Layton and NDP side with Conservatives on Coderre's Afghan trip

As I wrote last week Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre is staging his own fact-finding trip to Afghanistan after the Conservative government, playing politics, refused to extend to the defence critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition the privilege of an official trip. He leaves Pakistan for Afghanistan today on a UN flight.

Mr. Coderre told CTV NewsNet in an interview Saturday he's been asking for months to go, but repeated calls to the defence minister asking for permission were ignored or rejected.

So he said he decided unilaterally to go on the fact-finding trip and report back to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion in preparation for his own future trip to the war-torn country.

“I took my responsibility. I have a duty, I have a job to do. I am the critic for... the official Opposition,” he said. It's important, I would say, to make sure that we fully participate and contribute to the debate. So I'm gonna let them play their petty politics and I'll do my job.”

There were two interesting developments on this front this week.

Firstly, while the Conservatives continually ignored Coderre’s requests through official channels for official visit, a visit the Cons have continually attacked Liberals for not taking, they sent ministers Maxime Bernier and Bed Oda over to Afghanistan this week for a visit. It would seem this is Harper’s personal war, and while government photo-ops are a-ok, factfinding visits by opposition politicians are verboten. Mustn’t mess with the government narrative, after all.

One of the cabinet ministers visiting Afghanistan to meet with that country's leadership and Canadian troops says that roadside and suicide bombings in Kabul indicate that the situation is improving in the country.

Umm, yeah. I’ve not since being surprised by Conservative hypocrisy and classlessness, so it’s hard to be to be too surprised by their willingness to play politics with the war in Afghanistan. To send Bernier and Oda just after stories about they’re blocking Coderre’s trip does display a surprising level of both arrogance and political tone deafness, however.

The second development this week was more surprising, and at the same time not. But it would seem NDP leader Jack Layton has sided with the Conservatives on this issue:

In Toronto, federal NDP Leader Jack Layton had criticism for Mr. Coderre's solo trek.

“Involving individual MPs in a sort of ‘stunt-like' visit does pose risks.... I'm not on the ground to assess that. But you have to respect the judgement of our military leadership,” Mr. Layton told CTV NewsNet.

I’m sure our military leadership would be surprised to learn Layton feels we should respect their judgment. I won’t bother expanding on the obvious hypocrisy of that statement. I know I’m surprised to hear Layton parroting Blogging Tory talking points.

And like them, he’s wrong. The blocking of Coderre was not a military decision. It was a political decision made by the Conservative defence minister and, more likely, Stephen Harper’s office. That’s who you’re providing political cover to here Jack. Are you that desperate to score points against the Liberals you're getting in bed with the Conservatives on an issue where they're obviously full of crap?

No matter how petty the Conservatives and NDP may be back in Canada, I’m certain our military leadership in Afghanistan will respect Coderre’s position and his purpose and let him see what’s happening on the ground. I look forward to his report.

UPDATE: Steve is on the same page.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I've voted, now off to Vegas

I'm off to Las Vegas on Sunday until Thursday for a work-related conference, so I'll be out of town for provincial election day. Actually, Wednesday I'll be poolside at the Mandalay Bay for the conference closing party and a concert by, of all people, Hootie and the Blowfish. Yes, apparently they are still touring. Who knew.

So, since I'll be away for the election I voted in the advance polls. Unsurprisingly I voted for my Ontario Liberal incumbent in Scarborough-Centre, Brad Duguid. The second ballot of course was for the referendum, and after a lot of thought I decided to reluctantly vote no on MMP. I thought I'd share why.

I’ve been back and forth on this thing from the start. I favour electoral reform, but I’m not a big fan of MMP. I was leaning towards reluctantly supporting it, agreeing with the pro-MMP supporters that the parties would ensure the list candidates are democratically chosen. And I’m sure they would be. I’m not concerned about the stability issue, I think the parties would be forced to work together, and they’d find a way to work it out. I don’t think small parties would wield undue or radical influence. There’s a lot of positives with the system that outweigh most of the negatives.

I began to change my mind however during a discussion in this thread on the issue of List MPPs that leave caucus, voluntarily or involuntarily. It was the speculation of MMP advocates that those seats would belong to the party, not the member, and therefore the member would likely be required to resign with the seat filled by the next person on the list.

I said speculate because that’s all it is, speculation. No one knows exactly what would happen because that hasn’t been decided yet. It would be legislated later. On the concept of the seat being ‘owned’ by the party I have to say I’m fundamentally opposed, it gives far too much power to the party, discourages independent thought and dissent (all to rare already) and is directly opposed to the spirit of our parliamentary system, which is the member is answerable to his constituents. It would also create two classes of MPPs, and I’m not keen on that idea.

It’s all still ‘to be determined’ though, and that was a major factor in my decision. I’m being asked to cast a vote of faith, without answers to what I’d consider some pretty fundamental questions about just how this whole thing would work. I’m just not willing to do that. If these issues were all spelled-out satisfactorily I might have been willing to overlook the faults of MMP and cast a vote for change. But there is just too much left TBD.

Given that the polls show most Ontarians aren’t willing to do so either, will this be the end of the quest for electoral reform? I don’t know, only time will tell. Hopefully not, as I would like to see change. But I don’t think MMP is the way to go. The STV system proposed in B.C. (and will be voted on again in 2009) seems more promising. If we do try again in Ontario though, I hope a more complete system will be presented to the people.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

SES: MMP won't pass

While it will be disappointing to MMP supporters, I don’t think it will be particularly surprising to anyone. Except maybe the many people that have no idea what MMP is or that there is a referendum. But according to pollsters SES, the Ontario MMP referendum isn’t going to pass:

The most recent SES/Sun Media poll indicates that the support to change Ontario's electoral system to MMP is unlikely to pass the 60% threshold needed for change.

Asked about their intentions related to the upcoming referendum, Ontarians generally preferred to keep the current system (47%), followed by voting for MMP (26%) and finally not casting a vote in the referendum (5%). Twenty-one percent were unsure.

So, even if all 21 per cent of the undecided broke in favour of MMP, and that’s highly unlikely, they’d still tie the no to MMP vote and fall under the 50 per cent level, which, while not enough for ratification, would still be a major psychological and moral victory in favour of electoral reform.

We can analyze to death the poor showing for MMP, and I have no doubt we will. I have my theories, I’ll save that for others to debate though.

What I want to say though is that these results should not be taken as a vote against electoral reform, it should only be taken as a vote against the MMP system. I think most Ontarians favour electoral reform, and would vote for the right system if given the opportunity.

So, hopefully this isn’t the end for electoral reform, but only the beginning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Angry angry Howie

I share Howard Hampton’s frustration. While as a partisan Liberal I’m happy that there has been so much focus during the campaign on the faith-based schooling issue, as it has proven to be kryptonite for The John Tory Team, as a voter I’m disappointed that not enough attention has been paid to other issues.

So, I do understand Hampton’s frustration, I share his sentiments, and I think he said some things that needed to be said. But two problems:

1) His rant just went on too long. He had made his point well early but he kept on going, the smoke blowing out of his ears, and at some point he crossed the line from impassioned and forceful to whiny and pathetic. He lost his cool.

2) At its core, he’s saying he hasn’t been able to get his message out. To blame the media for that is slightly pathetic. If the NDP has failed in getting its message out, and the polling numbers would seem to back that out, then the NDP has no one to blame but itself.

So, while it will please and energize his base (which was probably the point, stop the bleeding) by crossing the line from impassioned to angry Hampton will just come off as whiny, ineffective and lacking leadership skills to the rest of the electorate, in my view. Did he look like a Premier? Not at all.

On the plus side for Howie, he sure got his message out this time, didn't he? Unfortunately though, we're talking about how angry he is, not about his issues, so maybe not so much.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hail to the chief? Harper’s presidential airs

I'm about 400+ pages into Brian Mulroney's very weighty auto-biography (here's a preview review: Brian was right and everyone, especially Trudeau, was wrong) and we're in the midst of his first mandate at the moment, so I haven't gotten yet to his thoughts on Stephen Harper.

Luckily though, he shared his thoughts on his successor as Conservative PM (in between two swell Liberal guys that balanced the budget and turned-around the economy) with the media so I don't need to wait:

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney says current Tory PM Stephen Harper reminds him of the Gipper, Ronald Reagan.

"Of all the people I've met internationally, he reminds me more of the style and the approach and the decisiveness of Ronald Reagan than anybody else," Mulroney told a Calgary luncheon audience Wednesday.

Hmm, does that mean Harper is consulting astrologers, selling arms to the contras and running huge deficits? The deficits aren’t there (yet), and I doubt he’s funneling arms to Nicaragua via Iran. He does have a psychic on staff though, so who knows…

Still, the comparisons to Reagan may play well in Calgary, but I doubt they’re particularly helpful in Quebec. Or B.C. Or Ontario. Or the Maritimes… If you listen closely you can hear Conservative strategists crying"Shut-up Brian!"

Old Lyin’ Brian may be on to something with the whole Harper/Reagan thing though, at least when it comes to taking on presidential airs. And if anyone would be an expert on delusions of grandeur, it’s Brian Mulroney.

As the Globe noted this week, it’s odd Harper would want to take a space that was intended for a public portrait gallery and convert it into a multi-million dollar, private, receiving-hall for Pres…Prime Minister Harper to welcome foreign dignitaries:

In other words, it wants to take a public place that would have showcased Canadian art and history to millions of Canadians and turn it into a place that would be off-limits to the public and would showcase a politician to a handful of foreign eminences.

Sounds a little odd. Doesn’t Canada have a head of state? And doesn’t that head of state have a hall to receive foreign dignataries? The answer to both is yes, Michaelle Jean and Rideau Hall. But then again, these Conservatives have never had much respect for the GG’s role in our system of government, in opposition or in government.

As for the PM, every other one has always made do with the Government Conference Centre, the Lester B. Pearson building, the Confederation Room and, well, their office, which the Globe notes Mulroney found good enough to receive Reagan in:

How odd, then, that it is Mr. Mulroney who is remembered by some as the Conservative prime minister with presidential airs.

Odd indeed. I’m sure Harper will change that though. He already has a personal stylist, and now a grand presidential reception hall. He has the media calling his plane Air Force…err Air Bus 001. He has a gas guzzling presidential-style motorcade.

How long before he has the Navy Band strike-up ‘Hail to the Chief’ when he walks into the room?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers