Modeling Journey

Dion has announced via a press release, two things: sitting MPs will not have to fight for their right to represent ridings, and 33% of candidates must be women.

This is hardly renewal, in my eyes. When Martin safeguared sitting MPs by giving them the same protection, it was a retrogressive and undemocratic step. And Dion is repeating this retrogressive step. By protecting incumbents, we are denying Liberal members in those seats the right to choose their candidates. Every incumbent gets protected, even those who are not highly regarded by the members of their riding. All such members are denied the chance to voice their view of the performance of their MPs.

In one stroke, Martin and Dion have changed the democratic balance within the Liberal Party into something even the corrupt politicians in the US would envy. Imagine! Sitting MPs do not have to raise funds to ensure that as incumbents they can beat off attackers during nomination fights, as American Senators have to do. Here, in democratic Canada, the party leaders simply issue an order protecting their own seats, and the seats of those now sitting as MPs.

What a remarkable Canadian coup! And it is greeted without a word of protest, not even from those who thought they were fighting for renewal of the Liberal Party.

At the same time, the 33% candidates who are women, will have to scrounge around for the seats where the Liberals are not the strongest, and take their chances. If electing more women to represent the Liberal Party as MPs in Parliament is the aim, and if it is a morally justifiable and worthy aim, then at least lets not pretend that protecing all sitting MPs and relegating women to the rest, is the best way to achieve this high moral purpose.

At the very least, Dion should choose by random choice some 20 seats where the Liberals have large majorities, and allocate those seats to women, so that the next Parliament has twenty more women MPs representing the Liberal Party.

That would be decisive leadership. Protecting sitting MPs is not.

Dion has a chance to make a quantum leap forward in political parties, making the Liberal Party a world leader in the advancement of women's involvement in politics.

He can do this by tackling the job in several blocks:

First, he can change the representation of officers in the Party throughout the country to be 50/50 male/female.

Secondly, he can ensure that his advisers are balanced equally between women and men.

Thirdly, he can impose candidates on ridings where the Liberals stand the best chance of winning, by exercising his powers of appointment to parachute women into ridings where they will win. This means ridings which already have Liberal MPs. By so doing, he will clearly indicate that this gesture is not mere tokenism, but a serious commitment to remedying the democratic imbalance in the Liberal Party. He can select the ridings by random choice. He can draw up lists of women candidates, inviting contributions from Liberal members. He can give ridings choices of women candidates, so that they can vote for the one they prefer from the list of elegible candidates.

Fourthly, he can commit the Liberal Party to passing legislation within 90 days of it assuming power as the government, designed to ensure the democratic imbalance is remedied throughout all 308 constituencies. The contents of the legislation should be drafted by the panel he is setting up to review the issue of women in politics.

Fifthly, he can commit the Liberal Party to reviewing the adoption of proportional representation at the federal level, with a referendum, similar to BC and Ontario. This will solve a host of problems, and ensure that all votes are equal, and all votes matter.

Sixthly, he can launch within the Party a separate initiative to train and fund women who wish to seek election as candidates, for both party positions and to run for election. The panel can come up with a range of training, mentoring and financing alternatives.

These steps would certainly amount to significent party renewal, and would catapult the Liberals into the forefront of gender-democracy.

The Globe & Mail is speculating that Harper will run on a constitutional change which will restrict the right of the federal government to spend money in the jurisdiction of a province. They speculate that Harper would introduce a one-subject constitutional change, to avoid having the constitution opened up to other matters.

G&M also say this would put Dion in a quandry, and risk him splitting the Liberal Party.

Why? Because, says the G&M:

"On a grander scale, Mr. Harper is said to be considering the idea of putting constitutional limitations on Ottawa's spending power as part of resolving the fiscal imbalance -- an initiative that, presumably, would be accompanied by tax cuts flowing from Ottawa's scaling back its activities. This would present Mr. Dion with a difficult choice. Mr. Dion's rival for lefty votes outside Quebec, Jack Layton, would howl at any proposed limitations on the federal spending power. But Mr. Dion already has a record in limiting Ottawa's spending power (1999's Social Union agreement with the provinces went even beyond the Meech Lake accord in this respect). And he has a history of championing constitutional amendments: He pushed for recognition of Quebec as a distinct society even after Meech Lake failed, and he was the driving force in two successful amendments dealing with education in Quebec and Newfoundland. If Mr. Harper were to bring forward a constitutional resolution, Mr. Dion would have to choose between competing with the NDP for votes on the left outside Quebec and siding with mainstream public opinion inside his home province. Should he choose the latter, he would risk a split within his own party."

The G&M are right about the splitting of the LPC if Dion for a moment thought of backing such a Harper move.

The centre of gravity of the Liberal Party is in supporting a strong federal government, and fighting anything which might limit the power of the Canadian government from ensuring national programs are used in the interests of all Canadians.

For Dion to support Harper's proposal on this issue would be a massive sellout of Liberal values, and would indeed split the party right down the middle.

The Cat gives odds of 5 to 1 (hypothetically) that by this time next year, Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister, having been beaten by the resurgent Liberal Party which will become the majority government, will be facing open rebellion amongst Tories dissatisfied with Harper's one-man one-decision style of rule. A leadership review will be called, and several candidates will run, with Peter Mackay being sounded bested, Harper quitting rather than running and losing, and a new Tory leader, cut on the mold of the old Progressive Conservatives, becoming the new Tory leader.

And Stephen Harper will take his place as a footnote in Canadian federal politics.

Now that he was elected leader on a platform of renewal (pushed over the top by the premier renewal candidate, Kennedy), Dion has to decide how fast he goes in implementing party renewal. The risk he runs is that delay will lead many who supported him or participated in the selection of delegates and the convention to conclude that it is "business as usual", and that neither he nor Kennedy are prepared to walk the talk.

Some interesting observations on the dilemma facing Dion and Kennedy are contained in an article headed Seeking and keeping the hot seat: Party leadership successors in comparative perspective, written by Frederik Bynander and Paul 't Hart .
(The article may be found by googling the title or at http://polsc.anu.edu.au/staff/hart/pubs/successor_200606.pdf)

Some quotes from the article for Liberals to consider:

"Reform-inclined incumbents have to decide whether to pursue a crash through approach, i.e. launch major proposals for change early on, while they are still 'fresh' and in their 'honeymoon' period; or to tread gently at first and delay the internal battle until they are well entrenched as leader and after having been able to promote their supporters into pivotal positions within the party; or not to go for a single major reform at all but to pursue an incremental, long-term strategy."

"These judgment calls not only depend on new incumbents' personal style and risk-taking inclinations, but also on their more or less objectifiable strength within their party-- as indicated by the margin with which they were voted in or the known level of support among the former leader and the other key internal power brokers -- and their potential polling strength at the time. "

...

"Our dataset shows that new party leaders have tended not to be revolutionaries. In general, the number of successors that comes to office with an avowed commitment to transforming the party is limited: not even 10% in our sample, and usually precipitated by extraordinary electoral losses or the unexpected loss of long-held government rule. "

...

"But notwithstanding the lack of concrete moves towards internal party democratisation with regard to leader selection procedures, one may plausibly wonder to which extent this premium on continuity and not rocking the boat will remain the dominant imperative.... Contemporary electoral markets are much more volatile than they used to be .... In the West volatility results from accelerating social and cultural changes, which put even highly established parties at risk of plunging into big depths in no time.... Western political parties now are much more under pressure to reinvent themselves than they were a few decades ago... "

"One way or another, many parties have had to reconsider their programmatic and organizational legacies in order to stay in the game. This has increased both the political momentum and the tactical possibilities for new party leaders to adopt a self-consciously reformist posture. Hence it is much more likely for contemporary than for early post-war leader-elects to be chosen on a platform of party innovation or to reveal reform ambitions shortly after being elected.... If they don't, and if their party has enjoyed meagre electoral fortunes in the most recent past, they are not likely to stay in power long, because they are unlikely to improve those fortunes. "

"In our dataset, the rapid turnover of Australian Labor leaders Australia since Paul Keating?s 1996 departure, and of British Conservative leaders since Blair?s 1997 landslide against Major, illustrates the point clearly: none of the people holding the opposition party leader's role succeeded in developing a clear, cogent and appealing new platform upon which the 're-branding' of the party could be footed."


So, Messrs Dion and Kennedy: how soon can we expect meaningful steps towards the renewal of the Liberal Party, starting with:

- the election of the leader (our current system is clearly not democratic enough, see Red Tory's blog for some concise comments);

- the selection of candidates as aspirant MPs (which is clearly broken, because the current instant party members and bused in voting sheep is a travesty);

- achieving a balance between male and female party officials;

- making sure we select, within a very short period, 50% women as candidates, in good ridings, so that the Liberals in the House are fairly balanced;

- changing the decision on policies so that members of the Party may have greater input on the direction of the party;

- changing the behaviour of Liberal MPs (to stop the buffoonery which now gives Parliament a bad name).

Have I missed any starting items? The last thing we need is another batch of Liberal promises, made but not delivered upon. So let's get cracking.

This just in: Bob Rae favoured over Ignatieff in all provinces except Quebec!


"Canadian PressPublished: Thursday, November 30, 2006
Article tools
MONTREAL (CP) - A new national poll suggests Canadians of every federalist party persuasion believe that Bob Rae is a more electable option as Liberal leader than top rival Michael Ignatieff.
The Nov. 24-26 Decima Research survey found that Rae's perceived winnability topped Ignatieff's by a significant margin in every region of the country except Quebec. More than 1,000 respondents were asked by Decima to picture themselves as delegates to this weekend's leadership convention in Montreal

In a final-ballot showdown between front-runner Ignatieff and Rae, they were asked who they felt had the best chance to win for the Liberals in the next election.

Under this scenario, 37 per cent chose Rae and 25 per cent picked Ignatieff.

The results of the poll, which was distributed to The Canadian Press, are considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Decima CEO Bruce Anderson says the poll suggests Rae's winnability factor is perceived to be higher among all age groups, men and women, urban and rural voters, and everywhere but Quebec - where Ignatieff would get 36 per cent support and Rae 25 per cent.

Ignatieff also led in the poll among self-identified Bloc Quebecois voters.

© The Canadian Press 2006

In a few days, delegates will choose a leader for the Liberal Party. When they do that, they will be choosing a person who most likely will be the next Prime Minister. And they will be making a choice about the "voice" of Canada. The new leader will set the tone for the Party, and have an enormous impact on who is chosen to speak for the Party, and what policies will be adopted and implemented.

Bob Rae on August 10, 2006 spoke at the Munk Centre at the U of Toronto on the topic of Canada Needs to Find its Voice Again in Foreign Policy (Munk Speech). He made a number of important points, and delegates should consider what Rae said in the light of what Ignatieff has said over the past few months and in Ignatieff's writings. Rae said that "Our foreign policy will inevitably reflect who we are, our values as well as our interests." Note his use of the word "values" as well as just "interests".

There is a dramatic difference between Bob Rae's values and those of Ignatieff, with respect to what should drive Canada's foreign policy. This gulf has been illustrated many times during the campaign, and will be highlighted below.

Can Bob Rae give effect to Canadian values in the foreign policy he will pursue as prime minister?

Tom Armstrong, who was Ontario's Deputy Minister of Labour and of Industry during Rae's premiership, wrote an article in The Hamilton Spectator August 14, 2006 about Political Mythmaking: Ontario style. In it he said this about Rae's doggedness in trying to save jobs during that savage recession: "His personal efforts in achieving success exceeded, in dedication, intelligence and shrewd negotiating skills, anything I had previously experienced." Rae's efforts in many fields since losing the 1995 election bear out Armstrong's observation of Rae: he is a man who brings enormous practicality and gifts to bear on any problem he is involved with, a man with inclusive instincts rather than polarizing ones. This is a sharp contrast with Ignatieff, who to date in this campaign has succeeded in driving people apart more than uniting them.


The question facing Liberals is this: What is the Liberal voice in foreign affairs? What values should underpin any foreign policies of the Liberal Party?

There seems to be a clear choice between the values of the Liberal Party of the past (which Rae shares), and the pre-emptive war and American imperialism supporting underpinnings of Ignatieff.


Bob Rae in the Munk Speech was very clear: "We have no imperial ambitions, nor should we see ourselves as anyone else's foot soldiers in imperial adventures." Because Canada is not a neutral country but is "engaged in the world", Rae cautioned against the loss of our values as Canadians when fighting the terror onslaught: "We have also learned that in fighting that enemy we must not lose our way or our values." He went on to say that Canadians are a people of principle, but not a people of ideology: "We are pragmatic, not dogmatic."

We shall come back to how Ignatieff stacks up against these points.

Bob Rae clearly favours a "balanced, pragmatic, multilateral approach to global affairs." This is where the great divide between the new Ignatieff doctrine and the past Liberal values starts. Ignatieff was, and apparently still is, clearly on the other side of the use of a multilateral approach for dealing with certain major challenges, such as Iraq and the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rae approves of Jean Cretien's decision not to support the invasion of Iraq because it was taken as a result of the Government's "principled view that the invasion was illegal, and its pragmatic concern that an invasion can very quickly become an unpopular occupation." Rae comments that this decision was not taken as a result of a poll, but based on principle.

Rae then says that principles should guide our foreign policy in other areas, as well: "We should be clear advocates against torture and coercive interrogation, and for the promotion of human rights. There should be no confusion in what we think and say in these areas."

Are Ignatieff's thoughts in these areas clear or confused? Witness the many arguments about what he did or did not say about torture and coercive interrogation, and about his reasons for supporting the Iraq war, and you can only conclude that there is confusion, not clarity.


Ignatieff's views regarding multilateral approaches is very different from those of the Liberal Party. He seems to be against it, relegating it to a bit player once the mighty US war machine has come in and blasted a path for others to follow, cleaning up behind American armed forces.

Rae argues that "We need to find our voice again." Harper's approach to international issues is simplistic and out of step with Canada's traditional role in the world, and threatens to submerge the distinctive voice the world expects to hear from us. Rae's use of the word distinctive is obviously not and advocasy of a foreign policy approach which is a carbon copy of the American President's. Our policies should be founded on our values, and not on the values of our superpower neighbour, where our values differ from theirs.

By contrast, the "distinctive voice" which Ignatieff seems to be advocating for Canada is something drastically different from the values of the Party in the past few decades. Ignatieff seems to speak with an American voice. In his 2004 Whitman Commencement Address he said: "Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises." (Sounds a bit like George Bush saying that being President is "hard" and people should realize that.) Ignatieff later explained away the use of the word "we" in his speeches to Americans, saying that "Sometimes you want to increase your influence over your audience by appropriating their voice, but it was a mistake."


It is possible that Ignatieff has done more than just appropriating the voice of the American audiences he was addressing.

He seems also to have appropriated their values, as well as their voice, and some of those values are not consistent with Liberal Party values.


Bob Rae described the foreign policy of the Harper neocon government as the "Bushification" of Canadian foreign policy (U of Montreal speech on September 8, 2006). Ignatieff's support of the Bush doctrines with respect to Iraq, amount to the same Bushification of our foreign policy.

Ignatieff has been described as one of Bush's Useful Idiots by Tony Judt in his article with the same name (London Review of Books lrb.co.uk) 21 September 2006. Ludt spoke about the problems facing liberal writers in the US, faced with the Bush doctrines. He describes Ignatieff as one of the "intellectual supporters" of the Iraq war, and makes the point that the worldview of many of Bush's liberal supporters is that these supporters do not look on the War on Terror or the war in Iraq or the war in Lebanon "as mere serial exercises in the re-establishment of American martial dominance. They see them as skirmishes in a new global confrontation ... Once again, they assert, things are clear. The world is ideologically divided; and, as before, we must take our stand on the issue of the age." Judt also has this scathing commentary on Ignatieff's and other liberal supporters statements about their support for the Iraq war: they have "focused their regrets not on the catastrophic invasion itself (which they supported) but on its incompetent execution. They are irritated with Bush for giving 'preventive war' a bad name."

Rae and Dion focused on this aspect of Ignatieff's support of Iraq during the debates, and we did not really receive a satisfactory answer (Ignatieff's answers kept sliding along, changing from WMDs to Kurds to who knows what).

In passing, Judt makes the comment that "American liberal intellectuals are fast becoming a service class, their opinions determined by their allegiance and calibrated to justify a political end." Judt also comments on the willingness of many American pundits and essayists to "roll over for Bush's doctrine of preventive war". This is certainly not consistent with Rae's support of a principled foreign policy, based on Canadian values.


How does this fit with Ignatieff's writings and statements on foreign policy, in particular, regarding the Iraq war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Ignatieff said that he was mislead by the "evidence" at the time into believing that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of Saddam. When the Bush administration was pushing all and sundry, in a mad rush, to vote in the Senate and at the UN, so support war on Iraq, there were many who thought the evidence presented was flimsy, and that the reasons for the use of force were unconvincing. Howard Dean for one thought that, and said so. Jean Chretien thought that, and governed Canada accordingly.

And Ignatieff? He was mislead. It is a bit ironic that in his Empire Lite article in the New York Times Magazine on January 5, 2003 (two months and fifteen days before the US invasion of Iraq), Ignatieff wrote that President Bush "appears to be maneuvering the country toward war with Iraq." Did Ignatieff have some concerns about such moves by Bush? If he did, they did not seem to change his support for the Iraq war.


Let's dig a bit deeper. What did Ignatieff say about the need for a multilateral approach towards this Iraqi invasion? Did he come down on the same side as Canada's Prime Minister, Jean Chretien?

No. At the same time that Canada's government was recommending support of the UN initiative to deal with Iraq, Ignatieff wrote in his Empire Lite article that "The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam, until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark."

Does Ignatieff's view of the UN as a dozing dog match the Canadian view of using multilateral approaches?

Well, Ignatieff has explained his approach to multilateral approaches to foreign affairs, for he goes on to say: "Multilateral solutions to the world's problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless American bares its fangs."

Here we see in stark contrast the differences between Ignatieff's so-called realistic appraisal of life in a world with one superpower, and the Canadian approach. Bob Rae in his Munk Speech had this to say about Canada's relationship with the USA superpower: "Some will say that this approach will put us at odds with the United States. The United States is Canada's most important bilateral partner, economically and otherwise, and we should not take that friendship for granted. At the same time, when we have principled disagreements with the Americans, Canada needs to clearly articulate its views." Earlier in his Munk Speech Rae spoke of Trudeau: "Nor did Pierre Trudeau have the enthusiastic support of either super-power when he launched his initiative to point out the folly of the so-called "balance of terror" in the early 1980's".


Ignatieff in his Imperial Lite article speaks of the manner in which, post 9/11, America is to run the world as an imperial power. "It means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest. It means laying down the rules America wants (on everything from markets to weapons of mass destruction) while exempting itself from other rules (the Kyoto Protocol on climate change an the International Criminal Court) that go against its interest." He then went on to say: "Iraq lays bare the realities of America's new role." And: "... Iraq is an imperial operation that would commit a reluctant republic to become the guarantor of peace, stability, democratization and oil supplies in a combustible region of Islamic peoples stretching from Eqypt to Afghanistan."

Ignatieff then agreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq by saying that the Iraq war was justified because "Containment rather than war would be the better course, but the Bush administration seems to have concluded that containment has reached its limits and the conclusion is not unreasonable."

He also remarks that "Regime change is an imperial task par excellence, since it assumes that the empire's interest has a right to trump the sovereignity of a state." I doubt that most Canadian's would agree with any claim by any state (be it an empire-lite state or any other state) to have interests of that nature which trumped sovereignity....

Ignatieff develops the rights of the Empire Lite further when he comments on the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Ignatieff doctrine involves the use of American troops in a pre-emptive role, followed by the use of UN troops in Iraq and Israel to "keep the peace" under United Nations mandate. As he says, "If America takes on Iraq, it takes on the reordering of the whole region." And: "Properly understood, then, the operation in Iraq entails a commitment, so far unstated, to enforce a peace on the Palestinians and Israelis." He is clear on the roles of Europe and the USA under this imperial power: "The Americans essentially dictate Europe's place in this new grand design.... America ... enforces a new division of labor in which American does the fighting, the French, British and Germans do the police patrols in the border zones and the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians provide the humanitarian aid."

What role would Canadian troops have under the Ignatieff doctrine? Unfortunately, Ignatieff did not say (perhaps Canada was not on his mind right then).

Contrast Ignatieff's views with Rae's assessment of Chretien's decision on Iraq: "It was a judgment call that was fundamentally sound, reflected our values, and offered our independent voice."

And contrast the Ignatieff doctrine with Rae's view about Canada's role: "Together with others, Canada needs to do what it takes to get the parties to the table. Conflict resolution should be at the heart of our foreign policy, not an afterthought, or an interesting sideline to other efforts. This will require much greater discipline and determination than we have been able to do so far."


Finally, Bob Rae also sees that the Canadian values of compassion and concern for those who are vulnerable should play a role in our foreign policy. He says Canadians have a right to ask where their government is, why isn't it in the lead, when it comes to famine throughout the world. "If thousands of children die each day in countries that are in the clutches of extreme poverty, what will it cost us as a country to reduce, and then end the slaughter?" A noble goal, for a noble country like Canada, and very consistent with the values which underly this great experiment in nation-building.

Charest thinks the Harper/Ignatieff resolution is more than purely symbolic, and will have real consequences, in the courts, within Quebec and internationally. As reported by Rheal Seguin in today's Globe & Mail:

"The recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada is an important step for national unity and a sign of major progress for the province, Premier Jean Charest said yesterday in applauding Prime Minister Stephen Harper's initiative as "very good news" for all Canadians.
"The decision taken by the Prime Minister today and the vote in the House of Commons will be viewed in hindsight as extremely significant with regards to the unity of the country," Mr. Charest predicted.

The Premier said recognition by the House of Commons and the federal government will affect how courts interpret the province's laws and influence the way the international community views Quebec.

"It changes our place [in Canada]," Mr. Charest said. "It changes the way our laws are interpreted. It changes the way Quebeckers will see their future. Because the recognition of Quebec as a nation is a way for us to occupy the place that is owed us in Canada and elsewhere in the world. In my view it is a very significant gesture.""

Just the beginning of the consequences of Ignatieff's Folly ....

Ignatieff wanted to amend the constitution to enshrine Quebec as a nation. Then the Quebec motion came up, with its references to "officialize" the concept that Quebec was a nation. All hell broke loose as many wondered why Ignatieff would throw the dice by opening the Pandora's Box of constitutional amendment, with terms that were not defined and with a country weary from years of strife.

Now, in Ottawa, we see the Pandora's Box Ignatieff opened on full display, in the House of Commons. Incredibly, Harper, faced with a Bloc ultimatum, tries to outsmart the Bloc by adding four little words to the Bloc motion, without defining in the motion what "nation" is.

Now all will be wondering: What does nation mean? How many nations need such recognition? Are there other nations inside Quebec, apart from the Francophones? What is the consequence of this motion?

All the problems caused by Ignatieff's foray into daring to change the constititution are now still there, but this time involving even more Canadians. The contents of the Pandora's Box are spreading ...

Thanks, Ignatieff.

Thanks for your daring.

The Bloc sets a trap, and Harper tries to avoid confronting it but steps into trouble. Harper's motion is "That the government recognize that Quebeckers constitute a nation within a united Canada."

Is this a wise move by Harper? No. Instead of confronting the Bloc and voting their motion down, he tries to deflect it by adding the words "within a united Canada."

But what does this mean? Here are several problems, which still need discussion even if Harper's quick fix passes tomorrow:

What does "nation" mean?

Is Canada a "nation"?

Does this mean that the "Quebeckers" are a "nation" within a "nation"?

Are there other "nations" within the province of Quebec?

Are there other "nations" which Parliament should recognize?

If not, why not?

What does Parliament mean by passing this motion? Does it affect the way Parliament will behave in the future? The 1995 Chretien motion committed Parliament to taking steps to recognize the special status afforded Quebec in that motion.

The Cat believes that Harper is too clever by half with his response, and expects a strong adverse reaction from the rest of the country once the vagueness of the resolution sinks into public consciousness.

Ever wonder what the "Cheese-is-alive" French Professor might have to say about whether Quebec is a nation? I wonder if Ignatieff ever chatted to this professor before he launched his rash constitutional gambit?

Clotaire Rappaile is a marketing guru who was born in France but grew up in the US. He is hired by companies to find out what the "code" for products or places or things are in people's reptilian minds (the oldest of our three brains, and the one concerned with safety etc). Rapaille digs into what people think about something and then searches for what our lizard brain has in store regarding our impulses, needs and early memories about things (our imprints, in his lingo). These imprints are the ones which really drive us.

And he has delved into the minds of Canadians, trying to understand what we think about our country.

And his results are rather interesting, and should make Ignatieff stop and think a bit about that nation motion thingy he is pushing:
" Right now, most Americans are convinced that the nation is profoundly divided by this gulf between red and blue states. But you don't think it's that significant.
Well, there is a culture war, the nation is divided in many ways and so on. But the reality is that the differences are nothing compared to what we have in common. Especially compared to other cultures. There are more differences between Canadians than between blue and red state Americans. Americans may be in permanent search of personal identity, but the Canadians are in permanent search of a collective identity. As Canada, they don't know who they are. The French Canadians are not part of Canada and there are so many differences between Toronto and Vancouver that the people in Toronto say the people in Vancouver are part of California. The Canadians' anxiety is about how to survive as a country. A Canadian magazine had a headline that read, "If Canada Disappears Tomorrow, Would Anybody Notice?" (from Salon, article by Laura Miller entitled "In America, seduction is dishonest").

He thinks Canadians "are in a permanent search for a collective identity." And our anxiety is about "how to survive as a country".

What a motherlode Ignatieff has tapped in his quest to amend the constitution. Any wonder now why the reaction to Ignatieff's gambit is so strong? Ignatieff is challenging our basic search for a collective identity, by focusing on one province only, and in so doing is prodding our deepest anxiety.

Oops! Better back off, Michael. You are making us even more anxious ...

The Cat loves cheese. This story is therefore appealing on more than one level.

Clotaire Rapaille, the professor of codes, delves into the early imprinting on people's minds, in order to find out why people prefer certain things over others later on in life. Scoffed at as a flake by some, this French intellectual turned marketing on its ear with his amazingly practical and actionable findings on all manner of things.

Take cheese. He was hired by a French company whose cheese was booming in France and a bust in America. He gathered his focus groups, delved into what cheese meant to them, going back to their earliest recollections, and found out one simple fact which revolutionized the way the French client marketed their cheese in the US. To the French, cheese is alive, and you do not put it in a fridge, just as you would not put a pet dog in the fridge. But to an American, cheese is dead, and it is best to put it in a bag and in the fridge. "I know that plastic is a body bag. You can put it in the fridge. I know the fridge is the morgue; that's where you put the dead bodies. And so once you know that, this is the way you market cheese in America." The thought of living cheese (shown in the French client's ads) horrified Americans. So the French client put the cheese in body bags (plastic) and sales took off in the US of A.

Then the professor turned to the US election to be, and predicted that George Bush would beat Al Gore. Why? Well first a few quotes from Rapaille to set the scene (from PBS.org Frontline interview):

"Once you understand the code, you understand why people do what they do. For example, the code for the French -- once you understand the code, you may understand why [French president Jacques] Chirac reacted this way to Bush, because for the French, the code is "to think." That's it: to think. "I think, therefore I am" -- not "I do," "I think." The French believe [that they are] the only thinkers of the world and that they think for the rest of the world. They believe that Americans never think; they just do things without knowing why. And so in this situation, where Bush say[s], "Let's do it," the French say, "No, wait, think; we need to think." Now, what you have to understand about the French culture is "to think" is enough. You don't need to do anything with your thinking. The French philosopher would say, "I think, therefore I am," where in America you have Nextel, this campaign, fantastic, "I do, therefore I am," not "I think." I think they're right on target with the American code."

And:

"You know, when we get this very first imprint, there is no need for interpretation. At a certain time, my clients and I do the analysis together. At a certain time, they go, "Wow -- oh, I knew it." The "wow" is when they discover the code. For the first time they get the code of coffee, [they] say, "Wow." Because they're American, they use the code all the time. They have the code in their mind, so of course they knew it."

And:

"It's a discovery, and once you get the code, suddenly everything starts making sense, and now we understand why the Americans behave like this. Now we understand why coffee this way works and coffee this way doesn't work. I understand why a small $29,000 Cadillac cannot sell. I understand why -- because it's off code."

Now, back to George Bush and Al Gore:

"Rapaille said that in the late 80's, Lee Atwater, then working for George Bush père, hired him to do an archetype study of the presidency. Though financing ran out before Rapaille could complete his work, he was able to gather useful material in the wordassociation sessions. Participants compared the chief executive to a "movie character"; they said he could "make people see things." From this, Rapaille was able to identify the core emotional nubbin. Fatherhood? Celebration? Nationalism? No, no. The presidency is: "cheap entertainment." "What does he make, $200,000 a year?" Rapaille asked. "That's a lot cheaper than Oprah." This code is a problem for the two probable presidential nominees. "Gore is boring," Rapaille said. "This is a real problem. Bush is not very intelligent. But then, who cares? Americans have never been impressed by intellectuals." So Bush's mediocre mind is not nearly the handicap that Gore's leaden personality is. Rapaille gives Bush the edge, but neither one of them interests him much. He openly pines for Bill Clinton the icon (not the politician). Mistakes weren't Clinton's only asset. America's code, according to Rapaille, is built around "hope." That's why Clinton's slogan in 1992 "was simply brilliant," Rapaille said." (From The New York Times Magazine article Does the Smell of Coffee Brewing Remind You of Your Mother, by Jack Hitt, May 7, 2000).

Where does that leave Bob Rae versus Stephen Harper? Clearly Rae is closer to Bush while Harper is closer to Gore in the above comparison.

So the only remaining question is: Are Canadians like Americans in that they see politics as entertainment? If they do, Bob Rae is a shoo-in, and Harper can start going through the yellow pages looking for a mover ...

Your thoughts?

Some are saying that the issue now facing the Liberals is the need to restore harmony amongst the leadership camps. That the way to do this is to agree to amend the Quebec motion by keeping the "Quebec is a nation" concept favoured by Ignatieff, but (according to the press) adopting the "new" Ignatieff proposal to change the motion to make it clear that the task force is not to consider constitutional amendments.

These people are wrong. The real issue is not the need for harmony amongst Liberals at this stage.

Voters expect Liberals to debate policy matters vigorously. Voters expect Liberals to disagree with each other, as well as with the other parties. Voters expect their politicians to be stand up and debate important issues. So disagreement is not the issue.

The real issue is whether the Quebec motion is so flawed (both in content and in process), that it should be withdrawn.

The Quebec wing tabled the motion, after much talk amongst themselves and some questionable last minute changes. However, by keeping this motion alive, and by saying it is a matter of extreme importance that this motion be passed at this convention or else the LPC delegates will have offended Quebeckers and set the party's prospects in Quebec back, the proponents are resorting to political blackmail. We should leave the political blackmail up to the separatists; it is their schtick.

The Quebec motion is flawed in process because there has not been enough discussion throughout the country on this contentious topic. Polls show deep polarization over this issue, with Quebec on one side and all other provinces on the other side. Polls also show that a Liberal leader espousing constitutional change (or perhaps even Quebec is a nation), could lead to more than 40% of voters not choosing to support the LPC.

How strong a message does the Liberal Party need that this Ignatieff-supported measure is going to rupture the Party and cause Harper to gain a majority? Do voters need to whack Liberals on the head with a two-by-four to get their attention?

The Cat figures that if you run straight into a brick wall, you had better reconsider the path you are travelling on. Because most Canadians were not involved in the process giving birth to the Quebec motion, the process is so flawed that the motion should be defeated just on those grounds alone. Matters as important as constitutional change should not be left to small groups to determine.

As for content, the Ignatieff reconciliation motion reported in the press today apparently retains the concept of Quebec (and only Quebec) being a "nation".

This woolly concept is confusing, and is capable of many different meanings.

To pass such a motion is foolhardy, because it assumes that the motion has meaning, and that the majority of Liberals (as well as voters) will understand that meaning. In law there is a concept which guides the courts in interpreting agreements: if the wording is too vague, the contract can be struck down. The chameleon-like interpretations possible with the word "nation" are dangerous: you should not tinker with constitutional changes if the words are so bereft of agreed upon meaning. Matters like this demand precision, unlike articles in political publications, where the authors can argue forever about how many angels might be able to dance upon a needle point, and can change their minds daily by simply writing another article (witness Ignatieff's ever-changing nation as civic versus nation as ethnic writings). In the real world of politics, words have consequences, and should be measured.

The motion is vague as well in its use of the word "officialise" (formerly "formalize") as a direction to the task force.

Professor Hogg who aided in the drafting of the motion, is reported to have said this means constitutional change but not necessarily constitutional change. This explanation has echoes (which resonate more in Quebec than elsewhere) of a statement made by a far more agile politician than Ignatieff is proving to be, the "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription".

What to do? The Cat says there are two choices. The Quebec motion will be defeated at the convention if it stays as it now is. There are not enough lemmings at the convention to follow Ignatieff over the cliff on constitutional change. And the delegates are reading the same polls as we are, and those polls are very clear.

So, the Quebec motion can be withdrawn, with a resolution tabled urging withdrawal, and the resolution saying that the motion will be put some time in the future to all provincial Liberal associations, for fuller debate, so as to ensure that the flawed process be remedied. This withdrawal on these grounds would be a withdrawal without any personal affront to those who tabled the motion.

Or, the Quebec motion can be amended.

In this case, the amendment must clearly state that the task force is to consider the role of Quebec in Canada, after taking into consideration the motion tabled in 1995 by the Chretien government, and including what steps the Liberal Party might take to address Quebec's place in Canada, including, amongst others, the concept of nation (in all its various guises), the concept of distinctiveness, and any other concepts which the task force might wish to consider. The motion should also clearly spell out that the task force is not to consider constitutional amendments as part of its mandate.

The task force is to be appointed by the leader of the Party, with due consideration to representation by Liberals across the country, and is to report back at a time set by the leader.

Very importantly, the task force mandate should also expressly state that one alternative it must consider, is doing nothing. The zero-option is essential.

Any amendments of the Quebec motion which do not address the conflicting meanings of "nation" and also remove any chance of constitutional change, should be defeated as well at the convention.

The point is not harmony among leadership candidates. It is the survival of Canada, and the chance of the Liberal Party to become the government instead of the radical "new" Tory Party lead by Harper.

The LPC lags behind the Tories, Republicans, Democrats, and UK Tories because it does not have a centralized voter database. This means it does not have a national "machine" which can be used to encourage individuals to donate to the party so that it can fight election campaigns. This means it is not as sophisticated as Harper's "new" Tories, and years behind the state of the art Republicans' with their Voter Vault, and Democrats, with their Demzilla.

Wikipedia, in their Voter Database entry, say this: "In Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada uses the Constituent Information Management System (CIMS), originally developed by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, to manage voter information. It is similar to the American systems. The New Democratic Party uses their own some simpler system known as NDPVote. The Liberal Party has no centralized system, with different ridings using various systems."

Why is this important? Think about this statement about the Republican Voter Vault (in The Telegraph 12/03/2005): "It could define, across America, those people who hadn't yet realised they were Republicans, and convince them to vote."

Karl Rove gave the UK Tories access to the Voter Vault program, and one of them said this: "The software can reveal new parts of society that the party has not targeted before, but who could be persuaded to vote Tory," [Dr. Fox] says. "It means we can out-gun Labour and the Liberal Democrats on the ground."

Imagine if Liberal canvassers in the next few elections could use hand-held computers to record information on voters when they visited them or spoke to them via phones? The data would be inputed into the Libzilla system for future use. Republicans have found that magazine subscriptions give a pretty good idea of who is Republican (if you read National Review) or Democrat (reads Mother Jones). Your choice of car is an indicaiton (hybrid, anyone?)

This information is used to get out the vote (GOTV), ask for donations, energize volunteer base, check views on issues via surveys.

The Democrats developed Demzilla because they had to rely on small-dollar donors due to changes in the laws (sound familiar?).

Republicans have inserted their view of electoral priorities into Cabinet agencies (farm aid programs for specific regions in a state, to bolster votes there). Government funds tailored to work for re-election of one party.

Isn't it time for the LPC to start its own Libzilla?

The Quebec as a nation motion is strongly supported by Ignatieff, who raised the question of enshrining Quebec as a nation in the constitution a while back. Now, the Party is faced with a half-baked motion, which promises much to those in Quebec but downplays its significance for those Canadians in other provinces. And we are told that to reject this ill-thought out motion would be to turn the backs of the Liberal Party on all those who live in Quebec.

What nonsense.

Ignatieff and his supporters are trying to stampede the Liberal delegates into supporting the Motion, by arguing (falsely) that:

-- to reject the Motion is to say to Quebeckers that we do not care for their role in Canada. This is a gross distortion of the motives of those who strongly oppose this Motion. The Motion is so flawed that its rejection has very little to do with rejecting Quebeckers. To say this is to resort to political blackmail of the grossest and clumsiest type.


-- all major candidates share the view that Quebec is a "nation". This too is a deliberate falsehood. Not even the Quebeckers supporting this Motion are agreed on what it means. Not even Ignatieff, in his writings, has agreed on what this word means; in fact, he has contradicted himself several times on this aspect. Dion has written a devastating analysis of this and other aspects, and his arguments have not been addressed by Ignatieff.


-- all candidates have agreed that the concept of a "nation" can be enshrined in the constitution, at some time in the future. This also flies in the face of truth.

The arguments used by Ignatieff supporters are dishonest, and dangerous. They are deliberately untruthful, and are not in the interests of Canada or the Liberal Party.

Whether the word "nation" is placed in the preamble of the constitution, or in the body, substantially alters the legal effect of this concept. Ignatieff is a professor of law, and should know better; however, we do not see him stepping forward to explain the differences. One the one hand he says it is of symbolic importance only; on the other, that it is very important to Quebec. Whether or not the word will result in a devolution of power to the province of Quebec, affecting the Charter of Rights amongst other things, is a legal consequence of extraordinary importance, yet we do not hear Ignatieff discussing this.

Ignatieff's adoption of this Motion, with is deceptive words "formalize" and later "officialise" (code words for constitutional enshrinement), and his continued silence on the awful consequences to Canada of such a radical change to our constitution, amount to his hijacking the Liberal Party in his efforts to become leader.

The Constitution belongs to Canada. Not to the Liberal Party. Not to one provincial wing of the Liberal Party. The Charter of Rights belongs to Canada. Delegates to the convention should not expect members of the Party to accept any Motion they pass which might have the consequence of forcing Canada down a path to constitutional conflict. If they adopt this Motion, the Liberal Party will run the risk of many Canadians holding their noses and voting for the Tories.

Very few Canadians will trade their Constitution and Charter of Rights just to allow Michael Ignatieff to become leader of the Liberal Party. That mess of porridge is far, far too insignificant for such a sacrifice.

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.

I continue to support Mongoose Bob for leader of the Liberals, and Prime Minister.

Some information about the mongoose, from Nature.ca (see how it matches Bob Rae in action):

"Rudyard Kipling's "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi" was a mongoose, and the best known species is definitely the Indian mongoose.... The Indian mongoose is renowned for killing cobras, which it is capable of doing due to its very quick movements, thick protective hide, and long, thick hair. One of the largest species was considered a sacred animal in ancient Egypt. It checked the increase of crocodiles in the Nile River by eating their eggs and gained the popular name Pharaoh's Mouse. Some species of mongoose are kept as pets for vermin protection but are not allowed into Canada or the United States because of their destructiveness."

Bob Rae will be our mongoose to match the Harper cobra. Lord knows that we need some vermin protection, given the sorry performance of this accidental-government of Harper and his new Tories.

Go for it, Mongoose Bob!

The Cat has one word of advice for those undecided about whether to choose Bob Rae as leader of the Liberal Party: when Bob Rae becomes leader of the Liberal Party, and then fights the good fight and defeats the Harperite neocon new Tories to become Prime Minister, do just one thing: Watch him carefully when he governs this country.

And if he slips into sleaze, call him on it.

If he does not have focus (a Martin problem), call him on it.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Before we all wander off into some philosophical sunset, thanking our lucky stars that we have an intellectual in the form of one Ignatieff to lead us, let's just take a moment to think about how the next election will be fought.

Will the election be won by Ignatieff out debating Harper on finer points of political theory? Not likely.

The election will be won or lost in a long, gruelling campaign, waged by the neocon new Tories with the rightwing gutterfighters from the south helping with the campaign themes, soundbites, slurs and personal attacks. Just think back to Harper's personal attacks on Martin. Then double that.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Awareness of Bob Rae's "pull" is slowly seeping into the consciousness of many Liberals as the leadership campaign enters the home stretch. The results of the last election showed in dramatic fashion just how the new Tories under their non-charismatic leader Stephen Harper managed to eke into power: the divided left let them gain enough seats to become the minority government.

The big divide was between the Libs and Dippers. If this divide had not existed, then a dozen or so seats would most likely have ended up electing either an NDP or a Liberal MP, and Harper would by now have "done an Iggy" and gone back to academia.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

CuriosityCat is proud to announce that it supports Bob Rae for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and next prime minister.

It is the Cat's view that Rae has most of the attributes one could wish for in a prime minister, and that he will help Canada regain its place as a voice of reason, compassion and civilization in this somewhat troubled world.

Bob Rae also is the best choice to unite the fractious Liberals, still suffering from the Martin-Chretien civil war.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE