is silly, but whatever happens on the op/ed side of the network, if they keep hiring respected professionals like David Akin on the journalism side of the house – and give them the freedom to do what they do well -- then I’m confident some real journalism will be happening there, and we do need more real journalism in Canada. I think that opinion/news wall will be the thing to watch going forward though.
So I say welcome our new Conservative television overlords. And at the end of the day, in the best of conservative theory and dogma, the market will decide the value of Fox News North. Either it will prove a viable business model, or it won’t, so I say let the market decide. And unlike Conrad Black, I don’t think Pierre Karl Péladeau is a fan of losing money for ideological reasons. If there’s no market, this new network will become Keith Olbermanized pretty quickly.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Why the Liberals should support ending the per-vote subsidy
A report in La Presse confirms the Conservative government’s (oft-stated) intention to end the per-vote subsidy to political parties. This frightens many Liberal nervous nellies. I think this is an opportunity for the Liberal Party to make a bold move, however. The Liberals should support ending the subsidy, but with one significant addition: raise the limit on personal donations to $5000.
I would like to see the Liberals reframe this debate and seize the agenda by proposing its own political financing legislation: end the per vote subsidy but raise the limit on personal donations from $1100 back up to $5000. Union and corporate donations would remain forbidden.
On the per-vote subsidy, ending it wouldn’t be the calamity for the Liberals many think it would be. At least, it wouldn’t be as mad for us as it would be for others.
The party that would be most hurt by losing the subsidy would be the Bloc Quebecois. The BQ relies on the subsidy for nearly all of their budget, and since they only need to campaign in Quebec, it allows them to run a very strong campaign with barely any fundraising.
The next party that would be most hurt by ending the subsidy would be the NDP. They’ve dramatically escalated their election and between-election spending since the creation of the subsidy, spending at levels they never had before, thanks to the per vote subsidy. Ending it would require a major scaling-back of their budget, and the size of the campaign they could run.
Now, I won’t say the Liberals wouldn’t be hurt. Losing the subsidy would be a blow, without a doubt. Significant adjustments would have to be made (and getting a little leaner wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing). But the fact is we are less reliant on the subsidy than the other opposition parties, and we have been getting (very slowly) better at fundraising.
I am, though, proposing one major change to be coupled with ending the subsidy: raising the personal donation limit to $5000, where it was before the Conservatives and the NDP conspired a few years ago to lower it down to its current level (around $1100), primarily to try to handicap the Liberals.
I think we can make a strong case for restoring it for a number of reasons.
One, public financing was brought in when Jean Chretien’s government ended union and corporate donations, the argument being if you’re going to remove that fundraising capacity from the parties you should give them an alternative, and a small public fee to end the corporate and union influence in politics is a small price to pay. The same holds true here. If you’re going to remove the public subsidy, you should give parties the capacity to be able to replace that funding. That’s an argument of fairness I think will resonate with the public.
Two, why should the government be able to restrict my ability as a private citizen to support the political party of my choice. While I do support reasonable limits (and I think $5000 is reasonable) there are many people who believe money is speech, speech should be unlimited, and the government has no right to abridge the people’s right to speak. One of those people is Stephen Harper. As head of the National Citizens coalition, he argued stridently for the right of third-party pressure groups to spend anything they want, free of election spending limits. He even took it to the Supreme Court in Harper v. Canada. We should ask Harper, if money is speech, why does he believe in free speech for lobby groups but not for individuals?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Exclusive: Secret merger talks between Philadelphia Flyers and Pittsburgh Penguins
In the wake of last night’s heartbreaking overtime loss in the Stanley Cup finals to the Chicago Blackhawks, which again leaves the once dominant Philadelphia Flyers outside looking in at the ultimate prize in hockey, I have learned that serious people from both the Flyers and the Pittsburgh Penguins have been having secret discussions about a merger.
I can report that the team would be called the Pennsylvania Flying Penguins. It would split its home schedule between the two cities and combine rosters, with the surplus being traded or exiled to the American Hockey League. But by retaining the best of both teams, it’s believed they’ll finally be able to get back into hockey power.
It’s unclear if the merger initiative has the backing or even the knowledge of team leadership. Flyers captain Mike Richards called reports of merger talks absolute rubbish, while Penguins captain Sidney Crosby was equally dismissive, also cracking that the Flyers already have a de facto coalition with the Blackhawks anyways, and if the Penguins had been in the finals they wouldn’t have rolled-over to Chicago in six games.
Despite their denials, I spoke with Flyers president Bobby Clarke last night and I took detailed notes on our conversation. He told me there is a lot of interest in a merger from the Penguins, and there have been discussions at a high level between team saints, whom he described as Mario Lemiux and Kevin Stevens, with Bill Barber leading talks for the Flyers.
Apparently the Penguins were really pushing this, but the Flyers side has told them they’ll need to renounce socialism and embrace the market economy as pre-requisites to any merger agreement. The Penguins would also need to accept Mike Richards as their captain, despite Sidney Crosby consistently scoring higher approval and popularity ratings.
Personally, I think the Flyers should just suck it up. They didn’t lose that badly, they have a good, solid core of players that now have extensive playoff experience. A few roster additions, get rid of a little deadweight, train hard in the off season and they’ll compete for the big prize again. Just work hard, and they’ll be fine. No need to look for quick fixes.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Shocking news: Taxpayer-funded fake lakes don't poll well
If you thought $1 billion seemed like a lot to spend on security for a three day conference, and that fake lakes probably won't go over with Mike from Canmore, well, you now have polling to confirm the readily obvious:
Echoing the criticism from opposition MPs about the ballooning costs of hosting the summits, more than two-thirds of Canadians said playing host to world leaders is a waste of money, according to an Ipsos Reid online poll conducted for Canada.com.For some reason the Province doesn't give any numbers, but I have a few from Ipsos. They report 68 per sent say the "money spent to host G-20 a 'Waste'" while just 32 per cent say "It's worth it." And on another issue, 75 per cent of Canadians want the federal government to cover the costs of non-insurable damage to businesses and residents caused by protesters.
"Canadians look at this and say it's not worth the disruption. It's not worth the money. It's not even worth the prestige," said John Wright of Ipsos Reid.
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Merger talks, leadership politics and the same old Liberal bullshit
The CBC has a breathless report tonight on top-secret merger talks between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. They're talking platform. Leadership race. They even have a new name picked out: The Liberal Democrats. Cute.
Senior insiders with the federal Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to take on the Conservatives, CBC News has learned.Just who are these "senior insiders" having these "secret talks?" Unknown. The two "insiders" quoted won't name names. Neither will I, at the moment. I think, though, that you don't need to be a strategic genius to connect the dots.
Many Liberal insiders confirmed that discussions between the two parties are not just focused on forming a coalition after an election or co-operation before one, but the creation of a new party.
The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats and there has been tentative talk about what a shared platform would look like and an understanding that a race would be required to choose a new leader.
The G20 boondoggle files: I shop at Crappy Tire and save Tony Clement $206,700
The Sun’s Greg Weston, who brought us news of the rapidly fluctuating in price Fake Lake ($2 million, $57,000, $500,000 but a bargain at any price) brings us news of more foolish Conservative over-spending and boondogglery:
For instance, taxpayers are shelling out $207,000 for 15 of what have to be the world's most expensive solar lights to illuminate the pathways at Deerhurst Resort, where the eight leaders are staying for one night.
While it is hard to believe this five-star resort had no path lights of its own, the federal contract assures us "this signature environmental project will contribute to the overall greening of the G8 summit."
And when the leaders have left the next day, the contractors have to dismantle the six-metre lights, and reinstall them somewhere in the nearby town of Huntsville.
Yes, that’s right; we’re paying $207,000 for solar lights to guide the way of the world leaders for one night. I know Stephen Harper’s Conservatives (pretend to) love Tim Horton’s but they don’t seem to share the same love for another Canadian institution: Canadian Tire.
Because as anyone who watches Canadian TV knows (Harper prefers American news), because they’ve seen all the incessant commercials, Noma Moon Rays will get the job done at a fraction of the price.
While the Nomas are good, since price is clearly no consideration here I’ll recommend the top of the line option from Westinghouse. A six-pack of high-out LED pagoda lights is just $99 at Canadian Tire.
Landslide Tony Clement needs 15 lights for Huntsville, so we’ll pick-up three of the six packs, which will run us $300 plus tax (hey, at least they beat they HST increase). That will leave us three lights to illuminate the shiny-new taxpayer-funded G8 toilet, about 20 kilometers down the road.
So that’s a grand-total savings for the government of $206,700. Why, that’s almost enough to may for one minute of G8/G20 security.
And did I mention you’ll also get Canadian Tire money?
You’re welcome, Tony.
The Conservative $2 million fake lake comedy round-up
I could go on a rant about how the Conservative government building a $2 million fake lake inside the G20 media centre is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars, particularly for a government that claims a reputation for fiscal prudence while running-up the biggest deficits in Canadian history. But it would be too easy. And besides, unless you’re a member of the Harper cabinet legally obligated to half-heartedly defend this stupidity, you agree with me already. Even Harper mentor and former Conservative campaign manager Tom Flanagan, asked to defend fakelake last night on Power and Politics, said flat-out “I can’t” and asked for the next question.
Therefore, I’m going to choose to see the fakelake as half full and look at this latest Conservative boondoggle as $2 million in economic stimulus for Canada’s comedians. Think of it as an Canada’s comedy action plan. In that spirit, I’ve scoured the interwebs and Twitter for the best in fakelake-related humour. Some is mine, some I’ll attribute, some I’ll shamelessly copy from others because they didn’t use digital locks.
- (JeffJedras) Look at it this way. #fakelake costs less than 9MGS (minutes of G8/20 security). It's practically a bargain!
- (JeffJedras) EXCLUSIVE! Video of $2 million Conservative #fakelake! Must credit Bourque!
- (Jeff Jedras) Oh, so it's a $2 million reflecting pool? I take it back, that's entirely different. Apologies.
- (From a friend in BC) I hope they start calling this scandal WaterG8
- (Jeff Jedras) Will half-baked #fakelake take the cake and be Harper's WaterG8? I don't wanna hate, but that’d be great
- (Jeff Jedras) Wanted: vendor to supply mosquitoes, black flies for g20 media centre. Contract value $1.5 million. Ask for Tony.
- (JeffJedras) If we're modelling #g20 media centre after boat show, will there be #bustyhookers beside new boats in the #fakelake?
- (JeffJedras) "Siegfried, I know we wanted to go to Turkey for vacation this year. But I just saw this #fakelake on TV, so how about Canada?"
- (OttGuy) #G20 to feature less bank tax talk, more talk about fixing Greece's wild spending. I suspect a fake Atlantis idea from Flaherty.
- (OttGuy) Harper rejects calls for more funding for arid poverty stricken Africa. "What do they expect us to do for them, build them a #fakelake?"
- (OttGuy) Truly Canadian sounds will be piped into #fakelake for international journalists. Loons, wolves and audio of all of John Baird's hissy fits.
- OttGuy) They wanted to build dykes around #fakelake but the #CPC were concerned this might offend some of their base.
- (PMOHarper)If I had 2 million dollars (If I had 2 million dollars) I'd buy me a lake (but not a real lake, that's cruel)
- (PMO Harper) It's not a #fakelake, it's a reflecting pool. Muskoka is world renowned for its reflecting pools.
- (ChrisInKW)It's a much-needed shot in the arm for the #fakelake industry... er...
- (confute) I hope Peter MacKay's #fakedog isn't allowed in the #fakelake
- (ThePMSaidSo) You might be mocking the #fakelake now, but when I send out that water-skiing squirrel, you'll all be thanking Big Steve.
- (Lucers) I assume there is some kind of tax credit for first time homeowners who want to have a #fakelake put in?
- (unknown) If they're going to spend $2 billion on an artificial lake, the least they can do is pony up a few bucks more for a Splash Zone
- (Uranowski) Stephen Harper announces $1 Billion Fake Glacier plan to combat Global Warming.
- (unknown) just because we have so many real lakes doesn't mean we can't be leaders in the artificial waterbody industry
- (unknown) this will be a showcase 4 the Canadian #fakelake industry, who knows what business will be drummed up from this event
- (greg_elmer) zut! let's be proper Canadians please. #fauxlac #fakelake
LA Times: Canada spends nearly $2 million on fake lake inside G-20 and G-8 media center
Huffington Post: Canada Builds Fake Lake For G-8 Summit: $2 Million Expense Draws Criticism
Monday, June 07, 2010
Re-frame the question: Who will make Parliament work?
Interesting watching the fall-out of Ignatieff's clarification on coalitions, and the predictable Conservative response of fear mongering and doomsday prophecies.
The Ignatieff official says that their plan – “repeated many times” – is to form a Liberal government.
“So there you go. We’ll run to form a Liberal government. And we will work with everybody – Conservatives included – to make Parliament a place where respectful and meaningful debates happen, not the disgraceful Bairdesque circus Conservatives seem to love so much.”
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Ignatieff clarifies Liberal position on coalitions
I was very pleased to wake-up this morning and find two things. One: it's not raining so I can hopefully go watch some Maple Leafs baseball this afternoon at Christie Pits. And two: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has brought some much needed clarity to the Liberal position on coalitions. Indeed, the position he outlines in this CP article today seems exactly what I've been asking for:
Michael Ignatieff says coalition governments are "perfectly legitimate" and he'd be prepared to lead one if that's the hand Canadian voters deal him in the next election.
..
"Co-operation between parties to produce political and electoral stability is not illegitimate. It's never been illegitimate, it's part of our system,'' he said, noting that coalitions have been formed in parliamentary democracies around the globe.
"But the right way to do it is to run your flag up, (opposing parties) run their flag up, you fight like crazy, you put your choices clearly to the Canadian people, they make their choices and then you play the cards that voters deal you.''
Ignatieff insisted he still believes the Liberals can win the next election. But should no party win a majority and the numbers make it feasible for a Liberal-led coalition to provide ``progressive, stable, compassionate, good government,'' Ignatieff said he'd ``make it work for Canadians.''
"I can make all kinds of electoral arrangements work and people should have confidence that I can. I'm a unifier, I'm not a divider.''
Ignatieff Hits Right Tone
Very pleased to see Ignatieff's stance on coalitions clarified
Iggy Shows Flashes Of Gloriousness Re Coalition
Iggy speaks unequivocally!
Friday, June 04, 2010
Jack Layton and Darrel Dexter extended caption contest
NDP leader Jack Layton shares a laugh today with Nova Scotia's NDP Premier, Darrell Dexter today at the Nova Scotia NDP's annual convention. Now here's a photo that needs a caption. My extended contribution is below, feel free to leave yours in the comments...
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersDarrell: Jack, I know that you've been in a righteous lather over the HST in BC and Ontario. You're not going to give me a hard time for jacking-up the HST by two points, are you?Jack: Of course not, Darrell, you're my boy! You're my boy! We'll just ignore the fact that Nova Scotia now has both an NDP government AND the highest HST in Canada, and hope no one notices our hypocrisy.Darrell: Awesome, you da man, Jack! Say, by the way, are you going to let your caucus vote to kill the gun registry or what?Jack: Gotta go my man. Solidarity!
Pass the popcorn, Scott Reid is tilting at coalition windmills
Scott Reid – yes, that Scott Reid – is working himself up into a righteous lather on the op/ed pages of the Globe and Mail today on the coalition issue. Thing is, I’m not entirely clear just who he’s in such a dander about, because he goes off the rails in his very first sentence:
Inexact language and a shocking lack of constitution are lending momentum to the dangerously flawed idea of a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP prior to the next election campaign.
And who, exactly is proposing a “formal coalition” happen “prior” to the next election? I would love to meet these straw men that Scott spends the next 800-odd words arguing against with such energy because, frankly, I’m not aware of many Liberals, certainly of any prominence or with any vigor, who are arguing for a pre-election coalition at all. A merger, pre-election coalition, joint candidates, none of that is seriously on the table.
Instead of picking an extreme to build-up and then argue against, Scott would have done better to address what the vast majority of the people, certainly on the Liberal side, currently raising the coalition issue are actually talking about: the possibility of a post-election coalition.
Speaking for myself, and indeed I think many other Liberals, all we’re asking is that a post-election coalition between the Liberals and the NDP remain on the table, if the math warrants it. That’s it. I agree with all of Scott’s reasons why pre-election coalitions and/or mergers are bad ideas, so he can save his typing. My issue is that the current Liberal leadership is explicitly ruling-out the possibility of a post-election coalition. That, by and large, is what this debate is about. Not preemptively limiting our options.
Rather than tilting at windmills, I’d rather Scott tackle the real issue.
I do agree with Scott on this, though:
There is an obvious and superior alternative: Do better. Improve the effort, sharpen the message and bring the fight. In the weeks and months to come, the ambition of the Liberal Party should be to defeat Stephen Harper.
That is true, but let me put a slightly different spin on it than Scott. The simple fact is there's a reason why there's suddenly all this coalition talk: we're weak. We're floundering in the polls, our leader is unpopular, we're not resonating with the public. People from the centre and left are desperate to be rid of Stephen Harper but they don't see how that can realistically happen right now, and they certainly don't see how we can do it solo. So they're grasping at a coalition as a means to the end.
The way to end coalition talk is to make it unnecessary. If the Liberal Party was seen as a viable alternative government that could legitimately defeat the Conservatives, if we were competitive with them in the polls and the chance of governing on our own wasn't seen as a Vegas long-shot, then these conversations wouldn't be happening.
If I saw some light at the end of the tunnel, or at least had the confidence we had a strategy that could get us there, I’d be happy to buckle-down as Scott suggests. But I don’t. Our party has suffered a steady erosion in support for over a decade that we haven’t yet come to grips yet, and Scott had a front-row seat.
It’s time for new ideas. Not tilting at windmills. You want to stop this coalition talk? The answer is simple: stop sucking.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The flotilla, elusive peace, and the Israeli quagmire
I still have two more days’ worth of travel blogs to write and post from my trip to Israel last month, after which I’d planned to write a broader thoughts and lessons-learned piece. With the flotilla incident and related events this week though it seems prudent to move that last piece up, and so I’ve been pondering the incident and the wider picture thru the week.
Before traveling to the region my belief was that it’s a highly complicated situation with no easy answers, and that belief was certainly affirmed by the time I spent there. If there were easy answers, they’d have been thought of already. But there aren’t. And I think that, unless there’s some out of the box thinking or something happens to radically alter the current dynamics, nothing will change any time soon. Certainly not for the better, anyways.
My exposure to the Palestinian side was obviously very limited. We did speak to Israeli Arabs and a Palestinian journalist, and we did visit the West Bank, although Ramallah was a no-go, and obviously Gaza was off limits. So I won’t claim any great insight or perspective on their view – what I did learn was second-hand.
On the Israeli side though, I was struck by the near unanimity of the necessity and inevitability of a two-state solution. And I found a less prevalent but growing belief that Israel needs to get the heck out of Gaza. Many I spoke to felt strongly that allowing the status-quo to continue – blockade, occupation, poverty and suffering – besides being unacceptable on humanitarian grounds, will only weaken and hurt Israel. It likes to claim a certain moral authority as the only democratic government in the region, and it likes to boast of the Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, in the Supreme Court. But at the same time, democratic states don’t abide the suffering in Gaza, and by allowing it, no matter the reason, Israel fritters away that moral high ground.
I think a large percentage of Israelis would be happy to bring the troops home, open the borders, and leave the Palestinians to their own devices tomorrow – if it meant peace. The problem, though, is they’re quite certain it won’t. The reason for the blockade, the security wall/fence, the closed borders, is because Palestinian territory is being used as a base to launch terror attacks on Israel. Rockets are routinely fired into Israel from Gaza, including this week, smuggled in from Iran and elsewhere. Weapons are routinely smuggled in, and used to attack Israel. That’s why the blockade, and that’s why, even if they wanted to, they couldn’t just leave tomorrow. They just wouldn’t be safe.
The flotilla incident this week is like a microcosm of this entire conflict. However well-intentioned the activists were, and however in the minority those that thought it was a good idea to attack the Israeli soldiers with knifes and pipes were, this was all about sparking a confrontation and creating a conflict. If it was just about delivering aid, they’d have gone to an Israeli or Egyptian port. Make no mistake, they wanted the confrontation.
I think both sides acted stupidly. The activists had to know full well they’d likely face a military response. And Israel had to know rappelling troops armed with paintball guns down one-by-onto a ship of potential belligerents was stupid. It was a high-risk, low-reward play particularly knowing that, if anything goes wrong, you’ll take the brunt of negative public opinion. That’s just the way it is for Israel. They needed to find a better way of stopping those ships.
I’m not sure what the better ways might be though and that, like with the wider Israeli/Palestinian quagmire, is the problem. It’s not as easy as just ending the blockade, as the UN Secretary-General has called for. Yes, it’s a human rights issue. The right to live without rockets raining down on your home is a human rights issue too, but ending the blockade is just addressing the legitimate concerns of one side. And that’s not a viable solution at all.
As long as people keep searching for easy answers, and seeing the region in black and white, we’ll get nowhere. All that will happen is Israel will be increasingly isolated and disengaged, and will take a harder line. If peace is the goal, if two peoples living side-by-side in peace is the goal, this isn’t the way to go. Something needs to change.
Whether it’s on flotillas and the blockade or the wider issues, I think it’s incumbent on the international community to offer Israelis and Palestinians another choice. We need to change the dynamic. Before the next flotilla approaches Gaza looking to spark a confrontation, we need to give them both another choice. Another way. It almost seems to call for a peacekeeping scenario with 3rd-party border inspections, but I’m not sure you could find a party (the UN, NATO) that both sides would accept.
Long-term, there does seem to be hope in the West Bank, particularly compared to Hamas-controlled Gaza. It’s a long-term process but increasing economic prosperity, the thinking is, will lead to a lessening of tensions and allow for a lasting, just peace. Maybe H&M will indeed bring them together. It’s a hopeful thought. Certainly, poverty breeds desperation and anger, while prosperity breeds contentment.
But if that’s true, it only makes the Gaza situation all the more dangerous, as the blockade is just breeding more anger and resentment, worsening the security threat and feeding back on itself in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and despair.
Canada, and much of the international community, has cut-off direct aid to Gaza since the election of the Hamas government. It’s easy to say that’s the principled move to make, but given that it has only worsened the situation on the ground and driven the public more toward Hamas, is this really a policy that will achieve our desired ends? I cheekily asked one of our diplomats if we can seriously try to run foreign policy on principle – unsurprisingly, he didn’t directly answer. As I’ve said though something, clearly, has to give, because the status-quo isn’t working for anyone.
As I said at the outset, I don’t know what the answers are. But I do know that it’s not easy, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
Note: Disagree with my take as violently as you’d like in the comments but do keep it clean and on the issues. Personal attacks won’t make it out of moderation.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
John Baird, buffoonery, and journalism
John Baird made a fool of himself and threw a temper-tantrum in a House of Commons committee today. CBC has the audio, you should give it a listen.
We seem to have forgotten that.
You say you want a coalition...but do we need to hear the plan?
Much controversy and debate within and without the Liberal Party lately about coalitions with the NDP and/of the Green Party. And unfortunately, according to media reports (so take it with a grain of salt), it may be breaking-out along leadership lines. I don’t put too much stock in that.
There does, however, appear to be two emerging schools of thought. One that wants lots of debate and discussion to start happening now at the party grassroots, favoring options ranging from a post-election coalition to a pre-election coalition to, for a minority, an outright merger. And, on the other side, those that say coalition never ever, we promise.
Like a good Liberal, I suppose, I think the proper course lays somewhere in the middle. Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition.
First, I don’t think an outright merger makes any sense. “Uniting the left” is nice in theory, but the practice would be very different. The merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance wasn’t as much “uniting the right” in the broad sense as it was re-uniting the party that was broken apart when the Reform Party tore a big chunk out of the old PCs. And even then, you saw many of the more progressive Conservative, both voters and MPs such as Scott Brison, come to the Liberals. It wasn’t a 1+1=2 scenario at all. A Liberal/NDP merger would be even more inefficient, as they really are very different parties with no common history. I think you’d see bleeding on the Liberal right to the Conservatives, and on the NDP left to possibly a splinter, more ideologically pure “Real NDP” party, so just how much of the two parties’ former support would be retained is debatable. It would be more like 1+1=1.5.
Second, I don’t think we (as an official party) should be spending much time pre-election discussing coalition scenarios. I think we should run candidates in every riding, and we should be running to win. As I’ve said before, the more we talk coalition before an election, the more Liberal votes bleed to the NDP. Both parties want to position themselves as the stop-Harper alternative, and while that’s a well we’ve gone to too many times with diminishing returns, we can’t afford to cede that ground entirely.
Third, the current OLO line, which seems to be flatly ruling-out a coalition, is a mistake. I understand the rationale – I outlined in above – but it’s still a tactical mistake. We may find ourselves post-election in a situation where a coalition arrangement would be advantageous. But the ONLY way it would be feasible is with public support and credibility. And if you’d just said coalition never during the campaign, that credibility is hard to achieve. Ruling it out now – particularly for the increasingly fleeting dream of a big solo election victory – is unnecessarily limiting your options in advance. I'd also add there's a reason the Conservatives want us to rule it out -- they see a coalition as the best chance of them losing power. Let's not play into their hands.
As I’ve said before, I think our line should be simple, and it’s really not that far from what either side are calling for. We should simply say: “We’re running to win in all 308 ridings and are asking Canadians to elect a Liberal government. Post-election we’ll look carefully at what the Canadian people have said, and move forward in the best interests of the country.” Period. Repeat ad-nasaeum. Run to win, rule nothing out. Don’t get drawn into coalition speculation, just pivot to our plans and platforms (assuming we have one by them), but don’t rule anything out.
Finally, on the possibility of a coalition post-election, those of us that aren’t party spokespeople are free to speculate, and so I will. I think much, obviously, will depend on the results.
First, I think the party with the most seats is in the driver’s seat and gets the first crack at either governing solo or seeking an arrangement. So if the Conservatives again get a minority, they get first shot. But if they fail or are brought down in the House within a short period of time (let’s say less than one year, and only if it’s with good reason) then I think the Governor-General should seek options within the House before dropping the writ.
Second, a coalition may not necessarily be necessary.
Let’s say the Liberals win the largest minority of seats. I think their negotiating power, and their actions, would depend on the size of that minority. If it’s a large one, they could (and should) just govern solo, seeking support in the House on a case-by-case basis. As long as they govern responsibly, in the public interest, and treat the House with respect, that’s entirely feasible.
With a smaller minority, a formal coalition may still not be necessary. A governing arrangement could be worked out, where support is secured for a defined period of time in exchange for a serious of legislative promises. Think the Pearson minorities of the 1960s.
With a small minority, the NDP’s bargaining position becomes stronger and the likelihood of a formal coalition, with shared cabinet and the like, becomes stronger. Which way of the three it goes will depend on the bargaining power of each of the parties, based on their post-election seat counts.
Third, no coalition agreement can include the Bloc Quebecois. As a sovereigntist party their presence, even at arms-length, is toxic and will make obtaining the public support and credibility crucial to any possible coalition impossible. While desirable, it’s not necessary for the LPC+NDP number to equal a majority for any coalition or arrangement to work. Even with a minority, it’s perfectly acceptable and feasible to govern seeking majority support on the House on a case-by-case basis, as the government does now.
Anyway, while it’s all academic now, ruling anything out in advance is just silly. And for those Liberals who shudder at the thought of cooperation, I say this: we wouldn’t even be having this conversation were we not so low in the polls and public support. So rather than trying to rule these scenarios out, the better course of action is working to make them unnecessary in the first place by strengthening our position.
Until that happens though, the debate will continue.