The NDP's Trouncing in Saskatchewan Should be a Wake-Up Call

In the recent Saskatchewan provincial election, the NDP took a thrashing.  From the Huffington Post:

The Saskatchewan NDP suffered one of the most crushing blows in the party's history Monday night. The once dominant party was reduced from 20 to nine of the 58 seats in the legislature. NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter lost his own riding, a long-time NDP stronghold, and stepped down soon after. The Saskatchewan Party cruised to victory with 64 per cent of the vote, doubling the NDP total, and increasing their seat count to 49.

Losing Saskatchewan for the NDP is akin to the Reformers losing Alberta.  This was where it all began.

Steve LaFleur suggests that in order to regain power the party must focus on the fact that they had moved to the right in terms of placating big business.  He blames their demise on the unions.  However, LaFleur belongs to the right-wing Frontier Centre, another think tank whose staff move in and out of the Harper government.

He discusses the destruction of the PC Party in that province, but the fact is that Brad Wall was a member of that government, and the "new" party is the same old neoconservative party of Grant Devine.  Tom Lukiwski was their general manager and is now a Harper MP.  Senator David Tkachuk was another corrupt insider of those not so defunct neocons.

I think Murray Dobbin has a better take on the problems that the NDP are currently having.  In a posting before this trouncing, he discussed the direction that the party was taking, as reflected in some of the candidates for leader.

Of Brian Topp he says:

Topp was Roy Romanow’s closest advisor. But Romanow [former Sask. NDP premier] was essentially a small ‘l’ liberal and his administration slashed education and health budgets almost as much as the previous Tory regime. I once interviewed Romanow just before he became party leader and asked him about the role of social movements and he replied they were “completely useless.” His government reflected that attitude. Maybe Topp disagreed with him — but if he did, he had little influence.

And of Mulcair:

He is an unrepentant capitalist and big ‘L’ Liberal at heart who is barely out of synch with the 1 per cent the Occupiers have targeted.

In fact, when Thomas Mulcair first decided to enter federal politics, he couldn't decide whether to run for the NDP or the Conservatives.  Clearly he chose the NDP because there was more room to advance his own career.  Dobbin is right when he says:

One of the weaknesses of the party under Jack Layton was its preoccupation with tactical maneuvering at the expense of policy development. The party had almost no policy people but a lot of communications flaks. Topp had enormous influence with Layton and we can assume he was one of the architects of this approach — one that moved the party to the centre. At the same time, the party was accused of putting its interests ahead of the country’s — with some going so far as to blame it for allowing Harper to gain his first minority.

I like Paul Dewar very much and will be watching his bid closely.  Peggy Nash has an opportunity to capture the imagination of the electorate, but with the orchestrated and unwarranted attacks on unions by Canada's conservative movement, she could be in for a rough ride.

Thomas Mulcair would be an unmitigated disaster.  A Stepen Harper mini-me.  I haven't liked him since he attacked Libby Davies for drawing attention to the plight of the occupied Palestinians.

Surge and Decline

In 1960, political scientist Angus Campbell, brought forth a theory of "surge and decline" in American politics.  It mostly addressed the often conflicting results of the mid-term and presidential elections.  However, since then many have used the theory within a particular campaign.

The current Republican leadership race is a good example.  Michelle Bachmann "surged" one week, Rick Perry another.  Now they have both dropped significantly.

The NDP success in the last federal election was the result of a "surge" in popularity for Jack Layton.  Increased media attention led to advantageous name recognition, but had the campaign gone on another week or two, it's difficult to say if it would have lasted.

Saskatchewan was the NDP's mid-term election, and as I say, hopefully, their wake-up call.  In their quest to destroy the Liberals, they have forgotten who they are.  They will never outstrategize Stephen Harper, nor will they take over the Liberal Party, so they shouldn't try.

Two weeks ago the Liberals had a membership drive with a target of 5,000 new members.  They landed 5,087.  Their death is wishful thinking on the part of both the Reformers and the NDP.  The Liberal base is disappointed but not ready to jump ship.

The Right Did Not Unite, the Populist Parties Did

In 2002, the Fraser Institute published a report on the feasibility of uniting the struggling PC Party with the Reform-Alliance.  The right had been attempting such a thing since 1967, and Ernest Manning's Political Realignment.  The Report: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam, stated that "The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party."

What was interesting about the report however, was the analysis of the 1993 election that became a turning point in Canadian politics.  One of my readers recently suggested that Harper's movement simply took over the conservative base and that his supporters were already conservatives.  Putnam's analysis proves otherwise.

The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time.

In British Columbia in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.  The Liberals and PCs were often interchangeable.  In fact PC leader Kim Campbell lost her seat to Liberal Hedy Fry.

The Reform-Alliance's success only came about when they bought out the rights to the PC Party and pretended to be Tories, allowing them to cash in on an historical tradition.  This won't work for the NDP because the Liberal Party is not currently on the auction block.

The Quebec surge knocked out the Bloc, who were often allies of the NDP, and vote-splitting knocked down the Liberals.  If the NDP hope to succeed, they have to come out as themselves and define what they stand for.
I have always thought that we did better under the Liberals when the NDP held the balance of power.  There is no reason to believe that an NDP government with a Liberal opposition, wouldn't do the same.  However, Jack Layton led  his party in a full frontal attack on the LPC, ignoring the stronger forces of the conservative movement.

As Murray Dobbin says:  "... we are facing possibly monumental social and economic change in the next few years. The [NDP] leadership race is being judged by trying to imagine who can defeat Stephen Harper in four years — but just what are people thinking the world and Canada will look like in four years?"

We need a progressive movement and we need it now.  In four years it may be too late.

Bob Rae is in a unique position, because he has led both the NDP and the Liberals.  Maybe he can find common ground.  We can't depend on "surges" because they inevitably lead to decline.

Rape as Weapon of War is Bigger Issue

During the debate over the extension of the Libyan "mission", NDP foreign affairs critic, Paul Dewar, brought up the subject of rape as a weapon of war.

He wanted the Conservatives to promise to address the issue.

This may have been inspired by the change in the language of our foreign policy, that prevents Canadian foreign aid workers from discussing victims of sexual abuse, among other things.

However, there are several reasons why this point shouldn't be raised at this time.

First off, the International Criminal Court already prosecutes those who use rape as a weapon of war, so we don't, in this instance, need to take it any further.

Secondly, headlines of systematic rape in Libya, have a propaganda feel, so may cloud the reasons for this war. Bringing it up in Parliament, enables the Conservatives to justify their bombing.

But the most important factor, is the issue of rape itself. We have to understand Libyan culture.

According to a report by CNN, while the ICC is gathering evidence, the rebel forces are destroying proof of sexual assaults themselves.

"There was a commander here at the eastern front in Misrata named Mohamed al-Halboos; he ordered all the (rebel) fighters to give him all the rape videos they find on Gadhafi soldiers' cell phones. I heard that he used to destroy every rape video he got," al-Kabeir said.

Asked why potential evidence of war crimes being carried out by pro-Gadhafi forces would be destroyed by rebel forces, he cited the heavy stigma that Libyan culture attaches to the victims of such crimes.

"Aside from being a heinous crime, rape is perceived here in our culture as damaging not only for the girl, but also the whole family," he said. In fact, he added, rape is such a taboo here that some victims' families would rather erase potential evidence than risk living with the shame.

It's a very sensitive issue, and normally I would feel, that if it is indeed taking place, it should be brought to our attention.

But in this case, those raped could be victimized twice.

I like Paul Dewar very much and understand where he's coming from. But foreign policy can be very complicated, which is why we need a diplomatic corp, that is respected and listened to, so we don't trip up and make matters worse.

After reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, I can't help but think that this is just another self serving attack on an oil rich nation, since it comes after Gadhafi was demanding more money from the oil companies.

However, understanding the enormity of western imperialism, I know that realistically, it's not something we can put an end to tomorrow. So for the time being, we must demand that human rights are protected.

And in Libya, that means profound descretion. That doesn't mean turning our back on rape, but making sure that we don't sensationalize the issue, leaving it to the experts.

That's my two cents worth.

Peter Braid Does Not Stand up For the Troops or Kitchener-Waterloo

It is almost painful to watch this member of Parliament from Kitchener-Waterloo gulp his way through this interview. He was obviously provided with talking points, and when they were called out, he simply couldn't defend his party's position on this issue.

I thought it was extremely polite of Bob Rae and Paul Dewar, to cut him some slack. If the tables were turned and it was a Liberal, NDP or Bloc in the hot seat, you can be sure the Reformers would not be so gracious.

What they are talking about is the horrible ten-percenter (taxpayer funded) attack ad that Braid's party has been distributing, suggesting that the opposition parties have been attacking the troops. In fact the exact opposite is true.

The Reformers have been hiding behind the troops, to avoid questions of possible war crimes, and as such, our troops are taking the blame.

I really like both Bob Rae and Paul Dewar and thought they handled the interview extremely well. I would have been mad as hell.

However, Mr. Braid has proven that he does not act well under pressure and just kept repeating the same old tired lines about our brave men and women. If they really cared about our brave and women, they would do the right thing and call a full public inquiry. Because if they don't, the International criminal court takes over and this is what will define the mission.

I've never supported the war, but will always stand up for our soldiers. I just wish Stephen Harper would do the same.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS PETER BRAID REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR KITCHENER-WATERLOO?

Conservatives Sit Down For Canada and Leave National Portrait Gallery Homeless

Paul Dewar of the NDP worked very hard to get the Reform Conservatives to stick to Jean Chretien's plan to keep the National Portrait Gallery in the Nation's capital. Instead after flitting about, they gave the contract to Calgary. Calgary? A NATIONAL gallery in Calgary? Why were we not surprised?

However, as it turned out, the whole fiasco was a lesson in futility, wrought with lies; and we are no further ahead than we were when the campaign first started. Our gallery remains homeless and Conservative incompetence has hurt taxpayers again. When are they going to start taking an interest in Canadian culture? But then Harper doesn't believe Canada has a culture but is simply part of a larger Anglo culture, so what hope is there? Our treasures remain in a warehouse until we can elect a government that gives a damn.

Portrait gallery panel chafes at choice restrictions: documents
By Dean Beeby (CP)
November 15, 2009

OTTAWA — Members of a blue-ribbon panel created to find a home for the Portrait Gallery of Canada felt handcuffed because the federal government forbade them from examining key cost and tourism issues, says a newly released report.

The five-member panel was also misinformed at its crucial selection meeting that all five of the private-sector bids it was evaluating fully complied with federal rules - learning only months later that two did not.

The turmoil behind closed doors may help explain why the highly politicized search for a private-sector home for the portrait collection ended in a shambles a year ago, with no winning bid and the government abandoning the idea.

The Canadian Press obtained formerly secret accounts of deliberations, through requests under the Access to Information Act, after federal officials reneged on a promise to proactively release the materials.

In early 2007, the Conservative government ditched a plan by Jean Chretien's Liberal government to display the venerable portrait collection in the abandoned American embassy building on Wellington Street, facing Parliament Hill.

About $11.4 million had been spent on the project by that point, though some funds were used to remove asbestos and carry out other renovations that were needed no matter what the future use of the building. Total costs of the new gallery facility were projected in 2005 at $44.6 million.

The Tories instead announced that nine Canadian cities were eligible as a potential homes for the collection and invited private-sector bids, to encourage a public-private partnership and possibly place a cultural institution outside Ottawa.

A panel of five experts, including Canada's chief librarian and archivist Ian Wilson, was struck to evaluate bids and make recommendations. Initial expressions of interest came from 132 firms, including some in Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal and Toronto.

The deadline for submissions was changed twice, after federal officials failed to provide timely answers to basic questions from interested parties.

By May 16 last year, five formal proposals had arrived along with their $1-million deposits - from developers in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and two in Edmonton.

But panel members soon chafed when told they could not consider the costs of operating a new gallery at a distance from the storage facility in nearby Gatineau, Que., where the main collection resides.

A 2006 internal Canadian Heritage memo estimated the remote-location costs would add about $2.5 million to the $5.5-million annual operating bill of any new gallery located far from Ottawa. But this financial information was deemed non-relevant to the bid evaluations.

Panel members were also told they could not consider whether any of the five bids had strong potential for tourism growth.

Members expressed "dissatisfaction with some of the constraints," says a report by Jim Lynes, an independent consultant hired by government to monitor the process.

"There was no way to favour cities with a better potential to generate visitors for the PGC (Portrait Gallery of Canada)," says a censored version of the document.

"There was no opportunity to take the costs of a decentralized facility into consideration."

Federal officials told the panel those "constraints" could not be changed because they reflected "policy direction" from government.

A spokeswoman for Library and Archives Canada, which manages the portrait gallery, said in an interview that tourism had already been considered in creating the nine-city short list. Isabelle Vigneault also said any remaining cost issues would have been dealt with in a "second phase" of the bidding process.

Panel members held an intense selection meeting over two days in July 2008, complaining that some vital information had been provided only at the last minute. They were also given erroneous information on scoring, which cause confusion.

"Members were also concerned that they were not being given enough time to read the five submissions," says Lynes' report, which notes that all bids were officially deemed compliant with the requirements of the tender.

The panel eventually endorsed one bid (the identity is censored in the released material) on condition the government ask the developer to drop some provisions that tilted the deal too far in favour of the private-sector.

The provisions were "unacceptable in that they limited the Crown's rights and ability to act and increased the level of risk for the Crown, while at the same time limiting the risks for the developer."

Lynes' report of the deliberations added that some developers "seemed to fail to recognize that the Portrait Gallery of Canada is a national institution" - the very fear raised by some critics of the process.

The process unravelled in early November when federal lawyers deemed two of the bids - including the favoured one - non-compliant, contrary to assurances the panel was given more than three months earlier.

Lynes' final report, dated Dec. 15, 2008, concluded the bid-and-evaluation process that ultimately failed to produce a winner was technically fair and open, though had only "limited" transparency.

"Although transparency has, to this point, been limited, the planned release of the reports of the evaluation committee and the IRM (independent review monitor) will ensure that the process has been transparent," he wrote.

But the government appears to have had no such plan to proactively release the reports.

Internal Canadian Heritage media lines say the reports "will be made available through access to information," a formal procedure available to anyone wanting to access any government document.

The Canadian Press obtained heavily redacted versions of both reports through the Access to Information Act after months-long delays.

Lynes declined an interview, citing confidentiality agreements. Ian Wilson, who has since retired as librarian and archivist, also declined immediate comment.

"I continue to be bound by the post-employment code and my obligations as a former senior official," he said in an email.

The aborted bid-evaluation process cost taxpayers about $1.9 million, according to the documents.

The Portrait Gallery of Canada remains without a home, residing in the Gatineau warehouse, on a federal website and in occasional exhibitions around the country. The federal government has budgeted $3.5 million annually for the program.