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."

How Bernie Sanders and Justin Trudeau Have Changed the Election Narrative

Recently, one of my favourite journalists, Rick Salutin, weighed in on Justin Trudeau's comment, that the Liberals wanted to grow the economy "from the heart outwards", meaning from the centre or middle class.

The media and opposition parties went crazy, calling him a Care Bear, not comprehending the meaning of his words.  Everyone is looking for that sound bite, to make them look clever, when in fact, it ended up making them look foolish.

Salutin, on the other hand, did know what Justin was talking about, but preferred that it be the misinterpretation.  

Why not economics from the heart instead of from the head?  We've been led to believe that balanced budgets are the Holy Grail, and that the  "Economy" is  a beast we must feed or risk extinction.

Canada has become the Fisher King;  the legendary figure from the days of King Arthur. Wounded in battle, he could no longer perform his duty to protect the coveted chalice, nor could he produce an heir to continue the obligation.  As a result his kingdom was reduced to a barren wasteland, while the king amused himself fishing, and waiting for rescue.

The mythical Holy Grail has become a symbol for things most cherished and desired, but unfortunately, we no longer know what those things are.  Salutin discusses the economic crash of 2008, that should have taught us that the current system wasn't working.   Yet things continued as before, with misguided tax cuts and mean spirited austerity measures.  This election is probably the most important of a generation.  We can vote for the status quo, or not vote at all, ensuring the status quo.  Neither is an option.

Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, in the run up to the presidential election, in 2016. He has become a phenomenon, primarily because he is not campaigning on lowering taxes or fighting deficits, but on the things that should matter to most Americans.  And they are listening.

A liveable minimum wage, better working conditions, an end to war; to name a few.  These things have not been mentioned in election campaigns for a very long time.  This has forced the other candidates, vying for the job, to address the same issues, or at least promote progressive ideas.

He has changed the narrative, which has changed the issues.

Our media and politicos are too focused on Justin Trudeau's hair, and his famous father, to listen to what he is saying. Like Sanders, he is discussing better working conditions, better wages, and benefits for veterans, seniors and children.  A sensible environmental plan, and an improved relationship with provinces, so that everyone has shared goals, and can better reach them.

Stephen Harper is focused on his dubious leadership skills, while scaring us into submission, over the threat of a terrorist attack.  The NDP is hoping the fact that they voted against C-51 and the Liberals didn't, despite neither vote having an impact; will carry them through for the next two months.  It won't.

Most of their policies are the same old tired promises.  More fluff than substance.  A $15.00 an hour minimum wage, to create a group of "federal employees" who can be unionised;  only gave false hope; and a daycare plan that won't be implemented in this cycle or the next.

In fact, many children needing daycare today, won't; when the first phase of their plan is rolled out, so it is not an election issue, only some vague notion, made during what Salutin calls "an intellectually threadbare era"..

We need to slay the bastard named "Economy" and create our own goals. As the thoughtful journalist says:

This kind of paradigm shift in economics — I’m calling it, after Trudeau, the economics of the heart — is probably more crucial now than it was in the heyday of what was called socialism. Then the stakes were merely misery for the masses. Now the survival of the species is at risk due to climate change and the current model doesn’t — and can’t — even take that into account. When the environment kacks out, it’s an “externality.” You carry on modelling, oblivious. It really doesn’t matter what you call it but “heart economics” sounds good to me.

Investing in Canadians is the best way to grow financially.  We can't just sit around waiting to be rescued, while our country is being reduced to a barren wasteland, and our people to a life of nothing but debt and meagre opportunities.

Sanders and Trudeau have something lacking in politicians today.  Genuine compassion and the ability to inspire.  

It's risky in today's political climate and with the state of our media, to have dreams of a better country, but Sanders and Trudeau have them anyway.

“There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” ―  Paulo Coelho

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.

Mulcair's Environmental Record #2: Minister of Hog Development

Recently Morris W. Dorosh had a piece published in the Financial post:  Tom Mulcair’s incoherent farm policy.

In it he questions Mulcair's logic and math, when discussing agriculture and supply management.

Incoherence is the expected thing from Mulcair. His arithmetic seems a bit off. Supply management nationally provided 16.9 per cent of farm-gate cash revenue in 2014 and 17.0 per cent the prior year, so Mulcair must have been referring only to Quebec. In that case gross revenue from milk, egg and poultry sales in Quebec was 2.55 per cent of Canadian farm cash income. Employment allegedly created by the system can be almost any number depending on how creatively it is defined.

Conflicting views and just making stuff up when he can't answer a question, is actually a trademark of Mulcair's, and was long before he hijacked the NDP.

Environmentalist and water expert, Mario Desrosiers, said in 2005, after yet another deceit of Mulcair's when he tried to deny that he had fired the Environmental watchdog:

How can we give credibility to the words of a minister when his statements are different from one newspaper to another or from a television program to another or simply false.(1)  

Mulcair dismissed that and the hundreds of other concerns, by claiming that they "stem from emotional reactions" 

Since the media is content to go along with his view of his record as environment minister in Quebec, I'm running a series of articles, that reveal what actually occurred.  There was no principle, no commitment and certainly no logic.

Instead, what we see is a systematic attempt to privatize and deregulate, and just like Stephen Harper, much was done under the cloak of secrecy.  He, along with other members of the Quebec Liberal government, were actually sued, and part of the Plaintiffs' case dealt with the difficulty to access information.  (2)

The defence presented, was that they might expose things that shouldn't be exposed.  Not unlike the Harper government calling everything a "cabinet secret".  In one incident, Mulcair held off a group seeking an audience for a full year.

Mulcair's  Pig in a Poke

When in the Quebec government, Thomas Mulcair would often mention the fact that he helped to draft the terms of NAFTA.  In his promotion of bulk water sales, he suggested that  "the environmental laws protecting water are considered barriers to trade." (3)

Also a barrier to trade was a moratorium on hog farming, imposed by the Parti Quebecois, to keep the mega barn, multinational corporations, from over farming and contaminating the water supply.

When the pubic first became aware of Mulcair's intent to lift the moratorium, there was a great deal of opposition.  In 2003, he promised that a full environmental assessment would be done.  It was, concluding that the ban should not be repealed.  Mulcair lifted it anyway, favouring corporate interests over public safety.

"By authorizing new hog barns, the government is giving municipal officials and citizens a fait accompli. It is preparing for the worst crises than previous ones, since people feel cheated. The BAPE gave them hope and yet nothing changes, "says Gilles Tardif of the Citizen Coalition. 
"The Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair, seems to have turned into the minister of pig development," adds Tim Yeatman ... citizens have just elected candidates who campaigned against hog farms projects.  

 The groups are outraged that the government ignored the recommendations of the BAPE in regard to the protection of the environment and risks to the health of people drinking from artesian wells. "Despite clear evidence to the effect that the spreading of pig manure, slurry is not adequately controlled to prevent the pollution of watercourses, the Liberal government seems to be unconscious," says Martine Ouellet Vice President of the Coalition Eau Secours.  (4)

According to J. Knutson in Cultural Vision: A Memeplex for the Cultural Evolution

The major issue in Quebec is the ever-expanding hog industry, and its impact upon the environment and rural communities. In the fall of 2003 The Quebec government released its report on a public consultation process which recommended fundamental changes to hog production in order to make it sustainable in Quebec. A moratorium on hog production expansion followed, installed until new regulations and policies could be implemented, but was lifted prematurely in December 2004. Since then, grassroots community groups have been calling on the province to heed the Canadian Medical Association’s resolution to ban the expansion of the hog industry until the inherent risks of industrial hog farming are understood and the appropriate solutions. 

So while Thomas Mulcair is travelling the country, attacking Stephen Harper for not protecting our waterways, he himself clearly has no concern.  He will do just what Harper does.  Deregulate his way to more corporate profits.

In fact, one man actually had to go on a public hunger strike, lasting 18 days, just to get Mulcair to address a water pollution concern in his community.(5)

To honour NAFTA, he dishonoured the people he was supposed to protect, by not ensuring that they would enjoy a safe environment and clean drinking water.

The NDP are calling for change, but with Mulcair as prime minister, I'm afraid it would just be more of the same.

Sources:

1. Mulcair is Irresponsible and Insults People, By Mario Desrosiers , Chairman of the Citizens Committee Presquîle - Lanaudière (CCPL), October 11, 2005

2. CANADA, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, DISTRICT MONTREAL, Citizens Committee of the peninsula-Lanaudière c. Quebec (Attorney General), 2006 QCCS 4861, SUPERIOR COURT; No: 500-17-023251-047, August 24, 2006

3. Mulcair is Pleased to Have a New Debate, The Press, Charles Cote and Mario Clouthier, June 16, 2004

4. End of moratorium on hog production, The Liberal government threatens the social climate in rural Quebec, Creek, December 12, 2005

5. Philipsburg cottager ends 18-day hunger strike Encouraged by minister's response to algae problem - by Debbie Parkes, The Gazette, August 14, 2003

The NDP's Biggest Asset May be Their Biggest Liability

I watched the Macleans leadership debates again on Youtube, and noticed a few things that I hadn't picked up on when watching it live. 

For one thing, Thomas Mulcair was the only one of the four to have to use a script, when delivering his closing remarks.  We saw one awkward moment when he had to turn the page and forgot where he was.

He did get some very good points across during the debate, and was even able to trick Harper into admitting that we were in a recession.  But overall, his performance was weak, especially since everyone thought that this would be his moment to shine.

Whenever Stephen Harper was going to tell a lie, he started with "let me be clear".  For Mulcair, he did something weird with his eyes.  I'm not going to suggest that Mulcair is a bigger liar than Harper, but since being named NDP leader, he has certainly been playing fast and loose with the facts.

While on the campaign trail, he is constantly mentioning his environmental record, when he was in Quebec, and brought it up again during the debates.

He isn't lying about two things:  He was the Quebec environment minister from 2003 until early 2006, when he was removed from the post; and he did entrench the right to a clean environment, into the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms (more on that later).

Anything beyond that is revisionist history.

I am actually going to post Mulcair's environmental record in four parts, because there are two many important points to make, so that Canadians learn the facts about his tenure.  What they will show is a neoliberal, intent on privatization, who actually did more harm than good, in the quest to reduce GHG emissions.

He cut payments going to climate change groups, from 2.2 million to 750,000 and even stepped in, to stop a grant going to one group, simply because they had a few separatists on their team.  More than once, environmentalists demanded his resignation, and again and again he embarrassed his own government with his pseudo-science.

He was a lawyer and politician.  He was not an environmentalist.

So Why Did the NDP Choose Mulcair?

John Ibbitson explains it in a piece:  NDP sheds 'comfy sweaters' for battle gear

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.” 

They no longer wanted to be the party of ideals.  They just wanted to win.  But how will they square that with the "union leaders, academics, journalists and party apparatchiks", who built the NDP?

Will simply winning be enough, if it means tying Mulcair's right-wing, neoliberal platform, to the party of greats like Tommy Douglas and David Lewis?  Will winning be enough if the New Democratic Party simply disappears, as the party with a social conscience?

Maybe it wasn't just the fact that they saw Mulcair as a scrapper, but they may have also wanted to tap into his vast corporate connections.  They could live with tax cuts for the wealthy and child care benefits going to millionaires, if they just had a shot.

I think that they will live to regret this decision, because the person they saw as a clear path to victory, may instead, run the party off the road.