Modeling Journey

Harper has read Dion, Duceppe and Layton correctly. Duceppe huffs and puffs but somehow cannot blow the House down. Layton prattles on endlessly, rattling his tinny sabre daily, but somehow never shows up for a fight when it is consequential.

And as for the Liberals, Harper made them blink over his Throne Speech, and has them on the run.

To quote Wikipedia:

"In 1956, Mao Zedong said of the United States:

“
In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.
”

Now Stephen Harper can cheerfully go ahead with his agenda, waiting for a formal majority in 2009, and knowing that, because he faces 3 paper tigers, he can at any time rattle their chains, dare them to step outside for a bout of fisticuffs, or bring them on to the mat for a round of ridicule, if his troops need some laughter.

Dion should have followed his instincts, and voted against the Throne Speech if his amendments were not accepted.

Both Layton and Duceppe huff and puff when it is safe to do so, but when rubber hit the road (when they could have voted for the far more acceptable Liberal amendments to the Throne Speech and probably provoked an election call from Harper), they blinked, and shuffled off the stage with self-serving muttered asides.

Brave men when their bluff is not being called.

Three paper tigers, and one dangerous leopard in power, who has not changed his spots.

Now that the first of several dust storms has stopped swirling around the Throne Speech of Firewall Harper, the time has come to talk, not of cabbages and kings, but of minding the store.

It was no secret that there was going to be a Throne Speech.

It was no secret that the Throne Speech was going to be crafted by Harper, one of the craftiest politicians the right wing has produced to date in Canada.

It was no secret that Harper, based on advice of certain Republican advisors, is a believer in the perpetual election.

It was no secret that Harper can play divide-and-rule with the best of them.

It was no secret that the Harper crew's campaign to frame Dion as a ditherer, unable to make a decision, and as an ineffectual politician and non-existent leader, had gained enormous traction over the past few months.

Therefore it should not have been a surprise to the Liberal Party, and especially to the caucus of the Liberal Party, that Harper would be fielding a Throne Speech with several snares built in, especially designed for Dion, and for the Liberal Party, the main threat to the Tory's wish to become a majority government and implement their revolutionary changes in Canada.

Only a blind man would not have seen that coming.

Which brings us to the question of the day: Who the heck is minding the Liberal store?

Why on earth was the leader of the Liberals entering a room AFTER the Throne Speech, to debate with his caucus what response the Liberals should have to the speech?

Ever heard of planning, guys? Of foresight? Of being prepared?

I thought the behaviour of the Liberals in the last election was the worst that I had seen from a political party in decades, but the panic stricken reaction of the Liberal Party caucus to the Throne Speech seems to promise an even worse one come the next election.

Quo vadis, LPC?

Very seldom in politics does a party have the same opportunity to make a decision which will have enormous consequences for the country, as the Bloc and NDP leaders have today. Courtesy of the Liberal caucus, these two parties are now in a position to determine how the country will be governed in the next two years.

The Bloc and NDP face three choices this week, which we can call the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Choice 1 - The Bad: They can vote against the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech, and Canada will be governed for the next two years by the policies set out in the Tory Throne Speech.

Both the Bloc and the NDP have already opposed the Tory Throne Speech. From a moral viewpoint, it appears that they have decided that not having the country governed by the policies in the Throne Speech would result in the greater good for the greatest number of Canadians.

Choice 2 - The Ugly: The Bloc and NDP can vote to support the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech. While this is not their preferred choice, it would be better for most Canadians if they were governed for the next two years by the Tory Throne Speech with the Liberal amendments, rather than just by the Tory Throne Speech as it now stands.

This would be a moral choice for those parties, consistent with the same moral principle, the greater good of the greatest number of Canadians.

Choice 3 - The Good: If the Bloc and NDP vote for the Liberal amendments, there is a strong possibility (perhaps, in my view, probability) that the Tory government will call an election.

If an election is called, the Throne Speech dies and the next government will bring in its own Throne Speech. The Bloc and NDP will have achieved what they set out to achieve, when the debates started - the ending of the Tory Throne Speech.

What a wonderful chance for the NDP and Bloc to decide Canada's future for the next two years!

Of course, if the NDP or the Bloc do not vote for the Liberal amendments to the Tory Throne Speech, then they should remember the words which Brian Mulroney flung into the face of the hapless John Turner during their TV debate: You, sir, had a choice. You could have said No.

Messrs. Layton and Duceppe: You, sirs, have a choice. You could say No to the country being governed under the Tory Throne Speech, by voting for the Liberal amendment to that speech.

It is your choice. History - and the voters - will judge what choice you make.

Layton joined with the Bloc and Tories to bring down the Liberal government of Paul Martin, hoping to gain more seats for the NDP (which he did), and a position of power (the balance) in Parliament (which he almost has now).

Today, it is within Layton's power to bring down the Tory minority government by triggering an election.

If things work out, the Dippers could hold on to their seats, and perhaps, depending on the results of the election, hold a stronger position in Parliament by having the balance of power with a minority government (either Tory or Liberal). Certainly, an election now seems to be Jack's wish, given where the Tories are taking the country.

So, how does Layton bring the government down?

He plays hardball, tit-for-tat hardball.

The Liberals fashioned an amendment to the Throne Speech which they believe the NDP cannot support. When it fails, the Liberal plan is to abstain from the Tory Throne Speech vote, and the Tory government lives on.

Some commentators (ScottsDiatribe amongst others) have floated an idea, which Layton could use.

All Layton has to do is to reason this way:

- The LPC set up a trap for the NDP with the Liberal amendment, so that they can abstain and preserve the Tory government.
- It is better for Canada for the Tory government to fall and a new election to be held now.
- Therefore, the end (the fall of the Tory government) justifies the means.
- The NDP could therefore vote in favour of the Liberal amendment. If the Bloc votes in favour of it as well, the Liberals will have to support their own amendment (of be written off as the Keystone Cops of Canadian politics). The combined votes of all three opposition parties will then pass the amendments.
- Harper will then have a choice - either call an election, or put the amended Throne Speech to the vote, and live with the Liberals amendment.
- It is unlikely that Harper would accept living with the Liberal amendments - his whole pattern of behaviour to date indicates he would not (witness his reaction to the criminal law bill which the opposition amended).
- Therefore, the chances are high Harper would call an election.

What is in it for the NDP? Their strategic voting on the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech would not bind them thereafter; and they could justify voting for it because it is the best way to rid the country of the Tory government before it harms the country more than it has. They would have used the Liberal amendment against the Liberals, and would have triggered the election they sought.

Of course, the same is true for the Bloc. They are voting against the Throne Speech because it does not meet their terms, and they want an election now before they implode in Quebec and the Tories pick up the pieces. So the Bloc should also support the Liberal amendment to the Throne Speech....

And then all hell will break loose, as we head in for a fall election.

Does Jack Layton possess the courage to make such a call? To turn a weapon aimed at him, against those holding it?

We shall see.

Dion gave as the reason for not defeating the government on the Throne Speech, the fact that Canadians do not want another election so soon. Therefore, the Liberals will try to make Parliament work.

This is an extraordinarily clumsy response. Which tin ear in the Liberal caucus and advisor group came up with this twaddle?

The reasons mean that the Liberal Party is now on the run, chased by a relentless Harper. Evidence? As soon as Harper heard Dion, he said that the Omnibus Bill on criminal law changes was now a matter of confidence. Not one amendment would be accepted.

Where does that leave the Liberals?

Between a rock and a hard place, hoisted on their own petard!

In facing this bill - and believe me there will be countless others - the Liberal Party must now choose only one of two courses of action, having pledged not to use the third (voting against the government on confidence matters and forcing an early election).

So the only two choices for the Liberals will be:

Vote for Harper's confidence bills, even if the LPC opposes parts of them (as is the case with the criminal law amendments).

Or abstain, and let Harper win the vote because he has more seats than the Bloc plus the NDP.

What has happened? Simple. Harper outfoxed Dion, and forced Dion to give him a blank cheque. And Harper will cash that cheque, repeatedly.

No wonder Layton was so incensed: at least he can count votes.

Somebody send Dion and his advisors some calculators, please!

So the Liberals under Stephane Dion have decided to support Harper's Throne Speech. They have avoided taking a principled stand to protect Canada by opposing the decimation of Kyoto and the diminution of the power of the federal government.

How have they done this? Through the use of an amendment which couples an amendment on the Kyoto Accord with one on the Afghanistan project. The Kyoto amendment has teeth.

The Afghanistan amendment calls on the government to announce that the military action of Canada will cease in 2009. This one was inserted to ensure that the NDP would side with the government and reject the Liberal amendment.

Apparently, then the Liberals can meekly abstain from voting regarding the Throne Speech, thus ensuring that it passes!

How low can one sink.

Why did Dion not reject the Throne Speech in an open, above board, principled way, rather than resort to such silly tactics?

The Cat is deeply disappointed.

What would Pierre Trudeau do if he was in Stephane Dion's shoes?

We have the answer for that. PET was in that position, when another over confident Tory prime minister confused a minority government with a majority one, and thought the Liberals would be too chicken to take him on.

Trust your instincts, Mr. Dion.

You have the reputation of being a fighter. And of being under estimated by your foes.

Take on this bully, and then let us settle down as the new government, to governing the country properly. The fate of the earth calls for decisive action. Harper will not provide it. You can.

Strike a blow for a greater Canada.

Vote No tomorrow.

Bob Rae has formally announced the official reaction of the Liberal Party to the formation of the gerrymandered "non-partisan" Panel by Harper to review the role of Canada in Afghanistan.

Bob Rae's comments deserve careful scrutiny, as they form the basis for Liberal reaction to the Panel, and to actions to be taken in the next week and thereafter, by the Prime Minister.

Rae's comments on the Panel were not the open-ended "welcome" which some commentators have said they were, but rather a balanced and shrewd reaction.

He stressed two points, which the Liberals should hammer home every time they get a chance over the coming weeks and months:

One, IF (and this is a big IF, given Harper's attempt to limit the scope of the Panel's inquiry to only four half-baked options) the Panel leads to "open, public and thoughtful debate about the mission beyond 2009", then it is welcomed.

Note the use by Rae of the words "open", "public" and "thoughtful" as qualifiers. If the Panel simply veers off to closed hearings and a rightwing, foregone conclusion, then Rae's qualifications will not have been met, and the Liberals can reject the findings as biased and a sham. This will be an effective response to any attempt by Harper to pressurize the LPC into giving weight to the Panel's conclusions.

Two, Rae said nothing stops the parties in Parliament having an open debate about Afghanistan, despite the striking of the Panel, and this of course includes such a debate before the Panel delivers a report.

What this means, is that the Liberals have officially put Harper on notice that if he tries to deflect discussion of the Afghanistan issue in his Throne Speech or in an election, the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, will exercise their parliamentary duty to debate the mission's course and future. So, the official stance of the Liberals is to reject Harper's attempt to bury the Afghanistan issue in the Panel.

Also, it is open to the three parties, in response to the Throne Speech, to call for a debate on Afghanistan, and to propose an amendment to the Throne Speech calling for a change in the Afghanistan mission, including a sunset date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country, if certain agreed benchmarks are not met.

The benchmarks could include a proper review by NATO of the objectives of the West in Afghanistan. Rae called for this in his comments, as well.

It could also include a requirement that other NATO countries remove the restrictions they have placed on the use of their forces in Afghanistan, which restrictions have increased the risk that Canadian troops will die there.

Another benchmark might be for NATO troops to go into the region Canada is fighting in, to share some of the dangerous heavy lifting our troops are doing there. Note that Harper has tried to avoid this benchmark being discussed by the Panel, by limiting discussion to the 'replacement' of Canadian troops in that dangerous area, by other troops. This condition would, of course, limit the chances of this happening, and steer the Panel towards Harper's choice. However, a rotation of troops through all areas of Afghanistan, and mixed troops in all areas, are far more reasonable benchmarks, which Canada could legitimately require of NATO. Hopefully, Manley will act the maverick, and allow the Panel to 'openly, publicly and thoughtfully' discuss this option, rather than simply tucking their tails beneath their legs and only considering Harper's all-or-nothing option regarding where Canadian troops serve.

A further benchmark which MPs could lay down in a debate next week, would be a commitment by the USA of a much larger troop deployment in Afghanistan by the USA. A force some four to six times larger than the current US troops fighting there, would be my recommendation.

Finally, a benchmark could be the agreement to commit defined amounts, by the USA, Canada, and all NATO countries, ver the next 20 years, to the building of a decent society in Afghanistan.

Note that the MPs could add timelines for each benchmark, so that if they are not met by, say, June 30 2008, then Canada would be entitled to withdraw its troops or substantially reduce them, starting in late 2008.

The Bloc and the Liberals could cooperate on setting out such benchmarks, and invite the Prime Minister to join them. If Harper refuses, his bluff will be called, and his attempt to divert discussion to his loaded Panel will be seen as a pathetic gesture, too clever by half.

If Layton refuses to agree to the benchmarks, then he will have missed a chance to change substantially the role of Canada, and of NATO and the US, in that benighted country, and will be left uttering platitudes about immediate withdrawal, knowing that none of the other three parties are in agreement with him on that issue.

All told, Bob Rae's response to Harper is a well considered one, and allows the Bloc, NDP and Liberals to put their heads together this week, and introduce a debate in Parliament in response to the Throne Speech, and set out in amendments to the Throne Speech, and later in legislation, the benchmarks which must be met or else Canada will start withdrawing its troops.

Harper has opted for the perpetual campaigning mode of governing, with his eyes set on winning a majority so that he can accelerate the achievement of his major goal of changing Canada's political structure. The coming Throne Speech will be another module in his on-going campaign, and we can expect him to use it to achieve three objectives: to wound the Liberals, placate the Quebeckers, and marginalize the Dippers.

Being able to achieve the first two objectives with one action would be the best solution for him, and he probably has stumbled upon the way to do that with his already announced plans.

What would be attractive to many (if not most) Francophone Quebeckers, while at the same time sowing seeds of dissension amongst Liberals?

One issue is the role of the federal government in the governance of the Canadian nation. Harper has spoken of the ability to change the governance pattern by actions falling short of constitutional amendments, and is on record as saying that a lot can be achieved by bilateral agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Harper is also on record regarding his low regard for a major, constructive and activist role for the federal government. His view of our central government is more akin to the statist views of the conservatives in the USA, where the desire is for state governments to have more power, and the central government to be limited to tax-collector, war fighter, and little else. Harper's visceral response to Ottawa's power was shown clearly with his advice to the Alberta government to erect firewalls so as to diminish the ability of the Ottawa government to exert much influence in that province.

This view of the role of Ottawa is a fissure between Harper and his neo-con new Tories, and the Liberals of the past. Liberals have by and large believed in a significant, nation-building, and equity-maintaining role for the central government, without diminishing the rights of the provinces under the Constitution.

How can Harper win votes from Francophone Quebec voters and at the same time sow seeds of dissention amongst Liberals?

Easy. He elevates the diminishing role of Ottawa - through restrictions on its spending - to a major element in his Throne Speech. He promises to enter into agreements with whichever provinces wish to do so, to limit the spending of Ottawa in areas under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. He offers to enter into political agreements with such provinces, which in some cases would entail handing over money to the provinces, so that the provincial government could spend it - perhaps not in the same area or for the same purpose.

What would this mean? Several things. It would limit the ability of the Ottawa government to launch nation-building or nation-enhancing schemes, such as our national health plan. Or a national standard child care program. Or a national plan to provide free education to all students who wished to go to college. Or similar plans. The bilateral agreements would limit Ottawa's entry into such plans, and leave all such decisions open to the provincial governments only.

The poorer areas of Canada would suffer the most. National plans allow a redistribution of national wealth into such national-standard ventures, so that the poorer regions benefit. Not having Ottawa enter into any such national plans would mean there would be no benefits for the poorer regions. They would be left on their own, to cope with their problems.

Finally, such a Harper policy would force Dion to decide where he comes down on the role of the federal government in nation-building or nation-sustaining ventures, which cross into areas which primarily (but not, constitutionally, exclusively) are areas allotted to the provincial governments under our Constitution. Will Dion side with Harper and adopt a province-rights view, restricting the federal government from such ventures in the future?

If Dion did that, he would open up a fissure between his more restricted view of the role of the federal government in governing Canada, the view of most Liberals, and indeed, most Canadians.

Let us hope that the Liberal Party brainstrust have anticipated such a move by Harper, and have prepared a response by the Liberal Party which accords with the liberal views of most Liberals.

Otherwise, we - and the voters - will see a leaden, flat-footed, surprised and awkward response from the LPC on the day of the Throne Speech.

Blogs are full of advice for Dion and the Liberals regarding the response to the Throne Speech. Harper has sensed blood in the water, and has thrown down a Harperistic gauntlet: vote against my speech, and I call an election. Vote for my speech, and you must vote for all the bits of legislation I intend tabling in months to come ...

Some bloggers - and some Liberals - seem to be afraid. Harper has bullied them so much, out thought them so often, out argued them so many times, that they are cowed. They fear him, have accepted his own self-definition as the mighty man of the moment, and are marching to his tune with Pavlovian precision.

The net effect?

Dion and the Liberals are coming across as wimps.

Afraid of Harper.

Afraid of the Bloc.

Afraid of their own shadows.

Harper and his new Tories succeeded in defining Dion as indecisive and ineffective. Dion and the Liberals aided him by responding ineffectually to the many attacks.

Now Harper and his party are defining Dion and the Liberals as fearful, afraid, timorous.

And it is working.

The Cat says it is time to learn from past mistakes.

Confront the bully, on each and every occasion.

Including an early election if the Throne Speech does not meet Liberal values.

Let's face it: we were badly beaten in all three by-elections in Quebec, and the Tories under Harper performed well. Layton's joy will be short-lived, as the NDP victory was a bit of a fluke.

The issue now is quo vadis, LPC.

I support Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party. He was elected by a majority of delegates at the convention. He is the democratically elected leader of our party, winning his position by relatively fair means, compared to the nastiness which accompanied the selection of the last leader of the Liberals.

As leader, he deserves our support. The losses in Quebec were a wake up call, both to Dion and to all Liberals. Anyone who thinks the losses were mainly caused by Dion should think again. Voters in Quebec gave the Liberal Party a drubbing, not just Dion.

So now we pick ourselves up and make some tough decisions. First of all, we have to figure out what went wrong, then we have to fix it.

The new Tories under Harper are still vulnerable. His policies are not mainstream policies; his party has a natural support level amongst Canadian voters which is below the level required for a majority party; and he and his party are especially vulnerable because they dare not openly espouse their most cherished policies, which aim at weakening the fabric of the federal system in Canada and reducing Canada to a fractious group of squabbling premiers, with no one speaking for Canada itself.

Harper is a leopard that has not changed its spots. His aims are still the ones he has written about and spoken about in the past. Only his tactics have changed: he has decided to sup with the devil of separatism in Quebec, just as his mentor Brian Mulroney so mistakenly did. You cannot cobble together a long-lasting majority party in Canada by throwing in your lot with a party such as the Bloc which aims at dismembering the Canada we know. You can get temporary victories through increased support in Quebec, but as soon as the rest of Canada realizes the pact you have made, you are doomed.

That is the danger with faces Harper and his new Tories: that Canadians will wake up to his machinations, and turn on him.

Now, about Dion. He is a good man; honest, intelligent, hard working, a true patriot, with the best interests of Canada at heart. He is a tough man, resilient and stubborn. And he stood by Canada when it was tough to do so in Quebec.

These are good virtues. We do not abandon leaders like that simply based on the results of three by-elections.

Dion also needs to understand that he has to fight fire with fire. He and the other Liberal leaders were asleep at the switch while the new Tories adopted the Republican methods of framing the debate early on by defining Dion. The Tories said repeatedly he was weak and indecisive, while Harper was strong and decisive. Dion could not or would not respond to this. That was a mistake. Many voters now see Dion as weak. That perception is a fact, and will doom his leadership unless he turns it around within the next six months.

How to go about it?

The Cat has a few suggestions for our leader:

- Fight. Do not turn the other cheek. Call Harper on his policies and his attacks on you. Remember when George Bush had all the Democrats running for cover, except one? One man stood up to him and called him on his policies. Now all Democrats are doing this. The key is to react swiftly, clearly and with vigour. Establish a quick response team and respond within hours to any attacks and misleading framing.


- Become an alternative government. Get policies out into the open, so that all voters can see what we stand for. They will not elect a Liberal government simply because they do not like Harper. Harper has managed to defuse the legitimate concern about his agenda, and voters need to vote for something, not just against Harper and his Tories.


- Be progressive. Dare to be liberal. Offer directions to voters which will make Canada great.
Support electoral reform in federal politics. Support some form of proportional representation and other policies which will empower voters at all levels in our country.

- Focus on Harper's one weakness which he dares not change: his instinctual one-man rule. Offer voters an alternative, by using a strong group of senior Liberals as part of the 'Liberal Team', offering a marked contrast to Harper's paranoid rule. Highlight the team versus Harper's distrust of his own cabinet ministers and MPs. If he does not trust his own ministers, why should voters?

It is time for Liberals to unite behind their elected leader, and whip this party into shape.

newstarrooster @ 2007-10-02T16: 34:00

this livejournal is

CLOSED

Yesterday I even said: "They should ma 'again to make new profile pictures!" My birthday is






Und auch noch in Berliiiin!

-----
+

[Girugamesh] Limited Edition CD + DVD
ALBUM (2007/12/26) ( Shuuuu's Geburtstag!)
songs PV2 10
* First Video Music Awards - Gilgamesh video recording will be back