Are NDP leadership candidates showing up for work?

The proverbial "knock-out punch" in a political debate is a largely fictional, media-driven phenomenon. At best, it's rare. But if there was one during the leaders debate in this spring's federal election, it was probably this blow NDP leader Jack Layton landed on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

"You know, most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

Layton was taking issue with Ignaiteff's attendance record in the House of Commons, saying he shouldn't expect a promotion (to Prime Minister) when he spent so much time "not at work" in the House. Of course, Layton deliberately overlooked the fact Ignatieff wasn't on vacation, or at home watching TV, but was touring the country meeting with Canadians talking about their concerns for the country. An unfair shot, but that's politics, and it was a shot that resonated with Canadians (due, in part, to Ignatieff's feeble non-response) around the point the NDP began its meteoric rise up the polls .

Nevertheless, Layton has set the bar. If you want a promotion, get your keester into your seat in the House of Commons while Parliament is in session. Which brings us to the NDP's leadership race, which now features five sitting MPs among the registered candidates. Are these MPs who are asking for a promotion showing up for work?

Let's take a look at this week, which saw the House sitting dealing with issues such as the Wheat Board and the Gun Registry, to name but two of many.

Paul Dewar wasn't at work; he spent Wednesday and Thursday off the job in Saskatchewan campaigning for NDP candidates in the provincial election, as well as drumming up support for his leadership campaign. He also came to Toronto Monday evening to talk cities.

Thomas Mulcair wasn't at work but instead spent the week in B.C., spending four days in Victoria meeting with environmentalists. And maybe tea at the Empress, but that's unconfirmed.

Peggy Nash skipped work Friday to launch her leadership campaign in Toronto, although most MPs tend to skip out on the Friday house sittings. Unfortunately, like most Canadians, my boss still expects me to work Fridays, right until 5pm. And when you put "for a full time MP" on your campaign signs, should you really skip Fridays?

Romeo Saganash was also out in Saskatchewan this week, stumping Monday in Saskatoon and Tuesday in North Battleford. And a Happy Birthday to Romeo, who turns 50 this weekend.

Nathan Cullen didn't have a large Google news footprint this week, so I'm not sure if he left work or not. Once story from this week does have a brief mention of him "campaigning in Saskatchewan and Manitoba these days."

Now, if it were up to me, MPs taking a few days off work to campaign for the leadership wouldn't be too big a deal, as long as they're back for key votes and debates and aren't excessive about it. It's par the political course in this sort of situation. And an MP's job isn't just in the House, of course, but in their ridings too. And they can't let their seatless competitors Brian Topp and Martin Singh have all the fun, can they?

However, it's not up to me. Jack made it clear that if you don't show up for work (in your seat in the House of Commons), you don't deserve a promotion. And since the party seems unable to go a day in this race without invoking his memory or asking "What Would Jack Do?", shouldn't they be held to the standard he put forward?

You want a promotion, you come to work, right? So far, these NDP candidates are earning a #fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

“Occupy a voting booth” retort to protesters misses the point

I’m the last person to discourage someone from voting and getting involved in the organized political process. I joined a political party at age 16, and I’ve voted in every election I’ve been able to since I turned 18. I want everyone to vote early, and vote often.

But I have to shake my head when I read pieces like “Want real change? Hit the ballot box instead of the streets” from Chantal Hebert and “How about occupying a voting booth?” from David Akin that say if these youngins want real change, they should just go and vote. That strikes me as a reflexive establishment reaction that misses the point, and what is driving and motivating these protesters.

To start, we’ll grant the premise that most of these protesters aren’t regular voters, although that’s by no means a given. Yes, young people vote in low numbers, but they also occupy things in low numbers. It’s not unreasonable to suggest those engaged enough to camp out in a protest tent village may be more likely to be among the percentage of youth that have marked a ballot.

But granting the premise, if these youth really want change, shouldn’t they just go and vote, as Chantal and David suggest? As I said, I’m a big fan of voting, and I absolutely want more Canadians of all ages to get involved in the political process, whether it’s voting, finding candidates they support and helping them or even running themselves.

At the same time though, I can understand why they’d be turned off by the political process, and may see voting as a waste of time choosing between lesser evils that will not lead to any kind of real change, and therefore a waste of time. Many young people, whether they’re occupying something or not, are very concerned about the state of the world and want to make it a better place. Their "give a damn" level is probably higher than the average. But they see organized politics as irrelevant to creating the change they want to see, and so they channel their energy into other forms of activism and advocacy.

Now, there is lots of responsibility to go around here. Part of it does indeed lay with these youngins. If they don’t like the choices on offer, they should go out and find someone they do like or even run themselves. Don’t feel at home in any of the political parties? Pick the one that’s the best fit and work to change it from within, or organize your own group and build a movement with like-minded fellow travelers.

At the same time though, just telling them to go vote is a cop-out. Yes, they should get involved, but we should also reform our political system because, the fact is, it is viewed as irrelevant and ineffective by many Canadians, and not just the young folk. If we want greater engagement by citizens of all ages, we need to start doing something differently.

Off the top of my head, I’d suggest loosening the oppressive yoke of party discipline, empowering individual MPs to have personalities and agendas and represent their constituents and causes, and making the policy development process in political parties actually connected to their election platform instead of an exercise in pointless tedium. For starters.

One suggestion that I know will be made though is online voting, and I have to say it’s not the answer for youth engagement. Young people aren’t voting not because it’s not easy enough, but because it’s not relevant. Online voting may well have merit (I have serious security concerns I’d want addressed first) but just because the kids like smartphones doesn’t make online voting the answer to low youth engagement.

Yes, youth need to vote. But we all need to make it count.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It won't end with killing the gun registry

I won't bother writing a long obituary on the coming death of the long gun registry; I've made all my arguments previously and the issues pro and con have been well-debated. I will say this, though: if you think the anti-gun control lobby is going to declare victory here and call it a day, you're sadly mistaken.

This is an important victory for them, and will only embolden to continue chipping away in favour of what they call "gun rights" in Canada, and what others call legitimate controls and restrictions on gun ownership.

What's next? While one of their frequent anti-registry arguments was "you already need a firearms license, so the registry is redundant" there are signs that, you guessed it, eliminating firearms licensing may be next on their hit list. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation seems in favour:

“The bill introduced today (Ending the Long-gun Registry Act) is long overdue,” said CTF Federal and Ontario Director Gregory Thomas. “Our supporters would have preferred that the government go further, and also eliminate licensing for non-restricted long-guns, but today’s legislation addresses the most wasteful and unnecessary parts of the program.”

And the editor of Outdoor Canada magazine is sounding the alarm about a growing anti-licensing movement:

Now that the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, or Bill C-19, is before the House of Commons and all but certain to pass into law, should the shooting sports community take aim at also getting rid of non-restricted gun licences for individuals? The rumblings are out there, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation making the most noise.

Emboldened by their victory on the gun registry, anti-gun control activists will be pushing the Conservatives to use their majority to weaken Canada's gun control systems, and bring it more into line with the much looser regimes we wee in the U.S. The NRA has already been spending in Canada. Gun control advocates will need to be vigilant and mobilize public opinion to beat back the coming next wave, whether it comes around licensing or other areas.

In related news, it seems the pro-gun lobby is increasingly less and less about hunting, farm protection and the rural way of life, an argument I can sympathize with, and more and more about young men wanting shiny bang bang toys they saw on video games:

The consumer tastes of Canadian gun owners are fast changing, as shooters eschew vintage hunting rifles in favour of the latest "tacti-cool" military-style weapons - many of which appear in movies and popular video games, such as Call of Duty.

As a new generation of young men become interested in shooting, but not hunting, retailers are trying to meet the growing demand for sleek firearms.

Canadian authorities, meanwhile, facing the repeal of the long-gun registry by the federal government, are worried about the trend.

Gun-lovers accuse them of trying to stall the sale of legal military technology to the public.

A worrying trend, and possibly the next front in the gun control battle as the pro-gun crowd try to remove restrictions on realistic military-style (by design) weapons that can too easily be converted to full automatic fire.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's Jersey Shore meets The West Wing...

In another of those coming of the Apocalypse signs, the people that brought you (not me, as I don't watch it) The Jersey Shore are casting for a political reality show:

Doron Ofir Casting, the epic star making company behind Jersey Shore, Nashville Star, Millionaire Matchmaker and The A-List officially confirms and announces the nationwide search for political activists with personalities that rally behind a cause and influence others to do the same.

Doron Ofir Casting, in association with a major cable network, is looking for young hot politicos who care about America, follow the heated debates, rallies, protests, and scandals! We are looking for people of all party affliliations or those who are unaffliated as long as you’re outspoken, fearless, free thinking, unbound, unleashed, unrestrained, appear to be between 21-35 and are politically active and telegenic. WE WANT YOU!

You’ve volunteered for a local political campaign, stood in protest, logged over a thousand comments on blogs, tweeted Fox News or CNN on a daily basis, you run your own blog, vlog, stream, podcast, and are still looking for the right forum to express yourself. Whatever the case, we want to hear from you!

It will be interesting to see if this show ever gets off the ground. While a political reality show sounds interesting at first glance (more West Wing than Jersey Shore, hopefully), I find it hard to see how this could work. Politics is about loyalty and public discretion, but reality television relies on conflict and nothing being off limits. Cautious talking points would make for dull TV, but the political version of "The Situation" would quickly find they have no future in organized politics.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Phoenix Coyotes vs. Winnipeg Jets

When I saw that the Coyotes would be playing their home-opener vs. the Winnipeg Jets the day after I was scheduled to leave Phoenix on my work trip, I knew I had to extend my trip to catch the game. Here's some pics and video from Saturday. Was a tough outing for the new Jets, but their fans were out in force and Oh Canada was sung louder in the arena than the Star Spangled Banner.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The myth of the positive 2011 NDP campaign

There seems to be this impression out there that the 2011 NDP election campaign was all sunshine and lollipops. NDP leadership contender Brian Topp sought to re-enforce that impression yesterday, as he tries to paint himself as the candidate of positivity (unlike those other bastards? -- ed.)

"I don't believe that straight negative campaigns aimed at the Conservatives will defeat them," Topp said Friday, noting that the Liberal party failed miserably in its hardball campaign against the Tories.

(snip)

"The style of our next campaign may emerge as a point of debate in this leadership race. In my view, we won't defeat Mr. Harper by 'taking him on,' by 'hammering' him, or by 'facing him down,'" Topp wrote. "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates Conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote."

Topp, in his "let me say hello" letter, said Jack Layton's "propositional" approach that focused on policy solutions rather than attacks is the way to win government.

It's funny, because I remember being impressed with some of the NDP's negative TV ads in the last election campaign, particularly the health care pieces. And in British Columbia, where I spent the campaign (in an NDP target riding), they spent millions blanketing the radio waves with highly negative, fear mongery ads on the HST. Basically, they said Harper will make BC fire doctors and nurses and jeopardize the health care system by asking for the HST harmonization money if the referendum fails, but if you vote NDP you can keep the money and your doctors.

And Topp, of course, played a very senior role on that campaign and called a lot of the shots. He was national campaign director in 2008, when they blanketed Quebec with particularly impressive negative ads. He ran negative ads against the Liberals while trying to negotiate a coalition with us. So he certainly has no aversion to negative campaigning. So I find his claims of piety a little amusing.

If he wants to turn over a new leaf though, power to him.

(Not to say their 2011 campaign didn't also have very positive messages; just that it also had very negative ones.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More belated political musings

I write this from Arizona, where I've been attending a work conference this week in the Phoenix area. I'm staying through the weekend to see some hockey, as the Coyotes play their home opener vs. the Winnipeg Jets on Saturday. The old Jets vs. the new Jets, should be fun. And Monday, it's off to Ottawa to cover another conference, so busy times. And another offering of random thoughts on happenings political.

* I find this NDP ethics complaint against Lisa Raitt a little puzzling, as I'm having a hard time seeing Air Canada's CEO logging into the reservations system and upgrading cabinet ministers in the hope a larger seat and a cheese plate will influence labour policy. If they have documents, I'd love to see them. A gate agent doing a battlefield upgrade, I could see, although I doubt the unionized gate agents are fans of the minister these days. But the CEO? And to what end? They couldn't have a more pro Air Canada government, whether its on labour or landing slots. I'm more astounded a cabinet minsiter's staff booked her into economy in the first place. Besides, she must have enough e-upgrade credits already. Super elite!

* Were I Tom Mulcair, I'd stop whining about Quebec memberships. Because every time he opens his would to complain about the lack of NDP members in the province, it reminds me he was the guy responsible for building the party in the province and apparently, he didn't do a very good job of it. Which doesn't bode well for his ability to organize a successful leadership run. It's more obvious the NDP's surge was all about Layton, and not so much the diligent work of his Quebec lieutenant. (Which isn't to say they can't hold it without Jack, but that's another story) He'd be better sticking to some of this policy stuff, where I find myself thinking he sounds almost reasonable.

* Remember when I asked if anyone would stand up for equality of parliamentary representation? As I feared the answer, apparently, is no one.

Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

As a result, the changes the Tories promised in the spring campaign may not be in place in time for the 2015 election, leaving millions of voters once again underrepresented in Parliament.

So none of the major parties, it seems, is willing to stand up for basic math and principle in a matter as fundamental as our parliamentary representation. That's sad, and also sadly unsurprising.

* Our generous R&D tax credits are a competitive advantage; the piece of the puzzle we're missing is assistance with commercialization. We should invest there. If that's that they mean by direct subsidies, then ok. But I don't want to see the government trying to pick winners and losers. Support un-directed research, then help it get from the lab to the marketplace. That's the way to grow a 21st century economy.

* The Conservatives are zealous in their respect for areas of provincial jurisdiction:

Despite these initiatives and studies that link school food to increased success in the classroom, Canada is unlikely to shed its title as the only G8 country without a national meal program. The federal government says it has no plans to take on school food.

“We see education very clearly as a provincial/territorial jurisdiction, so it's nothing that's being considered by our government at this point in time,” said Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

Except when it's an issue they actually care about:

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who announced Tuesday that Ottawa is plowing nearly $30-million into the 1812-1814 conflict’s bicentennial, says he wants to sharpen efforts to teach Canada about its past.

“In only four of Canada’s 10 provinces are students required to take history before they graduate from high school,” he said. “I think that’s a sadly low number so I want to work on improving that.”

The Harper government will feed students ciriculum changes, but not a healthy lunch. I'll leave it to them to explain the jurisdictional nuance that reconciles those positions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Apparently the Liberals are dead. Who knew?

Like clockwork, there's been another rash of obituaries written proclaiming the death of the Liberal Party of Canada. And what they lack in actual data points and evidence, they attempt to make up for in determination.

I particularly liked this passage form Chantal Hebert's contribution to the meme:

Notwithstanding the party's victories in Ontario and Prince Edward Island, the decline of the Liberal brand in Canada has continued unabated this fall.

Yes Chantal, if you ignore the Liberal positives on the provincial level, then things do look negative indeed. It's been amusing to watch people cherrypick some events from the recent spate of provincial activity and ignore others, whether its the ascendancy or decendancy of a particular party or to fit a narrative like it's the year of the incumbent. Frankly, I think each result has largely been driven by local factors, and trying to read wider trends into them is a little silly.

I'm also quite certain that those pointing to the lack of active campaigning for a Liberal leadership race the membership decided to postpone two years as a sign of our decline (no one wants the job!) would, were people actively campaigning in violation of the wishes of the membership, use that as evidence of internal descent and the party's decline.

Yes, what for the "expert" predictions on the death of the Liberal Party of Canada? Well, I remember when they predicted Paul Martin would win 250 seats, when they said the right was irrecoverably split, the Conservative brand toxic, Stephen Harper a loser who would be pushed out by his own party, and the NDP set to fade away, that last one as recently as this winter. Not a super track record.

Maybe they'll be proven right this time. Maybe they won't. The task facing the Liberals is daunting, and we'll either succeed, or we won't. I wouldn't want to quote odds; I have some concerns about how it's going but that's a story for another blog entry. Point is, at this point there's no way of knowing. It's just premature speculation to feed the newscycle because, while we're apparently a dead party walking, it seems we still sell newspapers.

When they stop caring, maybe I'll be a little more concerned. In the meantime, Liberal membership across the country is rising and grassroots members are meeting to discuss fixing our party. I guess they didn't get the memo.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why politics is stupid much of the time: the flip-flop attack

Trying to save is drowning campaign the day before e-day, Ontario C leader (I've redacted the P) Tim Hudak was in Mississauga today, where he used Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty's decision to cancel a controversial local power plant project to frame the Premier as a promise-breaker unfit to govern.

“This site symbolizes why we need change,” Mr. Hudak said as he stood in a parking lot overlooking the construction site. “More Dalton McGuinty broken promises are going to hit Ontario families in the pocket book. Friends, we need change.”

Seems simple enough, right? McGuinty promised to build this power plant and now he's breaking his promise. He's flip-flopping. He's a naughty promise-breaking flip-flopper who can't be trusted.

But here's the thing: Hudak opposes the power plant project. He supports McGuinty's decision to cancel the project, and has said if he's elected, he'll cancel the thing too. So, like, what the heck, Tim?

It'd be fair to say McGuinty got the initial decision wrong. It'd be fair to say making the right decision up-front would have saved taxpayer dollars. And it would be fair to say the timing of McGuinty's reversal is politically suspect. All fair ball.

But to attack him for taking a position you support because it involves changing his mind? That's really stupid. If McGuinty hadn't reversed himself, would Hudak be saying "this is the wrong decision but I respect him for being inflexibly unwilling to shift from his previous decision?" Of course not.

What a thoroughly stupid attack to make. What is Tim's message "Once I made a decision, no matter how bone-ass wrong it turns out to be I'll stick to it no matter what, because that's leadership?" That's not leadership, that's insanity.

This seems to have been a regular thing with McGuinty, actually, who has had some other fairly high-profile reversals in the face of public opposition and/or contrary policy evidence. While getting the call right in the first place is, of course, preferable, I don't want a leader who just makes the decision once and moves on. I'd rather they have the political courage to, when presented with the evidence, be willing to make the decision to change course if necessary.

The thing is, while stupid Hudak's attack will find a level of resonance. He made these comments for a reason. It's up to us as voters, though, to signal what we want. Sometimes a flip-flop is a good thing. Sometimes it's not. If we want politicians that will never change their mind on something no matter how much circumstances may change, that's what we'll get. If we want something different, that's up to us too. But it will take looking beyond the soundbite.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stéphane Dion on senate reform

I've long argued that the Conservative strategy on Senate reform is deeply flawed, and bad for both Western Canada and effective governance.

With debate underway on the latest Conservative Senate reform bill, one that seems destined to pass given their majority in the House and their numbers in the Senate, I was pleased to read Stéphane Dion's speech and remarks on the issue during the Commons debates as the Liberal intergovernmental affairs critic.

You can read the full comments here, or in the Hansard (starting around 1305) but here's an excerpt:

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party does not oppose Senate reform, but it must be done right and in accordance with the Constitution.

There are three reasons the Liberal opposition cannot support the bill.

First, it is the conviction of the Liberal opposition that such an act would be unconstitutional. The fundamental changes it proposes cannot be implemented by Parliament alone. These changes would require the support of at least seven provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, notably because appointing senators through a patchwork of voluntary provincial senatorial elections is clearly a fundamental change; limiting the senators' tenure to nine years is a significant change; and giving the Prime Minister the power to name the totality of senators at the end of two mandates of four and a half years would strengthen his power considerably, another significant change.

Second, such an act would be against the interests of two of our provinces, Alberta and British Columbia. Here is why: practically speaking, an elected upper chamber would carry more weight in its dealings with the House of Commons than it does in its present form. The problem is that both western provinces are better represented in the House than they are in the Senate, and both provinces have only six senators, while some provinces have 10 with a population four or six times smaller.

Third, such an act could provoke frequent blockages in Parliament in the absence of a constitutional mechanism to resolve any conflicts that might arise between an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.

I have to say I agree with every point that Dion made, and not just because I've made them all many times myself, if not quite as eloquently. But he also made one very interesting point that hadn't occurred to me before either:

It is important to realize that the government's muddled plan would have senators appointed through a patchwork system of optional provincial elections. Funding for these federal elections would come from the provinces, and even though they would be federal elections, the federal parties would be excluded from the electoral process. The provincial parties would control these federal elections. What a mess.

It's hardly the worst part of the Conservative plan, but it is an interesting wrinkle: no federal parties could officially participate in this system as envisioned. What would this do for spending limits, for example, and fundraising? Would it create an uneven playing field for Senators accross different provinces?

And it underscores another weakness: the Harper plan asks the provinces to undertake and fund elections to determine representation to a federal parliamentary chamber. We've known that all along but the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. You wouldn't propose the same for the House of Commons, would you?

It comes down to the same point I've been making all along: this piecework reform is a bad idea. if you want to reform the Senate, truly reform it. Hold takes with the provinces and open the constitution to do full-scale reform. Elected Senators through a federal process, equal regional representation, and clearly defined and limited responsibilities and/or a mechanism to avoid legislative gridlock between the legislative chambers. Or just abolish it. You can make a case for either, but I do feel a Senate based on equal regional representation as a stop on a rep by pop-based Commons has merit.

But as Dion argues, this patch-work, half-hearted pseudo reform is actually worse than real reform, particularly for Western Canada. Do we really want a Senate that will actually use its constitutionally mandated powers but with BC and Alberta vastly under-represented?

I wonder if the Conservative base out West will ever figure this out.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Belated random thoughts on political happenings

I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.

* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?

* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.

* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.

* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.

* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:

Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”

* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.

* Speaking of panic, this homophobic flyer from the Ontario Cs (I've revoked their P) is disgusting. When I first saw it on Twitter this weekend I thought it had to be a plant, a sick joke. But then Hudak embraced it on Monday, and it was more saddening than upsetting. First, much of the brochure is misleading, if not outright lies. And much of the material in question was developed under the last C government, in which Hudak was a minister. They're so panicked that Hudak goons are elbowing reporters in the gut to keep them away from one Brampton-area candidate that was distributing the fliers.

* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."

* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!

* To end on a positive note, I was pleased to see the Liberals focus on a substantive and important policy issue today with a call for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was embraced in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP. It's an important and overlooked issue, and hopefully this leads to more action. You can still sign the petition here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers