Modeling Journey

Why Not Model Agency (Milano)
IMG Models (London, New York)
Elite Model Management (Barcelona)
-> her tfs forum topic

Ford Models (Los Angeles)
-> her tfs forum topic
-> her blog

If Avner Mandelman is right in his argument in Saturday's Globe & Mail, then we might well be facing a further drop of some 30% in stock market prices, with the accompanying repercussions for our economy. Another argument for installing a progressive government to replace the slow-reacting Tories.

Mandelman argues that there is a plausible historical link between conflicts and stock market levels:

"End of conflict leads to exuberance, which destroys capital. Capital destruction leads to more conflict, which leads to more capital destruction, until mutual exhaustion sets the stage to a sustained recovery. We are not there yet."

And therefore he concludes that there is a reasonable chance that we are heading for a period of conflict, which could lead to a fall of some 30% in stock market prices. Starting with President Obama, who "was forced to give the U.S. economy a shot of heroin instead, since he had inherited an economic zombie. But the stimulus-heroin has worked, the zombie is now walking, and so the doctor must start the drug-withdrawal program ASAP, before the patient suffers terminal inflation", he moves on to a historical analysis of conflicts and impacts on markets:

"As stated here before, in my view we are now in a 1939-equivalent period, as widening global conflicts are about to lead to a stock market decline. The conflicts/market analogy goes as follows: A major conflict's end (both 1919 and 1991) causes a 10-year irrational exuberance (both 1919-29 and 1991-2001), which destroys capital and ends in a 90-per-cent crash (both 1929-32 and 2001-03), followed by a 5-year echo-exuberance (1932-37 and 2003-07), in turn ending with a 50-per-cent mini-crash (both 1937 and 2008) - followed by a 50-per-cent bounce (1938 and 2009), which leads to the next conflict (1939; 2009?) and a 30-per-cent market fall (1939-40; 2009-10?)."

My best guess would be conflicts in two places: one in the Mideast (where Israel is month by month getting closer to a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, because the sanctions against Iran are being half-heartedly applied and are really a bust), and one in Pakistan (where the war against Osama Bin Laden's crew is being stepped up by the Obama administration, shrinking the space open to them for free operations, and which might cause Osama to strike back at two vulnerable targets, Pakistan itself, with its nuclear weapons, and the fragile state of Saudi Arabia).

In any case, Mandelman's view contrasts starkly with the Tory government's view that all things will be rosy in the next five years, with a steadily improving economy and stock and capital markets leading to a 'natural' reduction in our huge deficits, without any tax increases or extra steps being required (apart, of course, form the unmentioned Tory program of slashing services to reduce costs).

Time for a change, eh?

Just in case Mandelman's market-conflict relationship proves right …

Consider this revolutionary election result:

"The vote was seen here as an exhilarating moment in Japanese democracy, when the country’s traditionally passive voters showed they could control their nation. The hope among activists was that Japan would replace more than a half-century of virtual one-party rule with a more competitive brand of politics…

“We have been trying to outgrow this old one-party system ever since the collapse of the Berlin Wall,” said Takeshi Sasaki, a political expert and former president of the University of Tokyo. “It took two decades, but we finally made it.”

The sense that Japan had hit a turning point drew long lines of voters, who in Tokyo braved darkening skies from an approaching typhoon to visit polling stations.

Voters expressed a mix of excitement and unease, saying that what was most significant about this election was the fact that they finally had a real choice besides the unpopular Liberal Democrats.

“This vote is about making a system where parties that fail get kicked out,” said Yoshiyuki Kobayashi, a 40-year-old salaryman who voted at a junior high school in the suburb of Sayama. “We need to teach politicians to be nervous.""

Drag your country into modern democratic ways, and best of luck you.

After all, the best politicians are nervous ones!

Polls show that voters do not think the Tories or the Liberals (parties and leaders) are in touch with them. One way to ensure that a Liberal government stays in touch with voters is to give voters a bigger say in how the federal government will spend its budget revenue.

This could be done by introducing a new feature in the first Liberal budget, which I call the "I Choose" option. Every taxpayer is given the chance to tick off on their annual tax forms 3 of 7 areas where a portion of their personal taxes will be directed. In essence, taxpayers will be able to target some of their own taxes at specific recipients.

This is similar to the choice model used by the United Way, to allow donors to direct their charitable donations to areas of spending of their own choice. This choice model makes donating a much more personal matter, and is very popular.

The choice model used by the I Choose option in the Liberal budget will direct the government to spend 5% of the taxpayers taxes paid in that year to the top 3 of 7 choices indicated on the taxpayer's tax form.

The 7 Targeted Taxes areas will be set by the Liberal government. The government will retain the right to select 4 of these 7 areas, but it will undertake to poll Canadians once a year to determine which of 20 areas set out by the government (after receiving advice from a Citizen's Council made up of ordinary Canadians and others nominated by the government) are to be selected for the remaining 3 areas.

Those 3 areas getting the highest percentage votes will then appear on that year's I Choose segment of the tax form.

Some suggestions for the first list of 7 targeted tax areas are:

• Social housing
• Scholarships for high school children and college students
• Grants to fund small energy conservation companies so as to put Canada in the forefront of the new 'green' industries.

Five percent of the taxpayer's taxes will be directed to these Targeted Tax areas through the I Choose model. To start off, the Liberal government could cap the total dollars used for Targeted Taxes at, say, $5 billion in the first year, and consider an appropriate increased cap for later years. Taxpayer choices will direct the spending of, say, 60% of this cap on the top 3 choices, with the balance being allocated to the other 4 areas as the government decides. Of course, the total funding of these 7 areas will not be done just through the Targeted Tax model; areas which need more will be funded through the normal budget process.

Why adopt the Targeted Tax option? To give Canadians a greater say in their country's affairs, and to make sure that the government's priorities stay in touch with the priorities of most Canadians.

Tax changes such as this would help Michael Ignatieff overcome the perception Canadians have that he is a business-as-usual politician, as Liberal internal polls have shown.

For this succinct summary of why the polls show no movement between the Liberals and Tories:

"And there is a marked split between genders. Among current voters, for example, women tend significantly to dislike both Stephen Harper and Mr. Ignatieff. Actually, for the past three years, Canadians as a whole have rarely got beyond mustering tepid interest in the two major parties, a favour the Conservatives and Liberals have returned by offering nothing approximating a national vision.

No mind-map, no soul-map, of Canada."

What the polls do show is practical commonsensical Canadian reaction: None of the above deserves a majority right now.

Both national parties have to earn a majority of seats in parliament; it will not simply fall in their laps because they are there.

We know that Prime Minister Harper does not care much for a powerful federal government, and that he views Parliament as a place where federal power is exercised. Unable to win a majority government so far, Harper has set his eyes on winning control of the Senate, and so cementing the power of veto in the hands of his right wing Tory government:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper has laid out his plan to draw even with the Liberals in the Senate.

With his goal the magic number of 50 Conservatives in the Red Chamber, he stacked nine vacancies with partisan nominations yesterday.

Four opposition senators will reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 by January. Assuming that the Tories are still in power then, appointing their replacements would give each of the two dominant parties the same number of seats. The new standings would help the Conservatives ease their agenda through Parliament."

What do these numbers mean?

Just this: Harper is within months of gaining control of the Senate, and thereby of blocking any programs which a future Liberal government (minority or majority) might have.

Will Harper use the power of the Senate to block Liberal programs?

You better believe it.

What can stop him?

Only one thing: his removal as the government of Canada. As long as he is prime minister, he has the power to appoint senators.

And every day that Liberals delay in removing the Tories from power is another day in which Harper can plot to gain control of the upper house.

If Michael Ignatieff does not move heaven and earth to replace the Tories as government, then the Tory veto over future Liberal government programs can rightly be laid at the feet of the Liberal leader. Not the Liberal Party. Not his advisors. Just Michael Ignatieff.

Because it will have happened on his watch, and he could have taken steps to vote the Tory government out of office.

Macleans has an interesting collection of articles by Stephen Harper (and others). One in particular caught my attention: in it Harper speaks of the need for the conservative parties (Reform and the Progressive Conservatives) to reach some form of political accommodation in order to become the government.

His argument is interesting, and there are some rather rough parallels with today's political contours, in which the Liberals and Tories seem locked into a stately dance, with each party unable to break out and gain majority support, while the NDP dances on its own with its minority support, and the Bloc tries to keep the support of the majority of Quebeckers.

Harper set his article in the context of the three sisters, an image he arrived at as follows:

"ALONG THE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY FROM CALGARY TO BANFF lies a prominent mountain called The Three Sisters. Legend has it that an Indian chief placed each of his three daughters on a separate peak to keep them away from unworthy suitors. The strategy succeeded so well that the three daughters died up there. Canadian conservatism is also a family of three sisters fated to perish in isolation unless they descend from their mountain tops and embrace more realistic expectations."

So I've taken Harper's advice in his article Stephen Harper: A Benign Dictatorship, and amended it a little to reflect the roughly mirror image problem faced by the LPC and NDP (the two centre-left parties). I've substituted the LPC for the Progressive Conservative party and the NDP for the Reform party in his article.

Now, do his 'revised' recommendations make sense to Liberals and Dippers?

Here goes:

"In more prosaic language, the central question for the Liberals is this: Can Canada ever have a broadly based, centre-left party committed to a moderate but definite and consistent liberal philosophy, and able to govern? The prospect for uniting the three sisters is bleak at the moment. The Bloc, though it attracts many conservatively minded voters, is a nationalist movement, not a conservative party. The central-left or progressivism of the Liberal party simmers on some back burner as its current leadership advertises itself as a B Team for the governing Conservatives. And the NDP party seems content to confine itself to the populist tradition.

A merger between the NDP and the LPC, though still discussed, seems to us out of the question. Too many careers would be at stake. Political parties almost never merge in the true sense of the term, and the gap between today's opposition factions is simply too great.

After the next federal election, Canadian progressives may begin to encourage limited cooperation between NDP and the LPC, leading to a system of sister parties. Outside the United States and the United Kingdom, such alliances are actually the norm in the democratic world, three examples being the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) in Germany, the Liberal-National coalition in Australia and various centre-right alliances in France.

But this enumeration raises the question of the electoral system. Each of these countries uses something other than first-past-the-post voting…

First-past-the-post voting encourages parties to engage in a war of attrition. Yet there is an exception to its Darwinian voting logic -- territorial concentration -- which has allowed smaller parties to survive in Canada despite the electoral system. In effect, territorial concentration has produced several regional two-party systems instead of a national two-party system. Both the NDP party and the Bloc, or even the Conservatives, could go on for decades without ever becoming national parties; and through their survival as regional parties they could prevent the emergence of a national centre-left, progressive party.

NDP and LPC could cooperate if their supporters, seeing that the war of attrition does not work under Canada's particular conditions, push their leaders against the logic of the electoral system. The two parties could begin by agreeing to advocate electoral reform through the run off, preferential ballot, or mixed-member-proportional system, which would be in the interest of both parties. They might further agree on a territorial split at the national level, with NDP running in certain areas and the LPC in others. Or they might base candidacies on standing in opinion polls or success in the previous election. Or they might hold joint nomination meetings, allocating candidacies riding by riding, depending on the strength of local party organizations. The parties might also agree to common platform items and limited cooperation in Parliament. No doubt other models of cooperation could be designed; the machinery is not a problem if the will to cooperate exists."

Does the hat fit? If so, perhaps we should wear it. If not, then how do we end up with a progressive, centre-left national party which commands a majority in Canada, given the four sisters we now have?

After all, if Harper's advice was sauce for the goose, might it not also be sauce for the gander?

Polls show that many voters feel the Liberals are out of touch with people, and secretive. Voters also feel that the Tories are out of touch and do not listen to them. Take these two polls by Angus Reid, for example:

"In Canada, 61 per cent of respondents think that the federal government led by Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper does not look after their personal interests. Additionally, seven-in-ten (71%) Canadians say that the current government does not listen to them. Two-in-five Canadians (40%) say the government manages the economy well, while 54 per cent think it does not."

And:

"How Canadians See the Liberals: At least two-in-five Canadians used the words arrogant (43%), inefficient (42%) and out of touch (41%) to describe the Liberal Party. Other mentions included dishonest (38%), secretive (32%), weak (27%) and intelligent (also 27%)."

One of the arts of a seasoned politician is to listen to the people, and to consider ways to convert negatives into positives. Because both the LPC and the CPC are viewed by a substantial portion of the electorate as being out of touch with voters, and not prepared to listen to voters, there is an opportunity for the Liberals to settle on a policy which will be applied should they become the government, and which will address this issue head on.

And in so doing clearly differentiate the Liberal brand from the Tory brand.

The LPC might consider tabling a "We Listen" policy, which contains a commitment by the Liberals that as a government they will at the very least do the following in order to ensure that voters are listened to, and that their government does tnot want to be out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Canadians:

1. Set up an internet site which allows Canadians to provide input on selected topics, including topics suggested by Canadians themselves.

2. Provide that votes in Parliament will be open votes, with MPs allowed to vote their conscience or as their constituents wish them to vote; and restrict votes subject to whips to the most essential ones.

3. Commit that Liberal MPs will no longer behave like adolescents in the House, but will treat Parliament and the other MPs with respect, even if this treatment is not reciprocated. Any Liberal MP who does not behave in accordance with this new code of conduct is to be severely disciplined.

4. Undertake to hold meetings every six months with the other parties in the House to discuss the Liberal government's policies, and to obtain input from those other parties on matters that those parties believe are important and should be addressed. These meetings should be public and open to the media. If the Liberal government decides not to pursue topics raised by the other parties, it will publicly explain its reasons for not doing so.

5. Give private members bills a higher probability of being brought to the House for votes to be held on them.

6. Establish Cross-Party Groups similar to those in the Scottish Parliament (these groups provide an opportunity for MPs of all parties, outside organisations and members of the public to meet and discuss a shared interest in a particular cause or subject).

7. Establish an e-petition system similar to the one used in the Scottish Parliament to allow the public to present to the House a petition that the House look into a matter of national interest or consider changes to laws or the introduction of new laws.

8. Strengthen the power and increase the funding of the civil service to review government budgets, and to issue independent analyses of the budgets. The Liberal government will undertake to discuss publicly its agreement or disagreement with any such analyses.

9. Commit to reviewing in an appropriate manner (including public participation) methods to improve or replace the first past the post system of representation in the House.

Adopting these types of commitments in the near future will be the beginning of the Liberals rise in voter approval. Applying them when in government will ensure a majority government in the following election.

Oh, and sponsoring such a reform agenda will enable Ignatieff to persuade people that he is not a business-as-usual kind of politician.

The latest Angus Reid poll shows Liberal support has fallen 12% since July (down 4% to 30%), with the Tories increasing their lead:

"Over the summer Canadians warmed up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative party, according to the latest Toronto Star/Angus Reid poll.
However, regional disparities continue to be story as the Conservatives struggle to get anywhere near majority territory of about 40 per cent.

The survey conducted Aug. 25 and 26, shows that 34 per cent of decided voters — up 1 percentage point from July — would vote for the Conservatives compared to 30 per cent for the Liberals, down 4 percentage points since July.

The NDP is third with 18 per cent, up 2 percentage points, followed by the Greens with nine per cent or up 2 points and the Bloc Québécois with eight per cent or down 2 points. The Greens are leading the BQ for the first time this year."

Could part of this drop in popularity be caused by the Liberal leader being virtually invisible on the policy front, and giving Harper free run on the range?

Methinks that is a big reason for the fall in favour. Harper now has a 10% lead over Ignatieff as preferred prime minister, though support for Harper is still low:

"Harper's personal popularity has taken off with 27 per cent of Canadians preferring him as prime minister compared to 17 per cent for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Layton is third with 12 per cent. In vote rich Ontario Harper leads Ignatieff by 13 points.

Even so Canadian don't seem particularly thrilled with either Harper's or Ignatieff's personal characteristics."

It seems that we, the un-wooed public, think both Harper and Ignatieff are arrogant, out of touch and (surely the kiss of death for any politician?) boring …

Ford Models (New York)
Elite Models (Paris)
Elite Models (Milano)
-> her tfs forum topic

Known for her keen insight into Quebec, and her reasoned analysis of the realities of politics, Chantal Herbert now weighs in with an explanation of how a deal between the NDP and the LPC could put Michael Ignatieff into the prime minister's post in the near future:

"For those reasons, the Conservatives may need to do more than win the most seats in the next election to be certain to have a third shot at governing Canada for any length of time.

Coming first seat-wise will likely not do the job if the Liberals turn out to be more competitive than last fall.

In a published interview in Le Devoir earlier this week, Michael Ignatieff once again ruled out another Liberal attempt at crafting a governing coalition with the NDP in the next Parliament. But he also left the door open to other undefined "arrangements."

One obvious possibility would be a two-year governing agreement, copied on the Ontario deal David Peterson struck with Bob Rae's NDP in the mid-1980s. Peterson's Liberals were four seats behind the then-ruling Progressive Conservatives on election night. Negotiating the policy parameters of a Liberal mandate with the NDP allowed them to vault over the official winners and form a government that could count on the daily support of the New Democrat opposition for its survival.
Instead of resigning on election night in 2006, Paul Martin could have made overtures to Layton to try to stay in power. With the guaranteed support of the 29 New Democrats, he could have attempted to run Parliament with 103 Liberal MPs to the Conservatives' 124.

Back then, though, the Bloc would almost certainly have vetoed the arrangement. Quebec had just massively censured the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal. It would have been politically unthinkable for Duceppe to help them cling to power at Harper's expense.

Since then, the Quebec climate has changed for the worse for the Conservatives.

Duceppe's decision to formally support a Liberal-NDP coalition led by Stéphane Dion last fall met with widespread approval in Quebec. The concept remains popular to this day. At this juncture, more than 80 per cent of Quebecers prefer parties other than the Conservatives. Ignatieff is seen as a better potential prime minister by a ratio of 2 to 1 (followed by Layton.)

In the probable scenario of another four-way split in the House of Commons, winning 100 seats in the next election could be enough to put the Liberals within reach of power."

Of course, for this to happen, the Liberals would need to table a motion of no confidence in the Harper government later this year …

If you don't have a policy, and you don't reach out to voters to persuade them in a concrete fashion that you can do much better than the reigning government, and you let the Harper government set the issues to be debated and control the daily news cycles, then what can you expect?

Seems some in our party are just now waking up to what a lot of us and a lot of voters figured out a long long time ago:

"A well-informed party source said disappointing internal polls have cooled the Liberals' enthusiasm for an election. Canadians, the source said, just don't grasp Mr. Ignatieff's vision for the country and have not warmed to him since he became leader. They see him as a status-quo politician, not a catalyst for change."

Perhaps Michael Ignatieff should change his advisors, starting with Senator Smith, and get some fighting folks in there to advise him.

With a summer filled with Tory scurryings to and fro and Harper photo ops now drawing to an end, the vacuum that was the Liberal Party leadership working on a strategy to gain power and give Canadians a better government in these tough times is now taking its price.

Suddenly, the Liberal leadership has woken up to the fact that they needed time to present a case to the voters that the Tory government is mismanaging the country's affairs, and deserves to be replaced.

But they feel they will not have the time when Parliament reconvenes, so they won't table a motion of no confidence in the government!

"Liberal strategists also note they’ll have very little time between Parliament’s resumption on Sept. 14 and their first opposition day in which to make the case that they can no longer work with Harper’s Conservatives.

Parliament will barely get going again before it breaks the week of Sept. 21 while Harper attends the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.

“I’m not ruling (an early confidence vote) out but if I’m an oddsmaker, I suspect that the odds of landing a few real powerful punches in that short a number of days after a three-month free ride is unlikely,” said one top strategist.

“I don’t rule it out for a month or so later after you’ve been going at it for five or six weeks.”

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said EI reform is only one of four main issues on which his party will assess the need for a fall election.

The others are the government’s failure to get infrastructure projects up and running, to resolve the medical isotopes crisis, and to detail a plan for eliminating the massive deficits being racked up.

Those are the same issues Ignatieff identified last June as potential election triggers."

Go figure!

And these are the Keystone cops who want to replace the current do-nothing bunch on the grounds of incompetence?

In a typical Sarkozian move, the French president has taken the EU recommendations for curbing financial turmoil in the future one step further with some very practical measures:

"Mr Sarkozy unveiled a series of measures aimed at tightening French rules on banking pay and improving the disclosure of bonus payments.

These include deferring traders’ bonuses over three years, paying one-third of awards in shares, and imposing strict long-term performance criteria in order to receive full payment. The government has also appointed bonus watchdogs at banks that have received state aid.

Top French banks including BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Crédit Agricole have signed up to the new rules.

The measures take recommendations on traders’ pay made at the G20 summit last spring a step further. Under those guidelines, guaranteed bonuses are to be banned, payment deferred over several years and the cost of risk must be included in remuneration policy."

I would like the Liberal Party to include these proposals in their policies.

Shareholders and ordinary Canadians need to be protected against any future meltdown caused by bonus systems in financial institutions encouraging managers of banks and their boards of directors to take massive risks, with consequences for ordinary Canadians' RRSPs and personal wealth.

Also, the Liberal Party should lead the way with proposals for substantially beefed up regulatory oversight, and fast and effective prosecution of criminal fraud and other financial illegal activities. Canada has the reputation of being a backwaters country when it comes to securities regulation and enforcement, and this should stop.

Storm Models (London)
View Management (Barcelona)
2pm Model Management (København)
Women Management (New York, Milan, Paris)
Iconic Management (Berlin)
Art Podium MGM (Ukraina)
-> her tfs forum topic

Or was he converted by 'angry Westerners' at the Calgary Stampede and BBQs in Alberta?

When Harper faced the loss of power due to the LPC-NDP coalition agreement and Bloc supporting agreement, he and his Tories reacted by lashing out at the Bloc and accusing the LPC and NDP of immorality. In interviews and speeches the Tories came perilously close to denying the right of Quebeckers to choose MPs of their choice, and to have those MPs have rights in Parliament equal to those of other MPs from other provinces.

The Toronto Star editorial of December 3, 2008 on Harper's demonization of the Bloc:

"In their campaign to hang onto power, the ruling Conservatives have zeroed in on the separatist Bloc Québécois' support for the opposition coalition that seeks to replace them.

"The balance of power would be in the hands of the separatist Bloc," says a Conservative radio ad that began airing yesterday. "(Bloc Leader) Gilles Duceppe will be calling the tune each and every day," warned Transport Minister John Baird in a radio interview yesterday. "The Government of Canada would be at the mercy of people committed to destroying our Confederation," alleged "Rally for Canada," a pro-Conservative website.

And then there was this retort from Prime Minister Stephen Harper in an exchange with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion in the Commons yesterday: "This deal that the leader of the Liberal party has made with the separatists is a betrayal of the voters of this country."

Scary, if true. But it's not."

And in March Harper called any coalition with the Bloc 'undemocratic':

"Rather than announcing a new approach, Mr. Harper's address restated his view that the proposed coalition is undemocratic and would be harmful for Canada during an economic downturn."

But some commentators realized that Harper's demonization of the Bloc MPs could be counter productive:

"The Tories have bitten down hard on chewing out Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton for dealing with the Bloc Quebecois in recent days. For example, on CTV's Mike Duffy Live Wednesday, Industry Minister John Baird suggested it was "morally wrong" to let the Bloc Quebecois anywhere near the government…. But the Conservatives' sharp criticism of Bloc Quebecois is seen as a worrisome move, experts say, because it only adds to many Quebecers' fears that the federal government doesn't respect their views.

Antonia Maioni of McGill University told CTV's Lloyd Robertson Wednesday that Harper's "burned a lot of bridges in Quebec" with his actions this week.

"I think that many Quebecers are wondering if they vote for the Bloc Quebecois . . . whether or not they have a voice in Canadian parliament --- they've all been labelled (now) as MPs who are representing people who don't have a voice in parliament. " Maioni said. "That's a very serious affront to many Quebecers. Maioni also says that the Conservatives and Harper in particular, are throwing away any chance of winning support from the province."

The results in Quebec were plain to see – a precipitous fall in voter support for Harper and his Tory government, with support plunging down to below 15% and only recently rising to an abysmal 17%.

Now the Tories are fighting to prevent Ignatieff tabling a vote of no confidence in their minority government in September. The Tories are once again framing the issue as one of morality: the basic thrust of their argument is that for the Liberals to gain power, they must be supported by both the NDP and the Bloc, and that such support would amount to a coalition (either a de facto one or an open, legally binding agreement). And their conclusion is that it is immoral and undemocratic for the Liberals to rely on the NDP and the Bloc MPs in order to gain power.
Explicit in this framing by the Tories is their warped view of our constitution: they argue in essence that Canadians in Quebec have no right to elect MPs who favour separatism.

And now Ignatieff seems to have been converted to the same view that Quebeckers are second class citizens and do not enjoy the same right as citizens in other provinces to elect their MPs; he has come out openly and said that he would not as prime minister leading a minority Liberal government enter into any kind of agreement with the Bloc because of their strategy of breaking up the country.

This is Ignatieff's statement on entering into any agreement of any kind with the Bloc (note the final words):

"A: I am telling you I would not go into coalition agreements with the Bloc Québécois, period. That rules it out. In a situation of minority Parliaments, Canadians have to get used to the idea that it is responsible for political leaders to envisage the possibility of creating agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern in order to secure stable government, but not with the Bloc."
To summarize: Ignatieff would enter into 'agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern' but 'not with the Bloc."

This latest view of Ignatieff is contrary to the views he expressed when he fought for the LPC-NDP coalition a few months ago.

And this leads us to three questions:

First, who converted Ignatieff to the views that Canadians in Quebec have second class citizenship rights in Canada? Harper? Angry Westerners? Or did he come to that change of heart on his own, while thinking thoughts over the summer?

Second, does this diminished view of the rights of Canadians living in Quebec find favour with our Liberal MPs?

Third, why do Harper and Ignatieff stop their stealth efforts to diminish the citizenship rights of Quebeckers and rather openly advocate removing those rights through amendments to our constitution?

If these two men do not believe that every Quebec citizen has a right to elect an MP of their choice, and that those MPs have as much right to participate in the governance of our country on Parliament Hill as all other MPs do, then they should openly state this (instead of using code words), and commence an open debate in this country on whether we should embark on constitutional change to remove the rights of Quebeckers to vote for MPs who favour separatism.

Let us at least have an honest, open debate about this issue, rather than the Tory penchant for misleading statements and misrepresented positions.

And if Ignatieff and the Liberal Party leadership is not onside with Harper and the Tories regarding the diminution of the rights of Canadians in Quebec, then please state so clearly and openly, and also engage the Tories on this issue.

The Liberal Party has always stood for defending the rights of Canadians in every province of the country. Let us continue with this core value, and take Harper to task for his campaign to reduce Quebeckers to second class citizens.

Would Michael Ignatieff enter into a formal, written agreement between a minority Liberal government and (1) the NDP, (2) the Tories, (3) the NDP and the Bloc, or (4) the Bloc?

His statements are very confusing, and could lead one to conclude that he would never ever enter into any kind of formal written agreement with the Bloc, but would with "parties", which presumably include the NDP and Tories.

There is a conflict between past Ignatieff statements on coalitions and formal agreements with other parties, and his more recent ones.

In the past he was clearly defending the right of the Bloc to enter into agreements such as the supporting agreement signed between the LPC, NDP and Bloc giving the LPC-NDP coalition at least 18 months to govern. But recently, he seems to have done a 180 degree reversal and to have agreed with Harper's demonizing of the Bloc, by saying that he would never ever enter into an agreement of any kind with the Bloc.

The contradictions and reversals lead many Liberals to ask: Just what is the Liberal Party policy on formal written agreements with other parties represented in Parliament?

Read the following extracts with quotes from Ignatieff and see if you understand Liberal Party policy on this issue.

Try this one first:

"Q: So a coalition with the Bloc again, if circumstances present, is a possibility?
A: I've made it very clear that I have deep difficulty with the very possibility. What I said is that in a future in which there is a possibility of minority governments, I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition."

Q: I'm not clear what you're ruling out.

A: I think it's very difficult for me to do a deal with the Bloc. But let's be clear why: it's not because I doubt the good faith of Mr. Duceppe or his capacity to carry out his word. My issue is that they have different strategic objectives.

Q: But you won't rule it out categorically.

A: I am telling you I would not go into coalition agreements with the Bloc Québécois, period. That rules it out. In a situation of minority Parliaments, Canadians have to get used to the idea that it is responsible for political leaders to envisage the possibility of creating agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern in order to secure stable government, but not with the Bloc."

And now this one from an earlier blog of mine:

"He came out very strongly against the ridiculous notion spread by the Harper government that no MP should enter into any agreement with Bloc MPs. Ignatieff strongly defended the right of every Bloc MP to his or her place in Parliament, and said that they had as much right to their seats there as he had; they were our fellow citizens, and were entitled to participate in the governing of Canada. He slammed Harper for denying Bloc MPs that right, and for using arguments designed to cause national disunity over this issue."

And this earlier one, when he was still seeking the leadership of the party:

"Under Stéphane Dion, the Liberals and the NDP agreed last month to topple the government by voting against it in a no-confidence vote and form a governing coalition. The coalition also had the backing of the separatist Bloc.
Although Ignatieff has appeared lukewarm to the idea of a coalition, he has said he would support such an agreement if he believes the federal budget is not in the country's best interests."

And in this interview he seemed to clearly defend the rights of the Bloc and advised Canadians not to fear if any party entered into a formal agreement with the separatist Bloc:

"The son of a Canadian diplomat and the grandson of a Russian count, Ignatieff was a campaign volunteer for Lester B. Pearson in 1965, and three years later was a national youth organizer and party delegate for Pierre Trudeau.

Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats.

"Democracy hinges on there being confidence in the government, and there isn't any at present," Ignatieff said. "In fact, Mr. Harper has managed almost the impossible, by getting parties that disagree on fundamentals to join together.

"But there are limits to what the Liberal Party will allow. The Liberal Party believes in fiscal responsibility and a competitive business environment, but it will never trade away national unity or trade away the authority of government.

"What's outrageous is for a party like ours to seek to end a constitutional impasse caused by Mr. Harper, and to be discredited as traitors. That's terrible. He crossed the line when he did that.

"His rhetoric has to stop, and stop for good." … Ignatieff said his constituency office in Toronto received 2,000 e-mails one day this week from Canadians concerned about the current conundrum. He said it can be resolved by a government-run coalition.

"In our system, to govern, a government has to have the confidence of the House," he said. "We have to talk to each other, not past each other, and that isn't happening now. We owe that to the Canadian people.

"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it.

"We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility.""

Is anyone else as confused about exactly what the Liberal Party will or will not do and with whom, and whether the Bloc MPs are to be shunned in parliamentary dealings because they are separatists, as The Cat is?

And if you are, don't you think the Liberal leadership (all of them) should explain to Canadians just what our policy really is on this issue?

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have had their little meeting, with Layton doing a tap dance in front of reporters, trying hard not to be pinned down to anything definite.

But Layton did spell out his bottom line for supporting the minority Tories in October rather than voting them out on a Liberal no confidence motion:

"What would it take to get him to support the government? A “fundamental change in direction” — particularly EI/job creation, seniors and credit card interest rates. He doesn’t seem terribly optimistic that there’s much chance of that happening — the prime minister “seems to be in denial” on the results of his stimulus package."

Now we can wait for Michael Ignatieff to have another one-on-one with Harper, and then to do his bobbing and weaving for the media immediately afterwards.

I believe Ignatieff will vote to support the Tory minority government in October, without tabling a motion of no confidence in that government.

The Bloc might also pass on bringing the Tories down this time around, given the unilateral breach of the written agreements all three opposition parties signed when the coalition-of-protest was formed and Harper was spooked enough to rush into the House a deficit budget and spend like a drunken sailor, throwing money out left right and centre without really caring whether it was the best use of stimulus funds but trying to get the best publicity for the Tories with every million tossed out to various micro beneficiaries. Harper really lived up to his Santa-of-many-small-gifts nature in his stimulus package …

Let’s contrast two things: the four conditions Layton mentioned today to the media, and how far Ignatieff has walked away from meaningful items over the past 8 months or so.

Layton wants the following: a 'change of direction' by the Tories relating to EI/job creation, seniors and credit card interest rates. Harper might try to save his government's skin by moving closer to the NDP on EI changes, and might make token changes regarding seniors and credit card rates. But he is unlikely to agree to 360 hours qualifying period for EI, and certainly unlikely to make any major changes to create jobs (including a second stimulus package).

But what is Ignatieff's bottom line?

It seems to have shriveled from a fairly respectable list at one time down to some accommodation on EI.

So to win over the Liberals, all Harper has to do is say something nice about Ignatieff, praise the Liberals for trying to make Parliament work during this tough recession, publicly thank them for working with his government on the budget that was passed with their support, make some token changes in how parliament works, promise to talk more with the Liberals over the course of the next twelve months, and then shift closer to the Liberals on the EI issue (agree to spend an extra $2 or $3 billion a year for a fixed period of say 2 years; agree to one or two levels of lower qualifying hours being worked; and undertake to continue the task force to study the EI position and then debate further changes in 6 months of so if the jobless numbers increase and people cannot find new jobs).

Oh, and credit Michael for bringing about these changes.

And there you will have it. The Liberals will play up the changes, pat themselves on the back, and vote to support perhaps the most disastrous government the country could have in the middle of a major recession (remember all the talk about this being the worst recession for 50 years?).

And Harper will remain as prime minister, governing from a right wing ideology, dragging his feet on any meaningful and lasting stimulus changes, waiting out the easing of the recession to lift his political boat, as incoming tides always do.
And another major opportunity to replace right wing mendacity with meaningful progressive centre policies will have been lost.

Ford Models
TFM World (Oslo)
FS of Nagorny (Minsk)
-> her tfs forum topic

IMG Models (New York)
Bravo Models (Tokyo)
Mikas (Stockholm)
Unique Models (Copenhagen)
Uno (Barcelona)
-> her tfs forum topic

Silent Models (Paris)
-> her tfs forum topic

Ford Models (New York)
Elite Models Management (Paris)
-> her tfs forum topic

Women Direct (New York)
Lukovsky Model Agency (St. Petersburg)
-> her tfs forum topic

Less than six weeks away from the Liberal Party's one day opportunity to table a motion of non-confidence in the incompetent Harper government, it is interesting (and very very educational) to contrast the actions now being taken by Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Harper has been using the summer to frame the next election, should the Liberals finally decide not to prop up the Tories, while Ignatieff seems to have spent his summer munching hot dogs at countless BBQs across the country.

Which man is best prepared for September 30?

Let's look at what Ignatieff has been doing; this is how one of Ignatieff's senior advisors mistakenly describes what is happening right now:

"It's been a summer of criticism for Ignatieff and his team – a sharp turn from the largely positive reviews they got in the months after the party installed him as leader last December. Ignatieff arrived in the job the easy way – unchallenged, when potential rivals pulled out of the contest – and seemed to be coasting to prime-minister-in-waiting status until around June.

But then a confidence vote rolled round – a chance to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government – and Ignatieff seemed to stumble, issuing an "ultimatum without conditions," as Harper famously dismissed it.

Since then, the Liberals seem to have hit a plateau in the polls. Ignatieff has been criticized for being invisible to the national media, and anonymous partisans have grumbled about the dearth of policy, visibility and organizational expertise.

On the question of Ignatieff's apparent invisibility, Davey just shakes his head.

"I've seen this movie before, and what happens in the summer is that everyone goes away and there's nobody writing stories. There's no national media following people. You focus on regional media."

He points out that earlier this month the Liberal leader was all over Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, drawing good crowds."

What has Harper been doing?

To understand his strategy, you to focus on one key element of the makeup of Stephen Harper. This man believes in perpetual politicking. He has absorbed that lesson from the conservative party in the US, and has practised it with great effect ever since he united the parties on the right. And this political genetic material gives Harper a substantial advantage over the relative political rookie, Ignatieff. Ignatieff has not fought an election as leader of a party before; in fact his practical political experience is very limited.

Harper's belief that politics is perpetual has lead him to undertake perpetual electioneering; the actual elections themselves are only minor blips on the road.
And in this mode Harper is permanently assessing all events from the point of view of their impact on an election.

The polls have shown the two major national parties virtually deadlocked, with both getting the nod from just over 30% of the electorate, and neither being able to differentiate itself enough to enable it to break away into majority territory (the high thirties). These political doldrums have lasted for long enough that any practical politician has to consider that what is happening right now probably might also happen on election day.

That means a minority government.

And if Harper wins yet another minority government, it means he has to win the support of at least one other party in parliament in order to survive the first non-confidence vote. This irresistible political logic means that Harper has to yet once more peel Ignatieff away from joining forces with the Bloc and NDP MPs so as to avoid losing power.

And right here we find the political pressure point which Harper has focused most of his actions on. At all costs, he has to reduce the probability of a minority Liberal government being able to replace his government through some formal or informal support from the Bloc and the NDP.

And it is here that we see that the Liberal leadership team are fighting the last war instead if today's war. The advisor thinks he has "seen this movie before." Well, he is wrong. The movies he saw before were playing when Harper was not leader of the right wing party and in control of all the levers of the government.

The movie that we are seeing now was written by, produced by, directed by and acted by Stephen Harper, the man who campaigns permanently, while Michael munches and does book tours.

And that movie has one scene which spells doom for the Liberals' chances of forming the government any time soon.

Why?

Because Harper is framing the issue to be discussed should an election result in November this year. That issue will not be any policies released by the Liberals when the writ is dropped (contrary to the above LPC advisor's fond expectation that the polls will suddenly change in favour of the Liberals once the House is in session again).

The issue will be political instability arising from the immoral joinng of forces by the Liberal Party with the godless socialists and illegitimate separatists to replace the legitimate, 'truly Canadian' Conservative government.

Harper spelled this out when he called for a majority government.

"While he broke his promise for fixed-date elections last year, Mr. Harper is now actively campaigning against a fall election and emphasized last week that this is not the time for political instability.

"The last thing Canadians want is a Liberal government propped up by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois," Mr. Harper said at the event in Mr. Calandra's riding.

However, the Conservatives are getting ready for an election, and some are relishing the thought of openly calling for a majority for the first time in five years."

The Tories have kept up a steady drum beat of criticism of Ignatieff, often using his own words against him. We can expect this to continue, and one set of words in particular will be quoted ad nauseam over the next few weeks. When Ignatieff decided on unilateral repudiation of the agreement the Liberal Party had signed with the NDP and the Bloc to provide for a coalition government replacing the Tories for a period of 18 or more months, Ignatieff uttered words which might well have been written for him by Harper (quoted by Simpson):

"“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me,” he confided. While perfectly legal, it would nonetheless have struck many Canadians, coming so soon after an election in which the Liberals had suffered their worst defeat since Confederation, as if they and their coalition partners had “in some sense or another stolen power.”

Moreover, it would have been very difficult to assure the country of the certainty and stability it needed in a time of crisis “with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said, likening it, CP reports, to a rickety three-legged stool. “That was my first doubt. I couldn’t guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition.”
Especially when, as he told an interviewer back in March, one of the partners was a separatist party. “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but . . . I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.”

So let’s see: the coalition was divisive, illegitimate, unstable, and wrong — a formal pact with a separatist party that would have guaranteed them, in the words of the accord to which the three opposition leaders affixed their signatures, a “permanent consultation mechanism” in the government of Canada. Or pretty much what all of the coalition’s critics said at the time.

Except, that is, for Michael Ignatieff. At the time, he vowed his support for the coalition, explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly. At the time, he said, “I stand at one with other parliamentary colleagues in believing that we need to present the alternative of a coalition.” At the time, he said the coalition “provides responsible economic leadership in tough times.” At the time, he said Canadians should not fear the Bloc Québécois’ role in the coalition. He even signed a formal petition to the Governor General, assuring her that the coalition represented “a viable alternative government.”"

And in a later conversation, Ignatieff seemed to rule out every entering into a coalition with the Bloc, without explaining why (except perhaps his earlier statement that some people in the West – Alberta? – were angry at the thought):

"Q: You have defended the coalition and the association of the Liberal party with the Bloc by arguing that they're legitimately elected parliamentarians and, while you might not like what they represent, you respect the fact that they represent a particular constituency in Quebec. Would you enter into a coalition or a similar agreement with the Bloc again?

A: My sense is I'm strongly disposed against it, but I don't know what situations I'm going to face in the future. I thought it was legitimate to conclude an agreement because I said at the time - and have said since - I didn't believe it would compromise the national unity of my country, and that was the bottom line for me and for every MP in my party. We've all learned a lesson about coalition. One of the things I took away from the experience is it awoke particularly strong feeling in the West. I'm in this country to unite Canadians, not divide them, and I took the messages from the West very seriously. There was a genuine feeling of anger on that issue, and we all have to learn from that.

Q: But the coalition wasn't a mistake?

A: No, I've said that I think the coalition was not a mistake because it showed that if you messed with Parliament, Parliament would turn around and bite you and force you to take measures which this government should have taken in late November.

Q: So a coalition with the Bloc again, if circumstances present, is a possibility?

A: I've made it very clear that I have deep difficulty with the very possibility. What I said is that in a future in which there is a possibility of minority governments, I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition."

Q: I'm not clear what you're ruling out.

A: I think it's very difficult for me to do a deal with the Bloc. But let's be clear why: it's not because I doubt the good faith of Mr. Duceppe or his capacity to carry out his word. My issue is that they have different strategic objectives.
Q: But you won't rule it out categorically.

A: I am telling you I would not go into coalition agreements with the Bloc Québécois, period. That rules it out. In a situation of minority Parliaments, Canadians have to get used to the idea that it is responsible for political leaders to envisage the possibility of creating agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern in order to secure stable government, but not with the Bloc."

Now let's just stop a minute and understand why Ignatieff's position, if he rigidly adheres to it, might be the second most foolish decision ever taken by the leader of a major Canadian party (Joe Clerk's decision to call the election which caused him to lose power being the worst).

Firstly, the Coalition agreement he (along with every other Liberal MP) signed with the NDP, and the accompanying supporting agreement signed between the LPC, NDP and Bloc (under which the Bloc would not vote against a minority LPC-NDP coalition government for at least 18 months), was a good thing because the threat of all 3 opposition parties actually honouring their signatures made the Tories offer some stimulus spending in their revised budget.

Second, it was perfectly legitimate for Bloc MPs to sign the supporting agreement with the aspirant LPC-NDP coalition agreement, because that agreement did not contain any terms which threatened the unity of the country.

Third, however, despite at first thinking such a LPC-NDP coalition agreement with such a supporting agreement from the Bloc did promise stable government, he later decided (after hearing from some angry Albertans, no doubt) that it did not; that in fact it was as unstable as a three-legged stool.

Fourth, if he became leader of a minority Liberal government, then he would enter into agreements needed to ensure that the Liberals could govern ("I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition.")

So there we have it. Harper's work is half done. Ignatieff is against coalition agreements (presumably even with the NDP) but for other agreements. No longer a coalition agreement if necessary but not necessarily a coalition agreement – Ignatieff has moved on to a new slogan: Never a coalition agreement but maybe some other kind of an agreement …

Provided, of course, he can find any NDP and Bloc leader who is prepared to trust his signature to any agreement at all.

By ruling out any possibility of a coalition agreement with any other opposition party, Ignatieff is displaying surprising naivety. There was no need for such a substantial change to the Liberal Party position, especially after the upswelling of support for the agreement all Liberal MPs signed amongst Liberals and independent voters.

So this leaves the Liberal Party bereft of a major weapon it might need to replace Harper's government.

It is in the interests of the Liberal Party that the official position of the LPC on entering into coalition agreements be publicly debated within the party, and outside the party, so that the millions of Canadians who want to have the Tory government replaced understand why the Liberals seem to have bought into Harper's demonizing of the rights of the Quebeckers to elect Bloc MPs to represent them in parliament, and that coalition governments are illegitimate power grabs.

Or else we can simply wait for Harper to keep trying to win a majority government, and make the whole issue of the rightful role of coalition governments in our parliamentary conventions of academic interest only.

I, for one, certainly hope that the next leader of the Liberal Party publicly and expeditiously reverse the Ignatieff stand on the possibility of the LPC entering into coalition agreements.

Mega Model Agency (Hamburg)
Mega Models (Miami)
-> her tfs forum topic

Louisa Models (Munich)
Viva Models (Paris)
Mega Models (São Paulo)
Women Management (Milan)
Bravo Models (Tokyo)
Civiles Management (Buenos Aires)
View Management (Barcelona)
-> her tfs forum topic

IMG Models
New Blood Agency
-> her tfs forum topic