Federal Politics – Page 140

The election: A metaphor for manipulative media.

August 6, 2015 by Peter Lowry

It is not a conspiracy. It is merely a collision of interests. It is a fight for survival, not by the politicians but by the news media. The politicians are but actors manipulated on the stage of a largely ungovernable country. And outmoded ideologies are the cliques that identify the losers.

Do you want it spelled out? It is simple. This is not a fight between politicians but between the news media. Print is dying and the broadcasters are fighting over the corpses—all the while losing advertisers and audiences. The politicians are betting on the Internet’s social media. Print and broadcast are also backing into the social media scene. They are not good at it.

It is the voters who are being conned, confused, used and misled. Just the other day when reading David Olive of the Toronto Star for business insight and clarity, he referred to New Democrat Thomas Mulcair as a “statesman.” How low can the Toronto Star sink in promoting political pathology?

The larger print publishers bought up all the small town media hoping to stave off losses but their big city mentality and cost cutting has destroyed local journalism.

In the world of broadcast Peter Mansbridge rules. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that language appendage Radio Canada are in the battle for survival. They battle bureaucracy and ideology. The people’s network has a government to defeat.

Bell Canada still has not figured out how to run CTV, with its largest English-language audience. Shaw does a better job speaking for the West.

But there is little succour for the voters. They continue to be engulfed in contradiction and confusion. And why does this campaign have to be turned into a marathon? Do we deserve this?

In meantime the economy is going downhill. Mr. Harper tells us that it will be alright in time—if we just trust him. Fat bloody chance of that!

Harper thinks his Trans-Pacific Partnership ship will come in and all will be forgiven. The only problem he has is that any expert (other that Harper’s) will tell you that the deal is not really about trade. Will the news media tell you that it is really a sell-out of Canadians’ intellectual property rights, labour’s Rand Formula and any hope for environmental controls. They want to put a third of the world’s economy in the uncaring hands of multi-national corporations.

And President Obama is going to torpedo Harper and TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. That will be just one more nail in the Harper government’s coffin but be sure to note how the media play the story.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Will we let Mulcair destroy Canada?

August 4, 2015 by Peter Lowry

It has been assumed for the last while that there are voters parking their votes with the New Democratic Party. That just means if anyone asks, they say they will vote for the NDP. And if they actually did that, this country would never be the same again.

Sure, most of us want to get rid of Prime Minister Stephen Harper but do we also want to say au revoir to Quebec at the same time? New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair has been playing footsie with the separatists and promising them an easy separation from the rest of Canada. As a Quebecker, Mulcair does not think the rest of Canada cares. Well, Canadians in every province care and the NDP are going to pay for their foolishness.

And do not forget that Thomas Mulcair has duel citizenship: He is a citizen of France as well as Canada. We have no idea where his loyalties lie. He tells people that you are insular and parochial if you do not approve of people holding duel citizenship. That is fine for people who want to keep a foot in each country for family or business reasons. It is not fine for people who want to be Prime Minister of Canada. There can be no equivocation on loyalties for a person in that position.

But Mulcair is already starting to lose ground in the current campaign. He is making promises for the New Democrats that he cannot keep. When he tells people that when in government, he will abolish the Senate, he is telling them a lie because he knows he cannot deliver. And it is the Province of Quebec that is the biggest obstacle to agreeing. How he thinks he could buy Quebec’s agreement makes for some interesting speculation but it is unlikely to be something that will appeal to the rest of the country.

It is like Prime Minister Harper promising that he will not appoint any more senators. He has made that promise before and he knows he cannot keep it—if by some miracle he remains Prime Minister. His solution would create a constitutional crisis at some point and it would be a Gordian knot.

Actually there is little sense to any party’s solutions to Canada’s constitutional problems. The Conservatives were right to laugh at Mulcair suggesting that he will switch how Canadians vote to a form of proportional representation. While that is not a constitutional consideration, it would be foolish for any party to try to change how we vote without at least a referendum. Any party that thought through the country’s constitutional problems though would find it wise to call for an elected constitutional conference.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

How long should an election be?

August 3, 2015 by Peter Lowry

On a long weekend in the middle of summer, you should not have to deal with tough questions. You should be lazing by the lake with a suitable cold libation. You should be enjoying the laughter of children, the quiet tones of good conversation and the whisper of a cooling breeze through the trees. Politics can be an intrusion.

But you hardly expected Stephen Harper to give a damn about you, did you? In the words of the television advertising that has now been stopped: “You cannot expect him to be there for you.” He is too self-centred and controlling to give anyone a break. He has his own agenda. You can like it or lump it.

And besides, it is to Mr. Harper’s advantage to start the official campaign early. He has lots of money from the rich to spend. He can outspend all his opponents combined under the election rules, he helped create. He can bully the news media, he can bully the people trying to arrange television debates and, he thinks, he can bully Canadian voters. And that is where he has to be proved wrong.

Bullies can dish it out but they are basically cowards and cannot handle derision. One of the reasons for calling the election early is to stop campaigns such as “Not there for you.” If these people got any momentum going it would not be good for the Conservatives. Those ads are not legal now.

Canadians should also have every right to expect honest and fair television debates that everyone can view and in both Canada’s official languages. If Mr. Harper refuses to come to the event, you leave his chair open and carry on. And if Tommy Mulcair refuses to come without Mr. Harper there, he needs to be asked why he is afraid of debating Justin Trudeau?

Canadians are frankly tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who say one thing at election time and something different in office. They are also tired of politicians who bully and lie and act as though nothing is wrong. Voters cannot solve these problems by staying home on election day. It is time for us to stand up against the bullies and liars and vote for better government.

And if anyone asks you how long should an election be, you can use a version of the answer Abraham Lincoln gave to the person who asked him how long should a person’s legs be? Lincoln told him “Long enough to reach the ground.”

How long should an election be? Long enough to change the government.

– – –

A note for our loyal readers: Since there is no possibility of reliably handicapping the election ten weeks before election day, we will treat this as a long-running municipal election and provide the Morning Line after Labour Day. Though there is no sympathy on our part for all those so-called pundits whose summer holidays have been interrupted, you can still enjoy your summer. Drop into Babel-on-the-Bay occasionally and we will try to help you to understand what is going on in the election marathon.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Sideshow versus reality in Toronto.

August 1, 2015 by Peter Lowry

Toronto always has some carefully watched ridings in every federal election. It comes from being a major centre of liberal thinking in Canada and the ongoing schism of the city with its suburbs. There is always a good fight going on somewhere. In the current campaign, people seem to have selected Eglinton-Lawrence and Spadina-Fort York. What happens in those riding will be followed across the country.

Eglinton-Lawrence might have been a black eye for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau but he can handle it. When Liberal Marco Mendicino defeated former Conservative MP Eve Adams for the Liberal Party nomination it said that the Liberal Party Leader has to stop telling ridings who to choose. Interfering in riding selections says all the wrong things about Trudeau’s ability to keep his word. He got a pass in this case.

Mendicino will be taking on Conservative Finance Minister Joe Oliver. Oliver reminds people of that advertising campaign where an older tailor working on some clothing tells you about his product and ends the commercial saying: Have I ever lied to you before?

In Joe Oliver’s case, the question would be: Have I ever told you the truth before?

Oliver seems to have no understanding of Canadians’ concerns about their jobs, their pensions, the economy and seems determined to tell them as little as possible. The point here is that if a decent hard-working candidate such as Marco Mendicino cannot defeat a loser like Oliver, it could be bad news across the country.

At the same time, the campaign in Spadina-Fort York is purely a Toronto downtown spat. If you can figure out a difference between candidates New Democrat Olivia Chow and Liberal Adam Vaughan—other than the obvious generational difference—please tell us. They are two downtown retail politicians who might have been allies on many downtown issues.

Chow has been brought back from retirement by the New Democrats because of their sorry lack of big name candidates in Toronto. She has nothing to offer the new riding’s high percentage of condominium dwellers. Adam Vaughan might have an easier time identifying with the condominium crowd if he can understand their concerns. Too many of these people are living on the edge and they have every reason to worry about the job market, the economy and whether their home can hold its purchase price in a glutted condo market.

Welcome to Toronto!

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Tommy trudges to the wrong tune.

July 31, 2015 by Peter Lowry

It is very funny reading the apologists for New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair. They claim he has Quebec in hand and now needs to win the rest of the country. That could be helpful if he could really rely on holding on to the Quebec seats won in Jack Layton’s Orange Wave. Tommy Mulcair is not Jack Layton.

Yet the New Democrat brain-trust tells Tom to paste a smile on his mug and go wow Ontario voters. It does not work that way. They forget that Mulcair is a born-again Quebec Liberal. That means he is much farther to the right politically than most of his NDP candidates. Another problem is that Ontario voters once tried a New Democrat government and did not like it.

And you would have to be really dumb not to know why the New Democrats took such a beating in the last Ontario provincial election. Tommy is making the same mistake as Provincial New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath. She confused Ontario voters with her attempt at crowding the middle ground with the Liberals. She proved it did not work. Is the NDP brain-trust a bunch of one-way Johnys and Jills?

Another problem with Tommy is you really wonder if he is simplifying things so the voters will understand or do his handlers have to simplify things for him. His $15 day care might have meant something back when it was a Liberal plan but it is nowhere adequate in our large urban markets today. If Olivia Chow had any understanding of that portfolio, she would have hammered out a new concept with Tommy before heading for self-immolation in Spadina-Fort York electoral district.

Where Tommy is also running into trouble are the fatuous and undemocratic promises he is making. To shut down the Canadian Senate might be a popular idea but there is no way he can keep that promise unless he was elected God as well as Prime Minister. He knows very well that Quebec would never agree. It is like his assurances that he will change how we vote. Mixed Member Proportional voting that he is promising was the system rejected by Ontario voters in 2007 by a vote of two to one. Any change in how we vote really does need the approval of the voters first.

While the surprise win of the NDP in Alberta might be encouraging, there is no way the same scenario will go across the country. The Alberta Conservative Party and the further right-wing Wildrose Party duked it out and Notley’s NDP came through the middle while the provincial Liberals (without a leader) sat it out on the sidelines. That election was determined by factors quite different than this long-running federal election.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Vacuous Tory attack ads turn vicious.

July 28, 2015 by Peter Lowry

Until recently the Conservative attack ads on television have been simply silly as they posed the suggestion that despite his nice hair, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau might not be ready for the job of prime minister. Oddly enough that might have been true of his father in 1968. After less than half the experience Justin Trudeau has in parliament, Pierre Trudeau handily won election as Prime Minister. Nobody said he was not ready.

But the Harper attack ads on the son swung from silly to surly the other day. It was almost as if the timing was to catch Trudeau’s team before the release of his seniors’ program. The attack ads swung to a seniors theme that accused Trudeau of ignoring this segment of the Canadian population. It even suggested that income splitting for seniors was in jeopardy if he became prime minister. As income splitting for seniors has been about the only protection for them against inflation since the Tories have been in power, those were fighting words..

But the Conservatives have never let something as simple as the truth stand in the way of one of their scurrilous attack ads.

One amusing aspect of this Conservative campaign is that there is nothing new in it. The Diefenbaker Conservatives, trying to fight off a Liberal resurgence in the 1962 or (more likely) 1963 federal election said the same thing about Liberal Leader Lester Pearson. The Nobel Prize winning Pearson answered by parading an impressive array of Liberal candidates before the television cameras that were ready to form a government. That is something Justin Trudeau can do today and Stephen Harper cannot. He has too many replacements to make.

The advantage Justin Trudeau has that his father did not have is that Justin Trudeau knows and has worked hard with his political party. He has built a strong party and nobody is selling it short.

And if the Liberals want to run attack ads, the best available theme might be the rats leaving the sinking Harper ship. It is when you look at what is left of the Harper cabinet and the zombies that he and his party are choosing as candidates, you really do wonder if Stephen Harper does want to run everything himself?

In fact, the Liberals could use the same theme against the New Democrats. It is obvious that Thomas Mulcair would not be ready to run the country himself but you really wonder where he would find a cabinet in his lacklustre line-up of candidates.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Eglinton-Lawrence is the place to be today.

July 26, 2015 by Peter Lowry

It all comes down to the wire today in what will be one of the most hotly contested Toronto ridings in the October federal election. It is widely assumed by politicos that whoever the riding Liberals pick as their candidate will become the next Member of Parliament. The dour Conservative incumbent Joe Oliver has failed as Finance Minister and has little excuse for his poor performance.

What is very important to remember today is that Eve Adams, who was the Conservative MP from Mississauga jumped from the Harper Conservatives to the Trudeau Liberals in February 2015. The move was more practical than ideological as the Conservative Party had indicated that they did not want her to run for the party in the coming election. There were questions about her questionable tactics in vying for the Conservative nomination in Oakville North-Burlington.

Some of the same questions have now come to light in Eglinton-Lawrence. It seems that the media are reporting questionable memberships being signed up by the Adams campaign. There are the usual counter charges from the Adams campaign about the Medicino campaign.

Lawyer Marco Mendicino had a good head start on the Adams campaign in signing up new Liberal Party members. So the counter charges might just be pro-forma. You never know. He also has broad support from people such as Mike Colle, the Liberal MPP for the Eglinton-Lawrence area at Queen’s Park.

The battle lines seem to be drawn between the right wing of the party as centred at Queen’s Park and the left wing Liberal politicos across the city. The most interesting aspect of this is the presence of Kathleen Wynne’s political campaign guru, Tom Allison, running Eve Adams’ campaign for the nomination. With Wynne’s riding just across Yonge Street from Eglinton-Lawrence, it raises some interesting questions about Wynne’s friendly relations with Mike Colle. He might not be in the cabinet soon.

But the real question today is the outcome for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and his campaign team. He was the one who promoted the idea of Eve Adams running against Conservative Joe Oliver. His strategy is obviously based on picking up the soft Conservative vote from the voters deserting the Harper Tories in the coming election. That might be a winning approach if at the same time he can stop The NDP’s Mulcair from picking up disgruntled left-wing Liberals. Who said politics is easy?

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Tommy tours Ontario.

July 25, 2015 by Peter Lowry

Whoever convinced New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair to paste that smug smile on his face should be cashiered out of the NDP. The poor guy looks more constipated than happy. Now that Mulcair is being exposed to more Ontario voters in this pre-election run up, we are starting to understand the man’s problems in the coming campaign.

Seeing clips of Mulcair on an Ontario farm with a heifer, we could not help thinking of those famous pics of Opposition Leader Robert Stanfield trying to field a football in the 1968 campaign. The one thing we always advise candidates is to stay within their comfort zone. If it is not you, do not do it.

The main point to this commentary is that many older Ontario voters well remember their experience 25-years ago with a provincial New Democrat government. As we recall, it was a disaster. Those of us who had to deal with that government for our business clients learned first-hand of the incompetence, vindictiveness and lack of understanding of their role in both cabinet and caucus.

While many Queen’s Park-knowledgeable Liberals were sympathetic to Bob Rae’s problems as Premier, we did our share of ridiculing his ‘Rae Days.’ Some of us had always recognized that he was a liberal in the wrong party but it hardly helped when he later tried to advance in the right party.

Mulcair’s biggest problem is the same as Stephen Harper’s. He has no depth in his candidates to form a government. Looking at the line-up of New Democrat and Conservative candidates emerging across Ontario, you wonder where any cabinet members would come from. These are weak slates in Ontario and both Harper and Mulcair know it.

And any voter stupid enough to just vote for the party leader had better realize that even Stephen Harper has proved he cannot run the government by himself—as much as he might try. He makes too many mistakes.

When you consider that Stephen Harper’s senior cabinet member from Ontario is Finance Minister Joe Oliver, you realize how shallow the talent pool is in this province for that party. Mulcair might have two potential members of a cabinet in Ontario but after that his search would be tough.

Conversely, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has a wealth of strong candidates for government in Ontario and across the country. And, in case you think Trudeau is not ready for the job of Prime Minister, he will have lots of competent help to do the job.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Olivia Chow’s train has left the station.

July 23, 2015 by Peter Lowry

New Democrat Leader Thomas Mulcair must be desperate for subjects the media will cover. The other day on his ill-conceived Ontario campaign tour Mulcair was even speculating about Jack Layton’s widow, Olivia Chow, returning to politics. Mulcair is hoping she will run against Adam Vaughan in the downtown Toronto Spadina-Fort York constituency. That might be a riding area with previous New Democrat leanings but this election is about change and Olivia Chow is no change agent.

Chow’s major problem with her successor in the now redistributed Trinity-Spadina riding, Liberal Adam Vaughan, is the generation gap. At 58, she is a few years away from collecting pensions but has taken a three-year contract as visiting professor at Ryerson Institute, mentoring students and teaching civic activism. To dump that opportunity to take on what can be a losing bid for a political return is not a cheery prospect.

The problem she faces is that she hardly represents change. Her performance through many years of school board, city council and federal politics was always that of what is called today a retail politician. Her activism was directed at lower economic voters in older neighbourhoods. She has no concept of the problems facing the many thousands of condominium dwellers that make up so much of the new riding.

Even with the high priced politicos hired to forge her bid for the Toronto mayoralty last year her campaign was flat and uninspired. She was out of her league.

The problem is that Mulcair needs her running in Toronto to show solidarity in a weakening NDP base in the city. And while Chow might be persuaded to run, the facts are there is no future for her in Ottawa as a member of the New Democrat caucus. She would be a problem in any New Democrat cabinet should the vote split in October put the NDP in office.

Mulcair desperately needs some big name candidates in Toronto to stave off being eliminated in the rush to rid the country of Stephen Harper and his wrong-way Conservatives. So far the strongest ‘name’ is that of Noah Richler, the son of the late author Mordecai Richler. The only problem is that the NDP have put him in Toronto’s St. Paul’s riding which is not likely to vote NDP without a second coming.

And as much as Mulcair needs a den mother for the accidental New Democrats who do win in October, she has already deserted them once for greener pastures. What makes anyone think she would stay longer this time?

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]

Liberals are committed to change.

July 22, 2015 by Peter Lowry

There are lots of changes being bandied about in this coming election. Only the Conservatives want to stay the course but as that appears to be straight downhill, it is not too popular a route. All this talk of change has made looking for differences between the Liberals and New Democrats something of a game. That is why we were pleased to see that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are offering a national discussion process before proposing a specific change to how Canadians vote.

The NDP has already picked Mixed Member Proportional voting as their change if the party is elected to a majority. That would allow smaller parties such as the NDP to appoint members to parliament to match their popular vote. These non-elected appointees to parliament would have no responsibility to an electoral district and would represent their party not voters.

Alternatively, the Liberals have promised that a wide range of reform measures will be considered by an all-party parliamentary committee. The committee would examine proposals such as ranked ballots and proportional representation as well as measures such as mandatory voting and on-line voting. Having both appeared before parliamentary committees and written committee findings, we can point out that one of those steps does not necessarily follow the other.

The one thing you can be assured of is that no parliamentary committee is ever allowed enough time to do the job. To have a solid understanding of parliamentary voting systems around the world is not something you can absorb from crib notes. It requires an appreciation for democracy, an understanding of societal pressures, a concern for the individual and the imagination necessary to understand what can go wrong.

While it sometimes looks that way, voters do not really take a leap of faith. Voters accept change in the way society accepts change in most things. They take a bold step forward with one foot—while the other remains firmly planted in the past.

And if you really think you know everything you need to know about voting systems, you are invited to read some of the Democracy Papers that are archived on this web site. Considerable time was spent researching and writing those papers for the ‘No’ side in the Ontario referendum on voting method in 2007. The ‘No’ side won by about two to one.

-30-

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to [email protected]