On Liberal Party Policy

The Liberals are pondering, planning and plodding their policy platform. This is not news – this is what all political parties do in preparation for elections. The platform will be continually revised until the day that it is released – and, often, parts of that platform may be revised after its release, right up to election day.

Theses days, what constitutes as a policy platform is a set of statements. These are not detailed policies that provide background to the issue, a solution, the impact of the solution and how the party, if elected, will implement the solution. Parties don’t care about policy. Parties simply want a short statement that says they stand for something. Parties don’t want to be restricted to something that may become politically unfeasible to complete. Moreover, the underlying theory of a political platform is that it should not be a target. The more detail, the more confusing it can become for a general reader, the better an opponent can twist your words.

The Liberals know this as well as anyone. One of their sins of 2008 was to release the Green Shift – a policy with a variety of tax cuts and credits that affected everyone in different ways. Without going into its merits, the Green Shift represented a bold shift in political policy making. Here, an opposition party released a complex policy document just before the slow summer months of summer when no election was on the horizon – thereby ensuring months of discourse on the Green Shift. To their misfortune, the Liberals at the time were an unpopular party, with an unpopular leader, who were still trying to figure out how to run an operation on a miserly opposition party budget, as well as having an ineffective communication strategy to promote the policy. Thus, the Conservatives took the initiative and defined the policy for the Liberals and made it the target of the 2008 election.

The Liberals are too scared to put out policies. They, like all parties, will release a platform come election time. Don’t count on it before hand.

That said, the Globe and Mail is making a big deal that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff had dinner at his official residence with former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, TD Bank Financial Group CEO Ed Clark, former Deputy Minister of Finance Scott Clark and University of Quebec economist Pierre Fortin.

These are individuals that Liberals refer to as “stakeholders”. They are not meeting with interest groups, members of the community, or average Canadian voters. Stakeholders are esteemed members of their respective elite group, and who are sought to undemocratically represent the interests of other Canadians.

According to the Globe:

Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff has quietly reached out to an economic brain trust that includes former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge as his party begins developing a new platform that sources say would serve as an eventual trigger to bringing down the Conservatives.

[…]

The session with the economists was a brainstorming meeting where Mr. Ignatieff's ideas for revamping Employment Insurance benefits were discussed, as well as notions on how Mr. Ignatieff should further stimulate the economy if he becomes prime minister.

This is an exercise of ensuring that you have some heavy hitters in your corner. This is not the making of a party platform. Moreover, revamping Employment Insurance is the only issue Michael Ignatieff has taken a stance on – after both the NDP and the Bloc raised the very issue for months beforehand. But the Liberals idea of revamping EI is not a true policy in the sense of the Green Shift. Revamping EI, for the Liberals, is a numbers game. It is a single issue focused exclusively on lowering the number of days needed to be eligible for EI.

Despite Ignatieff’s reputation of being a big thinker, don’t expect any big policies to come from the Liberals anytime soon.They have accepted their role in opposition as being one of criticism. They are not interested in proposing ideas, they only intend to reject Conservative ideas (although, they do have a history of voting with the Conservatives).

By the by:The Globe's website has been revamped but not the reporting. They continue to give a free pass to Michael Ignatieff. The sleeker lines, bolder headings and increased use of coloured font is perhaps a slight improvement. However, a change of font is not the sort of change that I am looking for in this once esteemed publication.

Globe and Mail: time for real change?

Since Edward Greenspon became the editor-in-chief in 2002, the Globe and Mail - both the paper and its electronic version - has been through numerous redesigns. The clear direction that Greenspon has presented over the past seven years has been visual aesthetic over substance.

Formerly, the Globe and Mail was the top paper in Canada for in depth news coverage, for in depth analysis. It had columnists with both wit and understanding the issues at play in Canada.

Perhaps in an effort to compete with the National Post, Greenspon deemed it necessary to focus on the more human, the more gossipy side of journalism. In came more photos, the anonymous sources, greater reporting on the personalities in Ottawa as opposed to the impact that they have in federal politics. In came the crime beat and the human interest stories. Most of all, in came the redesigns.

It feels like once a year Edward Greenspon is making a big announcement about how this historic paper is being re-imagine. It has received its own font. It has gone from two sections to several sections and shrunk action. And now, the website is redesigned (again).

After so many redesigns, perhaps it is time to ask if it is the look of the Globe and Mail that needs to be changed or its substance?

UPDATE:

Senor Wells' column deals with the problems with the Globe set out above and the parting with Greenspon over here.

Another sign that the auto industry is behind the times

After the hullabaloo in January when auto executives arrived in Washington in their private jets and were turned away from public money, it seemed like the auto manufacturers were getting. Sure the Big 3 still tried to blame the unions, but it was pretty obvious to any driver that it was the poor management that ruined the auto manufacturers. Consumers wanted smaller, more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars, but the Big 3 simply gave us more commercials of SUVs and pick-ups.

The second time the auto execs came begging for public money, they appeared ready to listen. If they revamped their car line and attempted to mean the interests of consumers, may be they could survive - maybe even compete. However, these pictures from the recent Detroit and Seoul auto shows clearly demonstrate that the auto industry is made up of regressive individuals.

Maybe using sexy young ladies to sell shiny new toys is not the message that the auto industry wants to be sending in the 21st century.

We care a lot... nevermind

I yearn for the rebellion of ideas. To see the passion of people in physical terms. I miss the crying out of a community shouting "we care", or perhaps I only dreamed of it.

The Tamil war is over, burned by the very government whose repression they tried to escape. It was perhaps the only outcome for a quarter-century old violent struggle where neither side was interested in playing by the "fair" rules of war.

What was Canada's response? Silent diplomacy and annoyed commuters.

The Tamil's started their protest on Parliament Hill. They pleaded with the government to intervene and seek a peaceful end to the slaughter. They pleaded with the very party that wanted the Tiger's listed as a terrorist organization when in opposition. Poor Ottawa white-collar workers simply had to be patient as they were delayed in traffic for an extra 15 each morning. It is the price they pay for living in the nation's capital.

Then the Tamil's protested in Toronto. They first took the Gardiner, then the greens of Queen's Park. "Sorry for the trouble, please understand our struggle", they told commuters. A slight delay in their day to bring awareness to those slain. Again, commuters reacted with impatience, frustration and a lack of understanding. How dare these people get in the way, when work, Starbuck's and Goodlife are just blocks away.

No wonder people don't vote. If they can't be bothered to show respect for those who die in far off lands, why would they care who runs the government. After all, government is a bureaucracy and not an instrument of change. Politics is a game of arrogance and smugness between similar parties of varying relevance. Gossip over policy. Leader is a title without meaning.

Life is about my comfort and security. It is best if you just let me be. So goes the sentiment in the community, for society has embraced complacency.

Imperialism died with Versailles. Fascism died with Hitler. Communism died before Stalin, but socialist autocracy continued to paralyze millions. Internationalism grew to hold states accountable, but failed to account for nationalism. Nation-states let individualism rule the day. This history of the twentieth-century is just to say that we are now ruled by complacency.

Although this post is on the problems in our society, John Allemang eloquently captures the symptoms in this case scenario:

Those Tamil folks have gone too far -

How dare they try to block my car

And aim to make me contemplate

Their bloody war? I'm running late,

And don't have time to spare a thought

For conflict in some foreign spot

Where true Canucks would never go,

And we can't tell who's friend or foe.

Some wars are just too far away.

Afghanistan's become okay

For reasons I won't try to state,

Since, like I said, I'm running late,

But, on the whole, these Third World types

Should not distract us with their gripes

About their second cousin's fate -

Just shut up when you immigrate.

Canadians believe in peace,

But why the heck won't the police

Arrest these folks and clear a path

For those of us who don't feel wrath?

Your foreign war will never end,

So be like me, my Tamil friend -

The moment that you cease to care,

The world will start to seem more fair.

Jack goes to Washington

The U.S. is hot these days. They are the place to be, the place to emulate.

For those who ever wondered what good celebrities do in backing a cause (e.g. can Bono really save Africa?) - the answer is in. Star power over substance any day, any day, any day.

NDP Leader Jack Layton is headed to Washington to try lending Barack Obama
a hand in his fight for health-care reform.
[...]
Mr. Layton will tout the merits of universal health care during a three-day
trip in June, where he'll deliver a public speech and meet with Democrats in the
White House, in Congress and at party headquarters.

Health care, everywhere. That would be ideal. But I am feeling cynical these days. Thus, I look at this as mere ploy on the NDP's part to show Canadians that Michael Ignatieff is not the only leader within an in to the White House.

That said, Jack will show Canadians that you don't have to be an elitist arrogant Harvard professor to have a photo op with the folks down in Washington.

Apparently good looks only get you so far...

From the Globe:

Embattled Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla has stepped down from her post as the
Liberal Party's youth and multiculturalism critic over allegations she
mistreated foreign caregivers and paid them under the table.

[...]

Toronto Star report quoted two caregivers saying they were mistreated while they worked at Ms. Dhalla's Mississauga home, taking care of her mother.

The two came to Canada under the federal government's Live-in Caregiver Program, but said their work was mainly household chores for the family, including shovelling
snow and cleaning the Dhalla family's chiropractic clinics.

One, Magdalene Gordo, compared the post to slavery. Another, Richelyn Tongson, said Ms. Dhalla kept her passport and other documents for weeks.

Ms. Dhalla denied mistreating the care-givers. She did not attend the Commons on Tuesday.

Feel free to leave comments on whether the government sponsored Filipino nanny program provides good jobs and two year residency in Canada for desperate workers, or just provides really cheap labour to young families...

Death of a museum

Keykode took me to the museum.
He said it was one of his favourites.
Huh, I thought...this is the capital.
This is the land of national monuments.

When my glasses were donned,
That place beside the Castle,
Drew me in with its charm.

This was not a place for Gauguin.
Nor Van Gogh, Michelangelo or Rodin.
This was not a place for conventional work.
This was something different.

Something different because of the attitude.
The photographs challenged.
They posed while playing with you.
This was not a place of stodgy art.
This is place for photography.

I cannot help but feel that this attempt is futile.
The Conservatives have denounced art.
The M.P.s have stated their need for space.
A committee room shall takes its place.

Sign the petition. Save the Contemporary Photography Museum.

...