CuriosityCat

Ignatieff gives Jack Layton a few more seats

2009-12-01T10:08:00.000-08:00

Come the next election, the NDP will ride the wave of popular discontent with the widened, deeper, unjustified HST to win a few more seats, at the expense of the Liberals and Tories.

And not all Liberal MPs agree with being whipped into shaped by Ignatieff on this issue. Some correctly believe that the HST at this moment is the wrong tax at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

"Ignatieff said the vote on the HST implementing legislation will be “whipped,” meaning all Liberal MPs will be expected to support it.

That may yet prove difficult for some.

Victoria MP Keith Martin continued Tuesday to crusade against the HST in his province, predicting it will kill jobs, hurt people of modest means, and cramp the economy. He dismissed his leader’s argument that federal politicians should respect the wishes of provincial governments.

“We simply are not there to be lackeys, to just move ahead and nod our heads and say yes,”Martin said. “Our role and responsibility is to defend the interests of the people in our province.”

Toronto MP Judy Sgro acknowledged that federal Liberals are worried they’ll be blamed for the HST by Ontario voters, who’ll likely cast ballots federally before they vote in a provincial election.

She said history shows voters take out their anger on the first politicians to show up at the door.

“Clearly, this is a difficult issue,” she said."

I do not believe that the Liberal Party should be simply the head waiter for any provincial government on such an issue. And especially not when Harper has wasted billions of taxpayers' money and wants to pump more than five billion into the hands of the provinces to reward them for increasing taxes on their citizens.

This was a chance for the Liberal Party to stand up for ordinary Canadians, and to simply vote against the measure, as being the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Instead, Ignatieff has handed several seats in BC and in Ontario to the NDP.

How to combat Harper's framing of the HST

2009-11-27T10:37:00.000-08:00

Once more we see the Harper government trying to change the public discourse away from its performance in Afghanistan, to an issue which puts Ignatieff and the Liberals under the microscope.

Harper is trying to do this by introducing an HST bill while framing the issue as support for the legal right of the provinces to harmonize sales taxes if the provinces wish to do so:

""This is not a complicated decision," according to draft talking points prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, obtained by The Canadian Press. "Either Parliament supports the right of the provinces to choose a harmonized value-added tax or it does not."

"This legislation will have the support of the Official Opposition or it will not. If it does, we expect the bill to win approval before the Christmas recess," the notes say."

The intent of this framing is to drive a wedge between the Liberals and the other opposition parties, to divert attention, to pit the Liberals against the BC and Ontario premiers.

But mostly to force the Liberals into siding with the Tories on the HST, and so deprive the Liberals of an explosive issue come next election – perhaps in 2010, just after the two provinces have socked it to their citizens with the increased taxes.

Very clever strategy by Harper and his new Tories.

Now let's see if Ignatieff has learned anything about framing.

One clear trap is to vote for the Harper Sales Tax, and so deprive the Liberals of an issue come the next election, handing this potent weapon over to the NDP, which has seen an uptick in its support due partly to its strong opposition to the HST.

How to frame the issue properly?

Try this, Mr Ignatieff.

Vote against the Harper bill next week and explain that the Liberal opposition is grounded not on opposing the right of any province to harmonize taxes (as Harper has framed the issue), but on the pressing need to reduce the federal government's debt, due to the massive wastage, inept policies and incompetence of this untrustworthy government.

State clearly that by voting for Harper's bill, the Liberals would be agreeing to the Harper minority government yet again committing billions of taxpayers money to a purpose which is not a primary purpose of the central government this time – the payment of billions of dollars to the provinces wishing to harmonize the taxes. And the Liberals will not be a party to yet another misuse of scarce taxpayers money during this bitter recession.

Also, it would indirectly take money out of the pockets of taxpayers over the next two years, at a time when the economy needs consumers to spend money on job-creating goods and services.

Therefore, for these reasons, the Liberals should vote against the HST bill now being introduced by Harper.

Are Tory Ministers endangering our troops?

2009-11-25T09:09:00.000-08:00

For weeks now Canadians have heard about the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and the possibility that some detainees were handed over to Afghan troops and tortured. Today the Globe & Mail describes the latest development – the statement by our diplomat, Richard Colvin, that some of the memoranda he prepared on this possibility were copied to some of PM Harper's ministers.

All this discussion raises one very important point.

A legitimate question to be asked is whether these activities, if they in fact did take place, have endangered our troops, and whether the action (or, perhaps more importantly, inaction or delayed action) of the cabinet ministers responsible have endangered our troops.

The danger for our troops could arise from several sources. If Canadian troops gain the reputation of being complicit, even indirectly, in the torture of people they detain, this could make their task more difficult in peacekeeping missions in future years. Also, our troops might have been placed in a position where they might be subject to criminal charges, due to breaches of international law governing detainees.

It is the duty of our opposition MPs to raise in the House legitimate questions regarding just what has taken place, who knew about these events, and which ministers took the proper steps to prevent our troops coming into such harm; and to protect our troops.
The knee jerk reaction of the Harper minority government is typical of the Tory worldview. Scratch one of Harper's new Tories and you find a politician absolutely convinced that it is totally incorrect for any member of this government to agree in any way that any action or inaction taken or not taken by this government is in any manner wrong.

For centuries the belief persisted in Europe that the Catholic Pope in Rome was infallible. Today, it seems that the claim to the mantle of infallibility has been assumed by our Tory government.

Perhaps Pope Stephen should stop deflecting legitimate questions in Parliament and instead ask his ministers to ensure that nothing it done or permitted that might endanger our troops.

President Obama's rule of law firestorm

2009-11-19T09:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was a bad day for the president and a worse day for American democracy.

Commenting on a case before an American court, Obama said:

"“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” the U.S. President said Wednesday before leaving China."

Imagine that – a US president commenting on a case before a US court, ignoring the rule of law which says that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and confidently announcing in public that he expects a guilty verdict.

But things got worse.

The US Attorney-General stated that the Obama administration would ignore the courts of the land if these courts made decisions which found the accused innocent.

"In a day of startling comments over pending terrorism trials, the top justice official – Attorney-General Eric Holder – made it equally clear that Mr. Mohammed won't walk free, even if a New York City jury fails to convict him or a federal court judge tosses out the case… Facing a wave of critics warning of the risks of putting Mr. Mohammed on trial, Mr. Holder bluntly asserted that “failure isn't a option” when asked during a Congressional hearing whether Mr. Mohammed and other key terrorist suspects will be convicted. Acquittals, claims of asylum and even judicial orders freeing them won't result in releases, he asserted.

“If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released,” Mr. Holder bluntly told the Congressional hearing, referring to Mr. Mohammed – the self-proclaimed planner of the Sept 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

“What if a federal judge orders the Department of Justice to release Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn asked. “Will you defy that order?”
Mr. Holder made it clear that by moving Mr. Mohammed to a prison offshore – such as Bagram in Afghanistan, where hundreds of detainees are held – a release order could be circumvented.

“We have taken the view that the judiciary does not have the ability necessarily to certainly require us to, with people who are held overseas, to release them,” he said. “It's hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances, given the other things that we could do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” that would result in him being freed,” the Attorney-General said.

“Under the regime we are contemplating … the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention."

What startling statements. A president pre-judging a case before the courts, and an Attorney-General stating publicly that the administration would defy the courts of the land and keep an accused imprisoned, even if ordered to release him.

What is going on?

Very simple, really.

Obama is facing the reality of his promise during the presidential election campaign to switch the trials of accused terrorists from the military courts set up by President Bush, to the civil courts of the US. When he made that promise, he goofed because he did not consider the consequences of his policy.

Now the rubber is hitting the road. Recent elections have shown that the right cannot be ruled out of contention in the US, and that Democratic candidates can be defeated. And next year a big whack of the Senate is up for election.

The Democrats barely control the Senate at the moment, and they could easily lose that control with the loss of less than a handful of senate seats next year. And that would spell the end of Obama, because it would spell the end of his major policies – global warming, stimulus, health care, among others.

What happened?

Obama and his team forgot that in modern politics you live or die by the framing of issues. And suddenly they have come up against a deadly framing that the Republicans are busily polishing: that the Democratic Party is the party which allowed the terrorists who attacked New York on 9/11 to go free.

If any of these accused terrorists manages to end up freed by a US court (most likely the Supreme Court, and most likely because of evidence used in the trials gained from torture), then the Republicans will paint the Democrats as the party which defied commonsense, were soft on crime, and switched the trials from the Bush military courts to the civil courts.

In fact, the Republicans don't even have to wait for the trials to end (which will take years) before using this framing – their questions in the past week indicate that they are prepared to run with the framing as a possible consequence of the President's decision.

If that framing sticks, many Democrats will go down in the House and Senate elections for years to come.

So now the Obama administration is scrambling to have its cake and eat it at the same time. Having committed to using the civil court system rather than the military courts, they have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma: what if these courts set the accused free?

Way back when the election was hot and heavy, Obama had a choice of a third route, which he did not take because no-one on his team had thought through the consequences of his decision. And that was to grandfather all pending charges and cases and allow them to continue in the military courts, but to close down using military courts for future crimes.

Instead, he now faces the dilemma: does he obey the rule of law and allow an accused to go free if acquitted, obey a court order to release a man found innocent by a US court, or does be spirit the accused out of the country and hold another trial before a military court, charging that same accused yet again with the same crime he was acquitted of?

It seems that he has made his choice.

And those on the left of the bitter left-right American political spectrum now face the uncomfortable fact that their president seems to have decided not to obey the laws of the land.

The Liberal Model: An Aristocratic Government-in-Exile

2009-11-10T17:42:00.000-08:00

The Cat has puzzled over exactly what model of politicking the Liberal Party seems to have adopted over the past year or so, and after delving into the history of the past century or so, has concluded that the model now being used by the LPC is that of an aristocratic government-in-exile.

The analogue that seems to resonate the most is that of the aged aristocrats who fled from the bloodthirsty Red Russians during the Russian Revolution. These people ended up sprinkled amongst various capital cities in Europe, where they busied themselves forming committees for the restoration of the monarch and the old order in Mother Russia.

They would meet often, to discuss their various ailments, preach to the converted about the perfidious Reds, agree whose turn it was to write a stern letter to the editor of the local newspapers, decrying the latest Red misdeeds, fighting amongst each other on occasion over who would do what, and generally being totally ineffective when it came to the cardinal issue of actually doing something to replace the Reds.

Lenin disregarded them, while Stalin ignored them when he wasn't sending out a team to harass them on occasion.

Gradually over time these displaced aristocrats passed on the happier hunting grounds awaiting displaced blue bloods, and their offices were closed, one after another, and the mildewing collections of newspapers stored therein tossed into the garbage.

It has been decades since anyone even thought of those displaced former rulers.

Now the Liberal Party seems intent on following in their footsteps.

The party seems to have forgotten one cardinal rule of politics - the right of every single voter to ask of any political party seeking his or her vote one important question: What is in it for me?

The Liberal Party seems to have an answer, but one which does not work. Instead of laying out a platform before the voters showing what it will do for them if elected, it seems intent on answering the question with this suicidal answer:

"You don't count. Your role is simply to vote for us and restore us to our former glory as Canada's governing party. Now please be quiet and vote us in again. After all, we are entitled to rule this country."

Poor brooding aristocrats, huddled in their seedy offices in the capitals of Europe, waiting for a miracle to sweep aside the triumphant Reds, and restore them to their rightful place.

And poor members of the Liberal Party, who watch helplessly as their party elite seems determined to use those aged aristocrats as their operating model.

And above all, poor Canada for having so few choices come election time.

A very good idea

2009-11-03T11:43:00.000-08:00

Keep your fingers crossed for Hope Plus.

"President Barack Obama and Bill Gates are being invited to back a website that promotes social politics.

The web portal, entitled Hope Plus, aims to offer online tools to enable social projects such as building schools and fighting pollution.

Although still being created, the site is billed as "a place where people can meet, congregate and participate..to change the world online".

It aims to launch in December at the Copenhagen Climate Change conference."

If it is launched, this idea could really take off.

Imagine tens of millions of people signing up to help fight global warming ….

Step aside, climate sceptics, the people are on the move!

Harper fiddles while Canada burns

2009-11-03T08:26:00.000-08:00

Politically literate Canadians have a democratic right (indeed, an obligation) to delve into history in order to make sense of our present circumstances. And the swine flu epidemic now striking all regions of Canada call for us to do so.

The Cat believes it has found a striking parallel to the manner in which the current Harper minority government has handled the swine flu epidemic.

For that we go back to early Rome, to one of the most memorable emperors, Nero.

Wikipedia has a nice little summary of some events that happened during Nero's lamentable rule:

"Nero also built a new palace complex known as the Domus Aurea in an area cleared by the fire. This included lush artificial landscapes and a 30 meter statue of himself, the Colossus of Nero... To find the necessary funds for the reconstruction, tributes were imposed on the provinces of the empire. According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible. To deflect blame, Nero targeted Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned… In 64, Nero began singing in public … in order to improve his popularity."

Hmmm …

Now, let's see if the behaviour of PM Harper and his government match some of Nero's behaviours.

First, Nero is accused by Roman historians of inaction during a severe crisis. Then, during the crisis, legend has it that he played the fiddle while Rome burned. And then he is charged with trying to shift the blame from himself to others.

Well, yesterday, Harper and his government were also accused of inaction, and trying to shift the blame:

"An emergency debate was held in Ottawa and the opposition parties let loose on the governing Conservatives. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff led the charge saying the government wasn't prepared for the wave of people seeking the H1N1 vaccine.
"The Health Minister said the vaccine would be available to all Canadians in early November now she says it won't be available until Christmas, and we've discovered there isn't an adequate supply for next week," Ignatieff said.

The criticism didn't stop there. The opposition says the government has failed to inform Canadians about H1N1. "This is a government that has spent something like ten times more on its own publicity, publicizing its own highly partisan infrastructure program than it spent on public health information," added the Liberal Leader. He also says the government is avoiding responsibility by blaming everyone else. "They blame the drug company, they blame the provinces," accused Ignatieff."

Parallels? Harper (Nero) was not prepared for the crisis. Then Nero (Harper) fiddled while the crisis erupted, instead of taking action to resolve the crisis.

And finally, Nero (Harper) tried to deflect responsibility by pointing fingers at others …

Who said history isn't instructive?

But let's ask one more question: why does the Harper government behave this way when crises hit the country?

The answer lies in two things.

Firstly, the Harper Conservatives really do not, in the heart of their hearts, believe in a central government which has any obligation to become active in defence of Canadians. They believe in a minimalist government, with most actions being devolved to the provinces, and the Ottawa-based central government mostly acting as a funds-gatherer and funds-dispenser. That ideology means that if things go wrong, you don't dive in to help Canadians. You first take out the constitution to check if the matter falls within the powers of the provinces. If it does, you sit back and let everyone know that it is up the premiers. If it does not, you still sit back for a while to see if the crisis will blow over without any action being taken by you.

That is what Harper's government has been doing. When it was obvious that the deep recession was coming, this incompetent and untrustworthy government sat back and did nothing. When the recession broke upon us, it dragged its feet until forced to act by the MPs of the other parties. When it was clear the swine flu was coming and was going to be an epidemic, Harper's government did the same.

But in the meantime, when parents feared for the lives of their children, is has been using our money to pay for advertisements saying that it was doing a heckuva job pumping stimulus funds into the economy.

Secondly, these behaviours are the behaviours of fat cats, who have become lazy. The Tories have grown to love the trappings of power, and are delighted in self-praise, while neglecting the really serious things facing our country. This has made them lazy.

Too lazy to lift a finger to anticipate and prepare for a deep recession.

Too lazy to lift a finger to anticipate and prepare for an epidemic.

Too lazy to lift a finger to help jobless Canadians.

Not only do we seem to have a Nero for prime minister, but we seem to have a lazy Nero.

We can do better than this.

The "Byers Ceasefire" would benefit the NDP by up to 19 seats

2009-11-02T09:43:00.000-08:00

Professor Byers has proposed a one-time ceasefire between the Liberals and Dippers in the next election.

The Byers Ceasefire would mean a gain for the NDP of between 14 and 19 seats.

In his article in The Toronto Star Byers calculates that the NDP would gain between 5 and 10 seats more than the 36 it now holds in Parliament, and the Liberals would gain between 30 and 40 seats.

However, the true calculation which Jack Layton and his MPs have to make is to consider what the most likely results of an election held without the Byers Ceasefire would be. Recent polls over the past several months are a guide.

Let's take the latest results by Threehundredandeight as the starting point. They show the NDP losing 9 seats, reducing from the 36 now held to 27.

So the Byers Ceasefire offers the NDP the chance to improve their fortunes from the forecasted 27 seats to a total of between 41 and 46 seats – that is, gains over the most likely result of 14 to 19 seats.

In addition, the NDP would gain two more advantages: the retention by current NDP MPs of their seats, and a commitment by the Liberal Party to fund a referendum on some form of proportional representation.

The advantage for the Liberals would be a gain of 30 to 40 seats, and the chance to form the next government, replacing Harper's do-little right wing regime.

The further advantage for the LPC is that the Byers Ceasefire does not require any coalition or governance agreement to be struck between the two parties; the Ceasefire deal would involve only two commitments.

Firstly, not to fight each other in seats held by the other party or, if a Conservative was elected in a seat, in such a seat (the choice of the NDP or LPC candidate to face the Tory incumbent would be made based on which party gained the most votes in the October 2008 election).

And secondly, to fund the referendum on some form of proportional representation.
The Byers Ceasefire sounds like a very workable solution to me.

Now let's get the discussion of his proposal started. Who within the ranks of the Liberal MPs will champion this Ceasefire suggestion?

Thanks to Lawrence Martin for defining Harper's political style

2009-10-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

In an interesting article in today's Globe & Mail, Martin gives us a very pithy, very apt, and very useable definition of the politics practised by our current prime minister: brutish.

"In Jean Chrétien, he was marketing a populist; in Michael Ignatieff, someone who was to the manor born and who must stake out that higher ground as opposed to being dragged into the pit of tactical games and brute politics that Stephen Harper relishes."

Let us all hope that Harper's style of politicking leads to his foray into the prime minister's office as being one that is nasty, brutish and short.

Especially short.

A sharp edge for the Ignatieff/Donolo Team

2009-10-28T18:46:00.000-07:00

Two weeks before he was asked to join Michael Ignatieff's team, pollster Donolo had this to say about the tactics of the Liberal Party:

"He needs to find issues that have sharp edges to them and that serve as really sharp wedges between him and the government. And he needs riskier events to do that."

The Cat agrees with that advice, and offers a sharp edge for the Liberal leader and his new Chief of Staff to consider.

Harper's Tories are consistently winning headlines and beating the Liberals in the media war by coming up with new proposals every week or so on one of the topics which the voters see as being a Tory topic: crime.

And every time the Liberals splutter, mutter and then come out with a Me-Too chorus. Too late, too ineffective, and too reactive.

So let's use a sharply edged issue that will resonate with the public and which the Liberals can clearly own, with the Tories unlikely to get much traction on, due to their history of broken promises and questionable actions.

The sharp edge issue?

Making Parliament work.

The theme - Come out with a comprehensive, hard edged set of policies which the Liberal government will craft legislation on, designed around the theme: This is your Parliament, and we can do better.

New Accountability Act - Include a revised Accountability Act, with teeth in it; spell out the details.

Taxpayers' money - Include restrictions on the use of taxpayers' money by governments, so that political parties cannot use our money to advance their parties (for example: no cheques with PM names or party names or emblems; no wasted advertising which does not provide clearly defined information to voters about government programs, and end there; an independent body to have powers to investigate complaints by political parties and/or individuals of questionable advertising which might have breached the new rules, and claw back the wasted monies from the political party responsible for the waste).

TV in the House - Change the ability of the television cameras to show all of Parliament (including split screens), and not just the Speaker and MP speaking – this will show buffoons acting like buffoons and reduce the childishness we see so often.

MPs speaking - Provide for MPs to speak while sitting down (this reduces foolery).

Accountability Czar - Beef up the ability of an independent body to investigate, comment on and publish findings on the costs of proposed and current government initiatives, with the proper staffing and funding, and without Parliamentary interference. Set out very clearly what such a body can and cannot do. The Accountability Czar would also have the right to comment on the completeness of any government answers to questions raised during Question Period.

Best practices - Introduce steps which other parliaments have taken and which have improved their ability to represent their constituents. See my earlier posts for some suggestions.

Free votes - Legislate for more free votes in Parliament, without party whips riding herd on MPs.

Democratic reform - Commit to set up a process to decide on parliamentary reform, with a view to introducing legislation after a successful referendum, which provides for some form of modified proportional representation.

Gender fairness - Provide for additional public funding of political parties which field more female candidates as MPs, and which increase the number of female MPs in parliament.

Political promises - Legislate accountability for political platforms, by requiring parties to document a set of promise and policies prior to elections, and, if they become the government, to report to voters each year in a state of the nation report on their promises, their progress to achieving those promises, and their reasons for their failure to do so.

Election debates - Legislate a series of public debates between leaders of all parties which have achieved a national vote of at least three percent (3%) in the preceding election, with all television channels to air them and if needed the government to fund them; there should be at least five such debates, covering at least one hour each, with independent moderators; questions are to include questions selected at random from those submitted by Canadians to the moderators; and topics of each debate are to cover the major issues facing Canadians. The format is to provide for serious debate, without interruptions and gotcha nonsense.

Above all, be bold.

Harper will find it very difficult to defend against such a sharply edged issue, given his broken promises over the past few years, and current contemptuous use of our money.

And then make sure that the party hammers home this issue repeatedly, and in as many ways as possible, to ensure that it reaches past the filter of the lazy media to the ears of the voters.

How about it, Messrs Ignatieff and Donolo?

Opt In or Opt Out: Good news for US health care

2009-10-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

With Republican senators dogmatically opposed to a public health care system similar to the very efficient and morally justifiable Canadian and certain EU systems, and with conservative Democratic senators siding with the right wingers, the prospect of the US having a public health care system option as part of the legislation now before the Senate and the House was dim indeed.

But now there is life in the public option again, because some senators have found a new way to skin the cat and allow them to vote for a public option without losing votes in their states.

How did they do that?

"The approach would create a national health insurance program while permitting each state to ‘opt-out’ of the plan or come up with its own public plan to compete with private insurers. As a “fall-back” position, the White House is considering supporting Sen. Carper’s initial proposal of an ‘opt in’ program whereby states would be permitted to launch their own public option with some federal support."

How does this protect the conservative Democratic senators?

This way:

"Essentially, the ‘opt-in’ and ‘opt-out’ approach takes Democratic senators, like Evan Bayh, off the hook with their constituents back home. If their state doesn’t want to play, their senator will have reserved to their state’s voters the right to take a pass. If a state does wish to participate, their senator will have brought home the victory.

The Republicans, on the other hand, who will likely stand pat in opposition, will be left empty handed and remain the party of “no”, having voted to deny their home state the opportunity to make a decision as to whether or not they want in on the program."

Let's keep our thumbs crossed that the Americans will end up with a sensible system.

Canadian pensions: A Failed Experiment

2009-10-22T12:33:00.000-07:00

"And no one in power wants to talk about the problem."

That is the stark message in the latest of the Globe & Mail's significant series of articles on the miserable state of the country's pension plans.

The Cat's challenge to Michael Ignatieff is to dare to be innovative, and emulate Hotspur – he of the "Out of the nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety" quote.

The G&M goes on to say:

"Despite the middle-class retirement shortfalls that are obvious to pension experts, politicians and business leaders seem fixated on patching up existing systems.
Attention and resources get focused on underfunded corporate plans, and on a tired debate over the merits of defined-benefit schemes, where the employer makes good on shortfalls, versus defined-contribution plans, which shift market risk to employees.
There is very little talk about enhancing pensions for the majority of the population that lacks any retirement safety net. University of Toronto pension guru Keith Ambachtsheer says: “Rather than defending old faulty designs, why haven’t pension industry leaders been searching hard for designs better suited to delivering 21-century retirement living standards that are adequate, universal and sustainable?”"

Let's examine who is covered by pension plans, and what kinds of plans there are, before going on to my recommendation to the Liberal Party for an innovative solution.

One key is to understand the buzzwords in the industry, starting with DB and DC:

"Traditional pension plans are DB, defined benefit. A retiree covered by the plan is guaranteed a given level of income. If the plan falls short, the employer is on the hook.

The new model, increasingly favoured by employers, is DC, defined contribution. In this approach, the employer’s responsibility is limited to making a certain (“defined”) contribution to the employees’ pension plan. Contributions made by both the employer and employee go into an individual account for the employee, who makes his or her own investment choices. If the plan falls short, the employee is on the hook."

Instead of using the word 'defined', I find that it helps to use the word 'definite'.

The difference between a Definite Benefit company pension plan and a Definite Contribution company plan is where the risk lies.

Under a Definite Benefit plan, the company promises or commits to the employee that he or she will get a definite pension amount each year upon retirement. The company bears the risk that it has not made enough investments, or the markets (stock and/or real estate) have fallen, so that there are not enough assets available to pay the definite pension amounts.

Companies – aided and abetted by governments at the federal and provincial levels (Conservative and Liberal), long ago decided they did not want that risk, and so stopped the DB plans and moved to the Definite Contribution plans, which shifted the risk of inadequate assets on to the shoulders of the employees.

So we have had a major shifting of pension risks from the corporate sector to the employees over the years, put in place by the economic and political elites of Canada.

The second major shift that the political and economic elites in Canada have brought about in the past quarter of century is to allow a big whack of Canadians to fall between the cracks, ending up without any corporate pension plans.

In 1945, when the Second World War ended, 19% of workers in the private sector had company pension plans. In 1960 this had risen to a whopping 40%. But by 1977 35.2% of workers in the private sector had pension plans; this has fallen by about a third, to 25.5% in 2007.

From 40% in 1960 to 25.5% in 2007. Down by 38% in 47 years, a drop of almost 1% per year. A time when both Liberal and Conservative parties ran our central government.

And so we have a large majority of workers in the private sector in Canada who do not have a pension plan.

The economic and corporate elite finessed this debacle by introducing the concept of retirement savings plans (RRSPs). Canadians who did not have public sector or company pension plans could provide for their retirement by making investments, with the ability to deduct such payments (up to a certain annual limit) from their taxes.

People can take care of themselves, the argument went.

There is no need for the Nanny State to step in and sort out the mess.

And that right wing framing of the issue still reigns today.

Imagine how different we would have been if instead of buying into the right wing Nanny State framing of the pension issue, we had instead adopted the framing of what a responsible state would need to do.

For example, leaving it up to the individual sounds good, right?

But only 31% of those who do not have public sector or company pension plans actually do invest in RRSPs.

That means more than two thirds do not – and that is a measure of the failure of the RRSP substitute for company pension plans if you need any measure!

Some have advocated using a third type of company pension plan, a hybrid one combining elements of the DB and DC plan, called by some a 'target benefit plan':

"In this model, plans target a certain level of benefit payout that appears safely achievable. But if long-term investment performance makes that target unreachable, funding is not increased. Rather, the benefit level is lowered. Conversely, if investment returns exceed the target, the benefits can be increased."

The risk that the assets will not be enough to pay an adequate pension should be shared between employers and employees in a hybrid, but (as the plan quoted by the G&M in the above article shows), such hybrids can shift most of the risk of non-performance onto the employees:

"Another key feature of the plan is that the member companies make a flat contribution on behalf of workers, set as a percentage of their wages. That is their only funding requirement: If the plan is short of money, employers don’t have to cough up more to repay shortfalls. Instead, the plan has to cut benefits for workers or retirees."

In order to properly protect workers in hybrid plans, there is a need to invest the funds in assets which are relatively immune to stock and real estate market risks (such as government bonds).

How big is this problem?

We have 17.6 million Canadians working. Of those, 11 million (63%) have no pension plans. Of those 11 million, only 4 million have RRSPs (leaving 7 million without even RRSPs, and totally dependent on the CPP and OAS payments when they retire. More than half (55%) of the pension plans of the 4.5 million workers with pension plans have DB (defined benefit) plans that guarantee the pension income of retirees until they die, are held by public sector employees.

And the average pension per year is $25,000.

Back to Michael Ignatieff, and the opportunity he now has to solve the problems of so many seniors in a decisive way.

The opportunity for the Liberal Party to come up with an innovative solution to the pension debacle is there. My best guess is that such a solution will take this shape:

1. Everyone who earns income (whether employed by a company or self-employed) must be forced to put aside a certain portion in a pension plan. Leaving the choice open to individuals simply shifts the risks that they turn 65 and don't have enough to live on, onto the rest of the taxpayers. You earn, you pay should be the model.

2. A new hybrid model is created, with contributions each year coming from the employer, the employee and the central government. Let's call the new hybrid the Canada Minimum Pension, or CMP.

3. Workers may contribute additional amounts to their own RRSPs, up to some limit.

4. Companies may make additional contributions to employees, if they so wish.

5. The only Defined Benefit (that is, definite benefit or pension payments) will be made from the amounts invested in the CMP.

6. Canadians will still qualify for the existing Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS), in addition to the CMP payments.

7. All funds in the CMP will be invested in newly designed Government of Canada bonds of various maturities. The interest paid on such bonds will be re-invested in the new government bonds, so as to build up capital.

8. The total amounts which individuals can contribute to RRSPs will be reduced. This means their tax deductions will be reduced, and the earnings on the investments they might have made under the older higher level will not be made and so not be sheltered from taxes. This will result in the central government receiving more taxes. However, such higher taxes will be partially offset by the payment by the GOC of the interest on the new bonds.

9. Company obligations to pay under funded commitments of company pension plans will rank ahead of all creditors (including secured creditors, who will have to take heed of such liabilities before lending to companies), so as to protect workers upon the bankruptcy of the company (currently, workers rank as unsecured creditors against the assets of bankrupt companies which have failed to fund their company pension plans adequately). Nortel employees, for example, stand to lose one third of their pensions because Nortel went bust.

The major obstacle to reform of pensions is that no level of government in Canada wishes to grasp this nettle, preferring to tinker with changes rather than address the problem that millions of Canadians do not have any pensions (company or RRSPs) other than the CPP and OAS.

How to solve that problem?

One simple solution would be for the Liberal Party to state that should it become the government it will change the law governing the payment of pensions to MPs to one which pays MPs a pension based on the Canadian average pension (let's call this the CAP). In calculating that average, the total amounts paid each year as pensions will be divided by the total number of senior Canadians (including all those who only get the CPP and OAS).

By committing to the CAP for all MPs, the Liberal government will ensure that all MPs pay attention to methods to increase pensions of all Canadians so that all senior might have adequate pensions, rather than having millions with fat-cat public service or corporate pensions, and millions without any pensions other than the paltry $17,000 a year.

How about it, Michael Ignatieff?

Don't grow old under a Tory government

2009-10-17T15:58:00.000-07:00

Take a moment to contemplate these startling figures from the Globe & Mail's ongoing and admirable investigation of the state of the nation's pensions:

• 84% of public service workers have pensions.
• 78% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
• 25% of private sector workers have a pension plan
• 16% of these plans are gold plated defined benefit pensions
• 11 million workers, or 60 per cent, of Canada’s workers have no pension at all
• 8 million or 45 per cent, have no pensions or registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs)

That's right.

Eight million Canadian workers (45%) have no pensions or RRSPs; they will depend on the pitifully small handouts grudgingly provided by the Harper Tories, who have run up a huge deficit through their incompetence and untrustworthiness.

And eleven million workers (60%) have no pension at all.

Just hope that you don't grow old in the near future. With the structural deficits brought to you by our piano-playing and stock-picking (The recession is a good time to buy shares …) prime minister, your chances of living out your life as poor senior are high indeed, if you belong to these groups.

Of course, if you are a Tory Cabinet minister, you will probably not notice the monthly cheques from CPP…

The LIberal Party and our seniors

2009-10-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

Here is one problem for Michael Ignatieff to mull over: only one in four of voters 45 years old or older favour the Liberals, while almost half prefer the Tories. The Conservatives have walloped the Liberals by opening up a huge gap in potential support amongst the older voters.

The EKOS poll of October 15, 2009 shows that amongst those 65 and over, a startling 50.3% favoured the Conservatives, compared to only 27.7% for the Liberals. Amongst the 45 to 64 year old group, the Tories lead with 44.5% compared to the Liberals' 25.1%.

But do not abandon hope, All Ye Liberals!

There is a chance for the Liberals to present a policy to the voters which could dramatically change the relative support of the two national parties by older Canadians.

That opportunity arises from a simple fact: millions of Canadians do not have any or adequate pensions, other than the pitifully small CPP and OAS.

Today's Globe & Mail introduces a week long series dealing with the appalling state of the nation's pensions, and the reluctance of federal and provincial governments to publicly recognize the problem, and to protect older Canadians.

This gives us the chance to forge policies which promise all Canadian seniors a decent life after retirement. This will require the Liberal Party to be bold and innovative, but by staking out the territory of pension reform, the party could win over a big chunk of the senior vote (remember, more seniors actually vote in elections, far more than other age groups do), and at the same time fill a vacuum in our political space left by the timorous right wing Harper minority government, and the equally fearful provincial governments.

How big is the problem?

Consider these facts:

"Another set of poorer Canadians should never have had the illusion of security in the first place. A large proportion of workers - 44 per cent, or eight million Canadians - have neither an RRSP nor an employer-based registered pension plan. A growing proportion is self-employed. They will depend on the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and government backstops like Old Age Security. These provide basic assistance, but little more. The maximum CPP monthly payment for a 65-year-old is $908.75. Unless blessed with other assets, a senior who relies on the public system alone lives a life of poverty."

Ignatieff can start by reading the G&M editorial, which contains these suggestions:

"With so many Canadians at personal financial risk, a new approach is needed. Regulators must be more active in monitoring plans between official evaluations. Governments should facilitate the creation of multi-employer pension plans, whose scale can help spread risk and attract workers from smaller workplaces; new plans could get tax credits to encourage their growth. Commitments inherent in existing defined-benefit plans should be legislatively enshrined, so that they cannot be lost in bankruptcy or squandered when good times make plan administrators succumb to the temptation to reduce incoming payments. The principle, outlined by University of Toronto professor Keith Ambachtsheer in an unpublished paper, is that "accruing pension promises must be fully costed and fully funded at all times."

But employers do not need to wait for the government's hand. They can ensure their plans are better funded by setting higher default contribution rates from employees. Other employers can facilitate payroll deductions to the savings account of the employee's choice. As long as these schemes, or "nudges," as described by the economists Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, still leave the ultimate choice on whether to participate in the hands of individual workers, they should be pursued widely. And employers must see the larger public benefits that come with their sponsorship of pensions."

For starters, the Liberal Party should consider making it obligatory for each and every employed or self-employed Canadian to make larger contributions to a revised pension plan, with contributions to the pension plan from both the employer and the federal government. Then the LPC can implement some of the other recommendations of the G&M.

But we should be bold, and innovative, and by so doing, differentiate ourselves from the Harper Tories, who have proven themselves incompetent and untrustworthy in many things, including protecting senior Canadians.

Let us entrench the right of our senior citizens to a decent standard of living after their retirement in our laws, and take steps to make that happen.

Stephen Harper's legacy: The man who made Canada smaller

2009-10-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

Forget about the polls for a minute and let's turn to another facet of our politics. A short while ago, the Liberal Party unveiled a new theme: We can do better. Many right wingers ridiculed the theme, with some wanting to know how on earth the Liberals could claim that they could do better.

What many Tory supporters (and many in the media) missed is that the Liberal theme applied equally to Canada and Canadians.

We, Canada, can do better than we are doing right now under the governance of Harper's minority government.

Why?

Because, when the history of Harper's stint as prime minister is written, I fully expect most independent historians to focus on one overarching theme: the many ways in which the Stephen Harper government has reduced the standing of Canada in the eyes of the world.

As Lawrence Martin succinctly summarized in his article in Wednesday's Globe & Mail:

"You wonder how far the standards can fall."

For fall the standards have taken under Harper's leadership of our country.

If you examine any major area of our country, you will soon find signs of a diminution in our standards, a lessening of our worth (moral and economic, amongst others) as a country.

One example of the debasement of the values of our democracy is the Tory style of using Parliament to wage unremitting partisan war on the other parties, in the process turning what should be an institution in which Canadians can take pride, into a caterwauling and dysfunctional kindergarten of the worst kind.

As another example, take the lowered standards of the central government's use of Canadians tax dollars. The Harper government, with his sanction, has perverted the distinction (essential for a functioning democracy) between the roles and functions of a political party, and the roles and functions of a government. The stimulus funds have been allocated disproportionately to projects in Conservative ridings, as if those funds were funds belonging to the Conservative MPs.

If we can borrow a phrase applied by a Tory minister to a Premier, it would be fair to say of Prime Minister Stephen Harper that, as compared to the past dozen or so prime ministers, he has proven himself to be the small man of our confederation.

What a legacy to leave.

And what an insult to all those supporters of the Conservative Party who had hoped that the union of the old Reform-Alliance party with the old Progressive Conservative Party might result in a political party in which they could take pride.

Significant clean energy thrust by Liberal Party

2009-10-14T09:01:00.000-07:00

In an email to Liberals, Ignatieff summarizes the thrust of the new clean energy commitment of the party as follows:

"It starts with the most significant national investment in clean energy jobs this country has ever seen, including:

 Effective incentives that encourage new renewable power projects

 Landmark investments in clean energy infrastructure, especially smart grids

 Expanded incentives for wave, tidal, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable technologies

 Canadian proposals for a continental cap-and-trade system, with hard caps, so we’re driving the agenda not just reacting to Washington

 Aggressive investment in emerging technologies that clean our fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration

 Mandatory clean energy standards across the federal government (so that government vehicles will be cleaner, government buildings will be energy-efficient, and telecommuting is introduced into our public service to keep cars off the road)

 Above all, a relentless commitment to power Canada on clean energy."

This is a welcome policy by our future government, and drags Canada into the forefront of the fight against global heating, instead of surreptiously trying to sabotage world wide efforts as the Tory government appears to have been doing.

It is important to note that this policy commitment achieves two important objectives: it positions our country to take a leading role in the fight to save our planet, and it will help create new jobs for Canadians to replace the hollowing out of our industrial base which has taken place over the past quarter of a century. Many of these new jobs will be in Canada, and a big whack of the products and services we will develop in this new clean energy industry will bolster our exports, creating more wealth for our country.

If we tackle this new clean energy commitment in the right way, it will help Canada's moral authority in the world, a coinage seriously debased by the Luddism of the current Tory government under Harper's leadership. The old Tory party had a much wider view of Canada's role in the leading the world on to better things; under Harper's watch this has been changed to one of obstruction, denial of facts, and sabotage.

Harper and his Luddites squandered an opportunity to enter this new clean energy industry by targeting an adequate portion of the stimulus package to this industry. Now it is up to the next Liberal government to clean up this Tory mess.

Ignatieff's full speech can be found here.

Another hat tip to the Liberal Party!

Liberal Party favours accountability of our MPs

2009-10-14T08:45:00.000-07:00

In his speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, Michael Ignatieff is striking a blow for greater democracy for all Canadians. After four squalid years of debased partisanship, lowered expectations, and personal animosity instead of collegial cooperation, the Liberals are committing to Canadians that they are determined to turn the page on the Conservative diminution of the role of Parliament.

The Liberal Party is committed to bolstering the ability of ordinary Canadians to find out the truth about what is being done in Ottawa by the government, instead of being fed half-truths, misleading information, or, worse still, denied accurate information on the state of the country's affairs.

Ignatieff's draft speech contains this commitment to bettering our democracy:

"The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been right when the Conservatives have been wrong. A Liberal government would make his office fully independent, with the resources necessary to do his job.

Because no government should ever get between Canadians and the truth we deserve."

Given the sterling job that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been doing, and the vicious attacks (from both major parties) on his role and office, this commitment to enhance the role and provide adequate resources is very welcome.

If the Liberals carry out this commitment, they will demonstrate yet again the difference between the cynical lip service paid to accountability in Ottawa by the current Tory government, and real steps to institute real responsibility.

Well done, Liberals!

Polling difficulties of the Harper Tories

2009-10-13T09:47:00.000-07:00

Bear this comment in mind when next you read or hear about Harper's new Tories being close to forming a majority government:

"Several recent polls have shown the Conservatives hovering around 40% in national support, the level often considered to be the threshold that a party must reach to win a majority.

But Ipsos pollster Darrel Bricker said the actual majority threshold for the Tories is likely several points higher, because of the "inefficiency" of the party's support base. For example, the party's base is concentrated in Alberta and the Prairies, which together account for 49 of the Conservative's 143 seats in the House of Commons.

"There have been some suggestions that the Tories are close to a majority, but I don't think these numbers show that," said Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs."

Nothing like a concentration of rightwing voter in Alberta and Saskatchewan to dilute your chances of success, eh?

Michael Ignatieff's credibility is on the line

2009-10-12T14:04:00.000-07:00

Just where does Michael Ignatieff stand on bringing down the minority government of Stephen Harper?

Consider this article:

"At their recent party meeting in Quebec, Liberal MPs were openly disagreeing whether they would systematically be voting against the Conservatives or whether they would vote case by case. A day later, according to Le Devoir, Mr. Ignatieff settled the dispute by indicating that his caucus would vote case by case, except for confidence matters, on which they would systematically vote to defeat the government. And legislation to implement the harmonized sales tax would be a confidence matter."

Now contrast that Liberal clarity with this CBC report:

"In an interview with CBC’s Evan Solomon for an upcoming edition of The House, however, Ignatieff said that doesn’t mean his party could not work with the government on some issues.

“What I said was we lost confidence in the government. I didn’t say we’re going to move more motions of non confidence. We did that, we stood up, we took a position of principle,” Ignatieff said.

“What I’ve said consistently for a month is in those cases where the government brings forth legislation we can support or approve or amend, we’ll do so. My strategy is not to make parliamentary government impossible.”

Ignatieff would not say whether his party would try to topple the government the next time there’s an opposition day or a bill that’s a motion of confidence.

“I'm not going to discuss what we're going to do moving forward," he said. "It's very important for me to keep the capacity to make decisions as they arise."
Ignatieff’s comments come as recent polls have shown the party falling behind the Conservatives."

I thought Ignatieff was very clear: the Liberal Party under his leadership had decided to use each and every chance it had to vote the Tory government out of power.
Now we seem to see some waffling taking place.

If Ignatieff now backs off from what most people interpreted as a very clear statement of intent to remove this minority government every chance it could, then his credibility will be in tatters, and his leadership skills under question.

As they should be if he backs off yet again.

Some sobering economic facts from an investment adviso

2009-10-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

This is what John Stephenson of First Asset says causes him to be bearish on the US economy:

"One of the reasons I believe the U.S. will suffer for so long is so much of their economy was geared to the financial services industry. By the end of 2007, 40 per cent of their GDP was linked to the financial service industry directly and indirectly, and by indirectly I mean hedge funds, insurance companies, sort of the shadow banking system.

What the financial crisis did was it drew back the curtain on America. And the reality is that the vast majority of Americans made no wage gains over the last 10 to 15 years. In fact, they lost money. Not only did they lose money in terms of wage gains, they lost money on S&P 500 stocks, they lost money in the tech wreck and they lost 30-plus per cent from peak to trough in their house values. So if you're the average American, you're in trouble. You don't see a future."

What does that mean for Canada?

We are heavily reliant on the US as our biggest trading partner, and on US consumers to drive their industries through demand for products, which in turn drive those companies to import Canadian services and goods.

So if the US is going to take a long time to recover from the frothy bubble of their financial services as a major driver of their economy, and the US workers are not making more money for them to spend, then we can expect very slow growth in our economy, and hence few new jobs.

What does that mean for the NDP, which wants to prop up Harper's do-little government? And the Liberal Party, which will weigh individual Tory legislation on a case by case basis?

It means more and more Canadians will lose their jobs or have to take jobs which pay less, are less secure and which can disappear in a hurry. And in the meantime, the Tories will continue to stall on the injection of funds into the economy through the stimulus plan.

It is time for a new government to confront the new realities of a slower growing economy, with less demand for our traditional products and services.

Good advice for a beleaguered Michael Ignatieff

2009-10-10T11:54:00.000-07:00

Today's editorial in The Toronto Star should be must reading for Ignatieff, his advisors, and all Liberal MPs:

"How did it come to this? Over the summer, Ignatieff deemed it impolitic to talk policy lest he make himself a target; he succeeded only in making himself invisible. By blatantly playing politics to trigger an election, the Liberals have only alienated voters. Bereft of policy, he has become an even bigger target for critics.
It's not that Canadians think Ignatieff is without substance. But they see someone putting style ahead of substance, tactics ahead of policy.

It is time for Ignatieff to change the channel: to be himself, and let the Liberal party be itself.

Ignatieff's biggest blunder was to put policy on the back burner. He delayed a thinkers' conference that had originally been promised for this fall. Now, it has been postponed until next year, leaving policy-making on hold and depriving the party of fresh ideas. Remarkably, there are still no firm dates for this event.
Recently, Ignatieff has given a series of speeches, notably on foreign policy and the economy. While welcome, they amount to restatements of past policies and general goals, not a bold vision that will resonate with voters and show the Liberals are serious about governing.

With his support eroding, Ignatieff has nothing to lose – and everything to gain – by going back to basics and rebuilding the party's platform. For there are major opportunities for the party to reinvent itself…

So far, the Liberals are offering peek-a-boo policy-making on the fly, not the adult conversation Canadians deserve. A thinkers' conference is no panacea, but it is an opportunity for renewal – and a way of showing Canadians the Liberals are serious about policy-making, not merely politicking."

And in today's Globe & Mail Simpson offers some trenchant advice:

"Today's Liberal Party has forgotten, or is afraid to promote, what it used to stand for: a strong central government, an activist state, an engaged and creative foreign policy and, more recently, balanced budgets and debt reduction.
Unless the party reconnects with what once made it compelling for so many, although repellent to others, it doesn't much matter who the leader is."

The Cat wholeheartedly supports both pieces of advice.

Steady now

2009-10-08T18:20:00.000-07:00

This week is shaping up to be a really bad one for Michael Ignatieff and the party he leads. Take just this one article for a taste:

"Since early September, when the Conservatives and the Liberals were in a virtual dead heat in the polls, the Tories have pulled ahead.

The latest poll was conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6. The polling period included the Oct. 1 vote on the Liberals' motion of no-confidence in the minority Tory government — a motion the Conservatives defeated as the NDP decided to abstain. The NDP has vowed to keep the government in power to ensure passage of legislation extending employment insurance benefits.

EKOS president Frank Graves said the Liberals have lost ground with voters in traditional strongholds, including in Toronto and among women, university graduates, visible minorities and recent immigrants.

"Even visible minorities and recent immigrants who were like almost an automatic vote for the Liberals, have shifted," said Graves.

"They're running about equally now with the Conservatives. All these other groups are lining up more on the conservative side of the equation."

As his party has slipped in the polls, Ignatieff's disapproval ratings have grown.
The percentage of respondents who disapproved of the way Ignatieff is handling his job was 51 per cent, up from 38 per cent in August.

Ignatieff's approval rating was 19 per cent, down from 29 per cent two months ago.
Graves said it is difficult to pinpoint why Ignatieff's popularity has plummeted in such a short time.

"Perhaps some of the framing that was put in place by the Conservatives and some of the so-called negative ads have stuck with Mr. Ignatieff," he said. "Because it's hard to line up anything he's said or done specifically."

Ignatieff, speaking Thursday morning in London, Ont., after addressing the local chamber of commerce, said there is "no question" the Conservatives have characterized or "framed" him in a certain way.

"I've got to lift that big frame off and let Canadians see who I really am, and we will be doing that," he said.

"If there are things I need to do better, I am certainly going to be ready to try, because I want to listen to Canadians and improve my performance any way I can," he said."

Let's take note of several things before we all rush for the cliff in true lemming fashion.

First, the poll results in the past two weeks have been disastrous for the Liberal Party. Fortunes have plummeted, as we go down like a rock, the Tories soar, and it seems almost as if Harper might finally get his chance to gain a majority government and set about doing what he really came to Ottawa to do: gut the federal government, slash its future ability to 'mess' with the provinces, stack all the bureaucracy with right wing believers, change the way parties are funded so as to wound the Bloc and the Liberals, and try to cement as many other changes deep into Canada's fabric so that they are very difficult to take out when finally the tide turns and a more liberal government takes over from the Harper Tories.

Secondly, Layton now believes he was right to avoid an election by propping up the Tories, and will seek to continue to do so for a long time, even if he has to hold his nose and take some really bad tasting medicine along with the few crumbs which Harper will toss him. Of course, as a result the NDP will lose supporters (especially to the Bloc and to the Greens).

Thirdly, the Liberals should now realize that this government will do anything in its power to smash their opposition, keep the left fragmented, and retain power. And that includes continuing to use the public purse as if it was an extension of the Conservative Party head office funds. The complaint lodged against the Tories use of the funds of Canadians to push their own private budget views is just a small example of the misuse. The way this government labels everything and rolls out government programs is also just another example of this bent, as is its use of stimulus funds to fund mostly Conservative ridings. Know your enemy; he will not change his ways.

Finally, note two key statements in the above article, the first being this:

"All these other groups are lining up more on the conservative side of the equation."

That conclusion by pollster Graves is wrong enough to be corrected. His and other polls simply show what voters will do if they faced an election today (without any campaign having taken place). The respondents to his polls answered questions about their approvals, and choices of parties. None of these polls demonstrates that there has been a seismic shift in the values of Canadians, making this country more conservative. They show that voters prefer Harper and his government over Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, Layton and the Dippers, and the Bloc.

The next key statement is that by Ignatieff:

"… I want to listen to Canadians and improve my performance any way I can."

Good.

Because Ignatieff and his advisors can start by thinking about what alternatives they are allowing to be presented to Canadians, and why these might lead to the disastrous results the party is now seeing.

At the moment Canadians are being given two alternatives for the leader of the country, and the government of the country. And both of those alternatives have been, are and will continue to be written by Stephen Harper.

Harper has presented his leadership and his party to Canadians, in tens of thousands of ways, and all over the country, using massive media buys in many guises. That is one alternative Canadians are now considering when pollsters rock up and ask them for a response.

Harper also has presented to Canadians the features he wants them to consider when they look at Ignatieff, and his framing is the one in the public space right now. It is as if Harper has put a sock on his one hand, raised it up to his shoulder, had the television cameras focus on it, and then spoken for Ignatieff out of the corner of his mouth.

So Canadians get two voices when it comes to leaders, and both come from Harper.
When it comes to policies, there are two alternatives before the public as well. The Harper government one, with its tight and careful framing. And the Harper framing of the policies of the Liberal Party, which are devastating effective.

There is no Liberal Party alternative set of policies being presented to Canadians.
So why on earth are we surprised that Canadians decide among the alternatives presented to them daily by Harper, and say they think Harper is a better leader, and his party has better policies on the economy and crime, for example?

Michael Ignatieff could start his learning process by thinking some thoughts about this.

Gloom about the Strategic Council poll is unwarranted

2009-10-06T09:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, throughout Canada we heard the shrill sound of thousands of Liberal chickens rushing about, crying that the sky was falling, doom was approaching, the four horsemen of the apocalypse were riding pell mell towards Ottawa, and all was lost.

All this fuss was caused by the latest poll by the Strategic Council, which showed the Tories decimated in Quebec while a rising tide continued to lift the Liberal boat there; most voters on the prairies becoming even more satisfied with their hometown prime minister; Tory support in Ontario shooting up to the roof; and overall the Tories gaining 41% of the respondents approval while the Liberals had only 28%.

Bad news, indeed.

But a reason for acting like Chicken Little?

Pshaw!

Buried deep in the commentary was the single most acute observation made by Mr Donolo, of Strategic Council. He gets it.

In the past few weeks the Liberal Party has upset the dynamics of Canadian politics in a manner seldom seen before. When Pierre Trudeau took a long walk in the snow and decided on a political course, our politics were changed, and there were consequences. Now, too, it seems that Michael Ignatieff, taking some time off during the summer months to think his thoughts, has also decided on a political course, and our politics have been changed, and there will be consequences.

The Liberal Party has lost confidence in the minority government of Stephen Harper, due to that government's incompetence and untrustworthiness, and has decided to oppose it, and do whatever is necessary to vote it out of office and trigger an election, so as to give Canadians an opportunity to replace it with a decent government, respectful of parliamentary rights, behaving in a more moral fashion, and taking the interests of all Canadians into consideration in setting and implementing policies.

Such a change, after more than a year of the Liberals constantly propping up the do-little, narrow Tory government, is a change of substance.

There is every reason to believe that a change of such a magnitude should impact Canadians, and cause concern, hope, disgust, misunderstanding, and volatility.

This is what Donolo's poll found:

"“The electorate has never been this volatile,” Mr. Donolo believes. “That's the real story.”"

But he goes on, and this is the heartening thing for Liberals (and all Canadians wishing for a better parliament, more responsive to their needs):

"He notes also that Mr. Ignatieff's decision to withdraw support from the Conservatives may benefit the party in the long term, allowing it to define itself as something other than a crutch propping up the government.

If so, Mr. Ignatieff may be able to re-brand himself on his own terms, and the numbers could move again.""

There you have it.

The massive change caused by the Liberal Party deciding not to support the Tory government has given the country a chance for the Liberals to re-define the political discourse in the country.

And when that happens, expect the polls to change, with the Liberals rising, the NDP and Greens static or declining, and the Tories losing support everywhere, not just in Quebec.

So to all you doubters out there, listen: This Cat aint no chicken.

Liberal Party should support random checks for DUI

2009-10-06T09:07:00.000-07:00

Harper's Tories have floated a trial balloon concerning the introduction of the right to police across Canada to randomly force drivers to take roadside breath tests. This would be a change to our existing law, which requires police to have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving before they can ask a driver to take a breath test.

I strongly urge the Liberal Party to support such legislation, should the Tories introduce it. In fact, the Liberals should consider introducing a private member's bill to bring into being such legislation.

There is no doubt that the new law would be tested in court as a possible breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Supreme Court would have to decide where to come down on the issue of the balancing of the interests of the public and the interests of the individual. Our Charter is a very intelligent instrument, and provides that the Court may allow breaches of individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, if such breaches are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Can the new law be demonstrated to be justified?

Consider this:

"The Traffic Injury Research Foundation reports that in 2006, 907 Canadians were killed in traffic accidents involving a driver who had earlier been drinking.
The justice committee, in its recent report, concluded the “current methods of enforcing the law lead police officers to apprehend only a small percentage of impaired drivers, even at roadside traffic stops.”

The report noted an Australian study showed a 36% decrease in the number of people killed in drunk-driving accidents after several states adopted random testing. An Irish study reported a 23 per cent drop in traffic deaths after Ireland passed a similar law in 2006."

That should be reasonable justification.

Why there is hope for the Liberal Party in the coming election

2009-10-04T10:39:00.000-07:00

I do not share in the gloom that many commentators (the chattering classes) and some Liberals seem to be wallowing in, with regards to the future of the Liberals in the coming election.

In fact, I am more hopeful than I have been for several years.

In 2008 the voters punished the Liberal Party for past sins, an unpopular leader, a badly handled green policy roll out, and an inept campaign.

Turnout dropped to a low 59.1% (with only 13.7 million voters out of 23.1 million bothering to go to the polls). The lower numbers voting hurt four out of the five parties, with only the Greens showing an increase over their 2006 total votes (up by 42%). The Liberals lost the most votes in absolute numbers (down by 851,525 voters, or by 19% over 2006). The Tory vote dropped by 165,278 (3%), the Bloc by 173,210 (11%), and the NDP by 76,711 (3%).

The Liberal loss of absolute votes was therefore almost 6 times higher than the Tories' loss.

What happened, and what does this mean for the coming election?

This is what happened:

"The 2008 election appears to have been a real success for the Conservative Party with a gain of 19 seats from the 2006 election. However, that success was entirely due to the woes of other parties, rather than any added support for the Conservatives. Indeed the number of Canadians voting for the Conservatives even dipped slightly.

The main factor in Conservative success was the big drop in turnout among Liberal supporters. While the Green Party managed to split the Conservative's opposition by capturing a number of defecting Liberals and NDPers, the Conservatives benefited even more from the hundreds of thousands of disenchanted Liberals who simply stayed home on election day.

The Conservatives picked up 11 seats in Ontario with an impressive gain in popular vote from 35 to 48%. However, the Conservatives won hardly any more votes in Ontario compared to 2006. Their gain in vote share came about because 500,000 Ontario voters went AWOL between the two elections, most of them Liberal, leaving the Conservative candidates better supported in comparison.

The Conservatives were not able to capitalize on the drop in Bloc support across Quebec, because they received 120,000 fewer votes in that province themselves.
The only province where the Conservatives made many gains thanks to a substantial increase in votes was British Columbia."

The election results were 143 Tory MPs, 77 Liberal MPs, 37 NDP MPS, 2 independents, and 49 Bloc MPs. An impressive 163 Bloc, NDP and Liberal MPs faced the minority 143 Tory MPs (a majority of 20 seats), while these three parties garnered an equally impressive 54% of the total votes cast compared to the 38% of the Tories.

Further, the margins of the winners were small:

"Only 25 out of the 308 winning candidates in the 2008 election were elected with a majority of the votes cast in their ridings. 41 of the winners were elected with less than 40% of the vote.

15 candidates were elected with less than 1% difference in votes between 1st and second place in their ridings."

What does this mean for the coming election?

In the 2006 election, the Liberals gained 30.2% of the vote, and 103 seats (26 more seats), while the Tories gained 36.3% (124 seats or 19 fewer seats). The NDP won 29 seats with 17.5% of the votes).

The 4% percentage drop in Liberal support from 2006 to 2008 therefore translated into a loss of 26 seats. The NDP 0.7% gain in NDP percentages resulted in a large 28% gain in MPs (up from 29 to 37).

These results show that a few percentage points change in any of the 4 parties' support can lead to a significant change in the number of seats. At the very least, a reversal of the Liberal-hand-sitters of 2008 to the more committed 2006 numbers could dramatically change the electoral landscape.

It is my belief that we will see a reversal in voting trends to past ones, with the Liberals being the big winners, gaining seats at the expense of the Tories and NDP.

I also believe that the Liberals can increase their share of the popular vote, and in fact match or exceed the number of Tory MPs, if certain events take place in the course of the next two or three months:

1. The Liberals need to concentrate on their framing of the debates both in Parliament and in the public space (the framing by Ignatieff of the Liberal reasons for deciding not to support the Tory government this time around was good – he wrapped the reasons around the twin frames of Tory incompetence and Tory untrustworthiness, both of which can be demonstrated with many, many examples).

2. The Liberals need to unveil a concrete, comprehensive and dynamic set of policies, which not only differentiate the Liberal Party from the do-little, anti-government Conservative Party, but contain concepts which will attract more Liberals to vote for the party, and other non-Liberals to vote, as well as increasing the number of voters who come to the polls.

Are these two things possible?

Damn right, they are.