Showing posts with label liberal party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal party. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Bull-shit.
The Liberal party is dead and the “natural governing party” title now belongs to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, author Peter C. Newman has proclaimed in his new book.
Really? With 36% support of voters, roughly, I’d hardly call harper’s CONs the ruling party. Considering the massive world-wide economic and social upheavals, I expect that support will drop before the next election. Harper is constantly shifting his platform, sometimes running contradictory ones at the same time in an attempt to please Westerners and Easterners. His core base hasn’t increased, and there is even some dissent there as they grow impatient that he is not giving them extremist right wing paradise now that he has a majority.
Harper is unable to realistically consider or predict how the rest of the world affects Canada, and he is not skilled at international politics resulting in our country losing credibility on several fronts.
Our own economy is not terribly healthy and things are going to get worse. So far, harper has failed to improve our situation and his planning on economic issues is short sighted and insular.
“If you had the chance to relaunch the Liberal party today, would you? The answer has to be a resounding ‘No!’ because there no longer seems to be a need for one.”
Oh? Do the Liberals know this? Maybe Newman can interrupt them as they re-launch to let them know that they would never think of it.
Perhaps Newman should have waited a little longer and widened his research before writing the final draft of his book -
His new book, When the Gods Changed, charts the decline — largely as it occurred in the past few years under Ignatieff’s leadership. Ignatieff resigned in May, immediately after the party was reduced to 34 seats in the federal election.
Ignatieff was a bad choice for leader. The Liberal party was torn and hadn’t yet accepted the reality that it needed to really examine itself and change to meet the new realities of our world and our country. Being knocked to third place for the first time ever has shaken them up and they know that whatever shape they take next has to be radically different, offering something the other two parties don’t. There is still the need for a centrist party that recognizes there needs to be compromise in a country as diverse as Canada. As Rae said - the Conservatives and the NDP are guilty of populist pandering to their core constituencies. “The trouble with the populist narrative, whether of the left or the right, is its essential dishonesty,” Mr. Rae maintains, “as if a simple bumper sticker ‘tax the rich’ or ‘tough on crime’ is really going to provide answers to the real issues we face as a country.”
And talk not from the Liberals of protecting the power of the middle class, a change in how they deal with harper’s contempt of Parliamentary procedure, more pro-active moves rather than reactive. And within the party, a real determination to shape itself according to what’s best for Canadians rather than attempt to shape Canadians into what they think we should be – like harper is trying to do by re-writing history, changing national symbols, and endless sloganeering.
I really hope Newman lives long enough to see the Liberal party after it is launched and well under way.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Who is the elitist now?
Scott Reid has the breast best idea yet.
"It offers a crisp cleavage with the government that, properly communicated, can lend the Liberals and their leader some desperately needed definition."
It's often difficult for a party to find that one issue that will resonate clearly with enough Canadians not only to make a difference in an election, but to define the party as well. Scott Reid may have identified it:
"When Stephen Harper can, Stephen Harper does behave like the most conservative prime minister in our nation's history. So fear not, all you howl-at-the-moon Milton Friedmans. His unwillingness to expand the CPP — which ranks as just about the most successful pension-income security plan in the developed world — is bold confirmation that Ayn Rand still triumphs over common sense, public interest and sound policy in Harper's Ottawa."
Reid suggests three moves the Liberals should make:
(Have Igatieff) personally lead the charge and to persuasively state the problem — preferably in plain, uncomplicated language: Working Canadians are worried their pension income will be so low they won't ever find it possible to retire. Harper suggests new private sector savings options. But one in four Canadians already can't contribute a single dollar to their RRSPs. The better way is to build on the CPP. It includes all Canadians — not just some.
(H)it on Harper's motivations...Harper and the Conservatives prefer private pension plans sold by banks and insurance companies instead of the CPP. That's because they can afford to pay into private pension plans. Most people can't. Just like most people don't have those large taxpayer-funded pensions that Harper and his cabinet get. Initially, every province but one said yes to helping all Canadians by building on the CPP. Stephen Harper said no. Just like he said no to a law that would have made Nortel pay pensioners and those on disability a fuller portion of what the company owed them.
(T)alk about the role of government: Ottawa has an obligation to act in the public interest, to help deliver opportunity to the middle class and to defend our seniors. In times like these when most people wonder if they'll ever be able to retire we need the national government to show national leadership. Stephen Harper believes the CPP is just another issue where government should step aside. Liberals believe government has an obligation to step up.
Nice. Turn that whole elitist theme back onto harper and take on an issue that affects most Canadians. We are all headed toward retirement and the economic landscape is looking more precarious every year. The first wave of baby-boomers hits 65 this year.
Oh, and keep mentioning cleavage. Gotta win over those older men.
It's often difficult for a party to find that one issue that will resonate clearly with enough Canadians not only to make a difference in an election, but to define the party as well. Scott Reid may have identified it:
"When Stephen Harper can, Stephen Harper does behave like the most conservative prime minister in our nation's history. So fear not, all you howl-at-the-moon Milton Friedmans. His unwillingness to expand the CPP — which ranks as just about the most successful pension-income security plan in the developed world — is bold confirmation that Ayn Rand still triumphs over common sense, public interest and sound policy in Harper's Ottawa."
Reid suggests three moves the Liberals should make:
(Have Igatieff) personally lead the charge and to persuasively state the problem — preferably in plain, uncomplicated language: Working Canadians are worried their pension income will be so low they won't ever find it possible to retire. Harper suggests new private sector savings options. But one in four Canadians already can't contribute a single dollar to their RRSPs. The better way is to build on the CPP. It includes all Canadians — not just some.
(H)it on Harper's motivations...Harper and the Conservatives prefer private pension plans sold by banks and insurance companies instead of the CPP. That's because they can afford to pay into private pension plans. Most people can't. Just like most people don't have those large taxpayer-funded pensions that Harper and his cabinet get. Initially, every province but one said yes to helping all Canadians by building on the CPP. Stephen Harper said no. Just like he said no to a law that would have made Nortel pay pensioners and those on disability a fuller portion of what the company owed them.
(T)alk about the role of government: Ottawa has an obligation to act in the public interest, to help deliver opportunity to the middle class and to defend our seniors. In times like these when most people wonder if they'll ever be able to retire we need the national government to show national leadership. Stephen Harper believes the CPP is just another issue where government should step aside. Liberals believe government has an obligation to step up.
Nice. Turn that whole elitist theme back onto harper and take on an issue that affects most Canadians. We are all headed toward retirement and the economic landscape is looking more precarious every year. The first wave of baby-boomers hits 65 this year.
Oh, and keep mentioning cleavage. Gotta win over those older men.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Toward a national security state
This excellent but alarming Hill Times article by Murray Dobbin ties in with several posts we have seen lately conncerning free trade, the undermining of democracy and free speech, Canada's shifting image and role militarily, and the use of fear to control citizens.
Dobbin explains how the harper government in particular has been effectivley moving our country toward a security state - Its most familiar elements are privatization, deregulation, so called "free trade," tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and massive cuts to social spending.
But in order for our budding security state to protect itself - as conditions worsen, as wages and living standards fall, as personal insecurity increases, and as the social safety net frays, (all which result from a security state) the threat of a radical response becomes real.
Any one not clouded by absolute love for the Master Strategist knows what that means: protesters are re-branded by the ruling government as criminals, more prisons are built to house them, access to information is reduced to near nothing, freedom of speech and the press is severely curtailed by whatever means available - imprisonment, false charges, threats, smear campaigns.
The national security state is intended to protect the gains made through free market policies, and at the same time, gradually redefine what government means to the citizenry. We have in Harper a prime minister who virtually never refers to medicare, education, social protection, the environment, poverty reduction or indeed any of the issues that the vast majority of Canadians say they care about.
How does he get away with this when polls consistently show most of us are at odds with the priorities of the current government?
Massive campaings meant to distract us.
Fear campaigns: fear of criminals, fear of socialists, fear of terrorists, fear of environmentalist who threaten good, old fashioned entrepreneurship, fear of whatever other country they can paint as a threat. This allows the government not only to keep us distracted, but to boost military spending, to give greater powers to the military, policing forces, security forces. It allows the government to invade our privacy and curtail our freedoms, all in the name of security, a security that in reality is nowhere near as threatened as they lead us to believe.
Divide the population: citizens will fight more between each other than with the government; division provides more fodder for distractive campaigns; division allows the government justification for cutting programs; division encourages fear; division allows the government to portay certain groups they seek to undermine as unsavoury, as threats to democracy.
Dumb down and simplify messages: repeatedly portraying issues as good or evil allows the government to toss issues into one camp or another and to offer simplistic, false solutions. It also alters the way citizens perceive issues or disseminate information , if done long enough. Show us only black and white long enough, we begin to lose the ability to even look for shades of grey.
Cut social spending: not only is the population less educated, then, it is so focused on simple survival that it has little time to devote to figuring out how to fight their own government, how to get information, or even to simply attend protests. It has little interest in much more than meeting basic needs for them and their families, and when there is a little time and energy at the end of the day, they turn to non-productive activities so that they don't have to think about how rough things are.
Eventually, though, the pressure becomes to much and there is rebellion. Bloody rebellion because it isn't well planned, and by then the security state is well entrenched to subdue its very citizens through force.
Dobbing lists several recent examples of how our civil rights are being altered: G20 arrests and violations of rights, the Montebello fiasco with undercover cops trying to create trouble so they can justify a crack-down, the harassment of anti-Olympic protesters...
Each time these outrages go unchallenged by federal opposition politicians, the national security state clicks one notch further forward and normal gets a bit worse. When tough on crime bills sail through almost without comment even when crime is declining, and when we are spending billions and billions on defence when we have no enemies, there is something terribly wrong with the body politic. The country is changing before our eyes, and federal opposition parties are letting it happen.
And so are we, when we see the opposition fail at controlling a vicious, undemocratic minority government that has been systematically leading us toward a security state. We are letting it happen when we continue to support these parties, offering little more than e-mails voicing our discontent. We need to make those parties realize they will lose our vote, our financial support, and our public voices.
We will never convince harper to protect our rights and freedoms, so wee need to put pressure on opposition parties to do what they were elected to do. Represent us and oppose what the harper government does that undermines our collective welfare.
We need to be as critical of the parties we tend to support as we are of harper & co because they are failing us, and we need to get it through our heads that we can't compromise on fundamental issues related to rights and freedom. When we refuse to accept the trading off of our right for temporary political gain and quit supporting the opposition parties when they do these things, they may start listening to us and act accordingly.
No backbone = no vote, no donation, no support.
No backbone = stark criticism
Dobbin explains how the harper government in particular has been effectivley moving our country toward a security state - Its most familiar elements are privatization, deregulation, so called "free trade," tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and massive cuts to social spending.
But in order for our budding security state to protect itself - as conditions worsen, as wages and living standards fall, as personal insecurity increases, and as the social safety net frays, (all which result from a security state) the threat of a radical response becomes real.
Any one not clouded by absolute love for the Master Strategist knows what that means: protesters are re-branded by the ruling government as criminals, more prisons are built to house them, access to information is reduced to near nothing, freedom of speech and the press is severely curtailed by whatever means available - imprisonment, false charges, threats, smear campaigns.
The national security state is intended to protect the gains made through free market policies, and at the same time, gradually redefine what government means to the citizenry. We have in Harper a prime minister who virtually never refers to medicare, education, social protection, the environment, poverty reduction or indeed any of the issues that the vast majority of Canadians say they care about.
How does he get away with this when polls consistently show most of us are at odds with the priorities of the current government?
Massive campaings meant to distract us.
Fear campaigns: fear of criminals, fear of socialists, fear of terrorists, fear of environmentalist who threaten good, old fashioned entrepreneurship, fear of whatever other country they can paint as a threat. This allows the government not only to keep us distracted, but to boost military spending, to give greater powers to the military, policing forces, security forces. It allows the government to invade our privacy and curtail our freedoms, all in the name of security, a security that in reality is nowhere near as threatened as they lead us to believe.
Divide the population: citizens will fight more between each other than with the government; division provides more fodder for distractive campaigns; division allows the government justification for cutting programs; division encourages fear; division allows the government to portay certain groups they seek to undermine as unsavoury, as threats to democracy.
Dumb down and simplify messages: repeatedly portraying issues as good or evil allows the government to toss issues into one camp or another and to offer simplistic, false solutions. It also alters the way citizens perceive issues or disseminate information , if done long enough. Show us only black and white long enough, we begin to lose the ability to even look for shades of grey.
Cut social spending: not only is the population less educated, then, it is so focused on simple survival that it has little time to devote to figuring out how to fight their own government, how to get information, or even to simply attend protests. It has little interest in much more than meeting basic needs for them and their families, and when there is a little time and energy at the end of the day, they turn to non-productive activities so that they don't have to think about how rough things are.
Eventually, though, the pressure becomes to much and there is rebellion. Bloody rebellion because it isn't well planned, and by then the security state is well entrenched to subdue its very citizens through force.
Dobbing lists several recent examples of how our civil rights are being altered: G20 arrests and violations of rights, the Montebello fiasco with undercover cops trying to create trouble so they can justify a crack-down, the harassment of anti-Olympic protesters...
Each time these outrages go unchallenged by federal opposition politicians, the national security state clicks one notch further forward and normal gets a bit worse. When tough on crime bills sail through almost without comment even when crime is declining, and when we are spending billions and billions on defence when we have no enemies, there is something terribly wrong with the body politic. The country is changing before our eyes, and federal opposition parties are letting it happen.
And so are we, when we see the opposition fail at controlling a vicious, undemocratic minority government that has been systematically leading us toward a security state. We are letting it happen when we continue to support these parties, offering little more than e-mails voicing our discontent. We need to make those parties realize they will lose our vote, our financial support, and our public voices.
We will never convince harper to protect our rights and freedoms, so wee need to put pressure on opposition parties to do what they were elected to do. Represent us and oppose what the harper government does that undermines our collective welfare.
We need to be as critical of the parties we tend to support as we are of harper & co because they are failing us, and we need to get it through our heads that we can't compromise on fundamental issues related to rights and freedom. When we refuse to accept the trading off of our right for temporary political gain and quit supporting the opposition parties when they do these things, they may start listening to us and act accordingly.
No backbone = no vote, no donation, no support.
No backbone = stark criticism
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
See, that's a mistake
One of the things I like about Dion is that he has vision, foresight. Too bad too few Liberals share that vision.
Seems they are out of touch with voters, as well.
Once leader, Dion toyed with the notion of parting ways with the government on the Afghan file but was persuaded that he could not win the anti-war argument in the rest of Canada in the face of former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley's recommendation for another mission extension.
The Libs assumed voters would simply buy Manley's recommendations, which few of us have, and as though insulting our intelligence and drastically underestimating our concern for our troops by assuming we would not take the Afghan issue seriously enough to examine the report were not enough, they shut their ears to the many, many polls that show the majority of Canadians want the soldiers home. They ignored our posts, our letters, our calls.
The latest sequel in the Afghan debate finds Rae and Ignatieff at cross-purposes with a section of their own caucus on a foreign policy issue for the second time this year.
Well, try listening to us and at the very least, engage the CONs in open, in-depth debate on any extension, allow a vote, and don't head into it with your minds already made up. Dion knew Canada's involvement with Afghanistan had to be re-examined because circumstances change. And when lives are at risk, all of you who are elected and paid to represent Canadians better damn well study those changes and act accordingly.
Seems they are out of touch with voters, as well.
Once leader, Dion toyed with the notion of parting ways with the government on the Afghan file but was persuaded that he could not win the anti-war argument in the rest of Canada in the face of former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley's recommendation for another mission extension.
The Libs assumed voters would simply buy Manley's recommendations, which few of us have, and as though insulting our intelligence and drastically underestimating our concern for our troops by assuming we would not take the Afghan issue seriously enough to examine the report were not enough, they shut their ears to the many, many polls that show the majority of Canadians want the soldiers home. They ignored our posts, our letters, our calls.
The latest sequel in the Afghan debate finds Rae and Ignatieff at cross-purposes with a section of their own caucus on a foreign policy issue for the second time this year.
Well, try listening to us and at the very least, engage the CONs in open, in-depth debate on any extension, allow a vote, and don't head into it with your minds already made up. Dion knew Canada's involvement with Afghanistan had to be re-examined because circumstances change. And when lives are at risk, all of you who are elected and paid to represent Canadians better damn well study those changes and act accordingly.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Another week, another poll
and a musical tribute to the four leaders in light of the latest Harris Decima. With some unsolicited advice. Because I’m not paid for this.
Stevie Harper
Quit. Lose the hairpiece. CPC: dump fatso if he won’t quit, ban him from the party. Make Diane Ablonczy leader; get rid of everyone else except Michael Chong; have all candidates take a PCL-R test - remember, high scores are bad! And make sure they read more than the Bible.
Michael Ignatieff
Quit for “personal reasons” and hand the mantle over to Bob Rae. He clearly has the support of the party. Liberals: leave the small, scandal stuff alone and focus on the big problems: accountability, access to information, torture, and environmental issues; ship Scott Brison off to Columbia to do time as a union rep and if he survives a couple of years, he may be ok; get rid of deadwood like Volpe; quit sucking up to poll results and take a strong stance on the big issues.
Jack Layton
Quit. NDP: take Broadbent on as advisor; pick a leader who has been consistent in her or his views and who won’t suck up to the ruling party for a few extra seats. Drop the kitchen table talk and remember that even rich, Canadian assholes need to be addressed, but not catered to.
Gilles Duceppe
Continue come tu le fait. If the other three were anywhere near the leader and politician you are, they be a shoe-in for a majority.
Stevie Harper
Quit. Lose the hairpiece. CPC: dump fatso if he won’t quit, ban him from the party. Make Diane Ablonczy leader; get rid of everyone else except Michael Chong; have all candidates take a PCL-R test - remember, high scores are bad! And make sure they read more than the Bible.
Michael Ignatieff
Quit for “personal reasons” and hand the mantle over to Bob Rae. He clearly has the support of the party. Liberals: leave the small, scandal stuff alone and focus on the big problems: accountability, access to information, torture, and environmental issues; ship Scott Brison off to Columbia to do time as a union rep and if he survives a couple of years, he may be ok; get rid of deadwood like Volpe; quit sucking up to poll results and take a strong stance on the big issues.
Jack Layton
Quit. NDP: take Broadbent on as advisor; pick a leader who has been consistent in her or his views and who won’t suck up to the ruling party for a few extra seats. Drop the kitchen table talk and remember that even rich, Canadian assholes need to be addressed, but not catered to.
Gilles Duceppe
Continue come tu le fait. If the other three were anywhere near the leader and politician you are, they be a shoe-in for a majority.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
More on Liberal renewal
Following up on the previous post, for the Liberals to stand out clearly as an alternative, they need to quit fence sitting and take a clear stance on even issues that could alienate some voters.
Not doing so just costs them more, since voters clue in that they are not strong on certain policies but are simply attempting to dodge criticism from certain groups.
Here are f few examples of things that hurt Liberal credibility and pissed of more than a few long time supporters:
Ignatieff gave a good, clear answer on whether or not Canada should export asbestos.
"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied. "But if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else. So you have to be right, and our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."
Honest, responsible, right answer. Unfortunately, he later backtracked on supporting a ban.
Ignatieff's dodge concerning Isreal's over-use of force against Palestinians. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but its on-going violations of human rights and excessive responses to attacks should be condemned clearly and without softeninng the condemnation.
Concerning the banning of the niqab when dealing with provincial services: if the Liberals as a party intend to support Charest's decision, then make it very, very clear that the ban is only in cases where a serious security concern trumps a woman's right to dress how she wishes. Some of the arguments put forth in Quebec in trying to justify the ban go contrary to human rights, and do little to help women, muslim women in particular gain autonomy. Telling a women she can't wear a niqab because it undermines her freedom is nonsense. In Canada, all women have options, and it is far better to give them access to information and services that will allow them to make their own choices.
Columbia, and human rights: Can't play both sides on this one. If the Liberal party wants to stand up for human rights, then they shouldn't promote deals with countries who violate them. Sure, Canada can have some impact on humman rights through certian partnerships, but let that be part of the deal. Demand change first, assure themselves that the human rights actions have been taken, then make a deal. This type of compromise for a buck is costing the Liberals, alienating their base. Hard core Liberals don't like this kind of compromise on human rights. Feels dirty. Is wrong. Takes away the right to object when others trade rights for dollars.
Not doing so just costs them more, since voters clue in that they are not strong on certain policies but are simply attempting to dodge criticism from certain groups.
Here are f few examples of things that hurt Liberal credibility and pissed of more than a few long time supporters:
Ignatieff gave a good, clear answer on whether or not Canada should export asbestos.
"I'm probably walking right off the cliff into some unexpected public policy bog of which I'm unaware," Ignatieff replied. "But if asbestos is bad for parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada, it just has to be bad for everybody else. So you have to be right, and our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop."
Honest, responsible, right answer. Unfortunately, he later backtracked on supporting a ban.
Ignatieff's dodge concerning Isreal's over-use of force against Palestinians. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but its on-going violations of human rights and excessive responses to attacks should be condemned clearly and without softeninng the condemnation.
Concerning the banning of the niqab when dealing with provincial services: if the Liberals as a party intend to support Charest's decision, then make it very, very clear that the ban is only in cases where a serious security concern trumps a woman's right to dress how she wishes. Some of the arguments put forth in Quebec in trying to justify the ban go contrary to human rights, and do little to help women, muslim women in particular gain autonomy. Telling a women she can't wear a niqab because it undermines her freedom is nonsense. In Canada, all women have options, and it is far better to give them access to information and services that will allow them to make their own choices.
Columbia, and human rights: Can't play both sides on this one. If the Liberal party wants to stand up for human rights, then they shouldn't promote deals with countries who violate them. Sure, Canada can have some impact on humman rights through certian partnerships, but let that be part of the deal. Demand change first, assure themselves that the human rights actions have been taken, then make a deal. This type of compromise for a buck is costing the Liberals, alienating their base. Hard core Liberals don't like this kind of compromise on human rights. Feels dirty. Is wrong. Takes away the right to object when others trade rights for dollars.
Canada 150 and where the hell do we go from here?
Some very good, thoughtful posts:
Red Libs vs. the Blue Dog and Bay Street Libs
Expectations and other notes from Can150
Sober
Lots more on this at other sites as well, but I want to write a bit about this. Couldn't make it to our local Canada 150 meeting today as I have a nasty bug, but a couple of my co-pilots did and the same theme came up there as seems to be coming up everywhere this weekend with the Libs.
Far and Wide (linked to above) asks if we should take the hard line and tell the truth to voters. Alison at Galloping beaver talks about the need to stop catering to the small c blue Libs. Impolitical (read it!) says:
The bigger question seems to me is what Ignatieff put his finger on yesterday during his press conference, whether our political system can address the problems facing the country...All of this makes it tough, but not impossible, to be truth telling, to be legitimately inspiring, to break out and grab people's imaginations.
I am far less of a political analyst than those three bloggers, so here I have the advantage of offering more of an average Canadian perspective.
The Liberals can keep watching the polls, can keep trying to please as many segments of society as possible, can try to make things sound more positive than they are and shape unrealistic policies to go along with this just so they don't risk turning off voters. However, by doing this, they will be what so many people complain they are lately: not a whole hell of a lot better than, or different from the conservatives. Both parties are neck-to-neck, and that's a big reason why. The Liberals aren't offering anything different.
In offering something different, they shouldn't go for the nice shiny toy, no matter how fetching it is. Tricks are what Harper's party uses, and that's dangerous because it is short sighted, it is found out eventually, and - this is most important - it does not make for a healthy, informed electorate or democracy.
If telling the truth costs the Liberals the next election, and it may, it will most likely give them a good healthy win in the one that follows, and that is far, far more important because through telling the truth, they will not only be addressing issues in a realistic fashion, they will be educating the public and preparing them for the very difficult decisions that most of us who keep informed know are coming.
The Liberals need to take the hard line of truth not only to gain credibility, but to do what any political party acting responsibly should do: create a healthier democracy by informing voters so that we can start dealing realistically with much needed change in a rapidly changing world.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
OK
Good:
Liberal MPs and senators will return to work as scheduled in the nation's capital later this month, even though Parliament has been suspended until early March.
Even better:
Still, Liberals want to avoid anything that might be dismissed as a partisan stunt. To that end, insiders say there'll be no mock Parliament or banging on the padlocked doors of the House of Commons.
Just show up quietly, wioth dignity, show how it should be done.
Liberal MPs and senators will return to work as scheduled in the nation's capital later this month, even though Parliament has been suspended until early March.
Even better:
Still, Liberals want to avoid anything that might be dismissed as a partisan stunt. To that end, insiders say there'll be no mock Parliament or banging on the padlocked doors of the House of Commons.
Just show up quietly, wioth dignity, show how it should be done.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Susan Riley has a question about Bob Rae
The more we see of Bob Rae -- and we seem to be seeing the Toronto MP a lot lately -- the larger the question looms: Why isn't he the Liberal leader?
I am not happy with Ignatieff, never wanted him as Liberal party leader, and care for him even less for his waffeling and soft stance on human rights issues. Words are ok, but we need action. Watching Rae over the past few weeks has given me some hope, though.
By contrast, Rae is funny, self-deprecating, knowledgeable and spontaneous. His criticisms of the Harper government tend not to be shrill, predictable or personal. But they can be heartfelt -- as when he recently denounced those infamous Conservative flyers that imply the Liberals are, at least, sanguine about anti-Semitism. Rae, whose wife and adult children are Jewish, called them "a new kind of gutter politics."
...Rae is also a better performer than Ignatieff in scrums and informal encounters -- more fluent, manifestly more at ease with a range of issues, sure of where he stands, able to acknowledge complexity without looking wishy-washy.
It isn't simply that I think Rae has greater voter appeal but rather that he embodies what a decent politician should be. Smart, compassionate, honest, and courageous enough to question his own party and its actions.
The Liberal party doesn't tolerate one-person rule, not to the extend the Harper party does, at the very least. What is often seen as in-fighting (and yes, true in-fighting does occur among the Grits), is sometimes healthy - if somewhat too-public debate. This is why I find it very encouraging not only to see that the Liberal party has such people within it as Rae, but that he is being given such a high profile lately. Must be a little scary for Ignatieff.
It is, however, good for the party and will likely draw back people who have been so turned off by the lack of honesty displayed by top politicians and their failure to connect with voters because they simply do not grasp that what most of us want is simply honest, transparent government where the concerns of those politicians are elected to represent are the real driving force behind shaping legislation.
We need to see more of this in practice. MPs such as Rae and Kennedy not only speaking on behalf of the party, but clear assurances that the Liberal party is not a one man show and is truly made up of the many voices constituents elect. Voices that are not muzzled, votes that are not forced.
Place these (and there are other good ones in the Liberal party as well) against Harper's usual suspects:
- intelligent speaker, unflapable, ouzes integrity.
- intelligent, passionate, lots of integrity, too clean to be a target, calm
- still needs experience, especially in word-crafting to avoid statements that can easily be twisted, but he offers a fresh face representing renewal; intelligent, decent enough speaker, lots of appeal, plenty of well directed passion, oozes integrity
Intelligence opposing CON smirking, taunting, and childish diversions
Integrity opposing CON foot-in-mouth disease
Honesty opposing CON lies and channel changing
And let's not forget the cute factor:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)