Politicana

So far Andre Boisclair hasn’t been the shining young leader that the PQ was hoping for when they elected him as party leader. He was supposed to provide a youthful and dynamic face to the party that would spell the beginning of the end for Jean Charest.

Instead, Boisclair’s drawbacks have led to a campaign without any momentum. His inexperience manifested itself as indecisiveness when he fumbled his position of holding a referendum if he was elected. Now he’s still getting slammed on the sovereignty issue, with polls showing that most Quebecers think this is a bad time to talk of separation.

The only thing he’s done right is oppose that foolish referee who made a little Muslim girl forfeit a soccer game because she was wearing a traditional head scarf (hijab). I was shocked to hear Charest supporting the decision of the referee. When capital “L” Liberals don’t support lowercase liberal causes, then it is time to attack from the left. Unfortunately, it’s going to take more than a crying little Muslim girl to save Boisclair.

It’s no secret that the Harper government is beefing up the military. Bolstering the Canadian military was a crucial part of his platform. But the dollar numbers he’s spending on the military are artificially large.

I came across this article which outlines the deviously clever way in which the Harper government uses accrual accounting to reach their military spending projections. Accrual accounting takes into account the future costs, such as repairs and gasoline, that any vehicle or equipment will need. Instead of simply accounting for the price of the equipment, they add on how much the equipment will have ended up costing by the time it’s decommissioned.

This is advantageous for the Conservatives because it makes it look as if they are spending a lot of money (17 billion as it happens) on the military without actually dramatically affecting this year’s budget. Most of that money isn’t actually going to be used by the Harper government at all, but it’s successors. It’s a good plan.

Ignatieff stepped in it again today in the House of Commons. There was a whole to do about the Harper government wanting to extend two provisions of the Anti-Terror Act, the right to detain terrorist suspects without charge, and the right to compel them to testify in front of a judge. The Liberals of course kicked up a fuss, but that’s not the interesting part (neither of the provisions the Tories want to extend have even been used since the Anti-Terror Act was enacted, so I see the whole thing as a non issue.)

The interesting part is this:

Toronto Star – “At a news conference before the vote, Maureen Basnicki, (pictured with daughter, Erica) whose husband Ken was among two dozen Canadian victims of the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks, urged MPs to “stop playing politics” and to “vote with their conscience and not with their party.”

Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he sympathized with terror victims but labelled their appearance during the debate as “just a sideshow,” prompting an angry response from Basnicki.

“Sideshow? I was a victim of terrorism. My husband was murdered. I don’t like to be a victim of politics. The issue here is the security of Canadians,” Basnicki remarked.”

This right here is the reason why Iggy didn’t win the leadership debate. He may be charismatic, he may be smart, but sometimes he says the dumbest things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3IzpazVl-I 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5cCzDbtVnM

I really can’t believe that Bush is trying to put a good face on Britain withdrawing from Iraq.  It really takes balls to say that the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq is a sign of success while you advocate upping American troop levels to combat sectarian violence.  If it was a sign of success instead of a sign of defeat, the British troops would simply be moving north into Baghdad.  The withdrawal of British troops isn’t a sign of success, it’s a testament to the fact that the war was lost over a year ago.

Dion got killed in a new poll produced by The Strategic Council. The poll put Harper above Dion in every question where the two were compared. Some of the questions included: Which leader would do the best as Prime Minister? (Harper 36%, Dion 18%); Which party leader do Canadians identify with most? (Harper 33%, Dion 21%); Which leader has the clearest vision of where he wants to take the country? (the Green Party wasn’t included in the poll.)(Harper 50%, Dion 22%).

Dion is currently finding himself in a bed of his own making. He failed to forge a strong enough identity for himself in his first few weeks in office, and left the public to get their first impressions to from attack ads against him. Now it’s looking like a long climb back up, and he’s low on options.

Many think he should launch a series of his own attack ads. This would be foolish. For one, it would make Dion look like he was playing catch up with Harper, which in fact he is. Harper also has a stronger and more positive identity than Dion did before the Conservative ads, so there is a greater chance public support would backfire.

What is clear is that Dion needs to do something to define himself quickly. If he can improve his English, a series of positive ads might work; such as Dion talking to the camera about his vision for the country, with subtle implications that he’s taking the high road. Otherwise he needs to do something to peronsally garner media exposure, because right now, Harper is thinking of calling an election, and Michael Ignatieff is lining himself up as an immediate successor.

Turns out most of us, myself included, have had some misconceptions of equalization.  I was browsing the Robert Bond papers and I found this link to the Edmonton Journal.

It’s a very clearly written article explaining equalization, debating it’s inclusion of natural resource revenue.  This has been a huge topic in Alberta, because they have huge oil resources, and most people take the inclusion of natural resource revenue in equalization to mean that the government will take more money from provinces that have higher natural resource revenue.  This is false.

In actuality, the inclusion of natural resource revenue in equalization only effects the provinces receiving equalization payments.  It has no effect on how provinces are actually taxed.  Since it is a wealthier province, Alberta doesn’t receive equalization payments, and is completely unaffected.  However, those countries that do receive equalization payments and also have high levels of natural resources stand to receive less.

Michael Ignatieff’s recent performances in Question Period must have a lot of Liberals second guessing the choices they made during the Fall leadership campaign.  While Dion’s performances (and his English) have been mediocre at best, Iggy has been slamming the PM every chance he gets.  This has caused a lot of speculation - including snide comments from Harper himself - that Dion may not have the charisma necessary to make it though a successful leadership campaign.

But Liberal misgivings about not electing Michael Ignatieff as their leader could also be misplaced.  During the Leadership campaign, Ignatieff’s outspoken nature caused problems.  The same quick wit that makes him so adept in Question Period got him into a lot of trouble when every comment he made was examined under the media microscope.  Ignatieff may seem witty for brief spurts during Question Period, but he obviously has trouble editing himself for long periods of time when under constant exposure from the media, and that would spell disaster during an election.

Ultimately, Stephane Dion can’t rely on his charisma or quick tongue to beat Stephen Harper.  He’s got to rely on his integrity.  His advantage is that he really does come off as having a genuine desire to tackle the problems that most Canadians care about - namely the environment.  If Stephane Dion ever wins a Federal election, it won’t be because he seems like the most charming or congenial candidate, but because despite his somewhat timid demeanor, he seems to care more than anyone else about the issues at hand.

Today the U.S. senate came six votes short of passing a non-binding resolution that would voice their dissaproval of George Bush’s “surge” of 21, 500 troops into Iraq.  My question is: who cares?  A sane mind should rebel at the idea of a country’s leaders passing a motion that essentially says “OK, you do what you want, but I want the record to state that I think it’s a bad idea”.  It’s plain bad leadership.  It’s an overt demonstration of not standing up for their beliefs.

The media should be lamb basting these politicians, and the entire concept of a non-binding resolution should be forgotten.  Resolutions should always be binding.  That’s the point of a resolution.