Babel-on-the-Bay – Page 426 – Babel-on-the-Bay is the personal website of Peter Lowry. It is a vehicle for political commentaries.

Highlighting Harper’s hypocracy.

January 8, 2012 by Peter Lowry

Do you remember an earnest young Reform Member of Parliament urging Canadians to switch to a Senate of Canada that was elected, equal and effective? He was a young and eager guy, calling himself Steve Harper. Maybe he calls himself Stephen now to show that he is a different person. And maybe he has found the senate is a good dumping ground for political detritus.

Apologists for the Prime Minister will leap to his defence on this subject. They will point out that he is honouring his promise to appoint persons elected to the senate in their province. And that is true, to a point. Mr. Harper has finally appointed Betty Unger, whom Albertans voted to be in the senate in 2004.

But what is his excuse for the rest of them? He hardly needs more votes in the senate. He has already crushed those intransigent Liberals who thought the senate was a place of sober second thought (before lunch anyway). If he believes that you can only reform an organization by first destroying it, he has already done that. The senate had been on a ramp down a steep hill to oblivion for many years. There is no work for these seven new people but to vote as Harper tells them.

If Harper was sincere about reforming the senate, he could get his point across much faster by not appointing any new senators for any part of the country that does not hold senatorial elections. Can you imagine, Quebec Premier Jean Charest eating crow and orchestrating senatorial elections to maintain Quebec’s 24 seats in the upper house?

But it would not work. It takes a constitutional amendment to really change the Senate of Canada. And nobody denies that a constitutional change is necessary. The distribution of seats was designed for a country as it was 145 years ago. The West is so badly underrepresented that the senate is a constant insult. Quebec is overrepresented and that province would prefer to keep it that way.

But, as bad as the senate situation might be, it is but one of the problems in governing Canada that needs to be addressed. We have to have a constitutional conference—a gathering of people chosen from across Canada for that purpose. They need to come up with a new constitution for a modern Canada. They need to give this country a new direction. Once they have deliberated and made a proposal, we can all vote on it.

It is time this country grew up!

-30-

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

Babel hears from the Ontario Legislature.

January 6, 2012 by Peter Lowry

Babel has heard from its man at Queen’s Park. The electoral district sent Mr. Jackson there in early October. We received mail from him this week and he also signed an article in the Examiner. There is little to say about the mailing piece; the recycle bin was already filled with copies from our neighbours, so we added ours. The Examiner article, we read.

The first thing that was obvious about the article was that our new Member of the Provincial Parliament has not spent his time taking a journalism course. This was written for him. It was very modest of him to only have his name at the beginning and end of the article. Usually something like this is written as a news release and the MPP’s name is worked into every second paragraph.

The story was based on Statistics Canada’s release of unemployment figures in October of last year. It also picked up on Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s mid-December release that linked unemployment to the perceived weaknesses of Ontario’s apprenticeship programs. Whoever wrote the MPP’s article, failed to include the information on the subject from the mayor’s blog at Babel’s city hall Internet site.

The more timely response by Babel’s mayor to the unemployment figures last October pointed out the problem was that Statscan emphasized the donut hole instead of the donut. The mayor, justifiably, complained that Statscan made headlines of the unemployment and ignored the similarly high rate of employment. It is a factor of the average age of people in Babel. With its younger population, Babel is also near the top of the charts of the percentage of people employed.

Tiny Tim Hudak’s December release was just to blame Premier McGuinty for all of Ontario’s unemployment woes. This was hardly a surprise. What was confusing was that he explained that Ontario only allowed one new apprentice for every four journeyman trades persons in the province. While not a trained economist such as the Leader of the Opposition at Queen’s Park, we must admit that the ratio rule makes absolutely no sense. Surely there are various trades that need more apprentices and some that need fewer apprentices. Is nobody doing any forecasting in this?

But our earnest MPP gives a plug to Georgian College for its efforts with apprenticeship programs. We expect we can all agree with that as we face a new year in Babel with renewed determination.

-30-

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

When the NDP joins the Liberals.

January 4, 2012 by Peter Lowry

A Liberal and NDP marriage is going to happen and we will be better pleased with the new party if we start to plan now. It is not something we should do on the fly. That creates bad marriages. What needs to happen first is that we get the leadership issues in each of the parties out of the way. We need a symbolic bride and groom for this arrangement who we can all respect the morning after. And we need a wedding planner—probably a committee. The nuptials are too damn important to let the bride and groom screw up the arrangements.

The NDP are picking their new leader first. The fact that the NDP will be in the role of the bride in this arranged nuptial does not mean that it necessarily needs to be a female leader but it would help. The role needs the skills of a woman. The key is to be willing and alluring but not to forget the substantial dowry of voters being brought to the marriage. The NDP leader has to be able to negotiate with the Liberals and a union negotiator certainly has a leg up in that regard.

That puts Peggy Nash in a strong position and tells us that it is definitely not in any of Thomas Mulcair’s skill sets. Brian Topp, as a front man for Ed Broadbent as Edgar Bergen, is not in the running either. Neither is politician Paul Dewar able to do the job. He needs more experience than he got at his mother’s knee. A personal favourite is Nathan Cohen from B.C. but he might be considered too easy as he is willing to do the party connection without the sanctity of marriage.

Another advantage for the NDP in this marriage is that the new NDP leader will have time to become a known quantity before the Liberals choose a new leader. And we can only speculate on who will be in the running for the Liberal hot spot two years from now. The worst case would be if Bob Rae reneges on his promise not to seek the Liberal leadership. That would have Stephen Harper running attack ads referring to the marriage of the parties as a same-sex marriage. (He is narrow-minded about that.)

Another problem on the Liberal side is that there are few left-of-centre Liberals left in the House of Commons. Since few were running, more than a million of our Liberal voters switched to the NDP in the last election. The Liberal Party might have to broaden its leadership search outside the current crop of MPs. The new Liberal leader has to acknowledge the need for the marriage with the NDP and speak for the compatibility of Social Democratic and Liberal ideals and policies.

But today, the parties need to be finding suitable wedding planners.

-30-

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

Sir Stephen sets the stage for royals.

January 3, 2012 by Peter Lowry

It has a nice ring to it: Prime Minister Sir Stephen Harper. He might prefer to be made an earl but Canadians would have to check the Internet to find out if an earl was as important as a baronetcy. And it costs much less to honour Canadians with a title from the Queen than it does to make them a senator. We might as well go back to royal honours, since the Order of Canada is meaningless to most Canadians.

Stephen Harper is probably counting on it. After the famous argument between Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and publisher Conrad Black, Canadians probably concluded there was some law against Canadian citizens accepting foreign titles. There is no such law. There is nothing more than the 1919 Nickle Resolution of the Canadian parliament that has been ignored or enforced by various governments as they wished.

But there is a custom that has developed. As the late Kenneth Thomson so elegantly put it: “When in London, I am Lord Thomson of Fleet. When in Toronto, I am Ken.” It is the Canadian way.

Mr. Harper seems to be about to change that. After his government’s test to return the Canadian forces and regiments to their various “royal” designations, he has determined that nobody really gives a damn. Other than the feeble screams and rants of some bloggers and editorial writers, life has gone on. Maybe we ranters and screamers should have emphasized the ludicrous expense involved in this silly action but it is too late now. The dumb deed is done.

The feelers are now out again. The Prime Ministers’ Office is testing the waters. They are checking the optics, as they say. That arch enemy of Liberalism, Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper’s sage adviser, is leaking to the media the possibilities of Stephen developing stronger ties for Canada with the monarchy. Another visit from the royals is planned for this year to follow up on the very successful honeymoon trip last year with Willy and Kate.

Heir apparent Charlie and his lovely bride Camilla will be visiting this year. Maybe they will bring greetings from the Queen and announce that henceforth royal rewards will once again be allowed for Canadians. Will Canadians be able to contain their excitement? Would they want to dispense with the foolishness of the monarchy when honours could be had? Will a Companion of the Order of Canada feel cheated? Will this writer be recognized as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire? Probably not!

-30-

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

Babel’s Potemkin train station to nowhere.

January 2, 2012 by Peter Lowry

It rises above the mists of the 19^th Century on the southwest corner of Kempenfelt Bay. Surely, you can catch the train to Hogwarts on Platform 9¾. The Polar Express should also leave from here. This is Babel’s multi-million dollar donation to history. The exterior is beautifully restored. There are no travellers. There are no trains. Not from Babel’s Allandale Station. There are only the ghosts of travellers past.

The GO station hides behind the Allandale Station. It’s its own expense file. Babelites will be boarding trains to Toronto at this new GO Station, this year, maybe, sometime. It includes an underpass for those parking on Gowan, the street behind. It includes bus shelters for home-bound travellers to wait for a Babel bus—that will also come, sometime.

But do not confuse the South Lakeshore GO Station with the Allandale Train Station. They are not one and the same.

The Allandale Train Station is historical. The property around it is an opportunity for an entrepreneur. If you cannot make money from development in the area, you can maybe sue the city for something you think it should have done or maybe did do. The lawyers will take charge of the file and will argue over it. Only the lawyers will be enriched. When everyone is tired of it, there will be recompense paid. It all comes from the taxpayers anyway.

But for now, the mystic Allandale Train Station sits all pristine, buffed and polished, it holds court as the jewel on the bay. It awaits the decisions as to its fate. What it should be is a destination for the world to see. It could become a pride of place for Babelites. It could also become a favourite destination for Torontonians. They can stand in line to buy GO tickets to bring them to our prize.

For optimum return on investment, we have recommended that the Allandale Train Station front an entertainment complex with casino and hotel. It could also front a family-oriented complex with water park and roller coasters and take us all back to our childhood. Another recommendation is that the lands include a world-class concert hall to be built in the style of the Algonquin longhouse. Babel needs music. It needs culture. And we need to take pride in Babel.

Or if not, we can think small-town and stay a small town. We can easily coast along as a bed-room community of the Greater Toronto Area. Or we can believe in ourselves and what we can be. The original Allandale Station was built for a thriving town at the gateway to Ontario’s north. It was a destination place then. It should be today.

-30-

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

Twitter twaddle in Canadian politics.

January 1, 2012 by Peter Lowry

In advising aspiring politicians about communications, you can hardly ignore the phenomenon of social media on the Internet. It is reality and it can be useful, is your advice, but—and it is a very large ‘but’—you have to keep it controlled. Do you, for example, call yourself a blogger if you remember to post something every few months? Do you think, your followers will be satisfied with a twit on twitter every other day? Do you consider vapid twits from twitter as sufficient postings for facebook? Obviously the answer is ‘no’ to those questions and that is the sum of the problem.

If someone is doing their job as a politician, there is really no time for social media. If you are Prime Minister Harper, you have staff to do that sort of thing. And even then it is not done all that well. The Harper spoof sites are far more entertaining than the real Harper site.

And, if you are a serious politician, you pay attention to the spoof sites. We were delighted that a spoof site was created on twitter recently for a fictional Peter Lowry @babelonthebay. We are being recognized! It was reasonably well done and linked the Babel mayor’s tweets to give it some content. A spoof site shows that you have pissed somebody off. It is the highest award you can earn in social media.

You have to remember that social media is dominated by 13-year olds. You have to work in their mindset. It is not a grouping of rocket scientists. From a marketing perspective, the most important product discussion is about acne treatments. If you make somebody angry, you get a childish response. You try to encourage people to communicate with you directly if you have written something with which they disagree but a childish mindset cannot handle such direct contact.

Obviously, Babel-on-the-bay is not written for 13-year olds. It is written for people interested in politics—mainly Canadian. It appreciates that the reader is an adult and uses adult language. It is an attempt to communicate ideas for Canada’s future. It seeks to deflate the pompous. It is for people who want to understand. It is fun to write. Please communicate if you wish to comment or to disagree, we rarely bite.

-30-

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

Think as a loser: be a loser.

December 31, 2011 by Peter Lowry

One of the resolutions that will be debated at the Liberal Party of Canada gathering starting January 13 is to promote preferential voting. This is a system where voters indicate their first, second and third choice and the tally of votes is based on who would (mathematically) win more than 50 per cent of the vote, should the last place candidates be dropped and their second choices be given the vote. The idea is to ensure that the final victor is someone who is preferred by more than 50 per cent of the voters. And yet, they are really indicating who they do not want.

It is a losers’ strategy. It says that those voting for the resolution think our first-past-the-post system does not work. In reality, it works too well for losers. If Canadians were voting for the Prime Minister (President or whatever) on a one-person-one-vote basis across the country, there could be a very good case made for a run-off election if no candidate received at least 50 per cent of the vote. The voter could then (maybe reluctantly) vote for a second choice.

But no matter how you do the mathematics of the voting, the preferential ballot is just a step away from proportional voting. Proportional voting is the anathema of our electoral system. From the time when voters had to shout out their preference at a town meeting to the coming time of Internet voting, our system has been built on the assumption of the knowledgeable voter. It has also been based on the interaction of politician and voter. It is an ignorant and lazy voter who will vote for a person not bothering to learn about them or to meet them.

The trend towards voting for the party leader without caring who the local candidate might be is also in defiance of the opportunities offered by our system. Better than any other political system, Canadian politics has long offered the citizen direct involvement in choosing candidates and choosing the elected member of municipal, provincial or federal government. And we can do it without fear of corruption or coercion.

As we said, those voting in favour of preferential balloting at the Liberal January conclave are supporting a losers’ strategy. It is saying that you want to be elected—even if by being the second choice of the voters. Would you really want to hold your head high and serve in government for four years because you were second choice? What shallow person would want that? If you think as a loser, you will be one.

-30-

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

Political polling is not what it used to be.

December 30, 2011 by Peter Lowry

It was our late friend and former Senator Keith Davey who provided the name. It was called Polar Research. It was the only research firm we trusted. It was ours. We never really trusted the mainline firms. We knew their weaknesses. We also knew better than to release our conclusions.

Our major weakness was the availability of skilled interviewers for Polar Research. We had to work with the political volunteers who were available. There is little time in a political campaign to train and motivate your callers. It was for that reason that we developed a weighting formula that was based on a known factor within the polling sample. It was only when we applied the weighting to the gross results that you could get a picture of what was happening. Maybe we were just lucky but our polling—with its good or bad news—was always on the nose.

Today’s pollsters are probably more frustrated with call display than anything else. Sure, you can overcome call display but too many people let the unknown go to voice mail.

The silliest survey technique to be developed in recent years is the automated telephone calls rudely asking a single question. The call will ask you to press “1” for this candidate and “2’ for that candidate, etc. By the time people get the third or fourth of those calls, they are punching a number at random to get rid of the call. And these calls are only to people who have land lines.

No matter what technique is used, nobody today does really good surveys of political opinion. The news media promote the foolishness because it is an opportunity for them to create a story. These stories fill newspaper pages and air time. They are biased by the media opinions. (You thought they had no opinions?)

Not even the well proved reliability of door-to-door canvassing is as effective today as it was 30 years ago. It is only when you go out door-knocking yourself that you realize that there are many people who will not answer the door to a stranger. And you can be doubly rejected if it is obvious you are a political canvasser.

The added problem today is that one in three of the people you want to speak with are not even interested in going to vote. Maybe these people could perform a public service by putting a plague sign on their lawn or door that says “I don’t vote.” That could certainly save time.

But the facts are that no pollster can match the accuracy of the poll done at the election’s end by the Chief Returning Officer. It is the only one that matters.

-30-

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

Should we kill all the lawyers?

December 28, 2011 by Peter Lowry

Having been active in business, charities and politics, one gets to know many lawyers. Some of them are quite civilized and likable people. Despite this, there is a strong tendency to agree with William Shakespeare’s character in Henry VI, Part 2 who suggested that (to have an effective revolution) first we have to kill all the lawyers. In Shakespeare’s time, the line probably had even the lawyers in the audience laughing.

At a neighbourhood get-together the other evening, a lawyer made the mistake of claiming that lawyers are put on earth to assure us less fortunate people of access to the law. The reaction to his claim was spontaneous and bordered on the rude. Of course, in his field of law, he has every right to feel proud of what he is able to do for people. It is just that lawyers themselves are often guilty of promoting bad jokes about lawyers.

To many of us, the lawyer is seen as someone with their hand out, waiting for the rest of us to pay our tithes for access to the law. Without legal training, your way is barred. Even in small claims court in Ontario where having legal counsel is not always necessary, we have noted that court-ordered settlements tend to be more generous when lawyers are involved—probably to pay their fees.

But lawyers have been with us since before the days of Cicero in ancient Rome. In Robert Harris’ wonderful novel Imperium, he showed how inseparable lawyers were from politics as far back as Cicero’s time. Mind you, assassination was one of the alternatives to having more votes back then, so you would have expected politicians to be a bit more cautious in making enemies.

Politicians in our day need not be quite as concerned. If they are also lawyers, they can look after themselves quite nicely, thanks to the voters.

If, for example, you have ever struggled with condominium law in Ontario, you can quickly learn what an ass, the law can be. Condominium law, in this province, is probably the best example of lawyers looking after lawyers you will ever see. The elected board of directors of a condo community is treated in the act as though they are incompetents—and can be.

Of all failures of Ontario lawyer-politicians, the most offensive was the response to Toronto Police Chief William Blair when he asked about laws supporting his expanded police force for the G20 in Toronto. He was given the wrong and outdated act under which he was to operate that even he knew had to be wrong. Nobody stepped up to take the blame. Premier Dalton McGuinty (a lawyer) and his pack of lawyers at Queen’s Park disgraced our province!

-30-

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

In Carney we trust.

December 27, 2011 by Peter Lowry

As children, we were always excited with the trips from Toronto to Chicago to visit mother’s family. It was the American greenbacks—slipped to us by generous relatives—that impressed us the most. What was of concern though was to note the American money seemed to put in trust with God while the stability of Canadian money was put in the hands of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Lately, the score in that regard has been Mark Carney: 1, God: 0.

As governor of the Bank of Canada, Carney has an enviable reputation. He has even been loaned to the G20 members as chair of the Financial Stability Board by Prime Minister Harper. It is his control of the Canadian dollar that has most impressed the member countries of the G20.

God’s currency, by comparison, seems beyond anyone’s control. While supposedly under the stewardship of Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke, that economist finds that most days, the American buck has a mind of its own. Bernanke’s main problem is that while he has used the money printing presses to try to shore up the American economy, he is much too right-wing in his political outlook. It leaves the Fed Chairman in somewhat a conflicted position.

Mind you, Barack Obama had no alternative to Bernanke. He knew it was guaranteed that he would never get a more left-wing Federal Reserve chair past a Republican-dominated Senate. Being from Alberta did no harm to Mark Carney when Stephen Harper promoted the then Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada to the top job.

Bernanke and the American dollar are on a roller-coaster ride while he tries to find some satisfactory answers to the American economic problems. The Canadian dollar has so-far withstood most of the pressures this causes on the smaller Canadian economy.

But the longer the world-wide economic troubles continue, both Bernanke and Carney will find they have fewer and fewer options left to them. While Wall Street might have started all the problems with the American lack of controls and the uncivilized greed, it is Main Street in every country in the world that is paying the price.

What we must do is start to get ahead of the problems. We must first protect our citizens from corporate gluttony. Senior executives should not be making incomes over ten times that of the average worker. ‘Buyer beware’ is no longer appropriate as a corporate slogan. Corporate citizenship must go beyond the laws. Corporate responsibility is to all countries where the company operates or sells its products or services. Our corporate world serves people—we do not serve the corporations.

-30-

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