The Provocative Mr. Silver

Silver missed his calling, he would have been a great headline writer for the Toronto Sun. Always smart, always fun, and often provocative. Today, The Canada Health Act is dead. Knowing Silver, the intent of the headline and apparent conclusion may not be what it seems. Maybe yes, but I wouldn't have been surprised to see the whole thing end with a ";)". Perhaps Silver hasn't been able to find a paper copy of Macleans and is only aware of Coyne's piece. Were that the case, I would strongly suggest that he and others find themselves a paper copy and read Geddes vital piece. I'll link to both Coyne's and Geddes' when they are both up (nb. generally, if you're not reading Geddes, you're snoozing & losing). Sufficeth to say, the game is afoot. Silver perhaps does not know that the hypothetical user-fee would only come into effect, supposedly, in 2012-2013 at the earliest, and probably not until 2013-2014. Supposedly. I am sure that he and others remain innocently unaware of any reminders of hard facts and considered reflections: "Quant au ticket modérateur, il faudra voir si les avantages potentiels d'un tel système valent les coûts, la complexité et les risques de sa mise en place."

But innocent as Silver is, and as unlike him as it would be, on the off-chance that he was implying that Iggy & the LPC don't need to denounce the airy hypothesis and alienate Charest & the PLQ right away, losing their material support during the Federal election that will precede by quite a bit the introduction of any hypothetical user-fee, that "there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip", and one can wait until the QC politics work themselves out and the final proposals are brought forward, whenever that is, however far away, before finally taking a hard position, I would respond, should Silver be taking such an position, despite his innocent, unworldly nature, that there is of course the simple matter of right & wrong, not just on health care & Liberal principles re. society, but as regards coherent federalism vs. asymmetrical chaos (a question about which I know he is ignorant and apathetic, carefree even), in addition to the probability of someone else waking up and eating our lunch. But as I know Silver is an innocent idealist with no idea of the machinations of politics nor the workings of the media and public opinion, and never tries to influence these in any clever way, I shan't bother, of course.

;)

PS. In unrelated news - McGuinty on health care user fees: no evidence that they work

À propos of nothing: know your audience & choose your friends-supporters carefully

This blog has rarely praised anyone as often as it has Rob Silver. Yet, back on April 26th, I admonished him: Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers. Others might like to reflect on it, and on the importance of knowing their audience and understanding the effect their words will have.

I saw Geddes recently wrote about how useful his study of literary theory has proven, on occasion. One very important idea to remember, for any serious, decent man, is that communication is not just about what one intends to say, says, or believes one has said, but how those words will be received and interpreted. It is obviously somewhat unfair to require such constant scrutiny of oneself, but I think it is undoubtedly right, and the bigger the megaphone, the more responsibility one has, especially towards people of similar background and who may seemingly share a similar worldview, or believe they do. Knowing what they are like, one knows how they will receive one's words. And once the words are out there, they belong to the reader, not the writer. But that doesn't liberate the writer of all responsibility, quite the opposite, it seems to me. To have a clear conscience, one must be able to say to oneself that one has been as careful as possible, done all due diligence, and expressed oneself as best possible, so as to avoid, as much as possible, all perverse, even hateful, misconstructions. And as stated, the greater one's influence among the general public, the more such responsibility one has, it seems to me.

It would be nice if we could always speak completely freely, on the assumption that all our interlocutors were decent folk, but that is simply not the world, not the case, and to do so can have unwittingly awful effects. I wrote about this in regard to Fowler and his speech in Montreal, and how this is a dilemma for all decent people, including me, but best to side on the side of caution, knowing what people are like:

Fowler got it right. But I can't tell you the number of times I have ended up in the bizarre position of defending Israeli & USA govt actions with which I disagree, as I have found myself in discussions where it was pretty one-sided and decontextualised, and it made me very uncomfortable, although nothing overtly bigoted was said. So I'm a huge critic of Likudniks and USA Mideast policy, generally, and yet I end up seeming like Ariel Sharon's more extreme twin.

Lord knows some guys are completely exasperating but even the worst fool is right once in a while, and makes a good point, say about literary theory, and how texts will be received and interpreted by the general reader. And how any half-decent, half-worldly man should know that, and bears responsibility if he has not done what he can to forestall the entirely probable and forseeable worst effects, without, at the same time, overly cramping his style. For example, since I have such a good opinion of Silver, perhaps I give him too much credit, but from what I see, I very much doubt that when he's hanging out before or after synagogue, he expresses himself so lazily so as to accidently give comfort to any anti-muslim, anti-arab listeners. I would expect that given his surroundings, that is precisely when he is most careful with his language, knowing the odds of some unhappy soul overhearing him and quoting him later for his own sour ends. I'm sure that Omar Alghabra is similarly careful before and after mosque, and Kinsella about protestants before and after mass, and Scott Tribe about Catholics before and after church, etc.. In fact, from what little I've observed of these people, and decent people generally, these are the first people to fight and denounce any hint of lazy bigotry from within their group towards what some simple minds within their group conceive of as their traditional adversaries. If not them, then who?

It seems to me that it is incumbent on all of us to keep these things in mind when expressing ourselves, whether simply amongst a small group, ignorant of some of our interlocutors' views, or whether to rather larger audiences. I agree it's tiresome, a bore, etc., but would one rather be the accidental cause of a bout of bigotry, and give comfort to bigots? Reading some of the comments beneath some recent, high profile CBC politics stories, I am sure that all would feel as sickened as I at the company they might have accidently accrued as supposed supporters/friends, however much one disdains such views and such folk in reality. It is easy to start fires, once aflame, they are very hard to stop, and the cost to us, to lives and souls, is always far too high, even if they can be hosed down, cooled off, and stopped. I would think anyone who can trace their origins to lands of bitter sectarian conflict would understand this better than most.

Anyway, here's what I said back in April, and I think it bears repeating. Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers

My reply to Silver applies to all of you:
Why, Mr. Silver, look at all the lovely people leaving lovely, Solonic comments. What a surprise, eh? Who could have imagined your post would appeal most to these kinds of lovely people, with their admirable views of the world. I'm sure, like Seinfeld, that we might well find, upon deeper inquiry, that these veritable Pericletans were also prejudiced against dental care professionals, anti-dentites as it were.

Good luck with your Steyn, Levant and anti-dentite posse. They make your argument much more convincing.

Best, EFL

PS. I thought of predicting this when I saw the post appear, but I thought I'd give it a couple of hours, to see if I would be happily disproven. Sadly, unsurprisingly, no.

The NDP Is Dead, Long Live the Greens!

The CCF is long dead. And now NDP is dead. RIP. Well, undead, really, as the thing still calls itself NDP, and stumbles about, waving its arms, popping its eyes, gnashing its teeth, and alternating between incoherent mumbling and incoherent roaring. But a zombie is dead, by decent human standards. We shall now call it TOT in English, and LÉO in French, since that is its new self-conferred state, devoid of any substance that indicates a decent human political party: The Orange Team / L'Équipe orange.

It angered and saddened me at first, and I couldn't believe it. So I did an experiment to double-check, and it came back negative, no life signs. It's important to see the world as it is, and not as we wish it, and so though I had a lot of respect and admiration for the CCF-NDP, I can't let TOT's superficial similarity to its former self blind me to its inhuman decrepitude. This is the way of the world, birth and death, creative destruction, if you will, and the death of the NDP also signals the rise of the Greens, Canada's new principled 3rd party. Liberal that I am, I recognise the need for a principled 3rd party to help push the nation's ideological agenda, and progressives are coming to the dawning realisation that the TOT zombie, lacking a brain and a heart, can no longer play that role. The new 3rd party, in structural terms, is the Green Party, and like all decent progressives I am respectful enough to say: Long Live the Greens!

Of course, when I first became aware of the TOT zombie, it was a shock, and I was angry because I thought the NDP had become a sicko, perverting social-democratic principles. But then I conducted an experiment with a representative Totter, a prominent blogger, in Totter terms, who always faithfully repeats the party line. So using a piece he wrote on Church & State as a jumping off point, I asked him a couple of questions whose responses  confirmed my suspicion that the NDP had died, replaced by the TOT zombie. I first asked him to confirm if he was a Charter-respecting pluralist, and if so, his position on Mulcair-Layton's defense of PQ extremists. He claimed to be a pluralist, but also claimed to be unaware of Mulcair's statements, pronounced in front of a silently acquiescent Layton, which was funny. But, playing it straight, I referred him to Silver's & Spector's articles, suspecting he is a typical unilingual clueless Totter. This was when I learnt that the TOT zombie had definitively replaced the NDP. He evaded Silver's quotations from various independent sources, tried to downplay Spector's analysis of French media by pretending Mulcair had simply "stumbled about assymetrical (sic) federalism" and waded back in time to try to save Mulcair with his former Dec. 2007 position, pleading ignorance on Mulcair's devolution.

This representative Totter was clearly arguing in bad faith: anyone who refuses to recognise the reality of Silver's many sources, distorts Spector's analysis, and digs up an old position is clearly someone who knows what's going on but doesn't want to deal with it, honestly. Now that is not how the CCF-NDP behaved. But they were a living, breathing decent human political parties. TOT is not. They are zombies.

For the sake of outsiders and innocents, I will explain what is going on. Once upon a time, Mulcair was the parliamentarian most exercised over NO "rejected ballots" in 1995, mostly from minorities. But that, and 2007 position on reasonable accommodation, was then. This is now. Mulcair was able to win a by-election in Outremont with low voter turnout, but to win seat in general election, he needed implicit support from Bloc, Cons, & Greens, none of whom had a chance anyway, but whose split vote would have let Lib candidate win. They ran non-entities and didn't campaign, basically. If you go back and check press reports, esp. French, you'll find there was open recognition of this. That's fine, it happens all over country for this party or that, in this riding or that. Except that even with their support, Mulcair only barely won. For Mulcair to win again, he needs to keep implicit anti-Lib coalition behind him. This is difficult as Outremont has both high number of ethno-religious minorities from whom one must win some votes, as well as most fervent laïciste elites there are in QC. So he's treading a tricky line, he's got to keep laïciste Bloc voters onside, while not losing others. Hence the repeated motions he introduces, Bill 101 for Federal Govt in QC, French should override Official Languages Act & Constitution in immigration to QC (already provincial, but he proposed motion to bind federal as well - two streams), etc..; None of these have force of law, but all play symbolic politics, pleasing nationalists. Which brings us to Mulcair's statement, to which Layton didn't protest, or correct. The crux of Bouchard's attack on PQ was less re. separation and more about how they have become radicalised on "identity issue". His brother, Gérard, was co-author of report that said, basically, QCers should be more liberal, philosophically. Gérard has been attacked mercilessly. The PQ has done all it can to take over the ADQ's pro-bigotry position - not that the PQ wasn't before, but not as much, under Boisclair. The bigots and hardcore PQ supporters were not enamoured of the gay, bilingual, liberal leader, and the PQ and he paid the price. And Mulcair knows that the Cauchon steamtrain is coming.

Rather than end his political career with honour, Mulcair has decided to go all in with the bigots, to keep the Outremont laïcistes onside. He's screwed either way, but he's calculating that the laïcistes are a better bet than the Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Catholic Italians, Orthodox Greeks, Asians and Anglos. He knows that Cauchon has deep links with everyone in the riding, including these minorities, and it's almost certain that under Cauchon the Liberal vote will come home. But Mulcair calculates that maybe, just maybe, if he can get UdM student laïcistes out, he might be able to hold on, by the skin of his teeth, since the kids are the only group he can grow, potentially, given their low voting record. Mulcair is wrong, he's screwed, royally, and he would have done better to go down with honour, but he's never had any, so why would he start now? At least decent folk can look forward to his prospective defeat. Charest & Dion will probably both have an extra glass of bubbly on the night, along with decent folk everywhere, as they observe his political death.

TOT sold out every principle the NDP once had in their desperate quest for a QC beachhead. But despite taking on Dion, despite the Stalinist "Strong Leader" campaign, they barely hung on to Outremont. And if they were ever going to win Gatineau, it was last time, but as always, the vote split did them in: if people want to vote for a nationalist party, they are going to vote for the real thing. So Mulcair in Outremont is TOT's last hope for the predictably failed Layton strategy of all-out suck-up to nationalists. When they lose that, as they will, then the question will be asked, what was the point? It was counterproductive elsewhere, if anything. So as Mulcair goes, so goes Layton, whence Layton's silent endorsement of Mulcair's pro-bigotry position. And Totters know this, which is why they are assiduously ignoring the issue, and evading and distorting the record when put on the spot.

I was angry when I thought a supposed social-democratic party had sold out its most fundamental principles for a couple of bigots' votes in one riding it is destined to lose. But I was operating on a faulty premise. TOT is not a social-democratic party. Indeed, I'm quite sure none of its MPs would be willing to identify themselves as socialists, nowadays, taking their lead from Layton (Salutin had a nice column on that, long ago). Well, what does it stand for, you ask? Good question. Nothing, unless you consider Layton & Co's careers a cause. Here's a game I play with uncertain progressives & onetime CCFers-Dippers. I ask them: what did TOT stand for in the last campaign? Fairness, etc., OK, but what, exactly? What policies? The Dion Liberals were, even in worst interpretation, for taxing you to save environment. Bloc is for separation. Greens for environment. Conservatives for conservatism, supposedly, strong army, low taxes, law & order, etc.. But TOT? Nothing. OK then, think back to 2006 election - what were their big ideas then? Nothing, again. OK, so name me the urgent reason that prompted Layton to kill off Martin Govt? No-one ever gets it. Yet for all the criticism, the Martin Liberals had big ideas, national child care, aboriginal welfare (Kelowna), first half-decent environmental plan (only half-decent, nothing more, but better than before or since). And the other three parties had big ideas: Accountability, Separation, Environment. So then I ask them, what is the last big policy idea TOT has had? Nothing. And they're right, it's not because it's under-reported or anything, TOT has simply had no big ideas for years. And why is that? Because TOT has no principles from which such ideas could be derived. Because TOT is not a decent, living, breathing political party: it is a zombie.

Once one accepts that, it is much easier to accept that the NDP is dead, replaced by the TOT zombie. A party without principles, without ideas, withers away, exactly like zombies when they can't cannibalise others (and their ideas). And so one doesn't feel any more sadness or anger: who can be upset about the death of a zombie? TOT is in terminal condition. Of course, TOT will have its good days, as all terminal patients do, but the bad will outnumber the good, and one day, surprisingly soon, it will let out one last inhuman groan and subside, its putrifying body serving as fertiliser for the growth of the Greens, appropriately enough.

The Greens have a clear ideology, the transformation of society to deal with the greatest problem of our time. As this problem will only grow and the Greens will grow with it, their seemingly avant-garde solutions adopted by one and all, exactly as was the case with the CCF-NDP in the last century. Luckily for Liberals, the Dion-Kennedy revolt of the membership at the 2006 convention started a process of complete renewal that has given the Liberals the inside track among mainstream parties on this conciliation of economy, society & environment. Poll after poll shows the Liberals are leading as the most trusted party on environmental issues, an outcome that would have been unimaginable before Dion's leadership. In structural terms, the Liberals are perfectly placed, and as we have recently seen, have no lack of transformative ideas, about both policy and process. This is much as John Duffy proposed, as I recall. Whatever the short-term cost, and probably even more because of it, Dion reinvigorated the LPC, ideologically and structurally, something his critics failed to appreciate. It's funny, people thought TOT was Labour & the LPC was the British Liberal Party, but because of Dion, the roles were reversed, and TOT is undead, like the BLP was at the beginning of the last century, and the LPC is on to modernity, as Labour was. What an enjoyable quirk of history.

Looking back on the deceased it is hard to believe, in retrospect, that the NDP, as it then was, could not understand or foresee that it was eliminating itself. Anyone who understands ecology, particularly political ecology, as the Greens do, obviously, could see that even had the NDP succeeded in its aim of replacing the LPC, it would simply have been the LPC by a different name: what was the difference between the McGuinty & Doer governments, for example? And again, riffing on Davey père, given the choice, people will choose real Liberals over wannabes. Had the LPC essentially changed its name to NDP, as far as the electorate was concerned, the Greens would have become the NDP, so to speak, and another small party would have replaced the Greens. The only way the NDP could have survived as a viable living party would have been to maintain firm principles and produce policies that reflected socialist ideals. But they chose to try to consume the Liberals, and lacking the antibodies of Liberals, contracted the fatal LPC disease, poweritis, which turns parties into zombies. Liberals, hardened through long contact with this disease, experience it only as a more or less severe cold or flu, from time to time. But it's fatal for those without antibodies, as we see with TOT. Perhaps in a generation or two the Greens will succumb to the same disease, we shall see. But for now they are in full healthy bloom of early adolescence.

Totters, as zombies, are having and will continue to have trouble coming to terms with their political death. Remember, zombies' hearts stop, their blood freezes, and their brains turn to mush. A human can say "I think and believe, therefore I am". A zombie cannot. It is beyond it. It does not even know it is a zombie. Typically, a zombie will try to affirm itself by awful incoherent screeches, groans and moans. Remember, as pitiful a sight as it is, that doesn't make it human. Well, perhaps somewhere deep in its mushy zombie brain there remains a flicker of memory of what it once was, but not enough to make it human, and if anything, these hideous sounds are pleas to be put out of its misery. The Greens should make sure to pay heed, as is humane (killing zombies is not euthanasia, morally, in human terms).

So it is that I do not mourn the departed, that is simply inexorable nature. I rejoice in the vitality of the Greens, and the helpful, healthy contributions they have to make to Canadian politics. This Liberal is happy to welcome you, and encourages you to play your role with all the vim and conviction that you are already known for. RIP, NDP. Allelujah, Greens.

Yo Pundits Fulminating vs. C-232: Check Out Your Lovely Followers

My reply to Silver applies to all of you:
Why, Mr. Silver, look at all the lovely people leaving lovely, Solonic comments. What a surprise, eh? Who could have imagined your post would appeal most to these kinds of lovely people, with their admirable views of the world. I'm sure, like Seinfeld, that we might well find, upon deeper inquiry, that these veritable Pericletans were also prejudiced against dental care professionals, anti-dentites as it were.

Good luck with your Steyn, Levant and anti-dentite posse. They make your argument much more convincing.

Best, EFL

PS. I thought of predicting this when I saw the post appear, but I thought I'd give it a couple of hours, to see if I would be happily disproven. Sadly, unsurprisingly, no.

Silver Called It: NS NDP = Incoherent Economics, Despicable Political Ethics

I've never forgotten Silver's awesome dissection of the NS NDP's, uh, platform?

Maybe, platform is far too expansive a term given that the N.S. NDP's entire plan for government - and they do, by all accounts have a shot at forming government - is four pages (PDF) including glossy pictures, the "costing" of their "plan" and pictures of ordinary, average voters (some of them sitting at their kitchen table). (...) Of course if you flip to the front of the platform (back to page one, hope your wrist isn't tired yet), you will see that the NDP has actually promised to provide 1,000 grants for home retrofits. That's THOUSAND - singular - not THOUSANDS of homeowners. Not only is their platform beyond vapid. Not only do they do the single worst thing they could do for climate change. The FOUR pages are internally inconsistent.

It's a natural evolution from an incoherent four page platform to a dishonest, incoherent budget, I guess. I'll be curious to see how Totters respond to the NS NDP Budget, esp. those who have most ranted about the HST.

Putting aside politics and ethics for a second, economically, I've seen worse budgets, but the NS NDP budget is deeply incoherent. The HST rise, compensated with increased credits for low-income, is good, as is increased tax on 150+K. Bad is decreased tax on 83-150K - incoherent. Also, if deficit is the thing, why cutting corporate taxes? And by so little? I strongly disagree with corporate tax cuts, I would raise them, along with everyone else - everyone should have to do their part to stop deficit, corporations & individuals, on progressive basis, though. But if going to cut corporate taxes, to draw/keep business based on empty Reagan-Bush-Republican supply-side mythology I guess, since no empirical evidence, then that logic dictates massive corporate tax cuts, cutting minimum wage, etc. as one pursues a Duplessis-Alabama strategy. You've got to go big: can't half prostitute oneself. Half a point just irritates taxpayers compared to their own situation, and does nothing to draw investment. Also, should have raised gas tax, and all environmental taxes, with credits/compensation on progressive basis. Why are they keeping the energy rebate for everyone? That is regressive and anti-environmental! Eliminate it, make everyone pay market rates, and compensate them on a progressive basis.

The ethics and politics of this budget are atrocious, breaking their word so baldly, so quickly, and with such regressive and anti-environmental measures mixed in. Stupid Totters. And as far as crafting a decent political message, who thought it would be a good idea to give corporations tax breaks and subsidise wasteful anti-environmental behaviour while raising taxes on individuals? It wrecks the whole narrative. If you say "tough times, we're in it together", that can work. But then EVERYONE HAS TO PAY, ON A PROGRESSIVE BASIS. Old politics. Gives a bad name to all politics. Means a half-decent budget will be hated as exposes NDP campaign as complete lie, predictably. Sad. Probable minority Government for someone else next time. Hope it's the McNeil & the Liberals, they ran a mostly coherent campaign last time: fairest, most honest and best.

Calgary Grit asked what gives with tax hikes and politicians, these days. I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Josée Legault's analysis, in some respects (she's always mesquine & usually deranged). People support smart & fair taxes (McGuinty's health tax and seems to have won debate on HST). They oppose unfair, stupid taxes. Why? Because they make the connection between taxes and services, and fair and unfair. Why: more connected, more informed public than ever. When Charest cut income taxes after receiving "fiscal imbalance" funds, a strong majority disagreed, would have preferred money kept in services. They now disagree with his proposed substitution of regressive flat health taxes for progressive income taxes. People get it, more than ever. BS less useful, even counterproductive nowadays (unless in our particular 5 party federal environment, which promotes narrow-casting and thus demagoguery).

PS. I just realised that the NS NDP have also hidden the fact they have de-indexed taxes in a small note at back, claiming inflation was insufficient to merit continued indexation. Nice. Colbert would be proud. That is a really dirty regressive trick.

The Silver Touch

Rob Silver makes a good point in typically amusingly sardonic style.

Heads down, work hard every day, and see what it gets us. I'm optimistic, based on Nanos numbers and history (Dion, electoral map, Liberals in elections, pressure on lefties, etc.). We'll see. But as we've been repeating since 2006 - this is a marathon, not a sprint. Just got to keep in touch with the frontrunner so we're positioned to make our move.

I like to sing the UK soccer chant to myself: "Here we go, here we go, here we go, etc." ad. infinitum. Try it, you'll see, it works well between houses when out canvassing all evening. Another good one is the French National Team chant, modified: "Allez les rouges! Allez les rouges! etc."

Blogging Ethics: Am I Allowed To Reprint Rob Silver In Toto?

Come and get me coppers! Essential Silver here and below:

Jedi mind-tricking the Canada Health Act away
John Ivison and Jeffrey Simpson jump into the Canada Health Act fray with their respective columns today.

Let me tackle Ivison first and his column headlined "When is a User Fee Not a User Fee." He addresses Parliament finally discussing the issue this week:

"In Question Period on Wednesday, the issue was raised by NDP leader Jack Layton, who asked the Prime Minister whether his government is committed to enforcing the CHA "or is preparing to amend it?"

Stephen Harper's answer was inscrutable enough to suggest a number of interpretations are possible.

"The NDP ... should be sure that violations have actually occurred. The reality is very clear. The Canada Health Act is the law of the land. The government has indicated that it expects provinces to follow the law of the land," he said.

Since the CHA is pretty clear that "for a province to qualify for a full cash contribution [from the federal government], user charges must not be permitted," the uninitiated might think the Prime Minister was threatening to crack the whip.

But I don't think that's what Mr. Harper was suggesting at all. Nor does Brian Lee Crowley, the economist and author of Fearful Symmetry: The Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values."

Pause.

The law is clear, the law must be followed but both Ivison and Brian Lee Crowley (as I have written here previously, Crowley's Fearful Symmetry was the Canadian political book of the year last year) don't think Harper is actually threatening anything here.

Big assertion, time for some analysis boys:

"For one thing, contravention of the CHA is in the eye of the beholder. The government has a high degree of discretion when it comes to contravention -- and even more latitude when it comes to penalties."

This is of course true. There are three important points about the CHA and user fees:

1. They are explicitly prohibited (as per my post earlier this week);

2. The explicit penalty under the CHA for user fees is a loss of federal transfers; and

3. The Federal Health Minister is judge, jury and executioner for enforcing this section.

In other words if the Federal Minister decides not to enforce the Act, nothing is going to happen. Life will go on. That doesn't mean Quebec isn't in violation of the Act, just that the Feds have decided to turn a blind eye to its transgression. And other provinces can also do whatever they want in healthcare - CHA be damned. In other words, the result of Harper deciding to ignore Quebec's violation is the CHA becomes a meaningless piece of legislation - in complete contradiction of what Harper actually said in the House this week.

Back to Crowley:

"Mr. Crowley said Quebec's plan may not even constitute a user fee. "It depends on what you think a user fee is -- it's a very important question .... If you have an addition at the end of the year to your tax bill, then no one is being prevented from access to health care."

Right. And if I go to a restaurant, put my steak on my credit card and don't pay the bill for another month then it's like I got my steak for free - I mean, they let me walk out of the restaurant without giving them a penny! The proposed user fee in Quebec is being collected through the income tax system for administrative efficiency reasons. As we understand it to date, the "fee" at the end of each year will be based on the number of "uses" you made of the health care system. The clause under the CHA prohibiting user fees makes no reference to accessability, it prohibits user fees per se. I'm not sure how when you have to pay it is relevant to whether it qualifies as a "user fee".

Ivison goes on to propose the same jurisdictional swaperoo that Andrew Coyne laid out in his column this week for the federal government to get out of funding healthcare, transfer tax points to the provinces in exchange for economic union (minus Andrew's senate reform two-step).

Jeffrey Simpson makes an even more blunt argument in his column:

"It doesn't much matter what federal Liberals, or any of the federal parties, say or think. It is the provinces, not Ottawa, that deliver health care and provide most of the money for it. Frankly, what Mr. Ignatieff or other federal politicians think or say doesn't count for much."

I think there are two very different, though related questions that are being confused in both columns:

1. Does the Quebec proposal violate the Canada Health Act that is currently the law of the land?;

2. Should the Canada Health Act be amended on a going forward basis?

The answer to the first question is clearly yes - the Quebec proposal violates the current Act.

In terms of where we go from here, that is a much bigger question. Should the federal government have anything to do with health care in the futrure? I have my thoughts, others have theirs. This debate is not off to a good start though when we can't even agree what the law is today as it gets underway.

If we are, as a country, going to ignore the CHA - if we have decided that it is outdated and outmoded or impractical to enforce it - then let's call it what it is and change the law.

But let's avoid the mental gymnastics and jedi mind tricks that are currently being played to try to claim that a policy proposal that is in clear violation of the law is something else entirely.

Will We Ever Learn?

As someone on the centre-left who came to the Liberals from the NDP, it has always astonished me, first from the outside, now on the inside, how the Liberals are the masters of self-destruction. I completely agree with what Cherniak & Silver have said. I really hope we Liberals aren't as foolish as the media, our opponents and some bloggers would like us to be. This is no time to be further dividing & weakening the party. As I already mentioned, we are actually well-positioned. Harper's all tactics, but we Dion Liberals are all strategy. We will prevail, if we keep it together. Given the egos involved, that may seem unlikely, but I'd like to believe old dogs can learn new tricks, rather than repeating the scratching & hair-pulling which seems some people's established behaviour now. One can only hope. And support the leader both publicly and privately.

Chantal Hébert's Head Just Exploded

Nanos is good news again, leading federalist party in QC by 12, ahead by 13 in Atlantic, ahead in Ontario & 2nd in West (must be good news in BC). But my favourite number, by far, is Stéphane Dion is Quebeckers' 1st choice as best PM by 6 points! Maybe it's only one poll on one day, and Rob Silver already addressed this eloquently so I'll take a different tack and say how much I enjoy imagining Chantal Hébert's reaction to the news. HAHAHA! If only for one day. But we'll see. I feel good. We can do this. But we've got to go all out NOW, to keep the momentum. Unleash the top secret weapons (JC & PM together?) and ads. From the air and on the ground, let's pound them. I love the smell of victory in the last week of a campaign.

Iggy Offed Dion: No Revisionism Dionistas SVP

There so many incidents, the latest when Iggy "mistakenly" contradicted Leader in La Presse in last two weeks of campaign. Begs question: fool or scoundrel? But frankly, it got so bad that Rob Silver, who usually tried to portray unity, ended up joking about it bitterly in back on October 17 2007 in Macleans:

The US and Russia treat international law much like certain unnamed Quebec Liberal MPs treats Stephane Dion's leadership. In public, they say all the right things: "International law has my full confidence", "I am solidly behind this treaty", heck, I hear at a recent UN meeting, a bunch of US diplomats led the entire assembly in chants of "Tous Ensemble". Unfortunately, in reality, we all know that their support of international law is complete and utter BS. They do absolutely everything in their power to ignore and undermine it. They bad mouth it constantly behind the scenes and try to make sure that international law is considered "not hot" each Saturday morning by reporters who are only too happy to print their off-the record garbage. It is ultimately what is in their own narrow self-interest that matters and at the first opportunity, they will replace international law with a different system.

BC Gets It

Via Silver: BC'S LIBERALS STAND FIRM BEHIND LEADER STÉPHANE DION
VANCOUVER - British Columbia's Federal Liberal Council (BCFLC) unanimously voted Saturday to express its unqualified support for the Hon. Stéphane Dion as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada until such time that the May 2009 Liberal Leadership convention produces a new Leader. The unanimous resolution also called for Mr. Dion to lead the Liberal Party in any potential coalition government. The BCFLC consists of BC's 36 Liberal Riding Association Presidents, its 4 Commission Presidents, and its Provincial Executive. "This resolution demonstrates that Liberals remain steadfast and united in support of Mr. Dion and his belief that serious and substantial action is required to address our current economic crisis," said Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Joyce Murray, who was present for the vote.

Olive On Hollow Man Iggy

David Olive has always been one of the best. I thought of Paul Martin as a hollow man before Coyne used it, and the same for Iggy. Martin was not as bad as I thought, Iggy's even worse. Everyone should read Olive on Iggy, which I reproduce below:

The hollow man.
Day 567
Let us count the ways Canada deserves better than Michael Ignatieff as PM-in-waiting.
(Well, at least his tie matches the flags.)

1. He's a wuss. Iggy threatened last week to bring down the minority Harper government this Friday, then retreated quicker than a long-tailed cat escaping a room full of rocking chairs. In the main, Iggy's caucus doesn't want to force a summer election. As a British statesman once jokingly said, "I am their leader. I must follow them." Iggy's a follower, not a leader. No Chretien he, rightly chiding his caucus as "nervous Nellies" on the cusp of leading the Grits to a third consecutive majority. Ignatieff is so afraid of his own shadow that, as Liberal advisor Rob Silver wrote Monday: "Michael Ignatieff has given Stephen Harper possibly the easiest opportunity to continue governing as Prime Minister a minority leader has ever faced."

2. He doesn't understand politics. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois know the Harper government doesn't have the fighting spirit to take on this global recession. Iggy, by contrast, is still pondering whether this government deserves a stay of execution. How much more evidence does he need? The Tories have spent just one-quarter of their $15-billion infrastructure fund that was meant to jolt some life into an economy ravaged by job loss. Or, to cite one example, Ottawa has spent an almost whimsical $1.9 million of its promised $622 million for the extension of Toronto's subway into Vaughan. The world has learned by now not to count any longer on Canada for life-saving medical isotopes, the Tories having so horribly bungled Chalk River. The PM offers vague promises to adjust EI for these difficult times for the unemployed, sometime in the fall. Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress dealt with that issue, and raised the federal minimum wage, early this year. Obama has committed $8 billion (U.S.) to a revival of passenger rail alone, more than half of Harper's entire infrastructure stimulus. Iggy doesn't get that Harper is, of late, a faux progressive. Duceppe and Layton, veterans of Canadian politics, do understand Harper - the way millions of Canadians do: "I've always suspected that when Stephen Harper announces big sums of money to be spent," Layton said recently, "he so fundamentally doesn't believe in it...the money is very unlikely to flow at all."

3. He hasn't told us why he wants to be PM. Maybe he doesn't know. Where there is no vision, the people perish, the Scriptures tell us. Why exactly does Iggy want to be PM? Does he in fact want to be PM? Where's the fire in the belly? And where's the vision, what kind of country does he want Canada to be in 2020? Or next year? I wish I could put it better than Globe editorial writer Adam Radwanski in a recent blog post: "Time after time, [Iggy] articulately ties himself into knots trying to get around the fact that he has very little to say."

Which figures, because after spending most of his adult life in Britain and the U.S., Ignatieff simply does not know this country. And he's a political naif, time and again easily outfoxed. And we know little of Ignatieff, save for his scribblings in New York Times Magazine cover stories earlier this decade exhorting the West to join George W. Bush in his feckless invasion of Iraq. And Iggy's skirmishes with fellow Brit intellectuals over his apparent endorsement of torture of detainees. The then director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights giving liberal intellectual cover to an odious Bush regime. Here's Ignatieff in the NYT in May 2, 2004, long after the Iraq invasion he championed had become an obvious fiasco:

"To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil. The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions."

Ignatieff believed (he has since recanted, sort of) that the American imperative was to impose its will on the rest of the world, and that in doing so it might understandably be required to embrace "lesser evils" including coercive interrorgations, the U.S. intelligence community's euphemism for waterboarding, stuffing detainees with known spider phobias into makeshift coffins filled with arachnids, and other forms of torture. Or as Dick Cheney said with more admirable clarity, we're going to have to spend some time "on the dark side."

Really, that's all I know of Ignatieff, it's the only thing of substance he's done. Which was dreadful. His esteemed diplomat father would not recognize what Iggy became.

Who he is now is anyone's guess.

(For the purposes of this blog, the inception of the Great Recession in the U.S., the epicentre of the crisis, is taken as the start date for the global slump. The U.S. has been in recession since December 2007.)

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.

Kenney & Co. Are Iggy's Best Political Allies

I read this and I was struck that while Kenney quotes things that I have or could have said myself in the past, my reaction was to feel a rare bout of sympathy for Iggy and revulsion for Kenney & Co., not necessarily in that order. Somewhere the a(im)moral but occasionally insightful Paul Wells wrote something along the lines that both Iggy & Harper would want to spend the next campaign talking about the other guy and not themselves, since the more Canadians know and think about them, the less they like them. Anyone who reads my occasional posts knows my views on Iggy, yet when I read or hear the Kenneys, Poilievres (no accent grave? hmm), Bairds etc. attack him, even I can't help feel myself more sympathetic to him than to them, and were their attacks not partisan, I agree with their basic criticism of Iggy's character.

Now my view that Cons' mesquinerie are Liberals' best friend is not novel (Diefenbaker himself recognised the problem conservative anger at society's failings posed for their popularity) and it may well be wrong. Going door to door last campaign, reading the polls and reflecting on the results makes one understand just how effective some negative campaigning can be for the Cons in bringing over that crucial sliver of the Canadian electorate they need to win (and screw the heightened distaste of the other 55-65%, in their view). I think that while it can be a fruitful short-term strategy, it carries within it the seeds of its own long-term annihilation, as eventually people become just so sickened it's 1993 all over again. But from their point of view, knocking off Martin and 11 years of Liberal rule and the exigencies of minority parliaments and the difficulties of growing their support given their base, views and attitudes, perhaps mean that they felt the short-term rewards were worth the long-term risks and that it's the only option they feel is open to them. If there is an election, and I think Iggy will be making Pearson's mistake of 1958 if there is, it will allow, as I predicted (though wrong on timing), the Cons to run on the one issue that might apparently mobilise sufficient numbers of my fellow under-educated Canadians to bring about a majority government, namely the whole anti-democratic separatist-socialist coalition falsehood (given validation by Iggy himself, of course, in yet another of his seemingly endless history of misjudgements).

I felt that Stéphane Dion should have remained as leader for many reasons. One was that like Rob Silver and others, I didn't see how the basic matrix of the party could be magically rewoven through a simple change of leadership. But I also felt and continue to believe, that Dion had the opposite problem to the Cons, Harper & Iggy, that he can be hard to like at first, but the more you know him, the better you like him. That was one crucial difference between the 2006 leadership race and the general election. Liberals know and like Dion, knew and liked him enough to make leader ahead of 7-10 other notables (10 if you include dropouts). Canadians didn't and could easily be turned against him. But it's intriguing that the most attentive political commentators, left, right and centre, also tended to like Dion, since they knew him well, having covered him for years, whether or not they agreed with him (ex: Ivison's scotch admiration for a fellow hardhead). Few of them, even (especially?) those who agree with him, like Harper, or have grown to like him more. More the reverse. Same seems to be happening with Iggy.

Dion could easily have become a Doer-McGuinty-Dexter type, a figure of fun at first whose character and public service idealism leads him to gain the respect and affection of the general public, so after losing an election or two, leads his party to multiple victories. Given the nature of the post-Chrétien/Martin LPC, 'twas not to be, sadly.

But it is worth noting that today, upon reading Kenney's slithering, one of the Liberal bloggers most consistent and vocal in his criticism of Iggy, actually found himself wondering whether there wasn't something to be said for the man after all, in the context of the despicable Cons. If I can be made to feel this way, how many other Canadians might? The problem of course is that Iggy is no Dion and will only become increasingly unpopular the better people get to know him. So whereas if Dion had remained leader he might have profited from such revulsion as other "good chaps" have, the Doers, Dexters, McGuintys, etc., Iggy won't, I don't think. But you never know. The media elite in QC love Iggy as they see him as a vehicle for their agenda, and will give him a push, the same way they were determined to destroy Dion. Iggy & Liberal HQ may outcampaign the Cons. But judging from what we've seen of Iggy's campaign skills (2006 leadership with elites solidly behind him) and HQ's current abilities (scheduling, going dark for a month, polyanna, etc.), it seems unlikely.

There, something relatively nice about Iggy. Happy? That's my quota for the month/year/decade/century/millenium, or until the next slithering Con opens his big fat shitty gob.

NDP Duncan Voted For Killing Probe! WTF?! 'MPs destroy drafts of pollution review'

I understand this less and less. I wrote 'MPs cancel oilsands pollution probe, tear up draft reports'-But How? Opposition Had Majority On Committee! But a revised version MPs destroy drafts of pollution review has this: "An 18-month review of Alberta's oilsands has come up empty after federal politicians from all parties -- including Edmonton-Strathcona NDP MP Linda Duncan -- decided to scrap its lengthy investigation and destroy drafts of any final report." and then this obscene panglossianism, as if Duncan's or Scarpaleggia's own views would ever have the weight of a committee report. Again, I ask, given the Opposition had voting majority, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED OR IS GOING ON??!! THIS IS OBSCENE! Since when do committees destroy all their work and cancel reports on existential issues of national and international importance? Is Duncan on drugs?

Duncan called the opportunity to write her own report the "silver lining" of the committee's failure.
"My report will be more about the need for the federal government to be asserting its jurisdiction," Duncan said. (ed. comment: Yes, all of Canada is waiting for your precious report, Duncan. For frack's sake, little miss fauntleroy.)

"They have serious responsibilities in the tarsands area, from the environmental assessment right through to monitoring and enforcement.

"And they could be playing a very important role in diminishing the impacts of the tarsands, in some cases perhaps turning down or delaying projects."

Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who spearheaded the parliamentary investigation on water pollution, will also write his own report.

"The Conservative government has a lot of answering to do for its persistent lack of leadership on water in general and on oilsands and water in particular," he said.

Best Team, Best Platform, Best Leader

Amen. And I would add that if we come just short, although I'm still optimistic about the ballot box bonus, as Michiel Horn mentioned in the Globe, the Cons may regret winning this election, if they sleaze it out.

In a minority parliament the other parties can continue the multiple investigations into Con misdeeds - Mulroney/Schreiber, Elections Canada, Listeriosis, Harper-Cadman, etc. (and I fully expect to see Harper charged with perjury, if there's still anything like an independent judicial system), and the Cons are going to wear the recession we're about to suffer - and they're going to wear it even more as they presented a non-platform in the last week of their empty campaign, with 22 of 44 pages pictures of Harper. Canadians will not be happy when they fully wake to the consequences of the hollowness of this non-government. It seemed unlikely there could ever be another majority, but if we are pipped at the post, then we will probably win a huge sweep in a year's time, perhaps the last one. The NDP has indebted itself beyond belief while Layton has made a rod for his back by decrying Libs' voting with the gov't: how can he vote with the Cons on any confidence motion now, especially as NDP rank & file loathe the Cons much more than the leadership resents Libs? Despite depleted resources, he won't be able to resist voting against the Cons on a confidence motion. The Bloc is in the same dilemma, given its rhetoric this campaign and the coming retirement of Duceppe.

Canadians are about to be very very angry about the mess we're going to suffer, and as always happens to governing parties, the Cons are going to be held responsible, should they win. The public is going to look back at the NDP, Greens & Bloc as fools who let the incompetent Cons back in. Suddenly, being the smartest guy in the room, aka. Dion, isn't such a bad thing after all. Gore vs. Bush phenomenon: after having suffered through Bush, everyone wishes they'd voted for Gore.

The worst thing that ever happens to the NDP federally is when they abandon their principles and try to become a demagogic "big" party. They turn off old principled ccf-ers and let tories win and thus, neither advancing any coherent agenda nor gaining any appreciable power, they are exposed as a useless shell of Annex socialist dilettantes. They end up reaping the storm. It was entirely fitting to hear that old fool Broadbent extolling Layton as they were "on the verge of their greatest victory in 20 years". If you're on the left, as I am, 1988 was a disaster & we haven't forgotten the NDP rejected Liberal advances to run a single candidate in various ridings to stop "free trade". 1988 exposed Broadbent's NDP as a self-indulgent, self-regarding joke, leaving Canadians with 5 more years of awful Tory gov't and leading to the almost annihilation of the NDP in 1993. And the huge Liberal majority.

There is only ever space for two big catch-all parties in any political system, one typically a tad to the right and one a tad to the left. The Liberals remain a moderate responsible party while the Cons have moved far to the right. Only the division on the left can prevent a Liberal government. And when the storm comes, May's incoherence, Layton's demagogy & Duceppe's nihilism will seem all the more perverse.

As I say, I think we still have a decent chance to squeak this out, and I hope we do, so Canadians can get some decent government. It will be bad for all of us to suffer another year of Con misrule. But should it come to pass, the only silver lining is it will pave the way for a huge Liberal majority, which would otherwise be very difficult to achieve in this divided political landscape. If that should happen, I strongly suggest we adopt Dion's suggestion and introduce preferential voting while undoing some excessively restrictive provisions re. party financing. The aging boomers make an increasingly powerful conservative plurality a real enduring possibility for a generation, given our current electoral system. If the majority of more moderate Canadians, from centre-right to centre-left & beyond, want to ensure they have a government that reflects them, then a preferential voting system should ensure that, introducing an element of proportionality into the system as well as being easy to implement: the ridings & ballots can remain identical, just instead of a single X one could number the candidates/parties in their corresponding circles from 1 onwards. It may prevent any further outright majorities but it would also better reflect the popular will, encourage a more civilised discourse, and an enduring Liberal government, with various coalition partners coming & going.

I differ with Dion over the proper degree of involvement of the Federal Gov't in the nation's affairs, leaning more towards Trudeau's robust view than his more classically Bourassa-PLQ inclinations. But that said, on pretty much everything else he is strikingly, almost irritatingly, right. He has changed my mind about various issues because he has really analysed them more deeply than most. He was and remains the right leader at the right time. Whatever happens in Ontario, the Liberals will once again be the leading federalist party in QC. Only Dion, with his appeal to hard-core federalists & his debating skills, could have ensured that - winning back QC will be a long campaign, but it always had to start with the real federalists, as the soft nationalists & separatists were always going to be impossible to reach this time around, after the sponsorship thing & facing three parties fighting for that vote. And he achieved this despite the enormous bias against him in the media, in QC & outside. The Liberal Party's very raison d'être is to be the bridge from French to English and across all regions and so to bind Canada together, to keep this nation strong. The essential first step was to reclaim our place in QC. We will also be the often forgotten & betrayed Maritimers' champions. And we will present the majority of urban Canadians, especially those in our biggest most vibrant & productive metropolises.

We are well placed for the future, win or lose, except for the financing provisions. We have a strong base and a great brand. The LPC will have to continue to evolve, and Dion will have to push on with the work he & Kennedy & Hall-Findlay started, to make it ever-more responsive to its members and in return, get its members more willing to contribute their money as well as their ideas & energy. But we have seen in this campaign, as Dion has led us back from the brink, that on an even playing field ($18 mil max for all parties), we remain a ferocious power. This is part of the reason I'm in favour of another election asap, if we should just miss out this time. Tired as we all are, and poor as we'll be, the longer we let the Cons spend their money smearing us outside election-time, the steeper the slope we have to climb when the election happens. Better to get a loan, if need be, and fight them when they are being condemned for their criminality, sleaze & mismanagement, rather than wait. A year's time should do. Diefenbaker's 1957 & 1958 elections should be our model. And as a Montrealer, let me use Cohen: first we take QC & the Maritimes, then we take Ontario, BC & the Prairies.

No-one else could have reconciled old warring factions as well as Dion. No-one else would have been as self-confident in giving such prominent roles to former rivals. No-one else could have endorsed & advanced such a revolutionary agenda of modernisation for the old established institution that is the LPC. No-one else could have foreseen the great issues of today & tomorrow and so eloquently synthesised them into a coherent whole: a richer, greener, fairer Canada indeed!

We have the best team & the best plan. And if we have them, it's not by accident: we have the best leader. Having finally, after 40 years, reconciled & united the party, win or lose, let's have the maturity & foresight to hang on & finish the job of building a better LPC so we can build a better Canada.

Allez les rouges!

What Rota Wrote Back - Nonsense!

He claims they'd just be choosing an interim leader, there would still be a leadership race, but that interim caucus leader should be capable of leading the party into the nest election. Rota, that's Cannon logic.

We all know that any interim leader would become permanent. The Vancouver vote would be, as one candidate (IggY) put it in an email today, a confirmation.

If this is the quality of thinking on the Hill, I now understand better how it is our caucus often seems so useless, as per, Rob Silver.

EXACTLY! Applies To Bloggers As Well!

Silver: Questions for the Liberal caucus To any and all Liberal MPs - leadership candidate or otherwise - I have the following questions for you: 1. A week ago Thursday, the fiscal update was presented. To a man (and woman), every single one of you said "we must oppose it." What form did you want that opposition to take? An election? A coalition? Loud rhetoric, but a bunch of you sick on voting day? I presume a coalition is the answer - but maybe not. I didn't hear any Liberal MPs calling for a new election or another abstention when push came to shove - but things were moving so quickly, I may have missed it.

2. The following Monday (i.e. five days ago, but these are dog days so it feels like six months), the coalition "deal" was presented to caucus. There was, by public accounts of the meeting, a unanimous standing ovation given to those presenting the deal to caucus. If any of you were opposed to it, did you speak out at caucus? Did you speak out in public? Again - I may have missed ANY dissent, but it sure seemed like caucus was united behind the deal five days ago.

3. At that same meeting, the issue of whether Stephane Dion should remain as leader of the coalition until May was, by public accounts of the meeting, raised. Again, based on what has been told to the media, not a single caucus member spoke out against Dion remaining as leader. All three current candidates for leader spoke out publicly supporting Dion as leader until May. If any caucus members were opposed to Dion heading up the coalition, why didn't you speak at caucus? Why didn't you speak out in public? I'm pretty sure I didn't miss that.

4. On Thursday, hours before the Prime Minister was to go and visit the GG, a petition was circulated for all Liberal MPs to sign expressing their support for the defeat of the government AND the coalition. Again - this was Thursday morning, after the video disaster. Every single one of the MPs in caucus (save one) signed the petition. Did you mean it when you signed? If you didn't mean it - if you signed the petition only because it was the path of least resistance - how can you remain as a Member of Parliament? Seriously, if you are willing to sign a petition to the Governor-General asking her to change governments, and it was only because you were "chicken" to say no or didn't want to rock the boat, then you should resign as a Member of Parliament because you have proven yourself unworthy of serving as a representative of your community and as a law-maker. Otherwise, I think it is fair to assume that your signature was meaningful and your support for the coalition was sincere; by your signature, you wanted the GG to act upon the petition.

So either:

(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or

(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).

Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.

Nixon Is To 'Natieff...

As "Plausible Deniability" Is To "Misplaced Specificity": Read this book! When Denis Smith asked him how he could have held and promoted all these wrong-headed positions given all the facts that contradicted him, ‘Natieff responded with the sophism that this was “misplaced specificity”. Ha ha, funny - not so much. I’m sure Maher Arar is still laughing.

Again and again, he has shown he’s got terrible judgement because he can’t grasp basic realities. He must never be leader of the Liberal Party, let alone PM, although since he'd be the worst leader of any major party ever, including Audrey McLaughlin, and destroy the party, it's highly improbable he'd ever be PM. Given his past positions and his demeanor, can you imagine how the NDP, Greens & Bloc relish the thought of him? And the Harper Cons can't wait to talk about the UCC boy who left the country for 30 years to swan about at Oxbridge & Harvard cocktails. Instead of Tim's vs. Starbucks it'd be Tim's vs. High Tea at the Empress Hotel.

I know some of we Liberals like to flock to perceived silver-spoon blue-blazer "winners", but Turner & Martin didn't turn out great. If you're thinking of supporting this torture-justifying, Bush wars-supporting airhead, please think again, on electoral grounds. Any other Liberal candidate, of Rae, Leblanc & maybe Cauchon, would do a better job, not just on policy, but politically as well. If you're thinking 'Natieff, please, think twice.

Quelle surprise! Vive le Bloc Québé-Libéral-ois!

Who could have predicted we would become the Bloc Québé-Libéral-ois? But still. Silver! Radwanski! How dare you engage in misplaced specificity by quoting Iggy's QC Lieutenant, refer to past events and reflect on probable consequences in the light of history! Don't you know no-one with any past, present or future affiliation to the Liberal Party is allowed to contradict the Iggy line by mentioning reality? C'mon, be team players. In that spirit, I suggest the new Quebec Liberal / Liberal Quebec slogan: My Quebec includes Quebec! Inspiring, non?