Girls, Guergis, Guns & Armageddon

UPDATED BELOW

Marci McDonald’s 2006 article in The Walrus, Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons, gave us the first systematic analysis of the hidden Christian fundamentalist agenda of Stephen Harper’s goals for Canada – the establishment of the conditions necessary for the Second Coming of you-know-who.  Who knows if Harper is such a fantastical fool that he really believes in all that anti-evolutionary, anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-Israel STFUness.  What matters is that a bunch of nutbars has such power in the corridors of Canadian political power.

Harper has cemented a partnership with people who have become astonishingly powerful in the US and whose religious ideology nicely parallels social conservatism.  Harper is known to be a fiscal conservative, but has needed the support of old-style Progressive Conservatives who haven’t necessarily had the ability to attract the support of the far right wing – if they had, they wouldn’t have lost their Party.  Each time Harper throws an anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-Israel, law and order dog biscuit to this crowd he wins votes that would not necessarily fall into his lap via fiscal conservatism alone.

Is all this becoming more clear to Canadians?

Antonia Zerbisias’ interview with McDonald, now the author of a book on these issues – The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada  – provides us with a startling (to some people) collection of issues that have come to the fore of late that certainly substantiate the writer’s painstaking research, from the cancellation of Paul Martin’s national daycare programme to the introduction of  private members’ bills that would limit women’s free reproductive choice to Harper and company’s otherwise inexplicably over-the-top support of Israeli policy towards Palestine and general opposition to same-sex marriage.

That’s a cartload of issues and each one deserves it’s own discussion.  I’m going to have a brief look at how acceptance of the Fundy Formula effects women or, for the sake of the almost alliteration – teh girls – and how “liberals” have failed to appreciate the significance of CON policy and legislation.

From the outset women and women’s advocacy groups have had no difficulty apprehending HarperCON’s anti-woman agenda.  As McDonald points out, he began with the cancellation of a national daycare programme, moved on to a systematic assault on women’s equality-seeking groups and from there to defunding NGOs with specific focusses on providing reproductive services to women in developing countries and anti-violence initiatives.  He has also engaged in a vicious public assault on his former Minister for the Status of Women, Helena Guergis, whose portfolio had been all but disabled anyway.

These issues share many common characteristics and some that are not so obvious.  For instance, though most of us here understand quite well that the lack of a national daycare programme hurts not only the children of Canada but also women who are still their primary caretakers, we were probably less aware that, as McDonald points out, Harper “was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools.”

Speaking for myself, I got the “women at home” aspect but missed the part about the children of working mothers placed in religious daycares and schools and the concomitant threat to public education.  As McDonald concludes:

 It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.

But McDonald misses something – that the struggle for a national daycare programme is something that not even Liberals will take to the wall – making it much too easy for Harper to hand out gifts to his social conservative base.  Maybe libs and lefties will take daycare if they can get it but it’s certainly nothing to bring down a minority government over.  Few issues that are perceived to be or actually are those that effect primarily teh girls are that important.  Or none.  In fact, when these issues are raised what I hear most often from the libs and even the left, such as it is, is that these issues are “distractions”, diversions from primary purposes, that they might be worth a few jabs in question period and an opportunistic media punchline here or there, but they are really window-dressing issues, dog bones thrown out or removed with little political, social or economic meaning beyond the moment.

For instance.  When the cabal reconvened after prorogation, Harper threw one of his bright shiny things into the Throne Speech, promising to make our national anthem “gender neutral”.  Quite apart from the discussions about what that would take and the general hue and cry about history and national treasures, what interested me was the response from the centre and the left along the lines that language doesn’t matter, sons are “generic” and Harper is just trying to trick you stupid broads into accepting this bright shiny thing as if it’s something real.  Down the toilet went the respectable and now historical feminist argument that yes, language does matter and under the bus, ground into the ruts, went teh girls.  Of course Harper had no trouble dumping the proposal and looked like he was responding to the outrage from social conservatives and liberals all in one fell swoop.  How nice for him.

I’m beginning to see a similar modus in operation with respect to Helena Guergis.  She’s a young, childless woman married to a brown man in political difficulty (even though he’s no longer in office) who “managed” a portfolio that men, conservative and otherwise, don’t care much about.  She wasn’t and isn’t worth much to anybody it seems.  Any attempt to point out the rampant sexism of the attack on Guergis result in shouts from the left that Guergis is a loose cannon, mythically and powerfully destructive and possibly a blondly stupid disaster with whom we should not concern ourselves one teensy bit.  STFU girls.

I was never a Guergis supporter.  But did she ever have any supporters?  And is there a liberal or left dude that gives an elderberry fart about what happens to women in politics?

It’s also been clear in the past that the abolition of Canada’s long-gun registry is an issue used as a political football by left, right and centre in attempts to prevent the alienation of “rural voters”, all of whom are assumed to be men.  Both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton failed to whip their parties before the vote on the abolition bill in the last session of Parliament, resulting in an easy “yea” result for the legislation.  It remains mighty unclear that anything has changed this time ’round, despite Ignatieff’s attempts to revise the legislation.  Will Jack Layton whip?  Who the hell knows.  So it’s not only girls under the bus on this one, it’s dead girls under the bus.

As for the progressive defunding of women’s equality-seeking groups and NGOs, Ignatieff is perfectly content to use this issue as a political chip – but where the f**k has he been for the last four years while it was happening?  Where was he in December 2009 and early 2010 when a Liberal/NDP coalition would have brought down this anti-democratic, anti-woman, homophobic, pro-Israel and the Rapture government and, for instance, its attempted assault on pay equity?  As for the Libs failed attempt to underscore the reproductive rights of women with their Parliamentary motion?  I actually will stfu on that one.

Women have allowed themselves to be used thus for too long, hoping to get bigger prizes in the end.  Or perhaps any prize at all.  I’m beginning to hear heartening rumbles from girlfriend-land that none of these hopeless pols ought to rest comfortably in the beds their wives and girlfriends have made for so long, and so patiently.

The Theocons so well described by Marci McDonald are the focus of renewed realizations, discussions and organizing among awakening and already fully conscious women – and a few pro-feminist men.  Take care liberal and left doodz.  Move out of the crosshairs of that metaphorical but very well-aimed long-gun.

 

UPDATE:

HarperCON whines: 

“Last night’s dominant CBC story … featured an attack on the religious affiliation of some government members and supporters,” the Tory missive says. “Apparently, the CBC thinks it newsworthy that some Conservative Ministers and MPs practice their faith. Even more scandalous, some members of the Prime Minister’s Office go to church!”

Pale is peeved.

And on the Helena Guergis story, there’s this from the PI who started it all:

“I have nothing — I have no evidence, or no information, with respect to the conduct of Ms. Guergis in my possession or knowledge,” he stated.

Instead, he said the mere threat of bad optics, coming after a string of embarrassing gaffes by Guergis, may have been enough to force Harper’s hand.

“This is an issue of optics,” Snowdy said.

Tory Teachable Moments

Tory MP Brent Rathgeber’s civics lesson for the day:

“Democracy and Parliament are not being sidestepped — they are only being suspended.”  [there’s no more thank gawd]

So don’t worry y’all, democracy is safely on holiday with the HarperCONs and will return when they decide they’re up for it.

Then there’s Tory MP Gary Schellenberger who’s off to the Olympics during the suspension of democracy.  [here]

There’s something to be said for Rathgeber and Schellenberger.  They’re more honest than their fearless leader.

The Facebook movement to stop the Tories in their plot to supercede the will of the people is here.  If you’re on Facebook join us.  If not it’s worth getting an account just to join us!  95,306 members and counting as of 9:41 p.m EST with rallies planned across the country for January 23rd.  I can’t wait to hit the streets, I really can’t.

If it takes a prorogation to get Canadians on the move and paying attention to the our decaying democracy then I’m glad Harper did it.

UPDATE:  Jack Layton and NDP MPs won’t accept any free tickets for the Tory Olympic holiday.  [here]

UPDATE FROM MP RATHGEBER: 

must clarify—Parliament is being suspended–democracy is much larger and much broader and of course continues everyday in Canada.

Whew!  *wipesweatfrombrow*

IggyCon

From James Laxer:

In this life, there are times when you have to make fundamental choices. You go one way or you go the other. The Liberal Party had such a choice to make: between the formation of a progressive coalition government with the NDP, or propping up the Harper government. The first choice would have allowed for the presentation of a budget to parliament that really would have offered hope to Canadians in a dark time.

[…]

In the face of this, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals have made the second choice. They have decided to prop up the Harper government. If I had to speculate about the reason for this, I’d conclude that they are more comfortable with the Conservatives and the business community than they are with social democrats, trade unionists and wage and salary earners.

So be it. This is not a personal matter. Although the media is trying to make it seem that social democrats are miffed because they have been jilted by Ignatieff who is now dating the Prime Minister, it’s really about whose basic interests a party chooses to serve. The Liberals have made things very clear. That’s sad, not for Jack Layton and the NDP, but for Canadians who deserved better.

Read the whole thing here

And make sure you read Broadsides

Dion Redux

So Michael Ignatieff and his “new” Liberals are going to make the Cons submit to giving a report card on their economic plans.  Given the problems that Iggy has with the budget, this simply isn’t sufficient.  Here’s part of Iggy’s response:

The budget introduced yesterday is far from perfect. It does not fix the employment insurance system for thousands of workers who have lost their jobs in the past several weeks. It still threatens pay equity for women. It breaks their promise to every province from only two years ago on equalization.

The Cons can’t report on what they’re not even going to try to do.  But heck, who cares about workers with insufficent employment insurance?  Who cares about equalization payments – they only provide for social services – we don’t need good social services anyway, right?  And for sure, who cares about women doing the same work as men for less pay?  Not the Cons.  Clearly not the Liberals either.

For some reason, the Harper budget lets Iggy wiggle away, just as Dion wiggled away from taking responsibility for the last four years.  More Iggy:

To say that action is long overdue is an understatement. Canadians deserve action.

We deserve action so what we get is a “report card” that will tell us what the Cons aren’t doing; that will tell us how badly they’re doing what they are doing; and that will tell us that they’re not doing enough.  Is that all the “action” we deserve?

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe swiftly condemned the budget as a failed “ideological” document that does not address the needs of the jobless and the most vulnerable, or move Canada toward a greener economy.

Their parties intend to vote to defeat the government on the budget, and Layton publicly pressured Ignatieff to do the same.

Layton said the budget fails on the very tests – helping the most vulnerable, protecting the jobs of today and creating jobs for tomorrow – that Ignatieff had set out.

“He has a choice to make,” Layton told reporters.

“It’s either to prop up the Harper government and allow it to continue in a fashion that is clearly wrong-headed, or to pursue the agenda laid out by the coalition, which would create jobs for the future and would transform our economy and would really protect the people who are suffering the most from the economic crisis.”

Well, Ignatieff has made his choice – a coalition with the Conservatives.  Dion all over again.

More on the big problems with this budget:

The federal budget contained more than $3 billion in spending to address the environment, but it fell short of markers set by those who had called on the Conservatives to deliver a “green” economic stimulus plan.

[…]

critics say the federal government’s plans fall far short of national public transit and other infrastructure needs while spending too much taxpayers’ money in Alberta’s oil sands and not enough on renewable energy.

Neither have the Cons paid sufficient attention to the crises in Canada’s cities.  Toronto for instance:

Mayor David Miller badly wanted to embrace the federal budget that tossed billions of dollars before municipal governments. Here was an opportunity to play nice with the Stephen Harper government for once. But Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had to spoil it all by wrapping the gift in familiar, stultifying red tape that left Miller crestfallen.

“We are looking for a partner that will invest in our priorities, not their own,” Miller said barely an hour after the budget was tabled.

It may seem like nitpicking from someone who doesn’t share Harper’s politics. It’s not.

Experience has taught us that the Building Canada Fund that is to deliver the budget infrastructure goodies is cumbersome, inflexible and too slow afoot. For example:

Through some miracle, Toronto, the province and York Region agreed in March 2006 to extend the Spadina subway line from its terminus at Downsview to Highway 7. All that remained was funding approval from the federal government.

The Harper government put money aside for the project in the Building Canada Fund, and it sat there, and sat there. It took more than two years before the federal government approved the spending last September. The first construction dollars will be spent in 2009.

Understandably, mayors get testy when they find out the new $4 billion infrastructure fund that is supposed to get projects going immediately is tied up in the same Building Canada Fund that is excruciatingly bound in red tape.

“I hope we can get the federal government to change their minds on this,” Miller said yesterday. “Placing rigid requirements on funds like this does not work. The dollars need to be invested, not written down on paper. This is full of red tape.”

Well the Cons aren’t going to change their plans if somebody doesn’t make them.  Iggy is not that person.

Thomas Walkom at The Star:

It almost certainly won’t stop Canada’s economy from going into recession (technically defined as six months of economic shrinkage). Even finance department officials acknowledge that.

And while it will slow the steady rise in this country’s jobless rate, it won’t reverse it.

Mike McCracken, of the economic forecasting firm Informetrica, calculates that even after some $35 billion in fiscal stimulus over the next two years, (and yes, the proper figure is $35 billion not $52 billion as the government insists) the national unemployment rate will continue to creep up.

Indeed, the most important element of the budget will probably receive the least attention. That’s a two-page section – first laid out in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s aborted November economic update – that gives the government carte blanche to bail out any financial institution facing difficulty.

Unlike a similar $700 billion U.S. scheme, there is no upper dollar limit to the Canadian plan.

As for the rest of the budget, it’s a mish-mash of proposals – some sensible, some less so – calculated to appeal to key constituencies and to demonstrate that the Conservative government cares.

That’s what it’s all about – convincing people that you care while you’re busy not caring.  Ignatieff is going to sign on to this budget and he’ll have to bear the consequences for that.  It’s now his budget as much as it’s Harper’s.  I guess that is to be expected.  Chantal Hébert at The Star:

Ignatieff has no cause to reject Jim Flaherty’s latest budget on ideological grounds. On that score and in contrast with last fall’s fiscal update, the Conservative economic blueprint is almost painfully spineless.

If its authors are guilty of anything this time around, it is political plagiarism of the most craven kind.

In their quest for parliamentary survival, the Conservatives have cut and pasted a lot of old-style Liberal spending initiatives and spread them pretty much across the board.

It is hard to think of a constituency, friendly or hostile to the Conservatives, that will not get a piece of the multibillion-dollar stimulus package the government has cobbled together.

[…]

The odds that the budget will help the Conservatives buy their way out of a tight parliamentary corner are higher than the odds that it will allow Canada to spend its way out of a recession. In almost every instance, the government has gone for the quickest and most-likely-to-be-popular fix.

Take tax relief, the hill on which the Conservatives ultimately planted their tattered flag yesterday.

About 10 per cent of the total stimulus package is devoted to the kind of permanent, broad-based tax relief the Liberals had warned against in the days leading up to the budget. But the bulk of it is targeted to middle- and low-income Canadians, and the Conservatives are betting that Ignatieff will not risk defeating the government over a tax cut.

Canada needs courageous leadership during this economic/social/environmental crisis we are living through.  Clearly, we’re not going to get it.  Canadian voters are as responsible for this as our leaders.  We won’t get what we don’t demand.

I’m giving the last word on the budget, Ignatieff’s response and Jack Layton’s position to James Laxer:

Michael Ignatieff began his press conference in the National Press Theatre in Ottawa today by saying that the Harper government’s budget was deeply flawed. For a moment, I thought he was about to do something interesting, to propose serious and substantive amendments to the budget. But then he dropped the clunker. The Liberals, he said, will propose an amendment requiring the government to provide periodic updates on how the budget is working.

There you have it. Michael Ignatieff went away last night, laboured, and brought forth a mouse.

Explaining himself in answer to questions from the media, the Liberal leader was embarrassingly sophomoric. The Liberal-NDP coalition had been useful, he said, because it had forced the government to put many useful measures in the budget. On the other hand, he said the budget remained a “Conservative” budget that likely would not work. Nonetheless, he said he intended to vote for it. Provided, of course, that his “Mickey Mouse” amendment is acceptable to Stephen Harper. By turns, Ignatieff sounded like Demosthenes, thundering down condemnation on a government that has repeatedly failed Canadians, and then like an apple-polishing pupil asking for a report card from the head master. Rule number one in politics: you can’t have it every which way. If you vote for the Conservative budget, it becomes your budget Mr. Ignatieff, no matter what font the government uses to print its reports for you.

In answer to questions that suggested that perhaps he had thrown the game away, Ignatieff could have replied in the manner of Hamlet: “Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe.”

Having decided “not to be” as a serious opponent of the Harper government, Michael Ignatieff could consider a career on the stage.

Meanwhile, Jack Layton has become the real leader of the opposition. He showed courage when he reached out to the Liberals to form a progressive coalition that could provide Canadians with the leadership they need to cope with the economic crisis. He tried the option of working with the Liberals. Michael Ignatieff has walked away from that option. Layton has retained his integrity and his clear understanding of what the country needs. Progressives now have one party and one party only available to them: the NDP.

 Exactly.

UPDATE:  From the YWCA via Antonia Zerbisias via mattt –

 “The government has set up some very inclusive spending with this budget for First Nations, seniors and people with disabilities, but we don’t see an awareness that Canadian women are very vulnerable in hard times,” says YWCA Canada CEO Paulette Senior. “Two-thirds of Canadians working for minimum wage are women, many taking any work they can find to hold family and community together.  Government stimulus spending must take this into account.”

More from the YWCA at Broadsides here

And, I’m watching The National – Keith Boag just called Jack Layton “too bitter” to compromise with Ignatieff and said he’d been “jilted”.  So now Jack is the scorned woman.  What if Jack is simply the only one who has any scruples in Ottawa?  Ignatieff is so smug he makes me barf.

Another Letter for YOUR Signature

Dear Leaders,

 We, the undersigned, write to you during this time of economic crisis to urge that you set aside all partisan considerations in favour of decisive action to help Canadians who are suffering and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy.

At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government.

Barely five weeks after promising to work cooperatively with the opposition parties – representing a majority of voters – Prime Minister Harper failed to deliver a plan to halt the devastation being wrought upon hard working families. Instead his Conservative government is using the crisis to attack the democratic process, violate the rights of public servants to bargain collectively and end pay equity. Canada now stands alone as the only government in the western world without a coherent economic stimulus plan.  The Harper government talks of balancing the budget by selling off assets and restraining spending, the exact opposite of the stimulus response that virtually all economists and many others are arguing is necessary.

 Time is of the essence. You have an unprecedented opportunity to deliver to citizens a coalition that is capable of putting aside partisan ploys and to work cooperatively and swiftly in the interests of all.

Despite Mr. Harper’s contentions, the outrage of citizens and opposition parties is not about public funding of political parties, but rather, it is about a Conservative plan that would actually deepen our country’s economic crisis. The Harper government’s taking party funding off the table should not be a reason for backing down from your efforts to construct a coalition government.

 Please be assured that we all stand ready to offer constructive ideas on ways to help workers, their families and communities weather this storm and emerge stronger than ever.

 Sincerely,

Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers
Dave Coles, President, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Steven Staples, President, Rideau Institute
Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
John Urquhart, Executive Director, Council of Canadians
Mel Watkins, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Toronto
Peggy Mason, Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament
Christine Jones and Collette Lemieux, Co-Chairs, Canadian Peace Alliace
Ali Mallah, Canadian Arab Federation
Laura Savinkoff, Boundary Peace Initiative

 Click here to send your letter to Mr. Layton and Mr. Dion

 

Ms Brand Speaks Out

From Dionne Brand, blogging at rabble.ca:

God help me I’ve been visiting the Conservative Party web site. Now being an atheist you know when I invoke god I’m truly in trouble, but the web site can generate a Women’s Studies course all on its own. It is a study in patriarchy. First, at the top of the web page there is an image of Stephen Harper, his wife and their two children, read wholesome family with good patriarch, meaning patriarch of good wholesome family makes good political patriarch, eh, I mean, leader.

Next under the tab “leader” are the names Stephen Harper and Laureen Harper, meaning we have a good father and a good mother and they are the mother and father of two children and this party and ultimately the nation; meaning the nation is a patriarchy and Stephen Harper is the father of this patriarchy and his helpmeet is Laureen Harper who, while she does not hold any political position in this party per se, by dint of this party and this nation being a patriarchy she is attached to the patriarch as mothering symbol of the patriarchy and therefore whatever… In case you want to know the web site says Laureen volunteers at an elementary school and ‘offers her home to the Ottawa SPCA as a foster home for kittens.’ My god, why do we need to know this, I ask. Because that is what good mothers do.

We have already seen Harper’s comforting patriarchal sweater, his Mr. Rogers imitation (Veronica Strong-Boag at UBC pointed this similarity out to me); the Mr.Rogers reassurance in his commercials where he sends ‘ordinary’ supporters out to say how reassuring he is. Harper’s replacement of the customary corporate suit with the sweater must be remarked on.  In these shaky economic times perhaps it would have been a terrible reminder of the corporate CEO patriarchy, which is experiencing a crisis in confidence at the moment. He had to pull us back to the hearth, the origin, and the father-knows-best paternalism. And in Harper’s commercial he has even graciously extended the patriarchal ambit to include one or two subjects who are not white – notably, at the conclusion of the commercial, a young woman of Asian descent enthusiastically says how much she is looking forward to voting for the patriarch in her first election. She sites no other political imperative, except her coming of age, so we are certain that it is his paternalism that is attractive.

I am now, it seems, besieged by Mr. Harper and his sweater. Here sitting in the Vancouver airport waiting for a flight to Toronto today, he appears on the front page of the British Columbia section of the Globe and Mail. He is seated at the kitchen table of a young  couple with their two children. In his grey sweater he is feeding the youngest, the baby. He has effectively replaced the father at the table in this family scene. The young father watches on at the left of the picture while Mr. Harper and his sweater occupy the patriarchal center of this tableau.

The words ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ occur with bludgeon-like regularity on the Conservative Party web site. You cannot come away with any impression other than he is a leader and he stands for leadership. He is definitely a leader, with leadership. Which means he is a patriarch and a man and will lead. And if you are unconvinced, at the bottom of the home page is a picture of Stephane Dion, an obviously thinner man, caught in a gesture made to seem like uncertainty, emblazoned over this image are the words ‘notaleader.ca’. Because leaders are never uncertain, it is un-masculine to be uncertain, un-patriarchal to be caught in a rhetorical shrug. And Canadians need a leader, a man, and a patriarch. And Mr. Dion standing there at the bottom of the page, cutting his slight, studious figure is not a patriarch, the page says.

Elizabeth May notwithstanding, one cannot fail to see the positioning and arranging of masculinity in the efforts to take power in this election. Mr. Layton of the NDP has cut a commercial too, in which shirt sleeved and virile he invokes the ‘new strong’. In an obvious contestation of, I suppose, the ‘old strong’. Now I am far more partial to Mr. Layton ideologically but this bit of patriarchal ideology is bemusing. What on earth?

So I was really charmed during the english debate when prompted by a question about what was the first thing each was going to do when they became prime minister, leader of the country, Gilles Duceppe said, I don’t want to be leader, I don’t want to be prime minister – or words to that effect. Now I did not see his whole performance, riveted by scenes from the southern election, and I know of course that the Bloc only runs in Quebec, but it was refreshing to have someone say they did not want power. It made the others look craven somehow, set back. For about two seconds there was an interesting silence, the leaders round table felt deflated. Solely on the basis of that intervention I too, (like Margaret Atwood whom I also learned, this morning, waiting in the Vancouver airport, is of the same mind,) I too, would like to vote for Monsieur Duceppe. I want people in power who don’t want power; who find it a burden, who are nervous about it, who are scared of making a mistake and who are not offering me leadership.

How many times have I mentioned some variation of the word patriarchy here? Not enough.

And not as many times as it is being invoked in the election.

Come on Canada, stop the Conservatives!

The Libs Re-Brand

From MediaScout:

The Liberals are pushing their star players onto the election game field this week, hoping that with a little back-up, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion will be able to better woo voters and quiet the growing tide of discontent from within the Liberal party’s own ranks. In Halifax yesterday to announce plans for a new pharmacare system, Dion was flanked by Bob Rae, who loudly endorsed his party leader and took several comical shots at Stephen Harper. Many of the Big Seven today point out that the Liberals are stacking their offensive line with Liberal heavyweights Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison and Bob Rae in the hopes that shifting the focus onto the Liberal Party brand rather than on their flailing leader will kick start their campaign. It is believed that this will also help to quell dissent among Liberal insiders who have been criticizing their party leader’s poor performance and handling of the campaign. Feeling emboldened by Rae, who acted as a feisty warm-up act to Dion, the Liberal leader yesterday spoke directly to the current economic problems ailing the country, and even joked about his awkward handling of the English language admitting that “Mr. Harper, he speaks better English than me. OK. But I say the truth better than him in English and French.”

Not surprisingly, it is the Star and the Globe that devote the most space in today’s paper to the campaign tactics of the Liberal party. The Star’s Chantal Hébert urges the Liberals to focus on the economy, and says they shouldn’t be pulling Bob Rae out of the closet, as his track record as premier of Ontario won’t help on the economic front. An editorial in the Globe points out that having Bob Rae as the warm-up to Dion before he spoke in Halifax yesterday had the negative side effect of underscoring “Dion’s lack of charisma and his comparative weakness as a public speaker.” The media’s political pundits have been criticizing the Liberal party at every turn in this election, tearing apart their Green Shift plan and the party’s uncharismatic leader. That has had the effect of making it difficult for usually centrist media outlets, like La Presse and the Globe, to stand behind their usual man. But as Rick Mercer jokingly pointed out on The National yesterday evening, it would take a lot to completely tarnish the Liberal party’s brand name — as he says, “The Liberal party is one of the most successful brands in the Western world. They’re like the political equivalent of Coca-Cola.”

Quite apart from the fact that it makes Dion look bad to have Bob Rae come out to try to save his ass – and because I couldn’t care less if Dion’s ass gets saved – it really does burn my ass to hear Bob Rae rip into jack Layton for helping to elect Stephen Harper last time ’round.  Bob Rae.  Ripping into the NDP.  His former party.  BLECH!

NDP Surge?

From the Angus Reid Global Monitor:

Many adults in Canada would be satisfied with the New Democratic Party (NDP) becoming the largest opposition party in the country, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 62 per cent of respondents think the NDP would do a good job as the official opposition in Ottawa.

Conversely, 51 per cent of respondents think the NDP would not do a good job as the next federal government.

The polling data:

Polling Data

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

	Agree	Disagree	Not sure
The NDP would do a good job as the official opposition in Ottawa	62%	29%	10%
The NDP would do a good job as the next federal government	38%	51%	11%

Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,007 Canadian adults, conducted on Sept. 8 and Sept. 9, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Complete poll (download pdf)

It surprises me little that the Liberals aren’t looking strong.  Stéphane Dion has been compromising Liberal politics for years now, giving in to Harper policy and legislation in order to avoid going to the polls.  As has been mentioned on this blog before, Dion’s inability to forge a respectable opposition to the Conservative government has not led to confidence in his own leadership abilities or in the party itself.  Can he change that in a month’s time?  Who knows, but my prediction is, no he can’t.

It’s very early days yet, but when larger numbers of people head over to the NDP, even seeing them as providing a more effective opposition rather than a government, it has to be a terrible sign for Stephen Harper – a sign of a profound lack of confidence in his abilities.  And if that keeps up, I’ll be a happy political camper.  Layton’s NDP by no means embodies my political aspirations, but it comes a helluva lot closer than anything else.

At Accidental Deliberations, you’ll find a post covering the possibility that the NDP may pick up more seats than its hoping for in la belle province.

I’m also one of those who is pleased that Layton is running for Prime Minister, rather than as Leader of the Opposition.  Go for gold!  I think his confidence inspires confidence in the voters and allows Layton to engage with the issues against the man he really wants to get.  The decision to run against the Liberals in the last campaign drove me nuts.

We Need a Debate on the War

As far as I know, Jack Layton is the only candidate in the federal election who has put it on the line about getting Canadian combat troops out of Afghanistan.  He needs to make that a key issue in this election:

The days between the dropping of the writ and the election are precious. This is the only time the politicians pay serious attention to what Canadians think.The great issue on which Canada’s famous “elite consensus” has shut out debate has been the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. The mainstream media provide few opportunities to those who believe the mission should be ended. In Parliament, the Conservatives and the Liberals made an unsavoury deal to extend the mission to 2011. Only the NDP, as it resolved at its 2006 national convention, has said clearly that Canada should bring the troops home from Kandahar. 

Read the rest at James Laxer’s blog

Here’s an excerpt from a speech by Layton given on January 30, 2008:

One of the tenets of just-war theory is that a country must have a reasonable chance of success in order for that war to be legitimate. But under the NATO approach, there is no evidence of such a success in Afghanistan.

The experience of the last seven years of NATO engagement has shown that a military approach is not working.

It’s time for Canada to change its approach, withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for peace and stability.

Michael Byers, one of Canada’s leading experts in Global Politics and International Law, has warned that:

“Our involvement in the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, has challenged our commitment to international humanitarian law and precluded our involvement in important UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere.”

More here

I agreee with Laxer.  Press Jack Layton to make Afghanistan an issue, each and every day of this election cycle.  WE NEED A DEBATE ON THIS WAR!

Canada Goes To The Polls (sigh)

I don’t sense an abundance of excitement about the federal elections.  The most I can say is, at least we’ll be done before the US.  It feels as though their election has been going on for decades rather than years.  Look away for a moment and we’ll either have a new Prime Minister or we’ll be stuck with Stephen Harper for another 2 – 5 years. 

If Harper gets a majority, we’re in deep doo.  If he comes up with another minority government, it’s doubtful that much will change until the Liberals get a new leader who’s up to challenging the Conserve.  That is, unless the NDP come up with a larger share of the seats and can work out a coalition with the Libs that actually works the way coalition politics ought to work.  But, if the Liberals are all caught up in a leadership campaign, it’s unlikely they’ll have time for governing.  Sigh.

Of course, there’s the possibility that Dion comes up with a minority, but only the campaign will tell us something about the chances of that.  It’s not looking good just now.  Dion just hasn’t acted like a leader.  As well, he has the “problems” of his francophone background, his unskilled English and his hearing difficulties to overcome.  Rather large hurdles, unfortunately.

For the moment, it would appear that Harper and, to a certain extent,  Jack Layton are trying to push Canadians into an American style election, based on personality and “values”, with Harper coming out as the “family man” and Layton as the Canadian version of Barack Obama.  I don’t think it’s gonna work and frankly, I hope it’s not gonna work.  We’re not in quite the hole the US is in, but these are important and dangerous times everywhere.

I just don’t think the “politician as ‘family man'” meme works in Canada because people with families aren’t identified solely with the conservative electorate, as has been pointed out in the Globe and Mail:

Yesterday, Mr. Dion appeared surprised to hear that Mr. Harper had been somewhat dismissive of his family. Mr. Dion and his wife, Janine Krieber, have a daughter, whom they adopted from Peru in 1989 after they were unable to conceive. “Did he say that?” Mr. Dion asked.

But instead of taking the opportunity to present his own compelling family narrative, Mr. Dion stressed the importance of privacy.

“Well, we’ll speak about me. I’m a Liberal … and we believe in this beautiful word we don’t have in French, which is privacy, which is more than private life. It’s the distinction between public and private life,” he said, before finally allowing, “But I’m a family man. I love my mother, I love my wife. I love my daughter and my brothers, even my brothers.”

The role of the family in Canadian politics is starkly different than in the United States, where when conservative politicians start talking about family, it’s a safe bet they are trying to fire up their base and undermine the competition.

Christopher Waddell, associate director of Carleton University’s School of Journalism, said he believes the Conservatives are making family a campaign issue as a way to define Mr. Harper against Mr. Dion. But he does not think they intended to insult the Liberal Leader.

Most Canadians know Mr. Dion is a staunch environmentalist, Mr. Waddell said, an issue that the Liberals are likely to make central to their campaign.

Mr. Harper, by contrast, is understood as a proponent of tax cuts and smaller government, topics that do not exactly translate into sexy fodder for a general election campaign. Instead, he is being painted as a father and a patriot.

“It’s giving him some kind of personality and saying this is an issue that defines him like the environment defines Dion,” Mr. Waddell said.

Playing up his image as a dad will also play well in suburban areas where Mr. Harper needs to make electoral gains if he is to win a majority government.

But the problem with the strategy, Mr. Waddell said, is that having a family is not Mr. Harper’s exclusive domain, which Mr. Dion could have easily pointed out.

“He couldn’t say that Mr. Dion isn’t a family man,” Mr. Waddell said of Mr. Harper’s comments yesterday. “But if he said he was, that undercuts the whole image he’s trying to establish for himself.”

Ah Canada, where that “privacy” word still seems to mean something.  Being a dad will play well in the suburbs?  Yeah, right, city and rural people don’t have children.  If this works I’ll eat my dad’s frosted socks!  I think it’s just as well that Dion continue to ignore Harper’s attempt to play politics American style, just as he laughs at Layton doing an Obama.  Come on Jack, keep us on the issues!  Canadians are in a different political situation than Americans.  If we think we’re boring, perhaps that’s something to celebrate.  See how Waddell points out how Harper can’t play family man because Dion’s a dad too?  Well, guess what?  So is Barack Obama, as was plainly hyped up at the DNC.  But it doesn’t seem to be working for the guy, now that Sarah Palin’s on the scene.  And thank gawd that Elizabeth May is not our Sarah Palin:

Elizabeth has one daughter, Victoria Cate May Burton, born in July 1991. As well, she remains close to her three older stepchildren from Victoria Cate’s dad, their spouses, and loves spending time with her six step-grandchildren! Although she is a single mother, Elizabeth has worked hard to keep all the family links intact.

Woops!  They’d have a field day with this bio in the States!

And here’s Rick Mercer’s take (mind you, Mercer seems to think it’s Dion who’s trying to be Obama, who may be going over better here than in the US:

The race in Canada is not that much different. We can compete.

Sure, Stephen Harper wasn’t tortured for six years in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp the way John McCain was, but he’s angry enough that he could have been. In fact, on a good day the Prime Minister seems way more angry than Mr. McCain ever does. Like the Republican candidate, he, too, has pain and anguish in his eyes.

Mr. McCain suffered at the hands of a hostile enemy bent on breaking his body and soul, and he survived and triumphed. Mr. Harper, the story goes, suffered from adolescent-onset asthma and so was often picked last for team sports. This helps to explain his dislike for people in general. He also was startled quite badly by a clown at the age of 6, which explains his lifetime commitment to destroying arts organizations.

In America, presidential candidates spend a lot of time boring voters by telling them what they will do to improve their lives. Mr. Harper’s message will be far more exciting. He will spend his time telling people, “Don’t worry – no matter what happens, I can’t win a majority, so I won’t be able to do all the things I want to do that clearly scare you.”

This is an “only-in-Canada” scenario.