It was only a few days ago when Harper promised that his government would not run deficits. Yet today, according to Don Drummond, we hear that Ottawa is on track for running deep annual deficits, to the tune $10 billion.
So how is Mr. steady-at-the-till going to keep Canada from going into the red? According to Mr. Drummond, “If you want to get something like 10 billion dollars [in savings] you've got to go and nuke a whole bunch of programs.”
The language used here should paint a pretty good picture in your mind for what's about to happen. $10 billion is a lot of money. If Harper wants to keep Canada out of the red, he's going to start shutting down social support systems. The question is, which one are on the chopping block? Arts? Environment? Support for immigrants? Health care?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Bubbling under the surface
A quick look at the polls should tell you the liberal's aren't faring too well in this campaign. The latest Nanos numbers, which are the most accurate amongst all the polling companies, puts the Conservatives at 40%, Liberals at 25%, NDP at 19%, the Bloc at 9% and the Greens at 8%. Needless to say, we're in for a fight here.
But look beyond the polling numbers, to that which bubbles underneath the surface, and you'll see some pretty important indicators that our country is starting to wake up, and doesn't much like the idea of another Harper government. Arts communities, environmental communities, women and youth, are all adding their voices to the debate, and not a moment too soon.
I absolutely encourage these communities to stand up, add their voices and raise the level of debate in this election. The bubbling underneath the surface is caused by the activities of democracy, and it's exactly what we need in order to replace this top-heavy form of government.
But look beyond the polling numbers, to that which bubbles underneath the surface, and you'll see some pretty important indicators that our country is starting to wake up, and doesn't much like the idea of another Harper government. Arts communities, environmental communities, women and youth, are all adding their voices to the debate, and not a moment too soon.
I absolutely encourage these communities to stand up, add their voices and raise the level of debate in this election. The bubbling underneath the surface is caused by the activities of democracy, and it's exactly what we need in order to replace this top-heavy form of government.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Resilience, Unity, and a Vision for the Future
Three principles sum up my reasons for going to an election on the budget: Resilience, Unity and Vision.
First, Resilience - The liberal party is naturally resilient to attacks from the Conservatives on the economy. The recent attack ads put out by the Conservatives bombed and everyone knows it. Even the National Post called out the Conservatives for their outlandish claims about the liberals on the economy. Why? Because when it comes to the economy, liberals have built a huge legacy and the Conservatives, well...
Second, Unity - We are members of an organization that has economic discipline as part of its DNA. Liberals spontaneously rally around the economy as a strong point of the organization. Economic discipline is a core part of our identity. There doesn't even need to be much goading to bring the party together on this, every liberal understands that the management of the economy in past administrations was a major accomplishment.
Third, Vision - There is no better issue from which to present Dion's vision of the future than the economy. The vision of bringing the economy into the 21st century, by reconciling the economy with the environment and social justice, is one that will be heard by Canadians if we go to an election on the economy. It will not work on any other issue.
Now that I've laid out my reasons to go, I'd like to look at two of the reasons for not going to an election.
The first drawback from going to an election is summarized in a recent Toronto Star article as, "Stéphane Dion is an unknown commodity, or known only by the Conservative attack ads. It's been tough for people to get his message out. People who meet him, like him. But in terms of what people see (at a distance), people are really taken in by the media, no question"
I would argue in turn that an election would give us the best opportunity to connect with Canadians and speak about Dion's message. Canadians will hear us once they start paying attention. By going to an election on the economy, they will see credibility and vision in the liberal party V.S. a lack of these in the Harper Conservatives.
The second drawback from going to an election is that Canadians don't seem to want an election.
I've seen this personally. Go door knocking and you'll find that most Canadians, it seems, have no idea that an election could be just around the corner. What to make of this?
Well first of all, I wouldn't necessarily say most Canadians categorically "Don't want an election." What I've found is that most people are quite friendly and are "undecided" about who they are going to support. In truth, this brings us back to the first objection, that Canadians haven't had a chance to really see Dion and they haven't made up their minds.
What's the solution to this? Well as I said above, it's connecting with, speaking with, and listening to Canadians. There is no other way. Hiding and waiting till it seems Canadians are automatically going to give us the key to government, is a ridiculous strategy.
Let's engage Canadians instead.
First, Resilience - The liberal party is naturally resilient to attacks from the Conservatives on the economy. The recent attack ads put out by the Conservatives bombed and everyone knows it. Even the National Post called out the Conservatives for their outlandish claims about the liberals on the economy. Why? Because when it comes to the economy, liberals have built a huge legacy and the Conservatives, well...
Second, Unity - We are members of an organization that has economic discipline as part of its DNA. Liberals spontaneously rally around the economy as a strong point of the organization. Economic discipline is a core part of our identity. There doesn't even need to be much goading to bring the party together on this, every liberal understands that the management of the economy in past administrations was a major accomplishment.
Third, Vision - There is no better issue from which to present Dion's vision of the future than the economy. The vision of bringing the economy into the 21st century, by reconciling the economy with the environment and social justice, is one that will be heard by Canadians if we go to an election on the economy. It will not work on any other issue.
Now that I've laid out my reasons to go, I'd like to look at two of the reasons for not going to an election.
The first drawback from going to an election is summarized in a recent Toronto Star article as, "Stéphane Dion is an unknown commodity, or known only by the Conservative attack ads. It's been tough for people to get his message out. People who meet him, like him. But in terms of what people see (at a distance), people are really taken in by the media, no question"
I would argue in turn that an election would give us the best opportunity to connect with Canadians and speak about Dion's message. Canadians will hear us once they start paying attention. By going to an election on the economy, they will see credibility and vision in the liberal party V.S. a lack of these in the Harper Conservatives.
The second drawback from going to an election is that Canadians don't seem to want an election.
I've seen this personally. Go door knocking and you'll find that most Canadians, it seems, have no idea that an election could be just around the corner. What to make of this?
Well first of all, I wouldn't necessarily say most Canadians categorically "Don't want an election." What I've found is that most people are quite friendly and are "undecided" about who they are going to support. In truth, this brings us back to the first objection, that Canadians haven't had a chance to really see Dion and they haven't made up their minds.
What's the solution to this? Well as I said above, it's connecting with, speaking with, and listening to Canadians. There is no other way. Hiding and waiting till it seems Canadians are automatically going to give us the key to government, is a ridiculous strategy.
Let's engage Canadians instead.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Impolitical: The best defense for not going to an election
Impolitical has written the best argument in defense of not going to an election that I've read so far. If you haven't read it yet, check it out.
Impolitical writes:
"We have a Liberal party in opposition that has been drained financially by a federal election in 2004, 2006 and a leadership convention that followed. Not to mention the Martin leadership campaign in advance of all that which also tapped into the donor base. And being in this compromised position, nevertheless, many continue to egg them on to call an election while effectively unarmed. What is the point in that? Sure they can get the loans to finance a campaign. Still has to be paid back though. Should we bolster the finances before hurtling in or have no regard to such considerations? The Conservatives would love to have an election now for that reason. They want to destroy the Liberals financially. Why give them their wish?"
In a word, he is advocating caution and responsibility.
My argument is based on responsibility as well, but is diametrically opposed to this argument. I believe that going to an election gives us a great platform from which to spread our message and connect with Canadians. This means building our donor base, building support and gaining seats.
I've outlined 6 possible outcomes from an election in the post below and I lean towards the more optimistic scenerios, whether we win or lose the next election.
The only further point I want to make is that going to an election is a responsible choice for both the party and for Canada. An election on the economy presents us with an opportunity to take our message to Canadians, to come together over past liberal accomplishments, to show that we have a vision for future of the Canadian Economy, Canadian Society and the Environment, while Harper flies by the seat of his pants.
Impolitical writes:
"We have a Liberal party in opposition that has been drained financially by a federal election in 2004, 2006 and a leadership convention that followed. Not to mention the Martin leadership campaign in advance of all that which also tapped into the donor base. And being in this compromised position, nevertheless, many continue to egg them on to call an election while effectively unarmed. What is the point in that? Sure they can get the loans to finance a campaign. Still has to be paid back though. Should we bolster the finances before hurtling in or have no regard to such considerations? The Conservatives would love to have an election now for that reason. They want to destroy the Liberals financially. Why give them their wish?"
In a word, he is advocating caution and responsibility.
My argument is based on responsibility as well, but is diametrically opposed to this argument. I believe that going to an election gives us a great platform from which to spread our message and connect with Canadians. This means building our donor base, building support and gaining seats.
I've outlined 6 possible outcomes from an election in the post below and I lean towards the more optimistic scenerios, whether we win or lose the next election.
The only further point I want to make is that going to an election is a responsible choice for both the party and for Canada. An election on the economy presents us with an opportunity to take our message to Canadians, to come together over past liberal accomplishments, to show that we have a vision for future of the Canadian Economy, Canadian Society and the Environment, while Harper flies by the seat of his pants.
Scenerio Planning the Election
There are two very basic scenerios that can come from going to an election: either we win or we lose. Within these larger scenerios there are sub-scenerios. In other words, how we win or how we lose matters.
Knowing this, I've plotted out 3 sub-scenerios for each of the two larger scenerios that could come from an election. These 3 sub-scenerios are laid out in order from worst-case to best-case. After these are laid out, I offer some analysis on what I think about each scenerio and what I think is most likely.
Note that this exercise is based solely on the possibility of going to an election on the budget, and does not take into account a spring election triggered by some other issue.
1. We lose the election.
a) We lose and lose big: An election is called and the party fractures. The knives come out for Dion and the trust Canadians have in the party diminishes considerably. Harper wins a majority and the liberal party is in major financial straights. Our donor base shrinks, we end up with major debt and Dion steps down.
b) We lose but we stay within the game: Neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party come out as big winners of an election. Dion stays as leader but his leadership is still questioned.
c) We lose and yet we win: We go to an election and the party's message catches on. Our donor base grows, people are turned onto us, we gain strength and we gain seats. Dion stays as leader and is seen as a much better leader than he is presently. Our fundraising capabilities grow considerably and we are ready for another election within 18 months, by October 2009.
2. We Win the Election
a) We win and yet we lose: The party is fractured by open revolt, the media and Canadians are skeptical of us. We have a weak minority government and Dion's leadership is questioned more than ever. It is likely that another election will be held within 18 months.
b) We win and stay within the game: We win an election and have a minority. Canadians aren't convinced, yet aren't unconvinced either. Another election is possible within 18 months.
c) We win and win big: We go to an election, Dion catches on and his message connects with Canadians. We come together as a team, we rally around past liberal accomplishments on the economy, and we articulate a vision for the economy of the future for Canada. We throw Harper off-stride and we win a majority or a strong minority. Our donor base grows and Harper steps down, revealing a major leadership chasm within the Conservative party.
A Note on Method:
The scenerios laid out above are black and white, in reality the outcome will likely be a blurring of sub-scenerios. It's all a matter of degree to which sub-scenerio we lean. Still, I believe that the overall direction of these scenerios is sound.
Analysis
If we go to an election on the budget, there are two basic scenerios that could play out: either we win or we lose. But within these larger scenerios there are sub-scenerios: how we win or lose matters.
If we lose, I don't see the possibility of losing big as being likely. Unless the party is in full rebellion mode (which would be complete suicide where consequences for the party would extend far beyond the next election), I don't see Harper winning a majority and I don't see Dion completely flopping.
I lean much more to the 1.c) scenerio where Dion's message catches on and we start to build a more robust donor base. I see us gaining seats in several important areas and I see Harper losing several important members of his cabinet.
If we win, I also lean more to the optimistic side with the 2.c) scenerio. I think an election is a great platform from which to spread our message, connect with Canadians while they are tuned in, and build our organization. We will gain seats, we will build our donor base, we will be responsible towards Canada and towards the liberal party.
Knowing this, I've plotted out 3 sub-scenerios for each of the two larger scenerios that could come from an election. These 3 sub-scenerios are laid out in order from worst-case to best-case. After these are laid out, I offer some analysis on what I think about each scenerio and what I think is most likely.
Note that this exercise is based solely on the possibility of going to an election on the budget, and does not take into account a spring election triggered by some other issue.
1. We lose the election.
a) We lose and lose big: An election is called and the party fractures. The knives come out for Dion and the trust Canadians have in the party diminishes considerably. Harper wins a majority and the liberal party is in major financial straights. Our donor base shrinks, we end up with major debt and Dion steps down.
b) We lose but we stay within the game: Neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party come out as big winners of an election. Dion stays as leader but his leadership is still questioned.
c) We lose and yet we win: We go to an election and the party's message catches on. Our donor base grows, people are turned onto us, we gain strength and we gain seats. Dion stays as leader and is seen as a much better leader than he is presently. Our fundraising capabilities grow considerably and we are ready for another election within 18 months, by October 2009.
2. We Win the Election
a) We win and yet we lose: The party is fractured by open revolt, the media and Canadians are skeptical of us. We have a weak minority government and Dion's leadership is questioned more than ever. It is likely that another election will be held within 18 months.
b) We win and stay within the game: We win an election and have a minority. Canadians aren't convinced, yet aren't unconvinced either. Another election is possible within 18 months.
c) We win and win big: We go to an election, Dion catches on and his message connects with Canadians. We come together as a team, we rally around past liberal accomplishments on the economy, and we articulate a vision for the economy of the future for Canada. We throw Harper off-stride and we win a majority or a strong minority. Our donor base grows and Harper steps down, revealing a major leadership chasm within the Conservative party.
A Note on Method:
The scenerios laid out above are black and white, in reality the outcome will likely be a blurring of sub-scenerios. It's all a matter of degree to which sub-scenerio we lean. Still, I believe that the overall direction of these scenerios is sound.
Analysis
If we go to an election on the budget, there are two basic scenerios that could play out: either we win or we lose. But within these larger scenerios there are sub-scenerios: how we win or lose matters.
If we lose, I don't see the possibility of losing big as being likely. Unless the party is in full rebellion mode (which would be complete suicide where consequences for the party would extend far beyond the next election), I don't see Harper winning a majority and I don't see Dion completely flopping.
I lean much more to the 1.c) scenerio where Dion's message catches on and we start to build a more robust donor base. I see us gaining seats in several important areas and I see Harper losing several important members of his cabinet.
If we win, I also lean more to the optimistic side with the 2.c) scenerio. I think an election is a great platform from which to spread our message, connect with Canadians while they are tuned in, and build our organization. We will gain seats, we will build our donor base, we will be responsible towards Canada and towards the liberal party.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Why we should go to an election
Four reasons to go to an election on the budget.
1) We're polling competitively with Conservatives and are ahead in key provinces (Ontario and Quebec). The governing party usually loses even more points during an election, and this governing party will most likely lose points because of their terrible record.
2) The Budget is the best place for Dion to knock the Conservatives off their stride. The recent book published by Jim Prentice bombed and this shows a major weakness for the Conservative party.
3) Going to an election on the economy makes the most sense for Dion. The economy is the single best issue for Dion to champion during an election because it comprehensively covers the other major pillars of his platform - the environment (Research and Development, knowledge-based economy) and social justice (sharing the wealth and taking care of all Canadians).
4) Not going to an election on the Budget brings us to another contentious vote - Afghanistan. The media have pounded Dion on the issue and tend to side with Harper's version of the story where we need to establish "command and control" in that country. Signalling that we are willing to capitulate on the budget means we're also willing to capitulate on Afghanistan.
1) We're polling competitively with Conservatives and are ahead in key provinces (Ontario and Quebec). The governing party usually loses even more points during an election, and this governing party will most likely lose points because of their terrible record.
2) The Budget is the best place for Dion to knock the Conservatives off their stride. The recent book published by Jim Prentice bombed and this shows a major weakness for the Conservative party.
3) Going to an election on the economy makes the most sense for Dion. The economy is the single best issue for Dion to champion during an election because it comprehensively covers the other major pillars of his platform - the environment (Research and Development, knowledge-based economy) and social justice (sharing the wealth and taking care of all Canadians).
4) Not going to an election on the Budget brings us to another contentious vote - Afghanistan. The media have pounded Dion on the issue and tend to side with Harper's version of the story where we need to establish "command and control" in that country. Signalling that we are willing to capitulate on the budget means we're also willing to capitulate on Afghanistan.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Cold Open -- Stephane Dion vs Stephen Harper (Video)
Dion vs Harper in a WWE match, who will win?
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Bilingual double standard
Mark Abley has written a zinger.
"I've been pondering one of the responses to a column I wrote last month. A reader in rural Ontario took exception to my comments about Canada's position on climate change. She mistook me for a card-carrying Liberal.
"Do you really think people take any notice of this drivel," she asked. "I would vote Tory as I will not vote for Mr. Dion, he is a disgrace and if he is so smart, why can he not improve his English delivery."
I fired off a quick reply, saying "I'm sorry you base your opinion of Mr. Dion on his command of English. His English is at least as good as Mr. Harper's French, and better than Mr. Layton's French. All three men are intelligent but none of them is perfectly bilingual."
That didn't appease my correspondent. "I think Stephen's French is fine," she said, "and sorry we are mostly an English-speaking country, therefore as Mr. Dion would represent us as PM and have to speak in English, your point is moot."
I seldom publicize negative remarks by angry readers. But my hunch is that the sour sentiment expressed in the above exchange could play a significant role in the next election.
Canadians are mostly a courteous people, Don Cherry excepted, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Trouble is, courtesy can stop us saying what's really on our minds. My column annoyed this particular reader so much that she blurted out an impolite truth.
Which is, I think, that a double standard continues to flourish. We are officially a bilingual country, yet many cabinet ministers and provincial premiers couldn't handle a simple conversation in French. For a politician on the national scene, fluency in French is an optional extra. Fluency in English has always been essential.
The apparent exception is Jean Chrétien, who mangled the English language with aplomb. (Asked about the RCMP's use of pepper spray, he replied, "For me, pepper, I put it on my plate.") But Chrétien's English was colloquial, impromptu, feisty – and not always much worse than his street-level French.
Stéphane Dion, by contrast, speaks superb French. Yet in English, he has a professorial air. The words are recognizable, but the intonation is off-kilter. Idioms are rare; polysyllables are all too common. He trudges through English as though plodding through a field of mud.
Stephen Harper's inelegant French is no better than Dion's English. Yet in Quebec, Harper draws respect and even praise for a level of foreign-language proficiency that earns Dion scorn in other provinces. The fact that the scorn is largely unspoken doesn't make it any less lethal. Like racial prejudice in the U.S., linguistic prejudice is something Canadians prefer to avoid discussing.
Veteran journalist Larry Zolf is among the few to raise the topic openly. But a suggestion he made last year, that Dion's English is worse than John Diefenbaker's French, is utterly ridiculous. Dion has no trouble reading and understanding English; it's only his speaking abilities that are at issue.
His lack of fluency in English says nothing about Dion's intelligence, for intelligence and language skills don't always go together. You can be blazingly smart in a single tongue. What does tend to go with bilingualism is a flexibility of mind and spirit – an openness to different points of view."
The ball is knocked out of the park in the final paragraph.
"When we vote, we hope to reward a leader who embodies our best selves: our aspirations for the country, our dreams for its children. Will Stéphane Dion's struggles with spoken English mean that across much of Canada, voters refuse to see him as that kind of leader?"
"I've been pondering one of the responses to a column I wrote last month. A reader in rural Ontario took exception to my comments about Canada's position on climate change. She mistook me for a card-carrying Liberal.
"Do you really think people take any notice of this drivel," she asked. "I would vote Tory as I will not vote for Mr. Dion, he is a disgrace and if he is so smart, why can he not improve his English delivery."
I fired off a quick reply, saying "I'm sorry you base your opinion of Mr. Dion on his command of English. His English is at least as good as Mr. Harper's French, and better than Mr. Layton's French. All three men are intelligent but none of them is perfectly bilingual."
That didn't appease my correspondent. "I think Stephen's French is fine," she said, "and sorry we are mostly an English-speaking country, therefore as Mr. Dion would represent us as PM and have to speak in English, your point is moot."
I seldom publicize negative remarks by angry readers. But my hunch is that the sour sentiment expressed in the above exchange could play a significant role in the next election.
Canadians are mostly a courteous people, Don Cherry excepted, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Trouble is, courtesy can stop us saying what's really on our minds. My column annoyed this particular reader so much that she blurted out an impolite truth.
Which is, I think, that a double standard continues to flourish. We are officially a bilingual country, yet many cabinet ministers and provincial premiers couldn't handle a simple conversation in French. For a politician on the national scene, fluency in French is an optional extra. Fluency in English has always been essential.
The apparent exception is Jean Chrétien, who mangled the English language with aplomb. (Asked about the RCMP's use of pepper spray, he replied, "For me, pepper, I put it on my plate.") But Chrétien's English was colloquial, impromptu, feisty – and not always much worse than his street-level French.
Stéphane Dion, by contrast, speaks superb French. Yet in English, he has a professorial air. The words are recognizable, but the intonation is off-kilter. Idioms are rare; polysyllables are all too common. He trudges through English as though plodding through a field of mud.
Stephen Harper's inelegant French is no better than Dion's English. Yet in Quebec, Harper draws respect and even praise for a level of foreign-language proficiency that earns Dion scorn in other provinces. The fact that the scorn is largely unspoken doesn't make it any less lethal. Like racial prejudice in the U.S., linguistic prejudice is something Canadians prefer to avoid discussing.
Veteran journalist Larry Zolf is among the few to raise the topic openly. But a suggestion he made last year, that Dion's English is worse than John Diefenbaker's French, is utterly ridiculous. Dion has no trouble reading and understanding English; it's only his speaking abilities that are at issue.
His lack of fluency in English says nothing about Dion's intelligence, for intelligence and language skills don't always go together. You can be blazingly smart in a single tongue. What does tend to go with bilingualism is a flexibility of mind and spirit – an openness to different points of view."
The ball is knocked out of the park in the final paragraph.
"When we vote, we hope to reward a leader who embodies our best selves: our aspirations for the country, our dreams for its children. Will Stéphane Dion's struggles with spoken English mean that across much of Canada, voters refuse to see him as that kind of leader?"
Memo to Liberal Bloggers: Stop Dumping on Mr. Orchard
Enough with the dumping on Mr. Orchard.
The most important thing we need to do is maintain cordial, civil relationships between Mr. Dion and Mr. Orchard. Both men have explicitly stated their mutual respect for one another. That is the most important thing for us to maintain.
The response of bloggers to this whole affair has only inflamed the controversy. We need to come back to respecting one another. I'm not gonna name names; bloggers who have expressed less than respectful sentiments towards Mr. Orchard know who they are.
Mr. Orchard is a strong liberal and he is an asset to us in defeating Mr. Harper. This is not an argument along the lines of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Rather, this is to say that Mr. Orchard is, in himself, a strong, articulate liberal, whose values and opinions have a place within the big-tent party.
Let's keep building bridges so we can continue building momentum.
The most important thing we need to do is maintain cordial, civil relationships between Mr. Dion and Mr. Orchard. Both men have explicitly stated their mutual respect for one another. That is the most important thing for us to maintain.
The response of bloggers to this whole affair has only inflamed the controversy. We need to come back to respecting one another. I'm not gonna name names; bloggers who have expressed less than respectful sentiments towards Mr. Orchard know who they are.
Mr. Orchard is a strong liberal and he is an asset to us in defeating Mr. Harper. This is not an argument along the lines of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Rather, this is to say that Mr. Orchard is, in himself, a strong, articulate liberal, whose values and opinions have a place within the big-tent party.
Let's keep building bridges so we can continue building momentum.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Mayor Miller ignores good advice regarding new Toronto taxes (Video)
Deputation from Sydney White to the Executive Committee of Toronto City Council about the proposed new taxation measures and the Bank of Canada as an alternative.
Sydney White, an outspoken freelance investigative journalist has been connecting the dots for years and helping to educate others. Her years working at the United Nations opened her eyes to the corruption in government and who's really running things in the world and why.
Sydney White, an outspoken freelance investigative journalist has been connecting the dots for years and helping to educate others. Her years working at the United Nations opened her eyes to the corruption in government and who's really running things in the world and why.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Big up to "The Environment is My Voting Issue in Canada"
A new project from the famous Desmogblog.com is catching on quickly.
Only a few days ago Desmogblog created a new Facebook group called "The Environment is My Voting Issue in Canada." Membership has been steadily climbing, from 0 to over 720 in just 4 days.
Let's keep the numbers climbing and send a message to both government and the media that the environment will be a big, big issue for Canadians in the next election.
How it could be - Harvesting the Wind
Only a few days ago Desmogblog created a new Facebook group called "The Environment is My Voting Issue in Canada." Membership has been steadily climbing, from 0 to over 720 in just 4 days.
Let's keep the numbers climbing and send a message to both government and the media that the environment will be a big, big issue for Canadians in the next election.
How it could be - Harvesting the Wind
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Co-operate to Win (Video)
Video Vox has written an excellent article which asks the question, "How can the NDP, Liberals and Greens create a formula for some form of cooperation designed to take down Stephen Harper, while still serving their own political agendas?"
What would such an arrangement help produce for the NDP anyway? Anything? Everything?
A recent article by co-founder of Now Magazine, Alice Klein, flips common wisdom on its head by stating that Jack Layton's highly partisan approach towards the Liberals and Greens hurts the NDP's credibility while a cooperative approach would actually boost its credibility and therefore, its electoral successes.
At the very least, the NDP should ratchet down the rhetoric which has been leading to a downturn in their credibility as of late. But what we should aspire to is a return to a respectful, civil discourse between the progressive parties. As Alice Klein puts it, Jack Layton needs to "rise above the 'I’m the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong and bad and should be ashamed of themselves' posturing of the past." Instead, we should "Imagine an NDP that, in addition to pointing out shortcomings, was able to acknowledge the accomplishments of others even if they don’t come from the party."
Such an approach to politics would turn heads and "could lead to greatness." Indeed, under such an approach we could end Harper's charade of credibility and wipe this government off the electoral map. In turn, we could have more liberal, ndp and green members of parliament.
The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod
What would such an arrangement help produce for the NDP anyway? Anything? Everything?
A recent article by co-founder of Now Magazine, Alice Klein, flips common wisdom on its head by stating that Jack Layton's highly partisan approach towards the Liberals and Greens hurts the NDP's credibility while a cooperative approach would actually boost its credibility and therefore, its electoral successes.
At the very least, the NDP should ratchet down the rhetoric which has been leading to a downturn in their credibility as of late. But what we should aspire to is a return to a respectful, civil discourse between the progressive parties. As Alice Klein puts it, Jack Layton needs to "rise above the 'I’m the only one who’s right and everyone else is wrong and bad and should be ashamed of themselves' posturing of the past." Instead, we should "Imagine an NDP that, in addition to pointing out shortcomings, was able to acknowledge the accomplishments of others even if they don’t come from the party."
Such an approach to politics would turn heads and "could lead to greatness." Indeed, under such an approach we could end Harper's charade of credibility and wipe this government off the electoral map. In turn, we could have more liberal, ndp and green members of parliament.
The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod
Former AECL Chair Confirms Gary Lunn's Mismanagement of Isotope Controversy
Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn must come out of hiding and explain why he put the lives of Canadians at risk for nearly two weeks before he said he was made aware of a medical isotope crisis at the Chalk River nuclear facility, Liberal Natural Resources Critic Omar Alghabra said today.
"I was not surprised to learn today that former Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) Chairman Michael Burns said he briefed Mr. Lunn on November 22 about the situation in Chalk River and that subsequent updates were given to the Minister," Mr. Alghabra said. "These comments confirm that this government was aware of the impending health crisis caused by the extended shutdown of this medical isotope-producing facility and sat on its hands and did nothing."
Mr. Burns further exposed the mismanagement of Canada's isotope-producing nuclear reactor on Tuesday, claiming that both he and Mr. Lunn were informed as early November 22 that the reactor would not resume service and received regular updates on its status in the days that followed.
However, during a debate December 11 regarding the emergency legislation to restart the Chalk River reactor, Mr. Lunn told the House of Commons: "I was first made aware [of the shutdown] I believe late in the day on December 3 and started working on it on December 4."
Health Minister Tony Clement has claimed that he was not informed about the shutdown until December 5.
If Mr. Clement's account is accurate, Mr. Alghabra also wondered why Mr. Lunn waited to tell the Health Minister of the looming public health crisis caused by the growing shortage of medical isotopes until 18 days after the reactor was shut down.
"This government has clearly dropped the ball on this issue and put the lives of thousands at risk," said Mr. Alghabra. "To make matters worse, instead of admitting responsibility for their failures, they chose to scapegoat federal officials."
Mr. Burns, a long-time Conservative party fundraiser, defended the work of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President Linda Keen, against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's accusations that her actions were guided by Liberal partisan leanings.
Mr. Burns himself has fallen victim to Conservative finger pointing, linking his resignation as Chair of the AECL on November 29 to the Chalk River controversy.
"I was not surprised to learn today that former Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) Chairman Michael Burns said he briefed Mr. Lunn on November 22 about the situation in Chalk River and that subsequent updates were given to the Minister," Mr. Alghabra said. "These comments confirm that this government was aware of the impending health crisis caused by the extended shutdown of this medical isotope-producing facility and sat on its hands and did nothing."
Mr. Burns further exposed the mismanagement of Canada's isotope-producing nuclear reactor on Tuesday, claiming that both he and Mr. Lunn were informed as early November 22 that the reactor would not resume service and received regular updates on its status in the days that followed.
However, during a debate December 11 regarding the emergency legislation to restart the Chalk River reactor, Mr. Lunn told the House of Commons: "I was first made aware [of the shutdown] I believe late in the day on December 3 and started working on it on December 4."
Health Minister Tony Clement has claimed that he was not informed about the shutdown until December 5.
If Mr. Clement's account is accurate, Mr. Alghabra also wondered why Mr. Lunn waited to tell the Health Minister of the looming public health crisis caused by the growing shortage of medical isotopes until 18 days after the reactor was shut down.
"This government has clearly dropped the ball on this issue and put the lives of thousands at risk," said Mr. Alghabra. "To make matters worse, instead of admitting responsibility for their failures, they chose to scapegoat federal officials."
Mr. Burns, a long-time Conservative party fundraiser, defended the work of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President Linda Keen, against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's accusations that her actions were guided by Liberal partisan leanings.
Mr. Burns himself has fallen victim to Conservative finger pointing, linking his resignation as Chair of the AECL on November 29 to the Chalk River controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
