Modeling Journey

The Cat warns Liberal delegates that the proposal now being put forward to amend the Quebec motion in order to recognize Quebec as a "nation" and then say that the Task Force discussions and later decisions will not "necessarily" result in constitutional change, is not good enough.

Such a change will do nothing to assure those Liberals and other Canadians who fear even starting down the slippery slope towards constitutional change.

It is time for the Kennedy, Dion and Rae campaigns to bite the bullet on the Quebec motion, and remove from it both the word "nation" and make it absolutely crystal clear that it is not going to result in any constitutional amendments.

The proposal now being bandied about is DOA because:

- contrary to all the Ignatieff spin, there is no agreement on what "nation" means;

- nor is there agreement on why only Quebec and no other province or peoples are to be included in the constitutional amendments;

- nor does it prevent this becoming a recommendation for constitutional change. We have already seen earlier Quebec versions use words smacking of constitutional change ("formalize" and "officialise").

It is time for decisive leadership. Kill this ill-advised Quebec motion. Replace it with one reaffirming commitment of the Liberal Party to the 1995 Chretien-drafted Parliamentary motion.

Well let's say ... The beginning

So after I now by most LJs that have interested me, was thrown out, because I was not on the F-List can leave and not even a comment, but I've decided to have an account for self-congratulation:-D build. At least I can (hopefully) follow the WIPs, read the stories they want to turn 14 days before they are f-locked and sometimes leave my mind. I am wondering whether LJ also display messages in different languages is easy, because I will definitely come over and write times in Russian and English. Hard to believe it was two years ago, I did not even know what a Live Journal. And without Aragorn and Boromir would never have occurred to create an account ....

Ignatieff has rashly either instigated or supported the Quebec motion to recognize Quebec as a "nation". Ignatieff, having taken on the garb of constitutional fixer, has unleashed a firestorm amongst Liberals, raised expectations amongst some, thrown oil on the separatist fires in that province, and annoyed to no end everyone else who feels that they, too, are worthy of being a "nation". He has spoken loudly about the step to enshrine the word "nation", but very softly added that it will be of no legal significance. Apart from the totally negative patronizing flavour this softly added caveat has brought to his proposal, it seems nobody really knows what the heck he is proposing.

All this brings to mind a wonderful, and appropriate, passage from Manchester's book on Krupp:

"Wilhelmine Kultur's emphasis on masculinity had produced a generation of perverts ... During one party ... General Count Dietrich von Hulsen-Haeseler, the chief of the Reich's military cabinet, appeared in front of the Kaiser dressed in a pink ballet skirt and rose wreath. The general's ramrod back dipped low in a swanlike bow; then he whirled away in a graceful dance as the assembled officer corps sighed passionately in admiration. Hulsen-Haeseler circled the floor, returned to the imperial presence for his farewell bow, and then, to Wilhelm's horror, dropped dead of a heart attack. Rigor mortis had set in before his brother officers realized that it would be improper to bury him in the skirt. They had a terrible time stuffing the stiff corpse into a dress uniform. Still, everyone had to agree that he had "danced beautifully."" From The Arms of Krupp 1587-1968 by William Manchester, 1981, page 260.

Like the dancing general, Ignatieff has donned the tutu of constitutional reform.
Like the general, he faces a similar (political) fate.

The Cat thinks it is not too late for Ignatieff to strip himself of his ill-advised constitutional tutu by publicly stating now that he has reconsidered the matter, and will not be supporting the motion at the convention.

The Cat's advice to Ignatieff is simple: throw away that tutu. Stick to things you know about, and which are less embarrassing. After all, remember the general ...

The Cat says that all this talk about "rejection" of the Quebec motion at the convention being unthinkable is utter nonsense. The motion was born of desperation, badly worded, vague and a potential time bomb in the Liberal Party.

At the convention, the proper thing to do is for Dion, Kennedy and Rae to put forward an amendment to the Quebec one which is clear, transparent, avoids any constitutional changes, and yet commits the Party to continue to address the distinctiveness of the Quebec province in its dealings with that province.

If Ignatieff and his supporters botch things up with rushed motions at turbulent meetings, thank heavens there are other more seasoned and battle-scarred members of the Liberal Party who can step in and clear things up before too much damage is done.

A key factor for Liberal delegates in the second ballot is this question: Will he win the next election?

The number of delegates chosen for the convention is one indication of possible success on the hustings.

However, polls of Liberal members and voters in general are another, and here Bob Rae is leading the pack as the most favoured leader for the Liberals.

An interesting analysis of the delegate selections has been made by democraticspace at their website. They analysed the ridings based on past elections, and narrowed them down to the 163 ridings where the Liberals came within 15% of the total votes cast in the last election (up by 15% or down by 15%), and named these the "battleground ridings".

A quote from their site: "Thus, barring a shift of greater than 15 points in the polls (which appears unlikely in the near future), this suggests that the Liberals could win a maximum of 163 ridings (50 safe ridings, 50 that the Liberals won by 15% or less and 63 that the Liberals lost by 15% or less). So, while a leadership candidate may be popular in Alberta or rural Quebec, there is little chance that popularity will translate into electoral success in those ridings in the near future (since the Liberals lost these ridings by an average of 40 points). A candidate?s popularity in the 163 winnable ridings, by contrast, could make the difference between whether the Conservatives or Liberals win the next election."

And the results?

- Ignatieff's delegate share drops 9% to 26.1%.

- Rae's share goes up 2.7% to 21.4%.

- Kennedy picks up a whopping 7.7% to reach 20.5%, beating out Dion, who drops 8% (almost as much as Ignatieff), to end up with 13.5%.

Another indication that this race is far from over, with Bob Rae an very strong contender, hot on the heels of the stumbling Ignatieff-mobile, and Kennedy still in the running.

In the Montreal debate, Stephane Dion (despite the boos of Ignatieff supporters) referred to the Ignatieff Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dion was right in doing so.

And Ignatieff owes Liberals and Canadians a full and clear explanation of his recommendations in the article he wrote in the April 19, 2002 The Guardian, headed Why Bush Must Send in His Troops - Imposing a Two-State Solution is the Last Chance for Middle East.

Ignatieff said after the Montreal debate that he stood by his previous writings. Good.

The question facing Liberals in the leadership campaign is a simple one: Does Ignatieff's recommendation to the President of the United States to send troops into Israel in order to impose an American-designed peace on Israel and on the Palestinians, fit the model of the Liberal Party with respect to the use of force to solve international disputes?

When his advocacy in this article is linked to his advocacy of unilateral use of force by the USA in Iraq, a legitimate question arises: If he became Prime Minister, would Ignatieff be committing Canadian troops to enforce unilateral solutions in places around the globe, even without UN sanction of such steps?

Dion was right in linking Ignatieff's support for the Iraqi adventure with his support for the President of the US to impose a solution on Israel and the Palestinians by force of American arms.

This is an extraordinary position for a man who would be Prime Minister of Canada to take. To recommend that American troops be used to impose a solution dreamed up by outsiders on parties in a part of the world who do not agree amongst themselves on a solution to their problems. Equally disturbing, is Ignatieff's justification for such a step as being America's interest.

To summarize, this potential Prime Minister of Canada recommended that America should impose a solution of a dispute among peoples in conflict by use of force, if America saw this as being in America's interest.

What exactly did Ignatieff say in the April 2002 article? Let's summarize:

- While flying over the West Bank, he gained the impression it was a "Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control."

- The Israelis have failed to realize it is in their interest to have a strong Palestinian Authority capable of providing services to their people and to keep them from wanting to kill Israelis;

- The Palestinians have failed to realize that a good neighbour is a strong one;

- If his argument is true, the only hope for Israel to survive is the "recreation of a viable Palestinian state, with a monopoly on the means of violence";

- Both sides were in 2002 bitter and traumatized, with feelings they were being led "by people who are incapable of making peace";

- "But it is also equally clear that neither side is capable of making peace, or even sitting in the same room to discuss it."

What was the Ignatieff Solution? Let's use his own words in this article to describe it:

- "The Americans now face a historic choice. For 50 years, they have played the double game of both guaranteeing Israel's security and serving as honest broker in the region. This game can't go on."

- "The prestige and leadership of the United States, its vital national interests, are now on line. Without a settlement in the Middle East, it has no possibility of support from Arab governments in its campaign against Islamist terrorists."

And then his absolute recommendation to the President of the United States:

"The only way to seize the opportunity is to impose a two-state solution now, before the extremists succeed in removing it from the realm of possibility forever." And: "Imposing a peace of this amplitude on both parties, and committing the troops to back it up, would be the most dramatic exercise of presidential leadership since the Cuban missile crisis."

Note the words Ignatieff uses: imposing a solution, backed up by troops.

Let's explore where this line of reasoning might take Canada if Ignatieff was Prime Minister of Canada. Would be support unilateral action by American troops to enforce an American solution, if the US President deemed it in America's interest, if:

- Conflict arose within a province of Canada (say, in Quebec, between Francophones and First Nations)?

- An Albertan government was to decide to hold a referendum to decide whether to exit Canada and join with the US, and violent demonstrations, for and against, broke out, and the American President, after considering the importance of the vast oil deposits in the oil sands, decided it was in America's interest to allow the referendum to take place, by quelling the demonstrations, and, if the result of the vote was for union with the USA, enforcing this decision using American troops in Alberta? Even if this meant such troops might be used against Canadian troops or police sent in by the federal government of Canada?

- The US President decided it was in America's interest to use force (bombs, missiles and troops of a coalition of the willing on the ground) to overthrow the government of Iran and install a west-friendly government? Perhaps in return for guaranteed access to oil supplies for the USA.

- A President decided it was in his country's interest to secure reliable oil supplies from an African / South American (you insert one) state, and decided to use force to replace the current government there, back an exiled government, stop hostilities, restore peace, build up institutions, and implement a mini-Marshall Plan to improve the standard of living of the inhabitants, reduce mortality rates, and educate women and children?

All because it is in America's interest.

Is this the man Liberals want to head up their party, and become Prime Minister of Canada?

TDH has quoted an attack on Bob Rae by Greg Weston in the Ottawa Sun.

TDH raises these valid points:

1 What is Bob Rae's record as Premier of Ontario in the 90's?

2 How does his Premiership compare to those of the other Premiers during similar recessions?

3 Did he perform well, or poorly, during the recession?

4 What major mistakes did he make, as compared to what decisions were forced on his government due to the recession?

5 Has he learned enough for voters to say with comfort that he will govern the country effectively should be become Prime Minister?

6 Finally, will Bob Rae make a good Prime Minister, and why?

It is incumbent upon Bob Rae and his team to answer these questions before delegates vote.

TDH and others are concerned about the fate of the Liberal Party should Bob Rae become leader. Will Rae be able to answer the above questions prior to and during the next election? Or will he allow Harper to frame the discussion as a competition between an efficient government (Harper's) and a failed Premier, using Rae's tenure to demonstrate the failures.

To date, Rae has not managed to come up with a defence which is clear, deals head on with the facts, and persuasive to those who doubt his ability.

Bob Rae has to do so, and those who support him bear a similar burden. Rae has a track record, and it has to be discussed and debated.

For starters, can Rae or his supporters answer the assumptions made by Weston in the Ottawa Sun article of October 19:

- That Rae increased the debt of Ontario from $20bn to $40bn over 5 years "with little enduring value to show for it at the end."

- That Rae damaged the health care system by cutting the number of doctors being graduated, and that this still harms Ontario.

- That Rae bailed out bit companies while allowing the number of small companies (those with less than 100 employees) to reduce, so sacrificing small companies and their employees for the big companies.

- That Rae increased personal taxes so much for those earning $67,000 per year that they were "running for the border in droves".

- That Rae welshed on introducing public auto insurance despite a promise to do so and save drivers "a fortune in premiums".

- That the Rae Days were a disaster because Rae "hired 100,000 more public serviants, gave them all a big raise, and ordered them to stay home and not get paid."

Overall, the charge by many (and the future charge by Harper) will be that Bob Rae was and will be an unmitigated disaster as a governor of a province or country.

What say thee, Bob Rae?

Chantal Herbert in The Star sums it up best, when commenting on Ignatieff's lacklustre performance in the debate this weekend:

"A similar performance in an election campaign would have cost the Liberals the leaders' debate. And that reality has the potential to turn a one-time mediocre performance into a defining moment of the leadership contest."

Liberal delegates and voters should think about her comment. The name of the game is power. Harper and his new Tories are stalled, but Harper is a skilled debater.

Do we really want to put up a rookie like Ignatieff against Harper in the next election?

Five thousand delegates have the right to descend upon Montreal, and vote for the next leader of the LPC. Some are obliged to vote on the first ballot for one candidate. But all are free to vote as they choose on the second and other ballots.

Are they really free to choose? Legally, yes. Morally, no. They are there because they represent the members of the Liberal Party. Their task is to choose the best person to lead the party, and to become Prime Minister when Harper's new Tories bite the dust. When they decide whom to vote for on the second and later ballots, how must they make up their minds? Clearly they should consider their own preferences. And they should consider the policies of the candidates. And they should consider the integrity of the candidates. And they should consider the electability of the candidates.

But this is not all. They also have a duty to consider the views of the majority of the Liberal Party, and beyond that, of voters generally. Because they represent the Liberal Party from the second ballot on, rather than any candidate. And through the Liberal Party, they represent voters in general, those who, although not signed up members of the LPC, vote Liberal, and those who, though signed up as a member of another party, might vote Liberal in their country's interest.

However, there is a problem. How does a delegate find out the views of Liberals in particular and voters in general? They have no direct contact with enough of them to poll each of them individually. But there is a way for delegates to find out what the people they represent are thinking. A scientifically proven way.

Every delegate has a duty to consider, in addition to the factors set out above, the opinion of Liberals and voters generally as expressed in the polls taken during the next 60 days before the convention starts, and to be guided by those polls as well as the other factors.