Bryon Wilfert Is A Very Serious Man

Hon. Bryon Wilfert: "Coalition talk - something has to be done about the fact that 25% of the vote on the left NDP/Green means Liberals are no closer to govt."
If you know the Hon. Bryon Wilfert, you know he is a very serious man, a hardworking man, and, not to be mean, but maybe even a bit slowmoving - no Usain Bolt he. If you know him, you know he is not exactly a left-wing firebrand. A fiscal conservative, a huge booster of our military, and an almost Coynian true believer in free-trade. No EFL, he. But he is rational. And serious. And being rational and serious, he is thinking about things. Seriously. Rationally. So should everyone. Everyone should engage in some slow, hard, serious reflection - but maybe not too slow, eh? In fact, maybe not slow at all.

PS. I've more or less defended Scott Reid, but I was struck by the breadth and intensity of the response to him, from even such normally easygoing guys like BCer. I don't think it's just because people disagree with him, although they do feel strongly about the issue, rightly, or that some may not be his biggest fans, although I can understand that. I don't think it's a leadership thing except to the extent it's made into one by certain elites themselves, by focussing attention on attitudes that drive ordinary Liberals crazy. And here I'm getting to the crux of why the response by ordinary Liberals is so strong. Consider the following comment on Calgary Grit's piece: "This is getting embarrassing. We are the Liberal Party. The party that Canada has turned to repeatedly throughout its history. Right now, we have a leader that has the potential to be one of the great ones of all time, and yet the rank and file sit around mulling over ridiculous concepts. Folks, get a grip" (my bolding).

I think this issue is turning into a crux for the up-to-here frustration the Liberal membership and electorate have with the LPC elites. That kind of comment well captures the arrogant dismissive attitude of so many towards those Liberals who might dare try to make the party expand its thinking. It was exactly this attitude that helped Dion win the leadership, as so many couldn't stand the attitude they got from self-satisfied elites, who treated the membership like cattle to be pushed into the correct pen. Many remarked on the cultural revolution the 2006 convention represented, by a membership sick of Chrétien-Martin quarrels, and general high-handedness. It is striking how poll after poll shows Liberal voters miles ahead of the party on these questions, let alone LPC elites. Now consider, the LPC electorate and ordinary membership had to observe their previous duly elected leader, elected with 55% of the vote, a very clear majority, subverted and attacked from almost day one of his leadership. Then, post-election, when under extraordinary circumstances, this leader, with the massive support of caucus, party and LPC electorate, tried to overthrow Harper to stop his anti-democratic knavery, behind the scenes, and also not-so-privately, the same types helped  subvert the project. Then, this leader agreeing to prematurely resign for the good of the party, once again taking a bullet for the party, there was no fair democratic race or convention for his succession. The insiders and elites knew best, blocked out all others, staged a coup, and installed their choice. Ordinary Liberals were just supposed to bend over and think of Laurier. And now, when the elites' chosen one isn't doing so great, as every poll shows the LPC brand is being dragged down because of an undemocratic decision imposed on it from above, and ordinary Liberals dare to call for the party to stand up for the most basic ideals of democracy, to demand Parliament's Order be enforced (an LPC motion, moved by the Leader after all), when ordinary Liberals call for the party keep all options open post-election, including that of a coalition, given 2008 and the UK, as Silver noted, when ordinary Liberals call for the party to frigging stand and fight, for Gods' sake, they are again condescended to, and dismissed. And so now, upon reflection, it is easier to understand how even the most easy-going sorts might finally have had enough.

As far as its membership and electorate are concerned, the LPC does not exist for its own good, as some sort of freestanding monument to its supporters' own enlightenment. It is a vehicle, embodying certain ideals, to achieve certain objectives, politically, economically and socially. As far as its membership and electorate are concerned, they do not exist to serve the LPC elites's interests, rather the LPC elites are supposed to work to serve and further ordinary Liberals' interests, and those of all Canadians.

If the LPC, a party that calls itself "Liberal", will not defend democracy within itself, then what is the use of it?

If the LPC, a party that calls itself "Liberal", will not defend democracy within Canada, then what is the point of it?

If the LPC elites persist in condescending to and denying, even confounding, the will of the mere "rank and file", then what loyalty should that rank and file have to the LPC?

Elites: who the hell do you think you are?
Why the hell should we put up with this BS any longer?
Screw you. Do your jobs. Defend democracy. Or pay the price.

#soudasonthelam - Citizens' Arrest?

Just wondering.

Detainee Doc Deal Critics Probably Right, EFL Probably Wrong

Y'all were probably right and I was probably wrong. As I said a week ago, I couldn't believe Cons would be stupid as to let PMO make them take risk, and election, and defeat, and that their position was based on believing Opposition even stupider, and weaker, and even I didn't think that badly of Iggy, Layton, & Duceppe. But it's coming to the crunch. BQ & NDP are laying out their positions. And us? Remember, this fight is over and Order born of a motion proposed by Cotler, Dosanjh, IGGY & GOODALE!!!!
Will we not defend democracy, defend OUR OWN MOTION, MOVED BY OUR OWN LEADER?!
Y'all may mock me, but I still can't believe we would let the Cons play us so badly and weakly. Their whole premise is we won't stand up to them, and for Canada. That they keep this quiet behind closed doors. And if we do stand up, publicly? As you have often noted, this is the last issue the Cons should want to fight on. Either they back down, or they lose. But their bluff needs to be called. And if it's not a bluff, so be it. Enough's enough.

Headline Everyone Is Missing: Reid (OLO?) Open To Coalitions

I don't get the fuss. Reid uses straw men to slip through a message from OLO to Liberals that they won't rule out a coalition pre-election, as everyone has been asking, and he gets slated. I thought he was quite clever. His own words, the crucial paragraph:

It’s important to clarify these terms. Typically in Canadian experience, a coalition between parties is understood to mean a parliamentary alliance established in the aftermath of a general election – usually a minority circumstance. This is in keeping with accepted traditions of both the country and the party. Post-electoral coalitions of a formal and informal nature have populated minority parliaments frequently over the past century and Liberals have often taken part. CONSIDERATION OF SUCH COALITIONS SHOULD DEFINITELY BE MAINTAINED IN FUTURE.

Maybe my reading understanding is useless, but seems exactly what everyone was asking for.

PS. You know, this isn't bad advice, Totter though it is: talk up the value of cooperative politics.

Senate: Send C-232 to Committee, Amend It Into C-548

Change C-232 into this:

1. The portion of subsection 16(1) of the Official Languages Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 
16. (1) Every federal court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that

Coderre's C-548 had the same aim as C-232, but was more elegant, as the logic of equality and respect for the basic principles of Canadian law were highlighted through its more neutral language, which no fairminded person can gainsay: who's against the Official Languages Act? As C-548 made clear, it is simply a case of extending the same standard to the Supreme Court as already exists for every single other federal court. So rather than amending the Supreme Court Act, have C-232 amend the Official Languages Act, as Coderre proposed, by passing it at 2nd Reading, then amending it at Committee. I'm sure Godin & Tardif would agree.

Anglo-Libs, Get Thee To Google Translate: You REALLY Need to Read Marissal

Big News! Ok, so you already knew JC was pro-coalition - did you know that he invited Iggy to his place on the lake to talk about things last summer, and still hasn't gotten an answer, according to Marissal? You probably knew that JC always believed the ends justified the means - did you know that not just he but also Layton are convinced the Libs would do better out of a coalition than the NDP? As I say, you might want to read it in full.

PS. Gee bilingualism is important in matters of State, eh? Hmm, that makes me think of another ongoing debate...

Baird's Win - A Cautionary Tale for Electoral Reformers or the Fix Was In?

Many people have expressed incredulity that Baird could win Parliamentarian of the Year. But check this out:

How we did it

Ipsos Reid asked all members of Parliament to nominate the best MPs in each of seven categories. This year, 202 MPs responded, casting votes for members both in and outside their parties. The votes were converted to a point system to ensure that larger parties did not have an advantage. The MP who received the most points in each category won. The MP who earned the highest number of total points was named Parliamentarian of the Year.

 So on the face of it this seems it must be one of those perverse results sometimes produced by overly elaborate electoral systems. Or Ipsos Reid and/or Maclean's rigged it. Or Canadian MPs have terrible judgment, which is so hard for me to believe as a supporter of a party whose last leadership race was cut short through MPs' and insiders' intervention because they have such proven judgment (Turner! Martin!) and sure enough, they made the right decision then, just as all MPs did tonight.

War & Leadership

A trio of articles happened upon serendipitously have made me reflect upon politics today: Hébert's A replay of the Liberal-NDP battle of 1988 may be at hand to Flanagan's Politics Now Constant Total War to Cometh the Hour: the Chamberlain-Churchill Succession. Given the previous two, that we are in constant total war, and heading towards a decisive battle, perhaps almost as important as 1988, and the last, regarding the importance of recognising, as noted in the Godfather, the difference between peacetime leaders and wartime leaders, I look around and I ask myself, federally, who is the best potential wartime leader? Who knows how to FIGHT? Who has the jelly for a FIGHT? Who has experience in the toughest of fights, in the most difficult of conditions? Who has shown a willingness to take on much larger, more dominant retrograde forces, and HAS WON, against all the odds?

Peacetime is peacetime, but wartime is wartime. Whatever misgivings one may have about this or that perceived past failing, one has to ask oneself, who is the best wartime leader? I was struck, as ever, by the description of the relationship between Chamberlain and Churchill, who had known each other forever, like all within the small British elite, and the fratricidal nature of their relationship. I was struck by how much effort Chamberlain exerted to try to prevent Churchill from having the top job, despite general recognition of his greater worth as a wartime leader, but the stakes being so high, Chamberlain finally acceding, like a gentleman. The article recalled most potently how mistrusted Churchill was by so many, having "betrayed" the party in his youth by leaving it for a leading position in a more radical left-wing party, and how many recalled some of his supposed past disasters, but that at the end of the day, being at war, being outmatched materially, needing their very best war leader when in the most desperate straits, all swung around behind Churchill. This passage struck a nerve, for some reason:

It is too easy to forget today, because of all that followed these momentous events of May, how unpopular Churchill was within the ranks of the Conservative Party at the beginning of that month in 1940. Many saw him as unreliable, impetuous, difficult to restrain and of poor judgement. At 65 his past career cast a long shadow across his credibility. Many Conservatives still saw him as the opportunist and class traitor who had left the party for personal advancement to join the radical Liberal government of Asquith and Lloyd George before the First World War. He was still remembered by some as the architect of the Dardanelles ‘fiasco’ in 1915. Amery, one of the most prominent rebels, was not at all convinced that Churchill was the right man to succeed Chamberlain. Everything would depend on how events unfolded over the next few days.

There's a reproduction of a great caricature from the Evening Standard of the day, of all the defenders of democracy, regardless of party, Labour & Liberals & Tories united, rolling up their sleeves to fight, all in their identical statesman uniforms, powerful imagery to counteract the Nazi imagery. It's worth reproducing here.

Taber Is A Silly Canard: 2008 Coalition Was Evenly Supported

Taber repeats a now common canard re. the proposed 2008 coalition, formed under the most extraordinary and difficult circumstances as a matter of democratic necessity, and in the teeth of a bitterly biased right-wing Canadian media: "The Tory memo, circulated to supporters and MPs, says about a coalition, which Canadians "overwhelmingly rejected" two years ago". Now, I realise that while I was in favour of the coalition, many were opposed, esp media like Taber, and were and are willing to use any bad faith trick to prevent it. But as a matter of truth, for any fairminded person, it is worth correcting the record, here are the polls from the time:
Angus Reid: 37% pro-coalition, 7% pro-opposition accord (total: 44%), 32% new election, 24% unsure.
Léger: 40% pro-coalition, 43% new election, 17% unsure
EKOS: 28% pro-coalition, 37% pro-prorogation, 19% pro-election (vote support: Oppo 56%, CPC 44%)
Ipsos Reid: 37% pro-coalition, 57% opposed, 7% unsure (vote intention: very close, but Oppo Majority)

And worth noting on its own, the Léger poll concluded that among the Opposition Majority Electorate, the support for the coalition was, coalition vs. election: Libs 78-13, NDP 57-25, Bloc 79-8. Six to one support among Liberals, over two-one among NDP, ten to one among Bloc. And this, again, under the most difficult conditions imaginable, with no preparatory work having been done.

So we can say, if we want to be accurate and truthful, that opinion was evenly divided, as one would expect, given the division in the country. But one thing is for sure: the coalition was NOT "overwhelmingly rejected".

What Do You Expect from Likud Yisrael_Beiteinu Shas UTJ TJH?

Why is anyone surprised? Elect far-right racists, quasi-fascists & religious extremists and this is what you get. I guess it's the counterexample to proponents of proportional representation and coalitions. No crocodile tears, or handwringing, from their Canadian Likudnik supporters I hope. This is what you support. History will judge you harshly, as it will anyone who put themselves in the pay of Likudnik front groups like the CIC for money or services, like paid propaganda trips. Immigration to Canada was one or two generations behind that to the USA and as a result the sociology and politics here remain at least one generation behind the USA. Upside: very cohesive. Downside: claustrophobic imbecilic groupthink. No J-Street. And the kids, with their Bronfman-paid propaganda tours and summer camps, remain as clueless as 1970s' American counterparts. Idiotic.

One anecdote among many, to illustrate. I was at a bar in NDG where I met a couple of nice Westmount girls, young journalists, with all journalists' strengths (curiosity) and failings (insecurity, arrogance, superficiality). Talking about media with them. Very American-centric as Canadian media is. Told them they should check out Guardian, Independent, BBC, etc.. They told me they don't watch BBC, that it's banned in their parents houses, even. Are you kidding me? WTF?! And these were smart young women, otherwise. On everything else, complete journalist psychology. But on this. imbecility. So who can be surprised when things happen and people's reaction is insufficient because beyond their frame of reference. It would demand a pretty severe psychic break for them to approach things more realistically. I know a guy, Avi, smart guy, what gets him is governments can change and new policies 180 degrees different, but everyone supports that as much as they supported previous. Crazy. I don't believe in QC right or wrong, Cda right or wrong, ANYTHING right or wrong. Because sooner or later you end up supporting some really really WRONG stuff. And you don't even realise it.

So now there's a govt which is the rough equivalent of a coalition between David Duke, Strom Thurmond, David Koresh & Opus Dei. You wanna support that? Then this is what you get. Consciously homicidal tactics as part of an unconsciously suicidal strategy. Maybe friends might be better off trying to talk the crazies off the ledge, instead of telling them they can fly, eh?

Stevie Was Right

Saunders: There needs to be a very large granite memorial in Ottawa, and maybe another somewhere in Toronto, bearing the words "Stevie Was Right."

EFL: Apologies forthcoming from her former colleagues, denigrators in media, politics, elites? Concomitant praise? Many did good work, but it all started with her, and she paid for it, wrongly, and like no-one else.

Some of us have always been and remain big fans. For the kids: On The Take

Dosanjh: Cons "inconsistent" w/speaker ruling

ujjaldosanjh: The Cons view on Sol/client prvlg re detainee cover up inconsistent w/speaker ruling. #lpc #roft

EFL: Supremacy of Parliament: An Election If Necessary