Sophie Trudeau is no Betty Boop But Opposition Fast Becoming Other Cartoon Characters

In 2013, John Avarosis wrote a piece: Why do Republicans so hate Michelle Obama?  

In it he discusses the obsession that American conservatives have with the First Lady, or what has been referred to as 'Michelle Derangement Syndrome'; believing that they would prefer a Betty Boop, to an accomplished and articulate woman.

However, as Avarosis points out, they are simply playing to the "fringe masses" that now control the Republicans.

We witness the same thing with Canada's Conservative Party.  They may not believe all of the nonsense they spew, but it riles up their fringe mass, who take to social media with some of the most vile attacks on anything Liberal.

In Parliament, the CPC do not act like the Opposition, but more like obstructionists, attacking everything Prime Minister Trudeau says or does, just for the sake of attacking it.  Red meat for their base.

So it was no surprise when this week they extended their assaults to his mother and then his wife.  Whoop, whoop!  

What was a surprise, was that the NDP joined the fray.  MP Niki Ashton boasted of dissing Mrs. Trudeau  on her Facebook page, prompting this response:

Her childish behaviour was in response to our Prime Minister wanting his wife to have a small staff to help her perform her duties.  Nothing new.  Mila Mulroney had a suite of four staffed offices and Laureen Harper, an entourage of tax payer funded employees.

They should have a staff and frankly I'm surprised that this was never mandated.

Ashton quipped that nobody asked Sophie Trudeau to get involved, but Canadians certainly expect her to.  When she travels with her husband, she plays an important role, just as others before her.

Laureen Harper helped to soften our image, in contrast to her robotic and often bullying, husband.  Mila Mulroney was a perfect hostess, and while she never really championed* important causes, she was beautiful and gracious, and made us proud.

Canadians could not have asked for a better symbol of Canada and Canadian values than Sophie Gregoire Trudeau.  She is not only beautiful, stylish and gracious, but she is a true humanitarian.

Her work on mental health issues and empowering women, has won her awards, so her potential contributions are enormous.  Let's give her an office and a staff and the respect she deserves.

Like Michelle Obama, she is no Betty Boop, but I do see Ashton as Wile E Coyote, riding an Acme rocket trying to catch her.  This will not end well for the NDP. 

*Advocate for Cystic Fibrosis

Thomas Mulcair is Only a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem for the NDP

"The party got off to a bad start with its election promise to balance the budget without raising taxes. That promise, difficult to honour during a period of general economic turmoil, would seriously limit its policy options."

That quote, though fitting, was not about the last federal election, but was written about the Nova Scotia NDP,  that got trounced after just one mandate.  The author, Howard Epstein,  was a long serving NDP MLA who wrote the book:  Hope betrayed? The Nova Scotia NDP's rocky fall from power.

Epstein asks:  "If the NDP can't differentiate itself from other parties, should it exist?"

That is a very good question.  Federally, they are now back to third party status, in a Liberal majority, with a progressive platform; what will their role be?  How can they possibly hope to rebuild when they have nothing to rebuild on?

Their appointment of the right-wing Thomas Mulcair as leader, and their disastrous election campaign, has left them rudderless.

Social activist Michael Laxer, on his The Left Chapter blog, also puts much of the blame on the NDP themselves, but sees their refusal to take responsibility as a major hindrance.  They can't accept that they did anything wrong, but instead call for blind devotion and solidarity.

Solidarity that will be hard to achieve, when the true believers; the activists who coalesced around the NDP, have, as Laxer points out; already left.  Or truthfully, were banished.

Covering the NDP leadership convention, John Ibbitson wrote:

Make no mistake about the importance of what happened in Toronto last weekend: Tens of thousands of New Democrats rebelled against the party establishment – a cabal of union leaders, academics, journalists and party apparatchiks – to elect an outsider. 

They did it, in the words of one NDP supporter who was at the convention, because they no longer wanted to be led by “a comfy sweater.” Mr. Mulcair and Brian Topp, who finished second, were both seen as bare-knuckle politicians who could take on the Conservatives and win.

They forgot that it was the "cabal of union leaders, academics, journalists and party apparatchiks" who helped to build the NDP.

Another social activist and NDP team builder, Murray Dobbin, wrote of Mulcair's leadership victory:

"Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control. It is as if policy, philosophy, and vision for the country have simply been devalued to the point where they are an afterthought or some vaguely interesting historical relic."

They are no longer facing a "ruthless tough guy" so do they really need Mulcair now?  Not that it really matters, because without their activist base, who are they?

Those activists can now work with Justin Trudeau, to build the kind of Canada that we want to live in, since the NDP are no longer in a position to do much of anything.

And as CTV points out, there is still the matter of the 2.7 million dollars owed by current and defeated MPs, and with no money to fight the decision in court, this could very well spell the end of the NDP.

Even a petition to demand the resignation of Mulcair, is getting very little traction.  It's like they no longer care.  Why should they?

The emphasis will be on the Liberals and Justin Trudeau as they work to repair the damage done by the Harper government.

And with Trudeau, all comfy sweaters are welcome.

The NDP's Obsession With Justin Trudeau Could be Their Undoing

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”  - Franklin D Roosevelt

Just hours before the Globe and Mail debates on the economy, a story surfaced suggesting that Justin Trudeau was in trouble in Papineau.  It started out as "may be" but then quickly changed to "is"' as the results of a poll were released.

This sampling suggested that Trudeau's NDP opponent, Anne Legace Dowson (shown above), was 11 points ahead, worrisome if it were true, but it wasn't.  Turns out that it was the NDP who commissioned the poll of 375 people, and that 86% of those they contacted, were NDP supporters.

We can certainly understand the party's deception, but why would the media go along?

Canada's polling industry is now worried that this fraudulent survey, that garnered such sensational headlines, will further damage their reputation.  It was clearly used to throw Justin Trudeau off his game.  His anger did show through, and at times he appeared frantic, that evening, but was still able to get his points across, and the Globe and Mail gave him the win for the best economic vision.

What was supposed to drive voters away from the Liberal Party, and to the NDP, backfired, and they may have lost support from both pollsters and the press, who are less than thrilled that they were dragged down with them.

So Who is This "Star" Candidate?

In 2008, Anne Legace Dowson was introduced to the voting public, by way of a spread published in a Quebec newspaper.  In it she compared herself to Barack Obama, and according to the paper, everyone thought of her as “the Oprah of Quebec”.

However, one letter to the editor, questioned this, given that they had never even heard of her "until the media pumped her up".

I was born and bred in Montreal and consider myself pretty well up to date on who’s who in this city…. but I’ve never heard of this Anne Lagace Dowson until yesterday. That was the day the Montreal Gazette wrote a huge half page story about her nomination.  

Today’s supper time local news on ALL the networks had wide coverage of her……it seems like they are trying to make her into the winner before the by-election date has even been set.  

She has a radio show on the local CBC station. I think that explains why I’ve never heard of her.  CBC english radio usually pulls in between 4 and 8 percent of the english speaking audience….in other words between 92 and 96% of anglo Montrealers NEVER listen to it..!!!!

Legace Dowson was running against Marc Garneau in Westmount, and with the media hype, the prediction was a tight Liberal/NDP race.  However, although outspending Garneau, the results were much different than anticipated.

She didn't compete in 2011, instead focusing on local politics.  In 2014 she ran for the seat of commissioner for the English school board.  It was an important election, since the very existence of school boards was on the line.  The minister of education made it clear, that if there wasn't more voter interest, he would pull the plug on them.

Legace Dowson led a team of ten, against her opponent's ten, representing the wards in the school board district.  She only managed success in two of the ten, one after a recount, by a handful of votes.  She claimed that there was election tampering, though her arguments were weak.

In fact, one of her people actually misrepresented themselves, to obtain voter information, and the police had to be called.  It was crazy.  The unnecessary drama and feeble campaigning, that garnered just 20% support, hardly makes her a star.  At least not in any galaxy I know of.

Given this desperate attempt to make her look better than she is, and more popular than she is; we can only conclude that the NDP are aware of this.  If she can't even come close in a school board election .....

On the bright side. Quebecor knows who she is.  That's something I guess.

Justin Trudeau Forges Tight Alliances

While both the Conservatives and NDP have been relentlessly attacking Trudeau, a strange phenomenon has occurred.  Instead of Thomas Mulcair presenting himself as an alternative to Harper, he now appears to be an ally.

Both are committed to balanced budgets, as unrealistic as that is, and both are now committed to the F-35s, simply because Trudeau has promised to scrap them.  This puts him with progressives, who also want the procurement stopped, as do many members of the Canadian military, including General Leslie.

Yes, the NDP will argue that Mulcair only wants a better bidding process, but the headlines of Mulcair and Harper opposing Trudeau's stance, make the two appear as comrades in arms.  Not what either of them want, though it will not harm Harper as much as Mulcair.

In trying so hard to discredit the Liberal leader, the NDP have failed to give the voting public a reason to support them.  Their platform is weak and financial plan seriously flawed.  They produced a nice glossy folder with nothing in it, but gobblygook.

They had hoped to ride the  C-51 bus to Election Day, but the wheels fell off.  Hope they at least turned off the engine.

Trudeau's strategy, once thought dangerous, has proven to be brilliant.  He has set himself apart from Harper and Mulcair, by claiming that deficits are Ok, F-35s aren't and high income earners should pay more taxes, so that everyone else can pay less.

He is being judged by the enemies he has made, as Roosevelt opined, and those enemies are looking more like a united front, than competition against each other for the prime minister's job.

So who's "not ready" now?

Were the Liberals and NDP Set Up by Lynton Crosby?

There has been much talk recently about the Conservatives hiring of the Australian strategist, Lynton Crosby. Known for his dirty and divisive campaigns, the news sent, if not shock waves, at least ripples; throughout the rival teams and their supporters.

However, we have since learned that Crosby has been working on Stephen Harper's campaign since March, and in fact has been guiding him since 2006.

Why are we just hearing of this now?

Lynton's reputation for creating wedge issues, or what he calls "wedge strategy", is well known, as is his use of simplistic political idioms that become ingrained in the minds of the electorate.  Things like "not a leader", "just visiting", "proven leadership"  and "not ready", certainly come to mind.

However, his real skill is in dividing the opposition by deliberately focusing on a debate, destined to become a hot button issue.

Normally, with something as important as Harper's omnibus anti-terror legislation, opposition parties would unite, as they did against the abuse of prorogation, the Afghan detainee issue, and the closing of the prison farms.  But by introducing the bill just before an election, this presented a problem.  The opposition would have to find a way to work this bill, C-51, into their election strategies.

The Liberals decided to support the Bill, to avoid being labelled "soft on terror"', but were going to use their proposed amendments, as part of their platform.  They had already succeeded in changing the wording so that the bill did not prevent protests, despite what the law's detractors would like you to believe.

The NDP hedged a bit, not sure what to do.  Thomas Mulcair publicly stated that if elected, he would not scrap the bill, but simply amend it.  That made sense, since it does contain some important measures.  We also had to respect the two soldiers who were killed, and not let their deaths be forgotten.

However, NDP supporters were outraged.  Michael Laxer, Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent all weighed in, essentially calling Mulcair a coward if he didn't step up.  So he did.  I don't need to tell you what happened next, but with the help of the media, Justin Trudeau became the fall guy for Stephen Harper's bill.

Lyton Crosby couldn't have done better if he'd scripted the entire thing himself.  Of course, he probably did, or at least wrote some of the lines.

Where the NDP Went Wrong

After David Cameron's surprising victory in the UK, Lynton Crosby explained to the International Business News, how that was accomplished.  Cameron was as unpopular as Harper is now, and like Harper, he gave the opposition a lot of things to oppose.  Said Crosby:

"One of the reasons why Labour did not succeed in the UK in the last election was that they never did the work as an opposition to prepare themselves again for government, and they were very opportunistic in all of what they did in the five years that they were in opposition. So they jumped on various issues, but they never had a story to tell." 

Mulcair painted himself as the great debater and great opposer, but never really told the NDP story.  In fact, at times he contradicted his party's positions, and even his own.  You can't just be against things, but have to be for something. 

Their platform was all over the place, promising the moon, while aligning the stars.  CTV has learned recently from some leaked documentation, that they have not even costed out their spending proposals.  They have no idea how they're going to pay for all this stuff, only that they will magically balance the books.  Like anyone cares.

They went too far with C-51, and have created a void.  The last poll conducted on the issue was at the end of May, and showed that 72% of Canadians support the measures, despite the perceived loss of privacy. Besides, the common belief is that if you are not engaged in terrorist activities, you have nothing to worry about.

But since Crosby's main goal is to cause vitriolic debate within the opposing parties, he certainly accomplished that.  If any good came of it, I was pushed to research Mulcair, to counter some of the attacks on Justin Trudeau.

After learning what I did, I then said "hell no".   We've got another Stephen Harper waiting in the wings, and felt compelled to do what I could to prevent that from happening.

However, for all those who think that Thomas Mulcair and the NDP will repeal C-51, think again.  Even if they could, which they can't without the Senate, they will not want to.  It's a very easy thing to say during an election campaign, but something all together different when you're in government.

Pressure from the right wing media, who loved Mulcair's stance on Palestine and Margaret Thatcher, would kick in, and the security forces, who pushed for more power, would advise him that they need those laws.

Mulcair, like Trudeau, is smart enough to know that being "soft on terror" is not a label he would like to wear, especially if we lose any more soldiers at home.  After the actual French terrorist attacks, they adopted strict anti-terrorist laws and their leader's ratings soared.

When George Bush brought in the Patriot Act, the same thing happened.  Fear is a strong motivator and we often look for a parent to protect us, whether it is our family's leader or our country's.  It's simple human nature.  Harper has won this debate, and he can sit back, hold steady, and allow the NDP to do his dirty work for him.

Lynton Crosby is smart and tough, and not afraid to get his hands dirty, but he is not infallible.  We need to take comfort in the fact that he has been working with Stephen Harper since 2006, and Canadians still don't like him.

All political parties need to campaign their hearts outs, and now that they know who Crosby is, and what he represents, refuse to get caught up in the nonsense.  Debate policies and platforms and put in the work necessary to win.  That's how Stephen Harper will be defeated.

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.

Conservative Deflection, the NDP Truth Team and the Erosion of Trust

As many of you know I took some time off from my blog, mainly for personal reasons, though I did keep up with current events. I blogged a bit during the 2014 Ontario provincial election, and then saved my strength for this coming federal contest.

Fully prepared to continue in a relatively, non-partisan way, I was immediately broadsided by the NDP's attack on the Liberals and Justin Trudeau, with the whole C-51 debacle. I expected things to die down, once common sense kicked in, and the media reminded Canadians that this was about two Canadian soldiers, killed on Canadian soil; but it didn't.

Neither common sense, nor common decency prevailed. Those two young men were forgotten, lost in the maze of sensational headlines, with C-51, the Godzilla, that was about to trample us to death.

There is much talk of the bias, propaganda and "dumbing down" of political discourse, as Canadians continue to tune out. It's not surprising that at the end of May, after the protests and media blitz on Harper's anti-terror legislation; that most of the public was unaware of the egregious measures contained within.

The Globe and Mail reported that  72% of Canadians supported the new legislation, without knowing its content, and that's helping Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Also telling is that "55 per cent of those following the debate closely are against the bill. Among those who have just scanned headlines, only 14 per cent are opposed."

The media's tendency to over amplify political conflict and negativity, has caused them to fail in their duty to inform the public, preferring to engage in the attack on the NDP's political opponent.

This problem is not confined to Canada. In a piece in the Princeton Press, Why is Everyone so Mad at the Media, they remind us that newsman Walter Cronkite was once seen as the most trusted man in America. But trust in the media is waning.

By 2004, only 10% of Americans "had a great deal of confidence in the national media", just one point higher than their trust in lawyers.

We have seen a growing number of clearly partisan news agencies, like Fox and Canada's defunct Sun Television, but the problem does not lie with them. Most of their audience tunes in because they already share those views.

Corporate Media and King Makers

There is also a lot of discussion about the top 1% of the population, holding as much wealth as everyone else combined, but there is something else to remember, that is just as important as income inequality.

That top 1% own 99% of our media, and with that enormous power, they control the political debate and set the agenda.

For years Conrad Black promoted neoconservative politicians, giving us Stephen Harper and his brand of American style politics.  Black has since denounced Harper, recognizing, I guess, that he had created a monster.  But if NDP supporter, Murray Dobbin, is correct, the NDP may be giving us another monster.

More worrisome is the possibility that many thousands of NDP members had indeed heard the negative aspects of Mulcair's politics and voted for him anyway. That's a very different problem. It reflects what I have observed about the NDP for decades now: its decreasing emphasis on policy and philosophy and the increased -- political machine driven -- preoccupation with winning seats in elections, often out of context of the political moment and oblivious to unintended consequences. One prominent NDPer I spoke to responded to my shock that he was supporting Mulcair with a sort of football game enthusiasm. "I think he can take on the bastard [Harper]." 

Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control. It is as if policy, philosophy, and vision for the country have simply been devalued to the point where they are an afterthought or some vaguely interesting historical relic. There seems to have been a kind of "We'll worry about policies later, let's pick someone who can win first."

Another NDP supporter, who actually worked on Thomas Mulcair's 2007 campaign, that brought him into federal politics, is also raising the alarm, not only about Mulcair's politics but the media's complicity in putting a neoliberal in charge of a once social democratic party.  Jooneed Khan believed that knowing Mulcair was being backed by the Power Corp. and other corporate media giants, would mean the end of his chances at taking over the NDP.  They always spoke out against what they deemed to be right-wing spin.  But according to Khan:

Quebec Inc. has grown exponentially since the PQ came to power in 1976. It operates more and more in partnership with multinational corporations in extracting wealth from poor nations and spreading poverty, war and corruption ...  

Voters here have shown they are prepared to take a chance with the NDP to push back neo-liberalism ... and to re-prioritize social justice.... Thomas Mulcair's NDP leadership bid is looking more and more like a counter-attack by the 1 per cent to take over the NDP and steer it towards the so-called "extreme centre...

The editor of Rabble was also concerned with the control that Bay Street might have over the party, knowing that they actually financed Mulcair's leadership bid.

Can we now trust anyone in the media?

Despite the fact that most polls show a three way tie, and a surge by Justin Trudeau and the liberals, you'd be hard pressed to find any story that doesn't include the words "with the NDP leading in the polls", or something like it.  They know that if the people of Quebec don't believe the NDP can win, they will go to the party that can.

But how long can they keep this up?  And how long will we allow them to?  We should decide who governs us, not the corporate media.

I have noticed that the political landscape has changed dramatically since the 2011 election.  If you track journalists on Twitter you'll see that more and more of them, are now extremely partisan, and most, if not all, run a continued attack on Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party.

That attack also extends to Pierre Trudeau.  I asked Norman Spector, when he was on a rant,  if he knew that PET wasn't running and told him I was so glad that he kept up with current events.  It's gone crazy

Everyone interested in politics, has been by and large partisan.  But at least there was a sense of decorum. Stephen Harper brought in the ugly, the first to run attack ads outside of an election campaign. What surprised me, however, is that the NDP are engaging in the same nonsense.

Accusing the Liberals of being against helping women who were the victims of violence, was so a Conservative tactic.  That it's coming from a party once respected for their adherence to social justice, this is incredibly sad.  No one on Parliament Hill is for violence against women.  A vile ploy for political points, by re-victimizing the women caught in those situations.

They now also have a gaggle of minions in a group called the  NDP Truth Team.  Truth, of course, in the Orwellian tradition.

One of the assignments given to these warriors, is to scan the media and any time they see Justin Trudeau's name before Thomas Mulcair's, to contact them and give them sh*t.

A more recent mission is to hash-tag #NDPTruthTeam  @JustinTrudeau and ask him what he plans to cut in his 4th year of governing.  Brad Lavigne is implying that Mr. Trudeau has said that he will cut public services after the third year of stimulus.  However, I can't find that quote anywhere, so it must be just a bit more fact twisting.

It is so hard to engage anyone in the party, in legitimate policy debates.  All I get is the same nonsense I used to get from the Conservative supporters.  In fact, I often now get more sensible arguments from Cons than I do Dippers.

I would like to set partisanship aside, as the election draws nearer, and start discussing the issues that should be important to Canadians. But in the words of Michael Corleone  "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

Mulcair's Confusing Stance on Security and C-51

Columnist Ralph Surrette had a piece in the Chronicle Herald this weekend:  Harper defeat won’t suffice; this calls for fumigation

In it he questions why the NDP did not go on the attack when Stephen Harper announced that he’d institute a "ban on travel by Canadians to areas of terrorist activity "

This announcement sent a chill down the spine of many Canadians, and prompted experts to weigh in on the legality of such a move.  More importantly, however, it would mean the further deterioration of our rights.

Says Surrette:

After all, the arguments over the anti-terror law, Bill C-51, were still fresh — a law denounced by four former prime ministers (including a Tory one, Joe Clark), five retired chief justices of the Supreme Court, former ministers of justice and pretty well every legal expert in the country, that triggered alarm at the United Nations, that was described by both the RCMP and CSIS as “unnecessary” and that was denounced by the otherwise small-c conservative Globe and Mail as a “quasi-police state bill.” And here was Harper jerking our chains again on the same issue, proposing another broad dragnet largely outside the rule of law. What a political opportunity!

What a political opportunity indeed.  Both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair saw the ban proposal as political posturing.  I agree.  Not unlike the political posturing by the NDP over C-51, which is no longer a bill but a series of laws, affecting many areas.  

What is puzzling though, are Thomas Mulcair's comments, when asked about Harper's latest ploy.  Rather than denounce it, he claims that "obviously" he would support it.  He only questions whether it would actually do anything.

Huh?

He also states that C-51 was a failure because it did nothing to prevent the radicalization of youth.  What would he want to see in the bill to prevent "the radicalization of youth"?  

The only way to stop youth from being sympathetic to the goals of groups like ISIS, is to stop invading countries for oil.  Stop taking away one group's human rights by painting them all as terrorists, while inflicting the worst kind of terror on their homelands, with bombs.

If there was even a hint of diplomacy in our foreign policy, young blood would not boil.

The NDP is now too focused on silencing any sympathy for Palestine, dropping candidates like flies, to care whether our rights are being violated.  How many New Canadians will be prevented from visiting their families? Given this government's loose interpretation of terrorists, that could be just about anywhere.

 "Obviously we are going to support anything that will prevent the threat of terrorism".  Really?

Thomas Mulcair and the NDP, if they were in power, would not scrap C-51.  They can't.  It is now law, resulting from an omnibus bill that has changed many laws.  

At best, they will put through amendments to the anti-terrorism measures, that challenge our rights and freedoms.  Exactly what Justin Trudeau promised.

Hot air will only get you so far.

Besides, Mulcair's new priority is decriminalizing marijuana.  In the first minute.  This will certainly win him the vote of drug dealers, as it gives them a free pass.  Without legalization, and thus control, it will do nothing to keep marijuana out of the hands of children.

Which brings up a bit more confusion over what Mulcair actually stands for.

Andrew Thomson's Candidacy Exposes a Much Bigger Problem for the NDP

The media has been in a frenzy recently over the decision by former Saskatchewan finance minister, Andrew Thomson, to run for the NDP against Joe Oliver.

According to Thomson:

“My time in government, and we’ve seen the record of NDP governments — there is a strong attention to spending discipline,” he said.  

“We are obviously committed to social spending, but at the same time are also committed to making sure budgets are balanced and that governments live within their means.”

Sounds good right?  This man claiming to have balanced the Saskatchewan budget, while stating that Oliver has failed in this endeavour?

It might be, if it were true.  But it isn't. According to BJ Siekierski,  Thomson raided a contingency fund to give the appearance of a balanced budget.

“Are you confused about the state of the province’s finances? Uncertain whether Saskatchewan is running a) a balanced budget, b) a $500 million deficit or c)a $700 million deficit?” Bruce Johnstone, the financial editor of the Regina Leader-Post, wrote on March 24, 2007. “After this week’s provincial budget, you have every right to be confused. I certainly am and I’ve been covering these things for nearly 25 years. 

“The Fiscal Stabilization Fund (FSF) was created in 2000-01 to stabilize the fiscal position of the Province from year to year and to facilitate the accomplishment of long-term objectives,” the 2007-08 budget reads.  

A few days after the publication of Johnstone’s column, Brad Wall — then the leader of the Saskatchewan Party opposition — told the Saskatchewan legislature that Thomson and NDP not only failed to obtain the $75 million surplus they claimed, they also drained the FSF. 

“They went from a $158 million surplus last year to a $701 million deficit this year, Mr. Speaker. They drained $500 million, a half a billion dollars, from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” Wall charged.

The media is calling the Oliver/Thomson bout, the battle of two finance ministers, when in fact, it is the battle of two deceptive finance ministers.

Personally, I think the idea of balancing budgets is over-rated.  Instead, I agree with most economists, that if you grow the economy, budgets will balance themselves.

Neither Oliver nor Thomson got that message.

Andrew Thomson's Record Was Much Worse

As finance minister in the Saskatchewan NDP government of Lorne Calver, Thomson cut funding to education, forcing many municipalities to increase their property taxes.

He blamed the education boards, suggesting that they should be spending their reserves.

The minister’s comments have justifiably frustrated officials in these regions, especially the fact that he’s accusing them of hoarding money. If the minister wants to talk about hoarding money and replenishing reserves, he need only look in the mirror. After all, it was his NDP government that has socked away nearly $700 million dollars in its so-called rainy day Fiscal Stabilization Fund for use in the year leading up to the next provincial election. Most of this money came right from oil producing regions like South East Saskatchewan, where residents are now facing increased education property taxes all because the minister is hoarding money in his own reserves and failing to fully fund the increased costs of education.

We now know he raided his government's reserves, to give the appearance of a balanced budget.  The rest was used in self glorification television ads.

It’s funny – Andrew Thomson didn’t bother to mention this hidden tax hike in his recent half-a-million dollar television ad campaign. Recently, a reporter asked Andrew Thomson why he had to appear in the NDP’s budget commercials. He said it was because “it’s my budget." 

Mr. Thomson, like the NDP, has forgotten something very important. It’s not his budget. It’s not even his money. That money belongs to you, the people of Saskatchewan.

Yes.  He cut funding to education, so he could look good on television.  

With the writing on the wall, Thomson decided not to run in the 2007 election.  The NDP were thrown out of power by the Saskatchewan Party, made up of former Liberals  and Conservatives.  In the 2011 election, the NDP fortunes fell even further, as they were reduced to just nine seats.

Andrew Thomson has to shoulder the blame for at least some of that.

Saskatchewan NDP Shows Where the Brand Has Gone Wrong

In 2012, Journalist John W Warnock wrote a piece:  Whatever Happened to the Saskatchewan NDP?

From 1944 through 2007, politics in Saskatchewan was dominated by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and its successor the New Democratic Party (NDP). But the NDP was soundly defeated by Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party in 2007 and routed in 2011. Today they hold only nine seats in the legislature. 

He contributes their failure, and rightly so, on their decision to move the party to the right.

Obviously, the Saskatchewan NDP needs to seriously re-evaluate the political direction it has taken since 1991. The move to the right to embrace the neoliberal model has been a failure. Thus it is a good time for a book of serious papers which examine ongoing problems and set out an alternative policy direction. The child poverty rate in Saskatchewan stands at 19.6 percent, tied with BC as the highest in Canada. James Mulvale and Kirk Englot explain how a progressive provincial government could implement a feasible strategy for poverty reduction.

The NDP had failed on every issue, from healthcare to poverty.  From education to the environment.

This problem is not limited to Saskatchewan, however.

In Ontario, last election, NDP leader Andrea Horvath, angered her base when she ran on a platform that was right of the Liberals.

Says Roger Annis

This follows elections last year in Nova Scotia and British Columbia that were marked by the drift to the right of the NDP and electoral disappointments similar to what the party suffered in Ontario.

Things were so bad in Nova Scotia, that former MLA, Howard Epstein, wrote a book subtitled:  If the NDP can't differentiate itself from other parties, should it exist?

The NDP is unpopular in Manitoba, and in New Brunswick they supported the police crackdown of Mi’kmaq led protests against fracking.

They won a majority in Alberta, in part by distancing themselves from the anti-oil activists.  I don't think this will spell more support for the federal NDPs in the province.

Now the federal party has chosen a Neoliberal leader with enough right-wing baggage to guarantee that the party will never again represent social democratic principles.

By moving to the right, they have opened up the left,  allowing Justin Trudeau's Liberals and Elizabeth May's Green Party, to move in.

CNNi Report, offers a reason why the NDP chose Thomas Mulcair to lead them.

Their fear of Harper is too profound and they fear that the way Conservatives decimated the Liberals, now it would be the turn of the NDP to be pulverized. 

They wanted a scrapper to challenge Harper and protect them from destruction.  However, if they are pulverized, it won't be by the Conservatives, but by an attack from within.

The death of a thousand cuts, with Mulcair delivering the final, fatal blow.

Canada's Domestic False Flag War Has Many Fronts

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.  All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,  and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials

There is no doubt that the attack on Parliament Hill last October, by a lone wolf gunman, became Stephen Harper's false flag war; as the government, with the help of the media, painted it as an attack perpetrated by ISIS.

In the wake of 9/11, the fear on that day was real, as no one knew how many gunmen were involved, and how organized the attack. We now know that it was just one mentally unbalanced homeless man, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who had no ties to any terrorist organization.

Since then, the Conservatives have used this false flag war as an excuse to further erode our civil liberties, in the name of terror. On the campaign trail, Harper is emphasizing the need for security, while suggesting that only he can keep us safe. The politics of fear.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler

Not Canada's Only False Flag War

The term "false flag" originated in the days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy, before attacking another ship in its own navy. This would then be used as excuse to go to the war. After all, didn't they have the right to defend themselves?

However, "false flag" does not have to refer to fact manipulation, in order to promote a military engagement, but can also be used as a tactic to undermine political opponents. There is little doubt that Justin Trudeau was set up to take the fall for Bill C-51, the Harper government's egregious, so-called anti-terrorist bill.

If all is fair in love and politics, the NDP's political exploitation of the situation, could be called "fair" or at least a clever tactic against Trudeau and the Liberal party, leading into the election campaign.  It certainly hurt the Liberals, at least temporarily.

What surprised me however, was the media's complicity in this.  If it is a journalist's job to inform the public, while recording history; what will future historians think of the reporting and recording, of the events following the passage of Bill C-51?

They might initially believe that it was Justin Trudeau's bill, until realizing that he wasn't the prime minister. He wasn't even the leader of the official opposition and did not head a coup. How could he possibly be responsible?

It would be easy for them to see through the actions of the NDP, but might be understandably puzzled by the direction taken by "journalists".

Not that the media hasn't helped to fan the flames of war, but why did they see it as their responsibility, to attack a political party with biased reporting, to help the prospects of another political party or parties?

However, while the NDP might, seemingly, have been the beneficiaries of this engagement, in the end, by giving Harper a free pass on the bill, they could also be the fallen soldiers.  They chose the wrong allies.  The Conservative army takes no prisoners.

The NDP's False Flag War Claims Many Victims

With the distraction of the orange dog and pony show, there was important information that the Canadian public was not privy to. Bill C-51, was not just an anti-terrorism bill, but an omnibus bill, with many critical elements that should have been examined and made election issues. According to Vice:

.. this national debate about surveillance is also a distraction from the fact that Stephen Harper is once again using a monstrous bill to simultaneously change dozens of pieces of legislation while severely limiting Parliament's ability to have a meaningful debate about these issues. Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill, meaning that it is creating two laws but also amending roughly a dozen others from the Department of Fisheries Act to the Criminal Code to the Income Tax Act.

This Means that we have lost the opportunity to debate these things, that are rarely mentioned by the media, too wrapped up in the Justin Trudeau nonsense.

There is now a series of memes being passed around, that make many of the things that Stephen Harper does in his politics of fear, pale by comparison. Showing a protest group and the idea that stopping protests, is the real reason for the bill, is not only a false flag, but entirely false.

Originally there was a clause that allowed "lawful" protest. However, when concern was raised that "lawful" could be left to interpretation, the word was removed. This means that the bill does not stop protests

"The first amendment would clarify that any protest or dissent would not fall under C-51. .. University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese, along with fellow academic Kent Roach, has conducted an in-depth analysis of the bill. Forcese said that dropping the word “lawful” from C-51 to ensure it doesn't target civil disobedience activities may allay some concerns on the part of environmental and aboriginal groups.

So why are these people trying to suggest that protests will no longer be allowed in Canada?

This bill is flawed for so many reasons, and in the wrong hands could certainly be used for a lot of things. However, we have seen human rights abuses in this country, long before Bill C-51.

These images are designed to create fear where there should be no fear, while hiding the things we should be afraid of.

This kind of hyperbole can actually have a different affect than expected. Over the top fear tactics often turn people off, but more importantly, they might do irreparable harm to future protest actions.

If people are frightened that engaging in such things, could get them arrested or painted as terrorists, they might think twice before taking part.

The politics of fear, whether coming from the Conservatives or NDP, are still the politics of fear.

Guest Blogger: NDP PLAYING A DANGEROUS GAME OF FOOTSIES WITH QUEBEC SEPARATISM:

By Ted Chartrand

I have, by and large, stayed away from criticizing the NDP but it's at the point where I cannot remain silent. The NDP is playing a very dangerous game by pandering to the separatist element in Quebec. It's doing this in two ways:

1. The Sherbrooke Declaration: The Sherbrooke Declaration is long-standing NDP policy which concludes that Quebec has the green light for separation with a 50%+1 vote on a future sovereignty referendum. This is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling on this issue. In fact, the NDP platform includes a commitment to repeal the Clarity Act, which enacts the Supreme Court decision into law.

2. The NDP has accepted endorsement by the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec, an organization listed as one of Canada`s active separatist movements and a traditional supporter of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois.

Pandering to separatist sentiments to garner votes by itself is a dangerous proposition. But there is another aspect of the NDP platform which makes this an even greater danger:  SENATE ABOLITION.

Now, you may not see the dots in this connection, particularly if you`re under 40 years old. Let me say this. Often, history has a way of repeating itself.

Let`s get back to Mulcair`s commitment to abolish the Senate. Now, what does that mean? Well, as declared by the Supreme Court, it means we would have to open up the constitution as abolishing the Senate requires the unanimous consent of the provinces. Quebec has already indicated it is not interested, as have some premiers from the Atlantic provinces.  In order to achieve his objective, Mulcair would need to open up the constitution and start negotiating with the provinces and territories and, of course, First Nations. And here is where we have the high risk of history repeating itself. Quebec is a master negotiator when it comes to constitutional talks, and, as we saw with Meech Lake, when Quebec`s demands are not met, it ignites the separatist movement in Quebec. It is the failure of Meech Lake which gave us the Bloc Quebecois and fueled the march to the near disastrous 1995 sovereignty referendum. THIS IS NOT A GAME THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW ANY FEDERAL PARTY TO PLAY, particularly when it`s platform includes lowering the bar for separatists to achieve their objective.

Like all progressives, I want rid of Stephen Harper, but, voting for a party that is prepared to set up a Brian Mulroney "roll of the dice" scenario in order to gain power should be off the table. Consider your vote carefully. You may well get more than you bargained for and Canada will be the worse for it.

Let's not allow history to repeat itself!