Ignatieff, there are many other people in it with him.

With today being the deadline for the second quarter of 2009, it is an opportunity to reflect on the changes that we are seeing as far as Liberal Party funding, as well as general party health.

The reality that seems to be developing is that the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff is finally showing some signs of being of a more grassroots nature. By this, I mean a greater ability to raise funds, and also a greater party membership. What is more is that increases in both these areas are happening at overwhelming rates.

In this Toronto Sun article , these improvements are outlined. The most significant statistics are that funds raised have tripled over the same period last year, and what's more, membership is up to around 90 000, up from 40 000 in January.

Clearly the Liberal Party is growing in significant ways. And, what's more, this can be linked to Michael Ignatieff. It would seem that Canadians are not as averse to cosmopolitan people as Mr. Harper. It would seem that Canadians embrace this, and are willing to see how Ignatieff can fare.

What is more, Canadians, when Harper started attacking Ignatieff's character, realized that if they wanted to avoid the disgrace of Dion style attacks, they had to enter the political scene in their way, and not only voting, but also giving money and getting memberships.

Faced with such massive change in his opponents' party, Harper must be shaking in his boots. He's just figured out that Ignatieff is not just in it for himself, and that there are many other people in it with him.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Further Desperation Strikes in Iran: Revealing electoral fraud, perhaps?

Reports are now coming out of Iran that 5 British Embassy employees have been detained by the Iranian government amid sordid allegations that they have helped to incite violence surrounding the controversial elections. Rightfully, the European Union ministers have condemned this action.

What this reveals about the domestic situation in Iran is equally important. These ridiculous allegations help to construct a picture of desperation in Teheran, and Iran in general. Ahmadinejad, and in a veiled way Ayatollah Khamenei, are grasping at straws to save themselves from disgrace.

In fact, this desperation must have reached a peak. For, is it not rational to conceive of this as a rallying call for nationalist Iranians? If there are allegations of external influence, then many Iranians will cement their trust in their government. This is due to a dedication to the nation, and a deep aversion to US influence. By consolidating these Iranians, the government seems to be preparing battle positions for the long haul.

In addition, these moves smack of even greater desperation because of the targets chosen. It was predictable that the European Union would react in this manner to such allegations. Thus, the Iranians have knowingly caused antagonism on the part of nations that it seeks to have discussions with.

It is no secret that the EU and the US have great reservations as to Iran's nuclear program. In order to address these questions, talks between Iran and the EU have been planned. However, now that the Iranians have been making such allegations, the potential of these talks seems to be lessened.

It is in Iranian interest that these talks go well. For all his bluster, the Iranian President cannot think that he can dispense of talks with these nations.

For all these reasons, such allegations are further evidence, not only of desperation, but of what this desperation seeks to cover up: electoral fraud.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Bring Mohammed Kohail home

Mohammed Kohail, a young Montrealer, faces execution by beheading in Saudi Arabia if Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not step in and speak on his behalf to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Whether or not Kohail is guilty or not of the charges facing him is irrelevant. The position of the Canadian government should be that the execution he faces is inhumane and condemned by them. If the government does not intervene in this manner, it is an implicit endorsement, or at the least, a recognition, of beheading as suitable judicial punishment.

The position which the Canadian government must take is clear. Nothing short of bringing Kohail home will do, as while in Saudi Arabia he still faces potential punishment, and not just on behalf of the Saudi government. The family of the victim he is alleged to have killed will very likely demand some sort of revenge if its government fails to do so.

Once Kohail is home, try him if we must. Put him in a Canadian jail, if we must. But bring him home, because we must.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Historic US bill on climate change good, but nowhere near good enough

Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill on climate-change, sponsored by President Obama. This is the first significant piece of climate change action by government in American history. However, symbolic as it is, it is by no means a cause for self-congratulations.

The standards set forth in the proposed legislation is 17% reductions by 2020, over 2005 levels. That is significantly lower than Kyoto standards of 6% or so, below 1990 levels. Even more astonishing is that President Obama supported only 14% reductions.

Proponents of this bill will point to reductions of 80% by mid-century. This is much too late. It is symptomatic of government reaction to climate change, putting off significant change for latter, much latter.

In these two ways, although this is a piece of landmark legislation, it is by no means a final solution to the problem. In addition, the most concrete measures mentioned in the legislation are increasing energy costs. This is all well and good, but what about the cap and trade system that Obama has been touting?

One must hope that the Obama administration is not about to stall here in its work against climate change. One most hope that a bill of this nature is the result of compromise. After all, the vote was still narrow (219-214), and has yet to be voted on in the Senate. If not, then the Obama administration needs a wake up call on the environment.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Fraud according to Iran's Guardian Council

Today, Mousavi, the reform presidential candidate in the Iranian election, announced that he would not yield to pressure to withdraw his claims of fraud. In fact, the Iranian Guardian Council claims that there were no instances of fraud in the recent election.

However, to the discerning observer this is ludicrous. If we are to take the assertions of the Guardian Council at face value, then more votes being cast than there are registered voters does not constitute fraud. I guess it must fall into the considerations of the Iranian system.

In all seriousness, this just shows how desperate the Guardian Council is to restore order, with Ahmadinejad at the helm. Indeed, rather than minimizing concerns of fraud, such a blatantly inadequate cover-up gives rise to more suspicions.

Faced with this concerted, and yet weakly based opposition, Mousavi is warranted in wanting examination into the fraud. It'll be interesting to see what governments do in reaction to such blatant fraud, as they will be toeing the line of interference and independence, all the while considering what is just.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Canadians don't like elections: force them to have elections

Amid all the ado surrounding the potential election last week, one phrase kept being repeated: Canadians do not want a summer election. Come to think of it, Canadians never like elections. Fall is a bad time because the school year has just started, winter is bad because it's Christmas, spring is bad because who wants to think of politics when everything else is in bloom, and in summer it's quite difficult to vote when you'd rather hang around the barbecue.

It would seem that Canadians never want an election. This is paralyzing politics in this country as the reason constantly given for not going to the polls is that no one wants an election. Ignatieff's sad capitulation to Harper over EI and other issues was due to advice that centered around Canadians do not want election.

Now, this of particular concern to Liberals as whenever voter turnout is low, there is a greater probability of a Conservative majority. However, the facts remain that each party uses it, the Conservatives even to their advantage. In fact, this is integral to their attacks on the Liberal party.

So the solution is pretty clear. To avoid all this strategic pandering to Canadians' adversity to elections, we can eliminate that adversity, or rather, circumnavigate it. In other words, force Canadians to vote, by enacting such a law. Not voting would become an offence.

This is a system that is used in in other regions worldwide, to quite significant success. In such systems, voter participation, such as in Australia, exceeds 90%.

Maybe, if we had had this reform, we would have less strategic fear mongering in Parliament. And Ignatieff would have forced an election.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

If only North America were like Iran

News of the protests over the latest election in Iran has been circulating the globe, horrifying the international community. However, there is one thing that these protests indicate that is to be desired: political engagement.

In Canada, there is clearly a political disengagement. The voter participation in federal and provincial elections of the last year tell us as much. In fact, many of the provincial turnouts have been under 50%. Whereas, around the world we see much greater participation and engagement with politics and the electoral process.

It would seem that this is a characteristically North American dilemma. In other parts of the First World, and much of the Third World, voters turnout in much more significant numbers.

So what is a characteristic of political life in North America that would seem to account for this disengagement that is greater than in the rest of the world. The answer may well lie in a typical belief in North America that the government is impotent. A particular phrase comes to mind: the government that governs best is the government that governs least.

Now, this is ridiculous, and Stephen Colbert showed as much at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006 that according to this maxim the government of Iraq is the best. We are not Americans in Canada, it is true, and therefore we may not be as greatly affected. However, the case remains that at least some of us, notably those inclined to take the right-wing view of things, do seem to embody this.

Look at what Harper's done. Cut taxes, and the cut services, making sure government hardly lives up to its name. And what does this do in turn?

It ensures, purely and simply, that this belief is all the more cemented in parts of the public conscience.

So what do we need to do to be more like Iran? Believe in the power of government to be a force for change, instead of a constant source of failure.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Why we should be paying more taxes

One of the reasons that we have been led to these deficits is the Conservative cuts to the GST. With this in mind, Robert Smol's article on CBC.ca Why I should be paying more taxes proclaims a truth that many politicians do not want to face. Instead of lowering taxes, if anything they should be raised.

Simply a great article.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A great opportunity slips through Michael's fingers

Michael Ignatieff had a great opportunity this week to bring down the government, and to ensure, among other things, that real, effective, and crucial change would occur in relation to Employment Insurance. Instead, we have been offered a panel to study EI reform, consisting of 3 Liberals and 3 Conservatives. It is permissible to believe that nothing coming within the realm of nationwide EI standards will be achieved.

So let's bemoan our loss. Because a loss it is. Ignatieff and the Liberals were leading in the polls by a 5% margin, and were riding a wave of Conservative flub ups. What with a ballooning deficit just waiting to spirit the Conservatives out of office, there was little doubt of the issue of the potential election: a Liberal minority government.

And, instead of taking this opportunity, Ignatieff has created in co-operation with Harper, a panel that will effect some changes, but not what we need. If Ignatieff had taken his chance, there would be no doubt as to the change. Now, we are forced to wait and see what will be offered up to us.

The only consoling hope is that maybe, just maybe, Ignatieff has something up his sleeve. That he is using this time over the summer to strengthen his party's campaign-readiness, and so to increase the margin of victory in an election I want to see in the fall.

Cling to that hope. It's the best we can hope for in this missed opportunity.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Partisan government advertising: A beloved Conservative tactic

As I was watching a part of question period today, Thomas Mulcair made a point that I noticed also. Last weekend, on Saturday to be exact, I was listening to my radio when I heard an ad praising all the work that the government has put into providing stimulus to the economy. It also mentioned the highly contentious figure of 80% of the stimulus being spent. So, as my attention was arrested by all these exploits of our beloved government, I almost missed the tagline at the end of the ad.

I had been expecting to hear, a message from the Conservative Party of Canada. After all, there is a potential election brewing, and it would be natural for the Conservatives to be issuing such ads. Seems that they have been, but they are using government money, and the authority of the government to get their message across.

This is underhanded politics at its best. Using all the powers of a government against other political parties is something the Conservatives should be ashamed of. In fact, it is so underhanded that I am surprised I have heard no outrage about it (maybe I haven't looked close enough). After all, the first outrage I've seen was today in Question Period.

So, here is your opportunity. Leave a comment and tell me what you think. I'm almost tempted to say that this is such a gross step over the line that Ignatieff should topple the government on this alone.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

They said Harper was smart... Looks like he thinks we're stupid

Which of course may reveal he's smart, at least in reference to some in the population. I'm not saying they're stupid per se, but they don't pay attention in politics and are easily fooled.

Anyway, why is this so? Looking at Harper's offer to the Liberals, only two options are clear: 1. he thinks we are easily hoodwinked. 2. He has lost his strategic touch, which may have never been there as much as the media said, but that's for future posts.

These conclusions are inevitable as Harper's offer to Ignatieff consists of as much real action as his policy on the environment. Offering to discuss the issues that Ignatieff has raised, after the vote, is ludicrous. This would have absolutely no effect in calming the Opposition parties, and rightly so.

Discussion of components of a stimulus package is not, reasonably, taken after a no-confidence vote. For, in this way, Harper can say to Ignatieff, trust me, we'll duke it out later, while he manages to stay on for another three months. Furthermore, during these three months of recess, Ignatieff has no power to change any of Harper's actions.

For all these reasons, Ignatieff has made the right move. It is necessary to talk about the four issues Ignatieff raised, if not more, before the vote so that the Liberals can vote in conjunction with our principles and views for the country.

So, Harper clearly thinks the general public cannot see this. Yet more evidence of a snobbish attitude. And he said that "Count" Ignatieff was aristocratic.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

In a break from election speculation, attempts at peace in the Middle East

Today Israeli PM Netanyahu offered, in his words, "real peace" to the Palestinian Arabs. This "real peace" constitutes an Arab state, though disarmed. This is a step in the right direction, as since Netanyahu took office he has been adamant on the right of the Jewish people to continue Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Clearly this is a great obstacle to peace, as settlement is an expansionist activity with no regard for Palestinian interests.

These same Jewish settlers are still a problem under the described ideas of Netanyahu. How are they to be returned to the Jewish state. Or do they remain where they are. Netanyahu has made his position clear on the issue of Palestinian refugees. They are strictly an Arab issue. Well then, the Israelis should at least be ready to take responsibility for their settlers and ensure they do not encroach on Arab land any longer.

A real step may have been made, but this all seems too much in favor of Israel. A disarmed Palestine? That doesn't mean much since the real threat would be from paramilitary groups such as Hamas. In fact, an army would be able to help the Israelis against these terrorist groups.

It seems to be another humiliation of the Arabs. If Palestine is to be disarmed, Israel should pledge to never take aggressive action against the new nation.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Will the Bloc Quebecois regret opposing the Conservatives?

The only reason that Michael Ignatieff can contemplate toppling the government is the prompt opposition that the two other opposition parties offered to Harper's economic update. Now that Ignatieff seems to be considering his options very carefully, will the Bloc Quebecois regret their dismissal that took an amazingly short amount of time of a 234 page document?

The reason I am wondering is that the only party that comes close at this moment to the Bloc is the Liberal party. In the latest EKOS poll, the Bloc leads with 36.5% of support, with the Liberals close behind at 33.6%. That is a margin that could be bridged by the Liberals in the middle of a campaign. Quebecers keen to see Harper get the boot may switch vote.

Even if voters in Quebec don't switch, an election at this time would solidify the massive gains the Liberals have made in the province since the federal election. These are like Chretien era numbers, they're that good. And the Bloc has no interest in having a Liberal party that can rival them.

So, although it may seem that Ignatieff has a choice to make now, in a way so did Duceppe. And it looks like he believes an election would be beneficial for him. Or else he's bluffing and hoping Ignatieff doesn't go along with it. All very interesting considerations.

All in all however, maybe Gilles is co-operating because otherwise, there will be even more aging baby boomers keen to receive pensions and benefits from Ottawa, rather than engage in dreams of sovereignty. Maybe he will have a better chance this time than next.

I am looking forward to seeing how the BQ will react if Ignatieff moves for an election. It could be interesting, possibly.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question

To pull or not to pull the plug, that is the question. On the one hand there are clear benefits for Michael Ignatieff in attempting to force an election now. Not only would this corroborate well with what he has been saying, the polls are looking up for the Liberals and it could be that they would be able to ride the "sexy" wave into office.

However, on the flip side, outside of us political junkies, I doubt the public has an appetite for an election right now. One only needs to look as far as the voter turnouts for all the elections of the last year, federal and provincial, to understand that elections at this time seem to be a turn-off.

The concern here is that Harper would pull off an ad campaign in which he spins the story that Ignatieff is the one who caused the whole summer election. Of course, it takes two to tango. But our PM will forget this, especially as he is the one most responsible for the threats of an election. At a time like this, when the opposition parties represent more than 60% of the electorate, it would be wise to follow their demands.

Ignatieff has a tough choice. Pull the plug and you may win the election, or you will get blamed for it. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Are Canadians frustrated enough with the lack of leadership, economic management and attitude from Conservatives to pull themselves away from their BBQs to vote this summer?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservatives intentionally confusing themselves?

Well now all I can say is I'm confused. After Lisa Raitt has now apologized for her actions, did it constitute "cheap politics" to ask for action and call her out on this issue? Would seem that Harper has done an about-face.

Of course, it is possible that Stephen Harper's so used to attempting to confuse the public that now he's started getting confused himself. From all the antics of his government since he's been in power, there is no doubt that he's used to confusing people.

Since Harper has done such a good job confusing the public, so well in fact that he's now in office, it will be highly entertaining, as well as embarrassing and at times shocking and revolting, to see what other troubles these Conservatives get into.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A list of Conservative "cheap politics"

1. Anyone remember the defecating puffin who just seemed to have an affection for Stephane Dion's shoulder?
2. While we're on Dion, character branding through low blow attack ads aimed at character and a French accent instead of policies.
3. No deficit. I swear guys absolutely no chance of a deficit. Okay maybe a little deficit. Oh look it must be the little deficit that grew, it's reached $50 billion now. What a good boy. (Harper)
4. Look, it's obvious that Brian Mulroney is not a Conservative. Sure he was a PM, in fact the last successful Conservative one. But he's definitely not a Conservative, there's no way he is.
5. Blame the Liberals for anything that goes wrong. Of course this is quite logical as they were the ones in power before you right? Kyoto, deficits, anything is fair game.
6. It is sexy to have problems. Enough said.


7. Oh, and finally before we forget, in and out scandal was clearly not an instance of cheap politics. I mean, look at how much extra money it cost us.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Cheap politics is career advancements

Yesterday, Canadians were informed of the sexy allure of cancer and radioactive leaks, something I guess we must have all missed. And today, we were informed that being rightly outraged about this fiasco surrounding Lisa Raitt, and pointing it out in the House of Commons, is cheap politics.

Harper clearly is grasping at straws. Pointing out such an obvious flaw in the government's handling of issues certainly does not constitute cheap politics. As Michael Ignatieff pointed out, the fact that Lisa Raitt saw this as a career advancement opportunity is a much greater instance of cheap politics. She is hoping for sexy problems for her to solve. What is cheaper?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The "sexy" minister has to go

Cancer, radioactive leaks. What images do they bring to mind? I doubt they brought to mind what Lisa Raitt, the Natural Resource Minister, believes they should.

Apparently, it is sexy to have problems. Especially when you are in government. According to Lisa Raitt that is. And judging by the amount of significant problems she's had to deal with, two major ones, there must be lots of sexiness surrounding her.

Seriously though, is this who we want in government? Regarding the conditions of the leak at Chalk River as sexy is not only evident of a lack of understanding of the issues, it is shocking and to an extent revolting. This minister is so infatuated by her own position that she looks at the issues she is dealing with and pronounces them "sexy", when in fact they spell significant outcomes for many. There is nothing sexy about these things.

In addition to being revolting, it reveals a frivolity to office that is unacceptable. When there are serious issues like these, we expect our elected officials to step up to the plate and at least make a swing at the ball, instead of standing there admiring the grass of the baseball diamond for all its sexiness.

If Harper refused to accept her resignation a week ago, he should demand it now. And if he doesn't, Ignatieff should pounce and provide us with a government that understands the issues and cares about the issues.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A response to Rex Murphy

In his recent article, Rex Murphy accuses Ignatieff of being adept at attacking Stephen Harper without taking any positions of his own. This time, shockingly, the verbose Newfoundlander has it wrong.

It is hardly surprising that not many of Ignatieff's positions are known. What would happen if Ignatieff presented them? The answer to that question is obvious. Stephen Harper, a committed pragmatist ever since entering office, would adopt most of these ideas faster than Madonna faced with Malawi kids. He hasn't done so on EI, granted, but that is because he wants to see how far Iggy will go.

In addition, it is not a common occurrence that the Opposition leader unveil a ready election platform. It is obvious that there would be a difference between the extent to which we know Harper's policies and the extent to which we know Ignatieff's. Harper is PM, Ignatieff, sadly, is not.

As for Rex's assertions that Ignatieff is shocked by the deficit. Wrong again. Ignatieff is outraged, as most of the country should be, about the way in which this deficit is ballooning with no clear stimulus to show for it. Most of the money hasn't even gotten out the door, and yet this deficit, one that Conservatives denied would exist until the last possible moment, is soaring up faster than an old widower's house attached to helium balloons.

If in office, Ignatieff would not draw back on spending, I believe. He would spend responsibly, providing economic stimulus while making sure the money goes to those who need it. He would also be reasonable in his predictions, unlike the current government.

Take for example EI reform. This will cost even more to the government. And guess who proposed this. That's right Iggy did. Sorry Rex.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

We are governed by a 26 year old, and it's not Jasmine MacDonnell!

This just in. Apparently, in the last year, a great momentous change has taken place in government. Although a year ago, the regular people, such as ministers and the like, were in power, it seems that a dastardly and scheming group have taken control of government. Yes, I am talking about 26 year old press secretaries.

Come on Marc, you say, how can this be? Well, a year ago, when Maxime Bernier, the somewhat out of his depth foreign affairs minister left behind some documents at his girlfriend's house, he was held responsible and was forced to resign. But, in a similar situation involving Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, this was not required. Instead, the blame was put on Jasmine MacDonnell, her press secretary.

Now, it is true that this falls within Ms. MacDonnell's responsibilities. However, you would think that the Minister is equally responsible. This was a document labeled secret. Surely the Minister noticed it was missing.

No, the more likely reason for Lisa Raitt's absolution is that the Conservatives are down in the polls, with a risk of an election any time soon. Harper doesn't want the Conservatives to look any worse than they already do. Leaving documents behind is one thing, having ministers resigning is another.

But, if you believe Harper, it's his 26 year old press secretary who's running the show. Look out for that in the next election campaign. Harper's press secretary will be blamed for all the government's shortcomings, as well as asked to represent the PM in the leader's debate.

At least, that is if you believe Mr. Harper's claims regarding Raitt-gate.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's get a steadier hand at the tiller

In the last election campaign, one of Stephen Harper's recurring messages was that the Conservatives would be able to keep a steady hand at the tiller. We were told that only they could successfully navigate the murky and dangerous economic waters ahead. Now fast forward to today. Does this assertion seem to be true?

If it is, then I don't know what a steady hand at the tiller is. Does a sudden increase in projected deficit figures seem like that to you? Because that is what the "steady hand at the tiller" Conservatives are presenting us with. A few months ago, the federal deficit was going to be only $34 billion. Now it's $50 billion. Who knows what it will be next.

Flaherty, and his Prime Minister, have shown that they are anything but steady hands at the tiller. I appreciate and fully support the creation of stimulus packages for the economy. I understand that this stimulus requires deficit spending. However, what I fail to understand is how the Conservatives can be considered good fiscal managers?

Previously, they maintained that there wasn't even going to be any deficit. They clearly are out of touch with the economy. So when Ignatieff says that he is contemplating an attempt at a mid-summer election, I agree. We need to get government that is at least able to predict deficits, and have the courtesy to warn the public. Unlike the Conservatives, who tell half-truths to get elected.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere