Bandwagons and the NDP. Could They Lose Quebec?

According to Wikipedia, the "bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the proportion who have already done so.  As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence."

The term originated with a circus clown, Dan Rice, who was a household name in the mid nineteenth century. He is credited with creating the modern day circus, though is now considered to be "the most famous man you've never heard of".

The notion of hopping on the bandwagon has become commonplace in politics and political polling; though not always as an affect, but often, a root cause.

While pollsters reveal the results of their polling, the media gets to interpret those results, to create attention grabbing headlines.  "Surges" and "horse races", sell papers or on-line memberships, but they can also have an affect on voting intentions,

In 1994 Claude Emery, prepared a report for the Political and Social Affairs Division on Public Opinion Polling in Canada.

Because polls are generally perceived to be accurate and scientific, the debate on polling centres largely on whether it undermines the democratic process by influencing electoral behaviour and election results. Some political strategists and observers argue that the publication of polls gives an unfair advantage to parties or candidates whose fortunes are seen to be improving. The so-called "bandwagon" effect assumes that knowledge of a popular "tide" will likely change voting intentions in favour of the frontrunner, that many electors feel more comfortable supporting a popular choice.

This is especially true when headlines of "surges" are published near the end of a campaign, before people have had a chance to analyse what has caused the "surge", or if it is even valid.

All summer we have heard of an NDP surge in Canada, especially in Quebec.  But what they don't tell you is that at the beginning of the campaign, 70% of those called were undecided.  Even now it is about 50%.  So how accurate are those polls?  Not very.  And yet the headlines suggest otherwise.

Our local TV station reported last night, that the Conservatives had dropped to third place and the NDP had taken the lead.  But even that is misleading.  The NDP is polling higher in Quebec, skewing national results.  However, in Ontario, they are a distant third.  

Can They Hold Quebec?

There was a discussion on Twitter between the head of Leger Marketing, which has always come out strong for the NDP, and several Bloc supporters.  

Jean-Marc Leger was being criticized for what was deemed to be invalid results, and accused of thwarting democracy.  Leger accused his critics of not liking the results because their guy was not in the lead, but finally contended that the support for the NDP was based on emotion, and that anything could happen come October 19.

The feeling of those debating Leger, was that there was a stronger vibe in Quebec for the Bloc.  I have actually seen similar remarks on social media with many questioning what was creating the headlines.

If it is true that the corporate media is funding Thomas Mulcair, as a push back by the 1%, than the headlines makes sense.  But if not, what is the intent and either way, how fragile is the support?

In January of this year Chantel Hebert stated in a piece Mulcair needs Layton-style miracle to win election, she reminds us that while "no one is completely dismissing the party’s chances to stage a second consecutive spectacular surge in as many elections" that "lightning — even of the political kind — rarely strikes twice." and "Nowhere are NDP roots more shallow than in Mulcair’s home province."

I'm currently reading Social Democracy after the Cold War, Edited by Bryan Evans and Ingo Schmidt (2012 ISBN - 978-1-926836-88-1)  The authors also discuss the fragility of the NDP support in Quebec.

The massive success of the ndp in the 2011 federal election should not obscure the fact that it rests on an extremely weak organizational basis in Québec. While the fifty-nine federal seats gathered in the province represent close to 60 percent of the ndp caucus in Ottawa, its membership in the province was still a mere 2 percent of the total party membership four months after the election . Furthermore, prior to the May 2011 election, only a handful of ridings had local party chapters.  In many areas of the province, the ndp was simply absent or, at best, operated through regional committees. In contrast to other areas in Canada, the ndp had no support from organized labour, and none of Québec’s influential social movements endorsed the party. Most of the victorious candidates, with the notable exception of Mulcair and four or five others, were stand-ins, who had little if any roots in the community. In many cases, they did not even campaign locally. In short, in Québec the ndp is a topheavy party with no solid organizational roots.

Admittedly, things have changed somewhat since 2011, and several unions are now backing Mulcair, but only because they want Harper gone.  However, if the Quebec support wanes, or the NDP no longer look like the winning party, that will change.  No doubt, that is why the media moguls who funded Mulcair's leadership bid, need to keep the headlines going,   Mulcair is not necessarily Quebec's favourite son, but he is theirs.

They need to feed the emotions, so that the heads ignore the facts.

I believe that the Bloc will do much better this time, than in 2011, and that the Liberals will have a better showing.  We just need to find a way to take the wheels off the bandwagon, although the NDP might topple it beforehand.

The statements by a member of their communication team, against the Pope and RC priests, will not sit well in a province that is almost 85% Catholic.  The party is also experiencing conflicts from within.

And as Evans and Schmidt point out:

Not surprisingly, consolidating its breakthrough is presently the ndp’s main objective in Québec. Two strategies are possible.  The one championed by Mulcair and supported by a number of Québec caucus members is to keep to the political mainstream and avoid too close a relationship with organized labour or the social movements... The other possible strategy — put forward by trade unionist Alexandre Boulerice, a cupe staff rep newly elected in the Montreal riding of Rosemont — is to build the party from below by strengthening the party’s links with labour and the social movements while keeping a strong focus on defending Québec’s national rights, including the right to self-determination.

Mulcair is trying to do both, but is not doing either very well.  Saying one thing in French and the opposite in English; or one thing in Quebec and the opposite in the rest of Canada; while classic Mulcair; is being caught by social media, and even some members of the MSM.

As for Boulerice, an increasingly influential voice in the caucus, his identification with labour and militant resistance to the Harper Conservatives is definitely an asset. His refusal to cave in to public pressure from English-Canadian media and renounce his membership in Québec Solidaire (as interim ndp caucus leader Nycole Turmel was forced to do in August 2011) has won him considerable respect among activists. However, he was forced by the party leadership to backtrack on the Palestinian issue and withdraw his very public support for the “Canadian boat to Gaza” initiative. He has also remained silent on some errors committed by party leaders with regard to matters sensitive to Québecers, one example being the unexplained acceptance of a unilingual Supreme Court judge named to the bench by the Tory government. 

At this stage, the balance of forces within the party is far from favourable to a “grassroots left” strategy. At best, this strategy might coexist with a more dominant “social democracy from above” approach. ... The late Jack Layton was very adept at navigating the treacherous waters of Québec. His background as a social activist and his public support for the right to self-determination gave him considerable leeway in the province. But that might not be the case with his successor Mulcair. (Evans/Schmidt 2012)

Anything top heavy, risks a collapse.  I think there is a very strong possibility that the NDP will lose Quebec. Pollsters can only hold them up for so long before the public cries foul.  They are already doing that.  Just ask Jean-Marc Leger.

Clearly Liberalism is Not Dead Though Conservatism May be On Life Support

When Stephen Harper was with the Reformers, promoting an American style conservative movement, he mocked Canada's historic Conservative Party, because they boasted to be descended from Sir John A. MacDonald. "So what!" he said.

Recently the Harper government conducted a poll to determine the top ten Canadians who inspired us. From top to bottom:

1. Pierre Trudeau
2. Terry Fox
3. Tommy Douglas
4. Lester B. Pearson
5. Chris Hadfield
6. David Suzuki
7. Sir. John A. MacDonald
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Jack Layton
10. Romeo Dallaire

What first struck me about the list was that no women were included.

What about Agnes McPhail, the first female MP and her work on prison reform? The Famous Five who fought and won the right for women to become "persons", not chattel? Louise Arbour who became the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? The list goes on.

Most who made the cut are self explanatory, since they contributed a great deal to building Canada as a nation, and strengthened our international reputation.

Jack Layton was a puzzle though. He enjoyed some political success but I can't think of anything he did that would stand the test of time.

He joined Stephen Harper in fighting against the Kyoto accord and even campaigned against the carbon tax, claiming that it would hurt families, despite the fact that it was revenue neutral.

Elizabeth May recounted her experience with Layton and his political move.

I remember phoning Jack Layton to beg him not to bring down the government on the opening day of the climate conference. I had known and liked Jack since he was on Toronto City Council. He had been enormously helpful, volunteering as an auctioneer in local Sierra Club events. He told me when he ran for leader of the NDP that he was only seeking a role in federal politics to deal with the climate crisis. I had believed him. As he threatened to sabotage the most important global climate negotiations in history, I recall leaving a message on his cellphone: "How will you look at yourself in the mirror if you do this?"

... It is only with hindsight that I have come to believe that the climate negotiations were not merely collateral damage to the incidental timing of November 2 8. I now believe that Harper and Layton had a shared desire to pull the plug before the Martin government had a chance to look good on the world stage. I think it is extremely likely, given the way Layton downplayed the climate threat in 2006, that a conscious decision was made by NDP strategists. They had to make sure the key issue remained Liberal corruption for the NDP to avoid losing votes to the Liberals. (Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7)

A similar strategy backfired in the recent Ontario election.

I liked Jack Layton but he was not at the heart NDP, at least not in the Tommy Douglas tradition. He spent the most on travel, he exploited subsidized housing" and a study conducted by McMaster University, revealed that he was the nastiest MP.

I can think of many others more deserving, but there is a bigger issue with the list.

What does this say to Stephen Harper?

Our heroes fought for a Just Society, gave us National Healthcare, Peacekeepers, fight for the Environment and the plight of the downtrodden. Except for MacDonald, none were Conservative, though our first prime minister was nothing like our current, as Harper himself reminded us.

Clearly, Canada has not moved to the right, as some suggest. We cherish everything that Stephen Harper fights against.

It's also interesting as we watch American politics, in the days of the Tea Party, that they actually share the same values.

NBC recently conducted a poll asking who was the best President in the past 25 years. Bill Clinton was number one and Barack Obama number two.

As an interesting coincidence, the son of Canada's first choice will be running for Prime Minister in 2014, while the wife of America's first choice, may be running for President in 2016.

Harper conducted the poll in preparation for our 150th anniversary in 2017. We just have to make sure that the poll is his only involvement in the process.

How can we expect someone who wants to destroy everything our inspirations built, speak for our country?

Harper's Assault on Libya NOT Sanctioned by UN

I wondered why Harper took the extension of the so-called "mission" in Libya to Parliament. He didn't have to. As prime minister he alone can decide whether or not to go to war.

One of the arguments was that it was sanctioned by the UN. However, what got passed in Parliament was a motion to ignore the UN mandate and go right for a Bush style "regime change".

A continuation of the Bush Doctrine, now dubbed the Harper Doctrine.

These are the actions that the UN Security Council prescribed for the international community in terms of dealing with the man who wanted oil companies to pay more.

1.imposing a no-fly zone over Libya;
2.imposing an arms embargo;
3.prevention of the provision of armed mercenary personnel and
4.the freezing of financial assets, both state owned and private, held outside Libya.

And those measures came with the following specific demands:

“the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;” and “ the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people…with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

But John Baird and Peter Mackay claimed that the Libyan "mission" cannot be achieved until the regime of Moammar Gadhafi is overthrown. I've heard similar lines before but always from American neocons.

Gadhafi should only be overthrown if that's what the majority of Libyans want, but we don't know, or obviously even care, what the majority of Libyans want. And they can't tell us because they are too busy dodging the damn bombs we're dropping on them.

The NDP used to be the party that peace activists flocked to, but every single one of them approved of this. They try to take the high road by suggesting that we can only completely destroy this country if we increase humanitarian aid.

The war profiteers were high fiving in the background because they are all too often the recipients of "humanitarian aid". The most humanitarian thing to do would be to stop dropping bombs.

The rebel forces have been unable to capitalize because there are not enough of them to move in. A ragtag group of Islamic fundamentalists, some according to West Point with ties to Al-Qaeda , and former Gadhafi forces who may or may not remain loyal to the cause.



Only Elizabeth May can claim any moral authority here. I am so proud of her.

I keep thinking of the young NDPer with the T-shirt 'I still hate George Bush'. I think she needs to put it away now.

Roland Paris, director of the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa, believes that we are creating another quagmire.

After stumbling into an Afghan mission based on mistaken assumptions, surely we have an obligation to scrutinize the details of any plans for international participation in Libya’s reconstruction…

For starters, is there a plan to deploy ground forces in Libya? If so, under what circumstances? Who would provide troops? How quickly could they be deployed, where would they go, what would they do?

Another priority may be restoring basic services to the population, including food, medical supplies, health care, electricity, fuel, policing and justice. How can international actors help to provide these services without engendering problems of dependency, economic distortion and local resentment that are sometimes the unintended effects of massive aid interventions?

What about the work of rebuilding Libya? The rebel council’s democratic principles offer a foundation, but a thin one. What role will the UN and other outsiders play? The notion that Libyans should “own” their political transition makes sense, but what does this mean in practice? What if Libya can’t support Western-style democracy? In the wide spectrum between Col. Gadhafi and Thomas Jefferson, what outcomes would be acceptable, and to whom?

All important questions, but ones that we may have the answers to. The rebel forces already have a bank and a national oil company, courtesy of Canada and the USA.

And they have also hired the most expensive lobbying firm on the planet. Who is paying them I wonder?

I see another decade of war. Harper already bored with Afghanistan, leaving a stronger Taliban and an insanely corrupt government behind, will probably move our troops to Libya.

Lawrence Martin told us in his book Harperland, that our current warring prime minister, does not seek peace in the world, but follows the neocon doctrine of a 'Clash of Civilizations'.

Jack Layton had better start paying attention. His job is to oppose this government, not hold their hand while they are out buying bombs.

He suggested as much to the Liberals when they were the official opposition. Now he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

Mushy Middles, Dirty Words and Why we Must Rebuild the Centre

When I posted on why Jack Layton should drop the "brothers and sisters" socialist talk if he hoped to survive the next four years, I received several comments and many emails, telling me that I was wrong.

Many of his followers actually fully support the socialist label, because like Stephen Harper, they believe that Canadians should only have two clear choices. Right or left. Neoconservatism or socialism.

They have no problem with a Harper majority, because they believe that Canadians will become disillusioned with the right, so will jump to the left next election for solutions.

One said that the reason they set out to destroy the Liberals, was because they hated the "mushy middle". The Liberals (and PCs) were able to borrow from both right and left, while attempting to stave off the excesses of both. Not always successfully, but that strong centre has made us who we are as Canadians.

Or at least who we were.

But this reader was convinced that with no "mushy middle", Canadians would get tired of their "empty wallets" and look to the NDP to fill them.

Good luck with that.

Barack Obama was one of the most progressive political leaders that the United States has had in a very long time. And yet the right-wing noise machine, through the Koch Brothers sponsored Tea party, and the Republican Neanderthals, have all but destroyed him.

First by painting him as a "socialist" and then making "socialist" a dirty word. A very clever strategy.

Because the question became not whether some form of socialism might be good for Americans (especially with healthcare), but whether or not Obama was one. And since you had to ask it must be something to be feared.

The same tactic used in identifying him as an Islamic. They actually had polls asking Americans if they thought that Obama was Muslim, as if being Muslim was a disease.

Look at the two images, both produced by Fox News, North and South.





Anything strike you as familiar?

The neocons in the U.S. were even able to destroy ACORN, an umbrella group of community organizers, that has done so many good things.

They first used dirty tricks, and then once they felt that they had discredited the organization sufficiently, they then linked it constantly to the president. It was once something he was proud to put on his resume, now his affiliation, is something he is supposed to be ashamed of.

Obama's ACORN, Ignatieff's Coalition, Layton's Socialism.

Negative connotations to legitimate things.

How many times did the Harperites use "socialists" during the coalition crisis? A coalition of "separatists and socialists". Now the socialists have destroyed the separatists and the picking off of "the socialists" will be like taking candy from a baby for Harper.

Because he has all of the Tea party money and nonsense behind him, and next time around I doubt Layton will get much media support, when they are promised a zero tax rate.

"Mushy middle" parties strived for balance.

The Right-Wing Noise Machine

In her book It's the Crude, Dude; Linda McQuaig discusses the debate around Kyoto. Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration of course hated it, but they also hated any talk of conservation, something Cheney sneered at.

Ralph Goodale responded to Cheney by saying that "conservation was a characteristic of an advanced, intelligent society." (p. 133)

McQuaig goes on to reveal how a Canadian anti-Kyoto group sprang up overnight, sponsored by the oil companies, to defend Dick Cheney's position.

To give some idea of what Jack Layton would be up against if he still plans to go it alone, that group, Responsible Environmental Solutions, was headed up by Guy Giorno and included Harper's former environmental minister, John Baird.

Layton would later allow Stephen Harper to talk him into bringing down the Liberal government on the day that Kyoto was to be ratified, and agreed not to attack Harper during the campaign.

As a result, we will go at least a decade with NO CLIMATE CHANGE plan.

Assorted right-wing think tanks, advocacy groups and noise machines, will never allow the NDP to get elected, and if by some miracle they do, will never allow them to govern.

The Fraser Institute was started to challenge the NDP government of Dave Barrett in British Columbia. Ontarians for Responsible Government (a branch of the National Citizens Coalition) was established to challenge the NDP government of Bob Rae in Ontario.

They won't need to establish a new think tank to take down Jack Layton, because they already have numerous groups, all corporate financed, most American neoconservative inspired.

By destroying his allies, Layton has made himself a big fish in a very small barrel.

Since I Can't Comment on My Blog I Must Explain Jack Layton Post

After posting my piece yesterday: Jack Layton Needs to Spend the Summer Taking "Speech" Lessons I received a couple of comments in defense of the Layton strategy.

I'm still unable to respond on my own blog, so I thought I'd explain myself. I don't want to see the NDP destroyed. They were always my "go to" party if the PCs screwed up. However, as someone who has been following and studying the neoconservative movement, I see how easily it was for Harper to set up the NDP.

In 2004, when he arranged a meeting with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, he convinced them that they must help him destroy the Liberals, so they should both attack the Sponsorship Scandal with all the gusto they could muster. And they did.

The Liberals were attacked on all fronts, despite the fact that the stage was set for the Sponsorship Scandal by Brian Mulroney, who hired all the cronies, and introduced them to the 'culture of entitlement' (see Stevie Cameron's On the Take) Every name is there.

Jack Layton's father was a cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, and since Layton tries to paint all Liberals with the Adscam brush, I guess turnabout is fair play.

Harper's strategy worked and he now has his majority. But what's interesting is the way it played out. He knew he couldn't beat the Bloc in Quebec, because his ideology is the complete opposite to what most Quebecers believe.

So instead he allowed the NDP to destroy them, getting his majority without Quebec. He never felt comfortable "sucking up to them" in the first place. (see Lawrence Martin's Harperland)

And it didn't take long for the right-wing media to rile the West with the Layton/Quebec match up.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the NDP "surge" was contrived, because the headlines appeared before the actual surge. But it is what it is. Harper couldn't have written the script better himself.

He will spend the next four years polarizing Canadians into a right/left divide. His plan all along.

Although it wasn't even originally his plan, but that of Ernest Manning's, the long serving Social Credit premier of Alberta. He set out to destroy the Liberals by working within the Conservative Party of John Diefenbaker.

Dief toyed with the idea of an alliance until a member of his caucus, Jim MacDonnell, whose father was a friend of Sir John A. MacDonald, exclaimed that the party founder "would now turn over in his grave!" (see One Canada by John Diefenbaker)

So Manning's next strategy was to have the head of the federal Social Credit Party, Rob Thompson, run for the Conservatives, hoping he would then be in a position to merge the two parties from the inside. That also failed.

With corporate financing, he wrote his little book: Political Realignment, and sent his son, Preston Manning, along with friend Erick Schmidt, to the PC convention, again to encourage a merger. But Robert Stanfield, a Red Tory (Harper called Red Tories "pink Liberals") was chosen, and the two young men sent on their way.

The Mannings knew they would have to wait, so wait they did. Political Realignment drew the attention of the National Citizens Coalition, and a marriage was sanctified. To complete the new strategy, the NCC hired Arthur Finklestein, who took liberal bashing to a new level. Finklestein also created the idea of Independent Expenditure Campaigns, in response to a tightening of political contributions after Watergate.

He helped to turn the NCC from a simple protest group, into a full blown, corporate financed, purveyor of Independent Expenditure Campaigns (third party advertising), while Manning advised that they become designated non-profit, to enjoy the tax breaks.

The next wave came with western anger over the National Energy Policy and Mulroney's decision to give a military contract to Montreal, that was promised to Winnipeg, and the Reform Party was born.

David Frum attempted another merger when Jean Charest became Conservative leader, but soon realized that the two parties were polar opposites, so they again bided their time.

Finally, with Peter MacKay at the helm, and a $500,000 loan hanging over his head, he sold out to Harper and the PC Party was no more. Harper claims to know who paid MacKay's loan but refuses to divulge the information. Possibly Karlheinz Schreiber, a close friend of MacKay's father. ( MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper: No conflict, party leader says, by Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited, May 13, 2004)

That was 2003, and in 2004, the next phase to destroy the centre began.

It's important for Jack Layton to understand just how this movement began and how deeply entrenched it is, if he hopes to survive.

And using language like "brothers and sisters", only fuels the right-wing noise machine.

So I stand by my opinion that he needs to develop a new language, if he hopes to make his party palpable to the average Canadian, who gets all their messaging from Harper's communications team.

We know how important trade unions are, but at the beginning of the debate over the back to work legislation, Canadians were split down the middle. By the end, they were 70% against the postal workers. Why? Because the Conservatives sold their side better.

Layton's rhetoric only helps the right-wingers paint him as a communist. A "red threat". Completely irrational, but this movement is anything but rational. Have you read the comments sections at the end of on-line articles? Harper's supporters defend his purchase of the F-35s, because the communists of Russia and China are threatening our Arctic sovereignty.

And it doesn't matter how many experts claim that these planes are no good for the Arctic, you will not budge them. Why do you think the government is building a monument to the victims of Communism?

Personally, I don't think commie plots are our biggest threat. I don't even believe that terrorism is. The biggest threat we are facing today is ignorance.

For heaven sake, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are both thought by some to be the next president of the United States. In fact, other Republican hopefuls, are dumming down their message to compete with their stupidity.

Can you imagine if one of these women had access to the metaphorical red button?

Oye!

So hopefully, when Parliament resumes in the fall, Jack Layton will have learned something from this. He needs to change his strategy or he's doomed, and unfortunately, so are we.

Jack Layton Needs to Spend the Summer Taking "Speech" Lessons

Matt Latimer, a former George Bush speechwriter, wrote a book on his experiences at the White House. Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor.

In it he speaks of how excited he was to be hired to write presidential speeches. Pearls of wisdom that would be passed from generation to generation.

But once he joined the 'team", he learned that he was little more than an ad man. George Bush didn't want lavish speeches, he wanted slogans. If it wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, it had no place in his parlance.

Harper insider, David Frum, also a George Bush speech writer, carefully crafted the gem, "axis of evil". My hero.

However, the most important task for speech writers in the Bush administration was crafting messages. When they were first considering bailing out banks during the economic crisis, many conservatives said that this was tantamount to nationalizing the banks, and sounded like socialism.

Bush needed the team to write a speech that made nationalizing the banks, not sound like socialism, despite the fact that it kinda' was.

Stephen Harper has increased government advertising by 300% and has the largest communications team, of any prime minister (maybe even larger than George Bush's or God's), and yet he doesn't really communicate with us.

And that's because this over bloated office has one function and one function only. To craft messages, so that things that are clearly wrong for our country, sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

They won the standoff with the NDP over the postal strike, because they carefully crafted the message as concern for charities and small businesses. Canadians soon forgot that it was not the workers who stopped the mail, but management.

I admired Jack Layton and the NDP for their filibuster, but it was doomed to fail from the get go. And that's because of messaging.

Layton, maybe still stinging from the booing his party got for suggesting that they drop 'socialism' from their constitution, met with postal workers and referred to them as his "brothers and sisters".

I didn't know if he was going to rap or break into a rendition of the Hymn of the Bolsheviks. What was he thinking? This is just the kind of ammunition the Harperites needed. Doesn't he remember this from Fox News North?



Instead of worrying about the term 'socialist', he needs to remove the nonsense from his own speaking. "Big oil, big banks and big gas" are just annoying now. And anti-corporation rhetoric will win him few favours with anyone. Instead he needs to focus on how to work with big business, to make them more responsible.

He sounds like a crotchety old man complaining about the yunguns' playing their 8-tracks too loud.

In the age of globalization "big oil, big gas and big banks" are going to be with us for a very long time.

Layton has some clever young people in his caucus. Tap into their youthful passion, and allow them to present some catchy alternatives to the same old jargon.

Because this legislation was important for all of us. It was not just about protecting good union jobs, that benefit small business and charities, but also, setting a tone.

In Mike Harris's Ontario, there was an atmosphere of distrust, as the government encouraged people to report their neighbours and co-workers, if they were bending the rules. General Motors, picking up on the vibe, placed a suggestion type box in their factory, encouraging workers to "snitch" on their fellow workers.

It didn't last long, because the union stepped in and the box was removed.

This time, management won over workers, and the nation rejoiced. The message is clear. They are the boss and will always be the boss, and if you want to keep your job, you do as you're told. How long before we see another "snitch" box?

During the Mike Harris years in Ontario, the clashes between government and unions were legendary and riot police became as normal a view at Queen's Park as the sculptures.

We need to stop this trend before it gets started, and the only way to do that is to convince Canadians, with messaging, that unions are important. Without them income disparity will only grow, and our middle class obliterated.

That's the argument the NDP need to present to the Canadian people. Referring to union workers as "brothers and sisters" only provides fodder for the right-wing media.

One of my readers posted a link to a column written by Harper's former VP at the National Citizens Coalition, Gerry Nicholls. In it he discusses the fact that Harper's ultimate goal was to completely destroy the Liberal Party.

Indeed, his desire to eliminate the Liberals is something he and I discussed way back in the days when we worked together at the National Citizens Coalition. His theory, as explained to me, was that conservatism would be better served in this country if Canada had a two-party system, one that pitted right against left, free enterprise against socialism, Conservatives against New Democrats. He believed that, in such a polarized political environment, a conservative-oriented party would have a huge advantage over its left-wing rival. When given a clear choice, voters will usually pick conservatism over socialism.

Astonishingly, Harper was able to convince Jack Layton that destroying the Liberals would be good for him too, so Jack complied.

Little did he know at the time, that he was setting himself up, because Harper is right. The majority of Canadians will never choose socialism over free enterprise. Now with the PCs eliminated and the Liberals weakened, we are moving toward a one-party state.

And that "my brothers and sisters" is the simple truth.

Why the NDP Filibuster Could Help Liberals in the Long Run

The NDP has dropped their filibuster, and naturally the Conservatives are rightfully claiming a resounding victory.

The Conservative benches erupted in cheers and backslapping as the final vote was held Saturday night, signalling that the official Opposition New Democrats had folded their tent on a decision the party's deputy leader called "preordained." Prime Minister Stephen Harper emerged from the chamber with Labour Minister Lisa Raitt to say his government had prevailed in the court of public opinion.

"We know what side the public was on and I think today members of Parliament on the other side finally started to get that message," said Harper. Calling the three days of round-the-clock debate in Parliament "a completely unnecessary delay," Harper said he was "nevertheless pleased that soon Canadians will again have access to their postal service, particularly small businesses and charities."

I was pleased that the NDP had gone back to their roots, standing with labour, but once you start something like this, you have to finish it, or appear weak.

I think this has definitely weakened them. Not that we shouldn't applaud their efforts, but by sticking to "charities" and "small business" as those the Conservatives were fighting for, they gave themselves leverage, while the NDP appeared to be backing self serving unions. Very sad, but Jack Layton should have known that you can't fight the right-wing noise machine by keeping it oiled.

Or by what Bob Rae called "shambolic behaviour". The ritual pawing of the ground, while unable to add bite to your bark.

Rae saw the standoff as a battle between two ideologies, and while the Conservatives were able to massage the public with the careful crafting of their message, the NDP were not, which will remind those non-conservative supporters that Layton is not a viable alternative to Harper.

This was his first real test.

After some NDP members arrogantly tried to pass a motion, banning any merger talks with the Liberals, but instead saying that the door was open for us to join them, the NDP dropped two points in the polls (Nanos). Their loss was divided between Conservatives and Liberals. They continue to remain strong only in Quebec.

Layton may have joined forces with Stephen Harper to destroy the Liberal Party, but he is instead destroying us. This country fared better when Liberals and NDP worked together. An NDP/Reform-Conservative alliance will never work, and I think Layton may finally be realizing that.

Because not only did his machinations give Harper a majority, but this latest drama, that played so well into Harper's hands, will hurt his party's integrity, while boosting the Conservatives in the polls.

They will continue to play the "socialist" card and within four years I see the NDP crushed by the neoconservatives. The plan all along if Layton had only put his ego aside for a minute and reminded himself of who Stephen Harper really is, and what he stands for.

He has only himself to blame, and posturing over the Sponsorship scandal, just won't cut it in the long term. He'd better develop a strategy quick.

In the meantime, the Liberals can continue to promote themselves as the alternative this country needs. The Conservatives won this one, but we will indeed see more clashing of ideologies.

And the Liberals must continue to provide a voice of reason.

Will Bob Rae and Jack Layton Attempt to Filibuster Back to Work Legislation?

Jack Layton has vowed to filibuster Conservative back to work legislation, and Bob Rae is standing in solidarity with postal workers.

Harper is being Harper, siding with management and throwing in a few 'economy, economy, economy'.

The 'economy' doesn't stop his taxpayer funded self-promotion ads or 'hospitality' extravaganzas. Or ballooning his own costs and bloating his cabinet with extra salaries, limos and expense accounts.

But fair negotiations with unionized workers, will cripple us?

Harper's National Citizens Coalition was very anti-union, and the PM personally hates unions almost as much as he hates liberals, so we already know what his tactics will be.

But this is a little different. The people I speak with are for the most part supportive of the postal workers. Wisconsin looms large, and fear that their own bargaining powers could be weakened, is a factor.

We are not just supporting postal workers, but the real meat and potatoes of the Canadian economy. Even if we work for a non-unionized company, that business is probably thriving because of good union jobs. Workers spend money in this country, and that's the real trickle down.

Corporations hold onto their dough, trying to keep more and more of it for themselves.

Today's debate should be interesting, though don't be surprised if Layton throws in a 'sponsorship scandal' or two.

Sigh.

Will NDP Members Vote for Their Party to Go Right?

As angry as I have been with Jack Layton and his alliance with Stephen Harper, I had great hope for the party.

Packed now with union leaders, activists and bright-eyed youth, I thought they might be able to rouse Parliament with a bit of the prairie fire, ignited by Tommy Douglas.

Or before him, J.S. Woodsworth, who refused to leave the floor until the government was willing to enact prison reform.

But alas, it's just more of the same: "Big oil, big banks, sponsorship scandal. Big oil, big banks, sponsorship scandal". I expect them to break out in song in a remake of the Wizard of Oz. "Lions and tigers and bears, oh, my".

Perhaps that's fitting, as the Wizard of the NDP is acting more and more like the man behind the curtain, or as longtime NDP insider, James Laxer once said of Layton, the man who fakes left, but goes right.

That was written in 2006, when Layton left the Kelowna Accord and a national childcare plan on the table.

In 2008, Laxer again criticized Layton's leadership, feeling that he was causing the party to lose direction, missing an opportunity to build a progressive movement.

He was driven purely by power so joined forces with Stephen Harper to destroy the Liberals, instead of focusing on what this country needed. A strong voice on the left.

This weekend's convention could put the final nail in the coffin, of what men like Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth tried to build, as Layton is expecting the membership to vote on measures that will clearly move them to the right.

Delegates to this weekend's convention will be asked to eradicate the word "socialist" from the NDP constitution. A proposed new preamble touts the party's "social democratic principles" of economic and social equality, individual freedom and responsibility and democratic rights — replacing the current preamble's dedication to the principles of "democratic socialism," which include "social ownership" and a pox on making a profit.

{Brad] Lavigne says the proposed change is simply part of a "modernization" of the constitution, begun two years ago, getting rid of out-moded phrases that no one uses anymore. For his part, Layton declines to explain the difference between social democratic principles and democratic socialism. "I couldn't give you a quick primer on that. I've offered lengthy courses on the topic over the years," he said earlier this week.

Layton then goes into his usual food on the table, education, medicine and pensions. And yet he is not insisting that Flaherty tell him what 111 things he's going to cut (it's a secret) or demanding that the health minister produce the Canada Health Act. Instead she is getting away with touting the party line "we're increasing transfer payments".

But for all those socialists out there, not to worry: "the NDP resolutions do include some staple big bank- and corporation-bashing".

Again ringing hollow, seeing as how the Libyan "mission" is for "big oil" and "big banks" (Goldman-Sachs already has their foot in the door).

The Liberals gave us our flag, our national anthem, our unique rights culture and our Just Society. And they accomplished that when governing from the centre, taking from both the right and the left.

But much of the success of this nation came from the NDP, making sure that the country stayed on course.

Stephen Harper's political victories came by pretending to be Liberal, or Progressive Conservative, answering the question insider Tom Flanagan once asked: "how do we convince Canadians that we are moving to the left, when we're not"? This has led to a mistrust, since those who know better, are well aware of his far-right ideology.

Now Jack Layton also wants to pretend to be Liberal, so he can take over that base. It won't happen. Right leaning Liberals would go Conservative, because of Layton's anti-corporate posturing, and left-leaning Liberals, would probably go to the Green Party, if either decided to jump ship.

However, I believe most will instead work to rebuild the party, that has given Canada so much. We lost the Progressive Conservatives and we can't afford to lose the Liberals.

I mean who would Jack Layton spend all of his time bashing then, seeing as how he has always given the Conservatives a free ride?

Jack Layton May Have Sold Out for Nothing

I mentioned yesterday being surprised that every single NDP voted in favour of bombing the hell out of Libya.

Layton performed his usual posturing, saying yes drop those 1000 bombs, but then I'm going to say enough. What an amazing blowhard he has turned out to be.

Well, Jack, you may have sold out a little too soon. Apparently Gaddafi is now negotiating with the rebels.

I know that the NDP could not stop Harper, but a "no" vote would have been symbolic. For years those on the left have been critical of the Liberals, for too often supporting American Imperialism. The NDP would never do that, or so we were led to believe.

Well, guess what? Not only would they, but they did.

And in a surprising twist, the Republicans are questioning the U.S. reason for the "mission". (bombs for oil)

Republican leaders demanded a written justification of military involvement in Libya from President Barack Obama on Wednesday as the traditionally hawkish party shows signs of losing its appetite for war.

This puts the NDP just right of the Republicans.

Poor Harper. If there is a truce, and peace is negotiated with Gaddafi's son, and a promised election on their terms, what is he going to do with all those damn bombs? $130 million worth.

What a screwed up country we've become. And just think. Another 4-5 years of a Harper majority with Jack Layton "holding the bully's coat". I'm so thrilled.

Will the Harperites Make the NDP Swear an Oath of Allegiance?

Jean Chrétien has recently weighed in on the NDP's stance on national unity.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien says he's disturbed by the NDP's "ambiguity" on national unity and its willingness to resurrect the debate over the Constitution.
He was referring to an NDP caucus that suddenly includes sympathizers of Quebec independence and is the first pan-Canadian party to oppose the Clarity Act, Chretien's landmark law which sets rules for a future referendum.

"Obviously, there's some ambiguity and I see they've started to talk about the Constitution again since the election," Chretien said during a visit to Quebec City. "I said in 1993: 'If you want to talk about the Constitution, vote against me because I won't go there. There are other problems than that."'

When he mentioned 1993, I remembered something from that time.

It was the year that Harper's Reform Party and the Bloc, made election history, with the Reformers winning 52 seats, and the Bloc, 54, to become the official opposition.

Reformers had taken a tough stand with Quebec, and had joined forces with the Alliance for the Preservation of English, to challenge bilingualism.

Things became charged when members of APEC set fired to a Quebec flag in Brockville.

“On a platform behind the train station, a Quebec flag was spread out. About half a dozen demonstrators took turns stomping and spitting on the Fleur-de-lis before it was set ablaze.”(Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 1992)

And for a bit of trivia, one of Harper's new senators, Bob Runciman, was a supporter.

“The Brockville chapter of APEC successfully opposed a petition to introduce French immersion classes in the Leeds and Grenville school district; not that the school board really needed prodding from APEC to turn down French immersion. Bob Runciman, the local MPP, supports APEC and has addressed a meeting of its Brockville chapter.” (Kingston Whig-Standard, July 11 1987)

“Runciman has apparently helped whip up the anti-bilingualism sentiment in the area, and [APEC] members claimed 1,400 people have joined the cause in Brockville and 10,000 across the province.” (The Toronto Star, Aug 16 1987)

But I digress.

In the piece on Chretien, it states that: 'The NDP stance would seem to be at odds with the Clarity Act, which calls for a clear majority for sovereigntists before Ottawa would entertain negotiations to break up the country.'

However, as I've mentioned several times, Jack Layton actually campaigned in 2004, on a promise to repeal the Clarity Act.

So back to my original question and the 1993 election results.

Several Reform Party MPs suggested that since the Bloc was a separatist party, their MPs should be forced to pledge allegiance to Canada. (video below) They also liberally threw out words like "treason", not unlike the insane rantings during the 2008 coalition crisis.

So given the fact that the NDP now has 59 MPs from Quebec, several of whom are also "separatists", with the leader vowing to scrap the Clarity Act, will the Reformers in the House, of which there are many (including the prime minister), demand that they pledge an Oath of Allegiance?

It would be no crazier today than it was in 1993. (and yes, this is tongue in cheek)

Jack Layton Wins as Least Civil in the House

A new study concludes that Jack Layton is the least civil MP during Question Period.

As he aims to introduce a more positive, pleasant opposition party in Parliament Thursday, a new civility index finds NDP leader Jack Layton is among the worst offenders when it comes to negative exchanges during Question Period.

Sure, it’s his job to rattle the government’s chains and hold the status quo to account. But Mr. Layton may want to rebrand his effort to create a better Question Period and atmosphere in Parliament, suggests the index created by communications researchers at McMaster University.

And while it is the Opposition's job to hold the government to account, if you peruse Hansard, you'll see that many, if not most of Layton's barbs were against the Liberals ... when they were NOT the government.

Kyoto Now Officially Dead

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations" - Stephen Harper

From Stephen Harper to Jack Layton, the Kyoto Protocol never really had a chance.

The Canadian taxpayer has spent millions of dollars so that the Harper government could deny that global warming was real.

And Peter Kent's posturing with the tar sands is only because they have not done enough PR to change public opinion.

Finally, at this year's G-8, Canada has officially pulled out.

We were never really in.

The Move Forward to Colonialism

This week the Harper regime announced that they would be changing the name of "Indian Affairs" to "Aboriginal Affairs", seemingly the politically correct thing to do.

Immediately, several First Nations' leaders spoke out against the change, because it lumps all such nations into one. A legitimate argument.

On the other hand, aboriginal advocacy groups, believe that it will mean broader qualifications for government services. And indeed as part of the press release, Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Stephen Harper, said that “Changing the term used in the minister’s title from ‘Indian’ to ‘aboriginal’ better reflects the scope of the minister’s responsibilities" as they would now include Inuit and Métis.

However, to me, the name change means nothing, because it still fails to address the special relationship between the modern Canadian state and our indigenous people. The term "responsibilities" has the familiar paternal tone.

In his 2000 Massey lecture: the Rights Revolution, Michael Ignatieff wrote of us:

We are British North Americans, a colonial people in refuge from the republican experiment to the south. We are a community forged by the primal experience of negotiating terms of settlement among three peoples: the English, the French, and the aboriginal First Nations. This gives us a particular rights culture and it is this rights culture that makes us different. (1)

Those terms of settlement have been breached, and what we have created instead is a form of colonialism, where many First Nations people are subjugated.

Todd Gordon in his book Imperialist Canada, rightfully states that Canadian Imperialism begins with our Empire at Home.

The Canadian state's relationship with indigenous people provides a sharp example of the policy of accumulation by dispossession, and serves as a potent reminder of Canada's imperialist history. Any discussion of Canadian imperialism really must begin at home. Indigenous nations are Canada's very own Third World colonies, created and managed as part of an intensive, ongoing colonial project ... (2)

So while we can look at the living conditions on many reserves, with disgust, we can't make any significant changes until we understand the severity of the crimes against the people living there.

As Gordon reminds us.

There were hundreds of indigenous nations living across present-day Canada on land rich in resources, that did not wish to participate in the state and big business's plans for them and their land. But it was precisely the natural wealth of indigenous land and the labour of indigenous peoples (and poor immigrants) that provided the necessary basis for Canadian capital to grow and prosper in the first place, and to eventually move abroad to become a globally competitive force. It was on indigenous lands that mines were developed, oil discovered, private farms to feed the growing urban centres established, railways connecting the vast Canadian market laid, roads to transport goods carved out of the landscape and tourist resorts built. The whole foundation of Canadian capitalism rests upon indigenous land and resources. (2)

So this nation's prosperity was only possible because of negotiated terms of settlement. Terms of settlement that we are constantly abusing.

And that abuse is justified through a sense of racial superiority. A notion that will be accelerated with Fox News North reducing land claim issues to a struggle between "Indians and White People".

In Jack Layton's book, Speaking Out, he says:

I've learned from my years in municipal government that healthy public policy should shift resources to communities themselves, empowering those who live there to implement their ideas rather than live under the dictates of others. In the case of Aboriginals and Metis in Canada, the principle of social justice demands it. (3)

A good baby step, but then throughout the book he speaks more of the horrible living conditions and resulting community advocacy from non-aboriginals, but it doesn't address the big issue.

Any policy must start from a place of respect, and that means making First Nations equal partners in the development of our country.

Self government is essential, but it also means recognizing the validity of those governments.

A Unique Opportunity

Jack Layton has been given a rare opportunity to separate himself from Stephen Harper. And it comes with the election of Romeo Saganash.

A James Bay Cree, Saganash has experience in government, having served as director of governmental relations and international affairs for the Grand Council of Crees, for 30 years, and has advised parliamentary committees in Quebec and Ottawa.

And he worked very hard to get his seat, vigorously campaigning, in an attempt to garner the needed 9,000 votes. He earned 14,000.

He's intelligent, well liked and has the kind of face you instantly warm to.

Layton needs to appoint him as the "Aboriginal Affairs" critic. The Conservatives love their tokenism, keeping count, as if on a scorecard. But Saganash is no token anything. Another new MP that I just know I'm going to like.

Let's hope Layton recognizes the importance of his experience and capabilities. We are sorely in need of a change in direction.

Continuation:

A Harper Majority and Native rights

The “Coup D’etat at Barriere Lake and Why it Matters

Sources:

1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 14

2. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 66-68

3. Speaking Out: Ideas That Work for Canadians, By Jack Layton, Key Porter Books, 2004 ISBN: 1-55263-577-5, Pg. 143

Another Fudged NDP Resume

I would imagine that if you went over all MP resumes from all parties, you would find many that stretch the truth.

For the NDP, it hasn't mattered until now. But they want to present an alternative government over these next, at least, four years. Honesty will be one measure.

The NDP is taking the fall again for another MP’s erroneous resume posted on the party’s website. “It was a mistake made by the party,” said NDP spokesman Steven Moran.

... QMI Agency has learned the new Quebec MP does not have a degree from the University of Montreal, despite that his official biography stated he had three certificates from the institution. University records showed Larose signed up for courses at University of Montreal but never received a certificate.

I'll bet there are a lot of new MPs in panic mode right now.

Jack Layton's First Big Test

With President Obama talking tough with Israel this week, Harper and his new international bully John Baird, made it clear that they would be standing with Israel.

No surprises there.

The gist of Obama's remarks were that the United States should only respect the original boundaries of Israel, laid out in 1967, as they move toward a two-state solution to peace. I think many Canadians would agree.


But the real test here is for Jack Layton. Does he, as a social democrat, support the Democrat president, or stand with Stephen Harper?

If he really wants to present a clear choice to neoconservatism, this is a perfect opportunity. Maybe he'll wait for poll results, or maybe he'll simply remain quiet, given tensions within his own party on the subject.

That was his first test on the issue and he failed.

Today, Tuesday June 15, is a day the NDP‘s Jack Layton will face a leadership test. He is poised to make a decision to punish one of his MPs and it could stain his leadership for a long time to come.

As reported yesterday in the Vancouver Sun and other Canwest papers the party is in a state of near hysteria over what should have been a minor flap ... In this case Vancouver East MP Libby Davies got bushwacked by a pro-Israel activist posing as a neutral -- if not pro-Palestinian -- blogger. After a rally for the Palestinians criticizing Israel's deadly assault on the aid flotilla, a man approached Libby asking for an interview. As she always does, because she never hides her views, she complied. He immediately set her up with what he called a "background question." He asked when the occupation began, 1948 or 1967.

Libby hesitated then said 1948. She made the point that the date was not important -- that whatever the date the occupation was the longest in the world -- and far too long.

The next day the interview appeared on YouTube. But in 24 hours it had gone nowhere -- just 28 views. Then the most vociferous supporter of Israel in the NDP caucus, Thomas Mulcair, got wind of it and it escalated out of control. He went on a relentless campaign to punish Libby. The spin he helped create was that if Libby believed the occupation began in 1948 then she, ipso facto, believes that Israel has no right to exist. Libby has always gone to great lengths to make it clear that she supports Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution endorsed by the NDP. But suddenly Jack Layton was in full-panic mode. He apologized to the Israeli ambassador. He hung Libby out to dry. He forced her to issue a public apology.

She had absolutely nothing to apologize for, and yet he made her apologize anyway.

As leader of the official opposition, however, he will be expected to say something. Does he risk division by challenging Mulcair or take a strong stand against Israeli Apartheid?

Blustering about the Liberals now, would only make him appear weak and indecisive.

He could just issue a statement awash in ambiguity, enough to keep the media at bay, but it would not be enough to separate himself from Stephen Harper.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Is Jack Layton Really a Federalist?

When news broke that several of the new NDP MPs are of the separatist persuasion, Jack Layton went into damage control, stating emphatically that his was a federalist party, and their personal views were independent of that.

However, I remembered something from a past election and found the story yesterday.

During the 2004 campaign, Jack Layton promised that if elected he would repeal the Clarity Act. An act voted on by his own party and what former NDP House Leader Bill Blaikie, praised as one of former prime minister Jean Chretien's main legislative achievements.

NDP leader Jack Layton reopened the unity debate Friday by promising to repeal the federal Clarity Act and recognize a declaration of Quebec independence if sovereigntists win a referendum.

This may have been just a bit of electioneering, but it does raise the question. Is he still committed to repealing it?

Thomas Walkom asked this week, just what the NDP stood for. It is no longer a movement and certainly not a socialist party, despite what the Conservatives say.

This is a fair question. When they were the fourth party, few cared. Now that they are the official opposition, they will be under the microscope.

I started reading Layton's book Speaking Out yesterday, and so far it's mainly philosophical, though I'm told that he lays out a clear alternative for Canada. I'll keep you posted.

I turned off Jack Layton when learning that he has been working with Stephen Harper to destroy the Liberals, a decision he may or may not regret. But I have not turned sour on the NDP as a whole, because they have so many MPs that I have the utmost respect for, including Libby Davies, Charlie Angus, Paul Dewar, Pat Martin, and many others.

But you can be sure that the Conservatives will make this an issue at some point.

In his book Harper's Team, Tom Flanagan mentions that before trying to elect Stephen Harper, their staff hunted down every article ever written by him, in an attempt at damage control. (they were blindsided by the 1997 speech to the ultra right-wing Council for National Policy).

The Liberals did the same with Michael Ignatieff, but it didn't stop the Conservatives from using his illustrious career against him.

And they didn't stop at just attacking him, but went after his family. His wife was not yet a citizen, an ancestor had been antisemitic and his father not a real struggling immigrant, because of his education. This was George Ignatieff, one of the most respected Canadian diplomats in history, who earned the nickname 'The Peacemonger'.

Jack Layton's father was a cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney's government, but it's his grandfather who could become an issue, given that ad hominem attacks are a Conservative benchmark.

Gilbert Layton was a cabinet minister in Maurice Duplessis's cabinet, the Quebec premier who is said to have run the most "ruthless political machine" in Canadian history. He quit the party when Duplessis refused to support conscription during WWII.

Expect this to appear as a segment on Fox News North and a possible attack ad in the future.

Layton may have bought into Harper's idea that Canadians should only have two choices, a Right and a Left, but what he fails to understand is that Harper really believes that Canadians should only have one choice: him.

Canada's Karl Rove Politics are Not Going Unnoticed

This past election showed that Karl Rove politics in Canada are alive and well.

And nothing defines that more than the character assassination of Michael Ignatieff.

Michael Levinson writes in the Boston Globe: Harvard connection plays in Canadian’s loss

At Harvard, he was a superstar — a handsome and popular academic with crossover appeal whose essays appeared in the New Yorker and whose fiction was short-listed for the Booker Prize. His foreign policy classes were oversubscribed, and students scrambled for invitations to the dinners he hosted at his residence at Mather House. Few from the Kennedy School have appeared on the cover of GQ. But he did.

Enter Karl Rove:

Attack ads in the race prominently featured a 2005 quote from the Harvard Crimson in which Ignatieff declared: “If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back.’’ The ads ended with a voiceover darkly intoning: “Ignatieff: He didn’t come back for you,’’ or “Ignatieff: Just visiting.’’

His students — a global gathering that included Israeli soldiers, and Palestinians, Serbs, and Kosovars — packed his class on international policy dilemmas ... “He was really admired ..." Just not in Canada, in today's political climate.

Adrienne Redd writes in the Tyee: Ignatieff, the Best Prime Minister Canada Will Never Have

And Andrew Potter says that Canada is: No country for good men

We, along with the rest of the modern world, mocked the United States when they elected George Bush to a second term. The first time around, we could forgive them. After all, we assumed, they didn't know the real Bush. In 2004 they had no such excuse.

Now we are the ones being mocked. Because after five years of standing by while our democracy was under attack, we not only gave Harper another mandate, but a majority, which means we trump George Bush by at least another year.

We are now the world's laughing stock.

But maybe we can finally address what really happened here. Harper's victory was a Republican victory. He no longer has to pretend to be a moderate. Jason Kenney no longer has to pretend to like immigrants. And we will no longer be forced to call the new Conservative Party of Canada 'Tories'.

Gerry Nicholls is suggesting that they can now be themselves, what neocons believe to be the only appropriate Conservative party.

They have four years to sell us on the notion that their way is better.

Meanwhile, those of us in the centre and on the left, must use those four years to build a progressive movement. One that includes a renewed Liberal Party and a sustained NDP.

When Jack Layton teamed up with Stephen Harper to destroy the Liberals, he helped to cut out the middle, and left himself with few allies. He'll never take down this right-wing movement on his own.

And now that Michael Ignatieff has left politics, I can tap into his intelligence and quote him freely.

"Nothing has done the electoral and moral credibility of liberalism more harm than the failure to take this attack seriously" - Michael Ignatieff, University of Toronto, 1998, on Neoconservatism