Political Leadership Void

In talking to my friend Gary today, I offered the opinion that even though he is the putative next prime minister, PP will not have what it takes to deal with the demented agenda that will in all likelihood be the 'crowning achievement'  of the ape the U.S. chose as their president. Perhaps PP would be well-advised to consider this advice from  Gord Wilson of Port Rowan:

Will Canada’s leadership find the courage to stand up to Trump?

Donald Trump cares little about maintaining good relationships with any country or international organization that opposes his agenda. To be sure, he and his choice of ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra will demand that Canada bow to his trade demands. Our political leadership should remember that their role is to put Canada first, and in response to such demands, advise Trump, for example, that unless he withdraws his trade demands, we will close the Welland Canal to U.S. traffic, cease the export of Quebec Hydro, cease the shipment of oil and gas, cease the shipping of vital Canadian mined minerals, and enforce our 200 mile limit on the East and West Coasts. Canadian water is another commodity that gives Canadian leadership “push back.” The coming months will tell all Canadians if our political leadership can find enough courage to stand up to an elected bully.

"The Evil that Men Do"

While it can be convincingly argued that Justin Trudeau has done many good things during his tenure as prime minister, it is usually the shortcomings of leaders that are remembered. The following letter attests to that fact:

Trudeau has earned his political enemies

.

Current polling indicates Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is nosediving the Liberal party toward a devastating defeat in the coming election, possibly to third party status. Trudeau’s long record of loose promises — his admitted duplicity on proportional representation elections in 2015, his refusal to tax the financial and market assets of the wealthy the way Canadian homes are taxed, his refusal to redirect $18 billion per year in oil and gas subsidies into clean energy, his anemic energy transition support for ordinary Canadians, his willingness to see average Canadians crushed by dizzying interest rate hikes “to fight inflation” rather than regulate the price-gouging corporate executives whose record profits are actually driving the inflation — have all earned him a united front of enemies from across the political spectrum.

It’s telling that Trudeau still refuses the one thing in his power that would prevent a Conservative majority from sweeping in this coming election: enacting Proportional Representation elections (equal representation for every vote, with no vote splitting). Trudeau would rather let Poilievre win absolute control of government with only 40 per cent of the votes, than give up Liberal/Conservative disproportionate control of the political system . It is well past due for the Liberals to call an emergency leadership review and replace Trudeau and his luggage with a progressive team player, like MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith, for 2025. The coming months will tell where the Liberals’ real priorities lie — with the corporate aristocracy, or with the rest of us. 

D’Arcy McLenaghen, Toronto 

Same Old, Same Old

Although an inveterate cynic, for about one minute yesterday I felt something odd and rare: a moment of hope. The basis for that was an interview with Bonnie Crombie, the 'leader' of the Ontario Liberals. But the moment was short-lived.

In a one-on-one interview with Global News, ahead of a planned provincial tour serving as a dry-run for an election campaign, Crombie criticized the Ford government’s runaway spending and questioned the premier’s priorities.

“They’ve decreased the fiscal capacity in this government,” Crombie told Global News. “The highest spending budget at $214 billion, increased debt, increased deficit. We don’t know where the money is going. It’s certainly not going where it’s needed.”

 “They’re these little gimmicks, such as canceling the licence plate stickers,” Crombie said. “If you knew that also cost $1 billion a year, would you not rather pay the $200, knowing that that money would have gone to the health-care system or schools for your children, or build affordable housing?”

The annual $120 licence plate renewal fee, which brought $1.1 billion into the provincial coffers each year, was scrapped by Premier Doug Ford ahead of the 2022 general election as a measure to ease affordability concerns among voters.

(Parenthetically, yesterday the government announced that now Ontarian's will be relieved of the 'burden' of having to renew our free licence plates. Children that we are, many cheered this new freedom.)

Asked if the Liberals would bring the sticker fees back if they formed government, Crombie said: “We would look at it, certainly.”

“That’s a billion dollars of revenue,” Crombie said. “I know that they would prefer that billion dollars going into their health care, going into building affordable housing, or going into our education system.”

My immediate thought was, "That's real leadership."  However, then this happened:

Roughly a week after the interview took place, as Global News was preparing to publish a story, a spokesperson for the provincial party sent a statement from Crombie looking to clarify her earlier comments on reinstating the license plate sticker fee.

“Let me be clear — when I say I will “look into” the licence plate sticker issue, I mean that as Premier I will look into all of Ford’s gimmicks and backroom deals to make sure they are providing a value for money for consumers,” Crombie said.

“Would I bring back an unnecessary fee on families who are struggling to make ends meet right now? No,” Crombie said.

I guess we should thank Ms. Crombie for clarifying that she is cut from the same cloth as all of her poltical ilk.

UPDATED: About Freedom

Although I read and write a fair amount, I clearly am not an expert in the affairs of the world. I can merely observe, report and comment on the things that interest, hearten or outrage me. An armchair (or is it keyboard?) pundit am I.

Nonetheless, there are certain realities that seem to me irrefutable, global heating being the most pressing, in my view. And that's why I find Pierre Poilievre's political pontifications about making Canada the freest nation on earth both absurd and disturbing. 

At the heart of  Poilievre's corrupted vision is that personal freedom (the truck convoy being an egregious example) trumps all else, that the mythical and ogre-like 'gatekeepers' are the only impediments to becoming truly actualized individuals. 

Therein lies the sweet lie.

Anyone who believes such an idealized state is possible is clearly deluded; anyone who advocates for it is being disingenuous, manipulative and mendacious.

The reason is fairly straightforward and, I think, obvious. Freedom without responsibility is a recipe for chaos, made worse by the fact that if we to have any chance (admittedly slim) of  avoiding the worst effects of climate change, co-operation, not the rhetoric of absolute freedom, will carry the day. 

Co-operation, the working with others toward common goals, is of course the complete opposite of the reckless rhetoric espoused by Mr. Poilievre, and clearly anathema to his political posturing. His divide-and-conquer strategy is a clear abdication of political leadership, one doubtlessly appealing to those given more to reaction than reflection.

Pierre reminds me of a student I taught many years ago named Jason. A most disruptive and mean-spirited lad, he was a definite taint on the atmosphere of the Grade 10 general level class I was teaching. It was the same year that asbestos was discovered in the west wing of the school where I taught, a discovery that required moving all staff and students to classrooms in the east wing. Imagine my surprise while watching the evening news to see Jason, who professed concern for his fellow students, leading a march on school grounds protesting the 'unsafe conditions' under which they were being instructed. Jason, a most indifferent student, to put it politely, felt that the conditions and asbestos threat were not conducive to learning, and something had to be done about it.

In many ways, Pierre reminds me of Jason. He exploits discontent for his own aggrandizement, the angry and disenchanted amongst us mere props to facilitate his political goals. Sincerity and genuine concern for the country are absent.

Will Poilievre succeed? I guess it depends upon how you define success. He will undoubtedly succeed in nurturing and expanding his constituency of the aggrieved, guaranteeing victory in his leadership quest. I very much doubt he will become Canada's next prime minister. 

Of course, that will ultimately be determined by those who rouse themselves to vote in the next election, won't it?

UPDATE: Moudakis's latest is just too rich and spot-on not to add to this post:

Our Unhealthy State

I am not one of those who chortles when political parties fall into embarrassments or controversy; such events only serve as fodder for opposing parties eagerly driven to earn more political street cred. Those antics do not benefit democracy.

I speak first as an Ontario voter, despondent at the meagre fare on offer June 2, our election day: Doug Ford's Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP, or, as I like to call the leaders of the latter two, Tweedledum and Tweedle-dee.

So the quality of leadership does matter regardless of political affiliation. And that especially includes the federal Conservatives, whose leadership choice in the fall puts under pressure whatever is left of its soul. Not to mention the pressure it puts on our own democracy. 

Being of a certain vintage, I remember well Progressive Conservative leaders such as Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark, both profoundly decent men who would today be labelled as Red Tories., Indeed, and I am not ashamed to admit it, I voted Conservative when these two men led the party. It was a time when viable political alternatives existed, alternatives that always serve as a much-needed check on whatever party leads the government.

Unfortunately today, and here I state the obvious, rabid polarization has robbed us of measured choices, the result being that democracy is deeply wounded.

A letter-writer reflects on what the choice of Pierre Poilievre to lead the Conservative Party of Canada would mean for both the party and the country. Neither is an appealing scenario:

I hope that prospective voters in the upcoming Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership read the Justin Ling column on the convoy background, but it is probably in the wrong newspaper for them to see it.

A significant number are apparently preparing to vote for Pierre Poilievre, glad-handing supporter of the Convoy of Anger as possible Prime Minister. Of course, he is already running for Prime Minister, believing that the interim step of leading his party is a foregone conclusion.

Some CPC MPs are so blinded by hatred of Trudeau that they will support any movement that attaches his name and a profanity to a sign, even if some of the so-called leaders have advocated violence, spouted conspiracy nonsense, and carried with them a ridiculous MOU.

There are two possible outcomes from Poilievre becoming CPC leader. Perhaps the most likely is more years of a Liberal government that always promises more than it delivers. The more dire consequence would be a cabinet full of convoy supporters.

David Steele, Regina, Sask.

Those who are eager for the implosion of the Conservatives, or any other major party for that matter, need to consider the implications fully before so lustily cheering on political demise.

Leadership Under The Microscope

 

I need ammunition, not a ride - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

With those six words, the Ukrainian President has put leadership under the microscope. His is the kind of courageous example that most people would long for in their politicians, but have likely long ago dismissed as a fond notion best confined to fantasy.

Juxtapose someone of great moral courage with a cruel dictator heedless of human life; one will inspire, and one will repel. And in the process you might just stir the world to at least a semblance of unity.

While everyone's attention is rightly rivetted by the terrible tragedy underway in Ukraine, one can also be heartened by the collective action much of the world is taking against the monstrous and calloused choices being made by Vladimir Putin. While not perfect by any means, the sanctions are the expression of strong condemnation of the war crimes underway. 

All of which has led to me thinking about the potential of leadership to unite a country. I would say that, especially in the early days of the pandemic, Justin Trudeau provided such leadership, appearing daily outside his cottage for updates, quarantining when necessary, and letting his hair and beard grow somewhat unruly, something many of us could relate to in those times. By these measures, he conveyed a message of shared pain and sacrifice. While obviously of an entirely different magnitude than that shown by Zelensky, it was what we needed at the time.

Then I think about the man who "wants to be your next prime minister," Pierre Poilievre. As described in The Breach, he is an ideologue who wants to replace social programs with a “tiny survival stipend”. It is a small part of his model of leadership that will inspire the mean-spirited and repel the fair-minded.

Althia Raj offers some thoughts on the options open for the Conservative Party as they ponder who should next lead them. Will they continue down the road to Trumpism or attempt to appeal to a wider part of the electorate?

The only declared candidate, Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre, is a polarizing figure with a “take no prisoners” attitude. He recently called Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shockingly “weak,” embraced the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” and called COVID-19 public health measures a purposeful attempt by governments “to try and take away our freedom and give themselves more power.”

In the past, Poilievre has attacked the media, made derogatory comments about Indigenous peoples, left the door open to a niqab ban in the public service, and broken the election law. Elected at age 25, the career MP is a forceful opposition critic who has railed against elites, placed the blame for rising inflation and house prices at the feet of the Liberals, and promised more energy projects. His campaign launch through a social media video on Feb. 5 garnered more than seven million views on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. At least 26 Conservative caucus members have endorsed him.

While the vote-getting allure of the demagogue is tempting to many, others aren't so sure, seriously considering other potential candidate like Jean Charest and Patrick Brown, both moderates and from the progressive wing of the party. 

None of these choices inspire in the way that Zelensky does, but Poilivre's no-holds-barred strategy, which includes courting supporters of The People's Party, does offer some increasingly clear choices: 

In choosing a leader, the Conservatives must ask themselves what their winning formula will be —do they want to take votes from Bernier’s far-right party or from Justin Trudeau’s Liberals?

The Real Adult In The Room

These days, it is hard to see the call to public office as an honourable one. The following letter sets things into their proper perspective, I think, while the video that follows shows who the real adult in the room is:

Former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne remarks that every child has the right to aspire to public office. We can look to the elections of Donald Trump, Doug Ford and now Boris Johnson and realize that children have and will continue to aspire to and achieve public office.

G.A. Corcoran, Toronto

When you can't attack the message you try to attack the messenger "that's a sign we are winning." @GretaThunberg to @NaomiAKlein.

The science is clear, there is no time to wait. #ActOnClimate#Climate #energy #tech #go100re #GreenNewDeal pic.twitter.com/CcCAImeGNp

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) December 16, 2019

Not Ready For Prime Time?

Given the current dearth of leadership within both the Trudeau government and the rudderless Conservative Party of Canada, this one really hurts:

If The Shoe Fits

For some strange reason, this resonates with me:

... Your Young Men Will See Visions, Your Old Men Will Dream Dreams.

Although far from a biblical scholar, I find the above line, taken from the Book of Acts, to be an apt title. Even though I am taking it out of context, it encapsulates for me a capacity that the world in general, and Canada in particular, has lost: the capacity to dream of and envisage a better reality than what we have settled for.

Under the relentless barrage of neoconservative propaganda, we have succumbed to the kind of existence epitomized in the video I posted the other day, a world of mindless consumerism, relentless environmental despoliation, and spiritual barrenness. if they are good at anything, those of the reactionary right are very good at limiting, even destroying hope.

Consider the insidious narratives they spin - government as an impediment, government as a thief in your tax pocket, government as the obstruction without which all would be well. Like all effective narratives, each chapter of theirs may contain an element of truth, but only a small part of the truth.

Forgotten is the role that government plays for the collective good, without which all of us would be lost. Imagine no libraries, no public roads, no health care, no pensions, no labour laws, no public police or fire services - all the logical conclusions to the extreme right-wing dream, a dream that would be a nightmare for the vast majority of us, especially those without the means or the wherewithal to escape consignment to the trash heap - economic Darwinianism run amok.

But from those vying for our electoral support, where are the visions, where are the dreams? From Stephen Harper, of course we get the above vision. Justin Trudeau offers more money for families, and a 'new way of doing politics,' whatever that means, and a bit of tinkering around the edges. Thomas Mulcair promises a national daycare program and more money for municipalities, important bread and butter issues, to be sure, but singularly uninspiring and pedestrian, and, to be quite blunt, safe.

Bold initiatives that require more from us via taxes have become verboten, thanks to the narrative the media brings us. So neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau will suggest, for example, a national pharmacare system that would ultimately save everyone, including government and private health plans, huge sums of money (upwards of $12 billion annually) through pooled purchases and far less hospitalizations owing to people either not getting their prescriptions filled or not taking the required dosages in order to stretch out their costly medicationss.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. I have made no reference to the truly critical issues confronting us for an obvious reason. If our leadership is too timid to address matters that are well within reach, such as pharmacare, what likelihood beyond a bit of rhetorical toe-dipping is there of bold measures to remediate child poverty, homelessness and our greatest threat, climate change?

Zero to nil, would be my guess.

With An Eye To The Future

It is to state the obvious that all progressives long for the day that the Harper regime is ousted from office. What is not so obvious, however, is what shape our country will take once that happens.

There are those who place their faith in Justin Trudeau. Others look with hope to Thomas Mulcair. And then there are others who see little to cheer about in the leadership or politics of either.

The other day The Mound of Sound, who falls into the latter category, wrote a post on leadership, concluding with the following observation:

The thin gruel served up today is a bowl filled with petty technocrats that come in varying flavours of authoritarianism. It's a bland and self-serving offering, devoid of vision, courage and commitment.

I fear he is all too correct in his assessment, one that is intimated by Thomas Walkon in today's Star. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy fated to endure, Walkom offers the proposition that it is far from certain that the dramatic changes Harper has made during his tenure will be undone by a government led by either the NDP or the Liberals:

True, both the Liberals and the NDP expressed outrage when Canada Post announced its plans [to cut home delivery] last December.

True also that, after a rancorous debate in the Commons, both voted against these plans.

The New Democrats sponsored a cross-Canada petition to oppose the cuts. Alexandre Boulerice, the party’s critic for Canada Post, continues to raise occasional questions in the Commons.

But Canada Post is plowing ahead with plans to eliminate home delivery for almost 1.3 million households by the time of next year’s election.

And neither Mulcair nor Trudeau is promising to reverse that decision if the Conservatives are defeated.

On Harper's tax cuts:

They won’t touch them.

Mulcair would raise corporate taxes. However, he says an NDP government would not reverse any of the personal income tax cuts Harper has introduced.

Trudeau says his Liberals wouldn’t reverse any tax cuts at all — personal or corporate.

Both parties slammed Harper for cutting the GST. Yet, if elected, neither would raise it back to its previous level.

Walkom point out the further damage Harper could do before he is tossed from the political arena:

Harper may be able to torpedo his rivals’ pre-election spending plans simply by giving away, in the form of tax cuts, all of Ottawa’s expected multi-billion dollar surplus.

The result? Even if Harper loses the next election, much of his legacy seems fated to remain.

Such is the timidity of today's political 'leadership' that I fear both the Mound's assessment and Walkom's predictions are all too accurate.

Explaining Justin Trudeau

No matter what the Liberal leader says or does, his popularity ranks at a consistently high level. While part of the explanation for his standings in the polls surely lies in the Canadian people's weariness with the Harper regime, a regime that has shown itself, through its practices of division, neoliberal politics and fear/hate-mongering, to be unworthy of public office, there must be more to it than that.

Rick Salutin, writing in The Star, offers up an interesting perspective in a piece entitled Paradoxical public art of seeming human. His thesis is that the more a person appears like one of us, i.e., flawed and fallible, the more we will identify with him or her.

He uses as an example the televised debate between Kathleen Wynne, Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath. Young Tim pretended to be just an ordinary, folksy kind of guy:

“Look, I’m not gonna be the best actor on the stage. I’m not gonna get up here and give a great performance.” It was a rehearsed shtick, a shucks/shtick. He did it with the rictus grin that others — NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, U.S. neo-con Bill Kristol — paste on, presumably because experts tell them they look too stern.

Contrasting that studied 'ordinariness' was Kathleen Wynne, who

sounded bad and looked flustered answering questions on corruption in that debate, but flustered is human, so she also made ground, by contrast with the “human” effects well-prepped by her opponents.

Salutin then examines Trudeau, pere et fils:

Human is human. There’s no formula. Pierre Trudeau looked human by not seeming to give a crap whether anyone cared if he looked human. It was effective.

Now Justin is pulling off the same thing though not in his dad’s way, which would be fatal. He’s warm, ebullient, spontaneous. It seems real, which is as much as we’ll ever know. When he apparently improvised a new anti-abortion policy at a scrum, he looked befuddled by the questions. “Uh, that is an issue that, uh” — then he takes a really long pause as if lost in thought, remembers the press are there, tries again: “I’ve committed in my . . . ” Then cheerily gives up: “Well, it is a tough one.” Says he’ll give it more thought.

While this apparent ineptitude should be reflected in poll results, it is not. Salutin's explanation?

Faced with candidates none of whom is discernibly human, voters will look for something to judge on: sunniness, mellifluousness, square jaw. What the candidates say is never enough since it’s all obviously calculated. But faced with one candidate who’s discernibly human, they’ll tilt in that direction for, well, human reasons. It’s like spying a fellow creature in the wilderness. It may not suffice but it’s a sizable advantage.

The adorable thing about that abortion clip is it could appear in Conservative or Liberal ads: as proof the guy’s in over his head or that he’s a certifiable human.

While electoral behaviour, like all human behaviour, will likely never give up all of its mysteries, Rick Salutin has perhaps provided us with one more tool by which to analyse it.

Cowardly Leadership: We All Pay A Price

As I have written in the past, poor leadership costs all of us dearly. Whether looking at local provincial, federal or international politics, the price we pay for leadership that has too high a regard for itself and too little for the people is moral, social, economic and military disarray. Whether we are talking about rampant cynicism with regard to the political process, the demonization of groups within society, the dodging of taxes or the kind of demagoguery that leads to war, all, at least in part, can be tied to defects in leadership. It seems that so many want power, but so few are willing to accept the real burden of responsibility that comes with that power.

Recently, at Northern Reflections, Owen wrote a post on Gerald Caplan's assessment that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians will likely never be resolved. I wrote the following comment:

I fear that Caplan's assessment is depressingly accurate, Owen. While some good but unlikely things have happened in the world, such as the ending of apartheid in South Africa, that achievement palls when compared to the deep-seated and abiding hatreds that seem to prevail in the Middle East and consume so many.

Owen replied: South Africa had Mandela, Lorne. There appears to be no Mandela in the Middle East.

Neither does it have someone like Bishop Desomond Tutu, long a brave warrior in the long march against apartheid, and a man never afraid to enter the lions den, as he did recently in Fort McMurray, where he called the oilsands products “filth” created by greed.

Tutu is showing a similar fearlessness in offering his strong views on Israel's behaviour vis–à–vis the Palestinians in Gaza. Writing in Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz, the social activist, Nobel Peace Prize winner and retired bishop is unsparing in his assessment of the situation, and is calling for a boycott of any company profiting from the occupation of Gaza:

Over the past few weeks, more than 1.6 million people across the world [have joined] an Avaaz campaign calling on corporations profiting from the Israeli occupation and/or implicated in the abuse and repression of Palestinians to pull out. The campaign specifically targets Dutch pension fund ABP; Barclays Bank; security systems supplier G4S; French transport company Veolia; computer company Hewlett-Packard; and bulldozer supplier Caterpillar.

But the heart of what Tutu writes about is hope, not punishment. Drawing upon the Sourth African experience, he says:

We know that when our leaders began to speak to each other, the rationale for the violence that had wracked our society dissipated and disappeared. Acts of terrorism perpetrated after the talks began – such as attacks on a church and a pub – were almost universally condemned, and the party held responsible snubbed at the ballot box.

The real triumph of our peaceful settlement was that all felt included. And later, when we unveiled a constitution so tolerant, compassionate and inclusive that it would make God proud, we all felt liberated.

Of course, it helped that we had a cadre of extraordinary leaders.

The role the boycotts and divestments played in the ending of apartheid, says Tutu, could have the same benefit for Israel and Gaza:

The reason these tools – boycott, sanctions and divestment – ultimately proved effective was because they had a critical mass of support, both inside and outside the country. The kind of support we have witnessed across the world in recent weeks, in respect of Palestine.

My plea to the people of Israel is to see beyond the moment, to see beyond the anger at feeling perpetually under siege, to see a world in which Israel and Palestine can coexist – a world in which mutual dignity and respect reign.

No one can be truly free until everyone is free. The people themselves need to look beyond their leaders and make their voices heard loud and clear. That seems to be the message Desmond Tutu is trying to deliver to this very troubled region of the world.

Oh, And One More Thing

It seems I, Martin Regg Cohn and Cheri DiNovo aren't the only ones to take issue with Andrea Horwath's leadership these days:

Re:Horwath admits ‘bittersweet’ election result, July 9

I wonder what Robin Sears has to say about Cheri DiNovo. The day Andrea Horwath walked away from the Liberal budget I cancelled my membership in the Ontario NDP. This decision was not taken lightly. I worked in my first election in Grade 9 and was a member of the party for decades. When the famous letter of “the 34” was made public, I felt better. Others were also disappointed at the move away from core NDP values to populist austerity rhetoric.

Then, enter Robin Sears. He dismissed all of us as over-the-hill, negative and anti-party. And now we have Cheri DiNovo saying “we can’t ever give up our core values and principles.” I hope there are more like DiNovo and fewer like Sears in the party. If that proves to be the case I will return to the fold. I voted Liberal and I respect Kathleen Wynne but I am not a Liberal because I don’t share their core values and principles.

Peggy Stevens, Newmarket

Andrea Comes Down From Her Perch

But only a little bit. And only because her campaign is being criticized from within.

As I noted in a recent post, Ontario NDP leader Andrea's Horwath's hubris following what almost everyone else would call a failed Ontario election campaign has been both unseemly and wholly unjustified. She initially avowed that she had no regrets about causing the election, terming it a success despite the fact her party lost key Toronto ridings and, more importantly, the balance of power. However, now that she is being publicly taken to task by both Peter Julian and Cheri DiNovo, Horwath seems to be tempering her pridefulness:

After weeks of downplaying the defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals on June 12, which saw the New Democrats lose the balance of power in a minority legislature, Horwath on Tuesday conceded “the result of this election campaign was bittersweet.”

“We lost some seats in Toronto, which is very concerning to us. All three of those MPPs were good and it’s troubling that all three lost their seats,” she told reporters at Queen’s Park.

Her admission of error came after DiNovo granted an interview to The Torontoist, in which she described the results for the party as "a debacle from the beginning, from day one”.

DiNovo blamed those results on a wholesale drift from traditional NDP progressive values: poverty, child care, housing, and education.

Pointedly, she observed that "at the end of the day it’s about who we are as a party and what we stand for that we need to look at as New Democrats.”

Showing more understanding of what true leadership entails than Horwath does, DiNovo says the NDP will not regain frustrated supporters by portraying the recent election as progress, which has been the official line—focusing on the fact that the party improved its share of the popular vote by one per cent, and that efforts to attract voters outside of Toronto yielded gains. “It’s important for our voters in Toronto to know that we did not see that campaign as a success” because “I think voters appreciate honesty.”

It appears that, belatedly, Andrea Horwath may be realizing the wisdom of her colleague's insights, but not with any real grace. In today's Star, Martin Regg Cohn says that when the caucus finally met on Tuesday, DiNovo, a United Church minister, was told to take another vow of silence.

Nonetheless, as a response to those criticisms,

... a more contrite Horwath confirmed this week that she is changing her staff — and changed her tone. Where last month she was “proud of the achievements,” this week she scaled back the bravado by acknowledging the “bittersweet” reality in Toronto.

The political reality for all caucus members is sinking in. The spring election they triggered has deprived them of the balance of power, leaving the party destabilized and demoralized.

With the Liberals enjoying a majority for the next four years, the NDP leader has lost her leverage in the legislature. Over the next four months, she must regain her legitimacy within the party.

It is clear that Ms. Horwath has her work cut out for her.

Well Said!

The other day I wrote a post critical of the 'blame game' being played by the NDP's Andrea Horwath to excuse her lack of progress during the recent Ontario provincial election. In a similar vein, Star letter-writer Michael Foley of Toronto offers his excoriating assessment of her rationalization:

Re: Liberal scare tactics cost party at polls, NDP leader says, June 26

I want to make this very clear, Andrea Horwath. I did not, nor have I ever voted out of fear. I vote for the leader who offers the best ideas for all Ontarians.
Horwath apparently lost because of an electorate that approached voting stations on wobbly knees, casting ballots with shaky hands, nervous sweat beading on worried brows. Not because of any missteps that she may have taken.

She lost and it was her own doing. She insults me and all who turned out to vote. It was her who abandoned her party’s founding principles not me. It was her who turned her back on core party supporters and values, not me.

Be an adult and accept the voters decision for what it is, with grace, and not with petulance and wrath.

.......................................................................................................................................

Canadians have recently been witness to the sad and now seemingly irreversible devolution of the CBC, fueled both by ongoing and deep government funding cuts and betrayal from within. Star reader Kevin Caners of Brockville reflects on the implications of this Harper-led assault on Canadian icons in this perceptive letter:

Re: CBC plan could cripple public broadcaster, June 25

As someone who cares deeply about this country, I can’t fully express how much despair it fills me with to watch as the CBC — one of the few forums we have as Canadians to both connect and reflect our culture and society — is systematically dismantled.

From the CBC to Canada Post, isn’t it symbolic that as we tear up the few remaining avenues we have as Canadians to communicate literally and metaphorically with each other, the Conservatives are busy with their vision of what it means to build a country — namely constructing pipelines to pump oil from one part of the country to another.

What an utterly sad thought that our message to our children, and the world, is that the thing we care most about connecting as a nation is not our communities, our aspirations, and our citizens, but our dirty oil, with export markets. Surely we have the imagination and confidence to see ourselves as something more than climate change deniers and hewers of bitumen.

I hardly recognize this Canada any longer. And it pains me to recognize what we’ve already lost in our haste. My only hope is that we Canadians who still believe in this country, start organizing now to make sure that the Conservatives’ sad impoverished vision for this country, comes to an end as of April 2015.

And then the true work of building a society — through our arts, culture and understanding of one another — can start anew. Time to get working.

Lisa MacLeod Revisited

The other day I wrote a commentary on recently re-elected Nepean-Carlton Ontario Progressive Conservative Lisa MacLeod. In a thinly-disguised job application/op-ed piece for the Star, Ms. MacLeod talked about what is needed for revitalized leadership of her party, brought to electoral ruin by the soon-to-be-departed leader Tim Hudak. Perhaps not surprisingly, MacLeod's prescription for renewal seemed to reflect her 'skillset.'

It is a self-assessment with which not everyone agrees. In today's Toronto Star, two letter-writers point out what the party needs, and their prescriptions do not seem to include Ms. MacLeod:

Re: Ontario Tories need fresh leadership, Opinion June 24

When I read drivel such as this penned by Lisa MacLeod, it is difficult to drum up any optimism about the futures of Ontario, or its Progressive Conservative Party.

The Tories lost the election for one reason: incompetence on a massive scale. Instead of running with a few things that would have resonated with the vast majority of voters (hydro rates, and debt load on our children’s shoulders), true to form they handed their opponents coils of rope and voluntarily built the scaffolds.
It is quite apparent that Lisa MacLeod is positioning herself for a run at the leadership of the party, and I would extend a caution to anyone who might be under the impression that her fresh face is the ticket to party rejuvenation.

I met Ms MacLeod several years ago at a public meeting in rural Ottawa. Her personal brand of politics differs little from the all-too-familiar version: politics is nothing but the acquisition and retention of power — decency and concern be damned.
And the fact that she ran away from a discussion about our declining property rights shows that she really isn’t much different from Mr. Hudak, or the Liberals and the NDP, for that matter.

Jamie MacMaster, North Glengarry

MPP Lisa MacLeod could have saved a lot of ink and space by simply writing: pick me, pick me!

She is already looking to the next election. Listen up Tories: Ontarians don’t like elections. They cost money. Our money.

What we want for the Ontario Tories is a leader with intelligence, integrity, candour, honesty, a social conscience, and especially, the ability to work with all parties, to find the best solutions for Ontarians’ needs. Not your party’s needs.

That pretty much rules out all the old baggage carriers from the Mike Harris years – like Tony Clement and the neocons/Tea Partiers like Lisa Raitt.
Oh, and Lisa MacLeod.

“Red” Tories it’s time to take back the party.

Susan Ruddle, Waterdown

Lisa MacLeod's Ambition

I'll say right off the top that I am no fan of recently re-elected Ontario Progressive Conservative Lisa MacLeod, and not just because she is a member of what has become an extremist party. Her embrace of the politics of division, her strident hyper-partisanship, and now, post-election, her hypocrisy, rankle.


Tim and Lisa in happier times

Ostensibly a staunch supporter of her leader up to and during the election, now Ms. MacLeod, a rumoured leadership hopeful, has dramatically changed her tune. In an op-ed in today's Toronto Star, entitled Ontario Tories need fresh leadership, she offers the following observation:

...we let Ontario down by not offering an alternative that more voters were prepared to accept. We have a lot of work to do over the next four years. The party needs renewal, a new direction, and most important, fresh leadership.

In what could very well be the rudiments of a pre-leadership manifesto, she talks about the need to prepare for the next election, telling us what the next leader must be capable of:

We need a person who understands urban, suburban and rural concerns, one who gets the complex makeup of this province.

But wait. Could that someone be her?

In my own riding of Nepean-Carleton, I represent new immigrant communities, expanding suburbs and a large rural area. I also take the lead on the urban issues that affect Ottawa, our second largest city. Nepean-Carleton is a microcosm of the growing and changing Ontario that our party must represent.

While not entirely disavowing the campaign under Hudak's leadership, she observes its shortcomings and includes information about herself that serves to offer redress:

Our most recent PC platform has been criticized for talking too much about numbers and not enough about people. Fact-based decision making is important, but we can’t overlook the human side. I’m a suburban soccer mom. I care about my child’s school, our local hospital and whether our community is safe, just like so many other Ontarians do. (emphasis mine)

And to drive home the point for those dullards among us, she adds:

Ontarians need a party that knows how to make their lives better in measurable ways. For example, the Schools First policy that I put forward as education critic would ensure that schools get built sooner in our rapidly expanding suburbs. (emphasis mine)

MacLeod ends her exercise in self-extolment, however, on a note with which I agree:

The PC Party has a responsibility to deliver a strong and broadly acceptable choice the next time.

It is in everyone's best interests to have strong and credible opposition parties. Such entities act as necessary checks in healthy democracies, standing at the ready to offer viable alternatives to governments that becomes stale, tired, complacent or arrogant.

The Better Angels of Our Nature

Like many who follow politics closely, I consider myself to be deeply cynical. Probably the best window into the human soul, politics is the arena where often the worst aspects of our natures prevail; greed, selfishness, abuse of power all have ample opportunity to find expression in this venue.

Yet despite many years of observing these terrible truths about ourselves, I have never completely abandoned hope for the possibility of something better. Recent events have provided some basis for that hope, despite the best efforts of the Harper neoconservatives to remake us in their own image and accept them as Canada's natural governing party and all that that implies.

In this vein, a couple of articles are worth perusal. The first, Seven things Kathleen Wynne's victory tells us about ourselves, offers two especially important insights:

It’s about character.

“It shows that Ontarians don’t vote first for platforms or policies,” says political consultant Randi Rahamim with the Toronto-based firm Navigator Ltd. What people sense is bred in the bone proved more important than the Liberal scandal over gas plants or the ORNGE air ambulance fiasco. “Character matters most and people have a gut feeling about that. Who do they want to have a coffee with?”

I regard this as especially important, inasmuch it suggests that we have not totally lost the ability to relate to politicians as fellow human beings, regarding them as more than just stereotypes of self-interest and corruption. To see the face of human integrity in our leaders implies we are able to look beyond those who can best serve our own narrow interests through more tax cuts, tax credits, and continued erosion of the traditional role of government.


She makes us feel good about who we are as a community and, on a wider scale, a province.

[Peter] Donolo compares her appeal to U.S. President Barack Obama’s effect on Americans in his first campaign in 2008. “There’s a real sense of optimism that they see reflected in her,” says Donolo.

There’s so much to get us down, starting with the lack of jobs and the way a dollar doesn’t stretch anymore. That could have been lethal for Wynne; her own party has been in power since 2003.

Instead, she included her definition of government as part of her stump speech, stressing that people pay taxes to cover social services. She also made it clear the government must respect the value of hard-earned dollars.

Clearly this is related to the issue of character. People's response to Wynne was, once again, a human response that includes concern about the larger community, something the federal government has been working steadily and consistently to undermine, and mirrored in Tim Hudak's gleeful blood lust for cuts.

In her column today, Heather Mallick writes on a similar theme of optimism. Entitled Liberals won because voters aren’t cynics, she reflects on Wynne's election win as a victory for the inclusiveness that progressives fight hard for:

We elected a woman premier, imagine that. I spent years worrying that the advance of gay rights had seemed to sidestep women, with lesbians as hidden in the shadows as ever.

There was a time when a divorced woman who had fallen in love with another woman would have been shut out of public life. Welcome, Premier Wynne.

Wynne’s budget was left-wing in that it had goals that can only be accomplished by government. The job of government is to be visionary, to plan for the future. The private sector can’t do that because it isn’t built into their structure.

And there was Wynne winning votes partly with the sheer force of her obvious decency, warmth and humour, a Canadian version of another much-loved politician, Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

While I am far from certain that the Liberals deserved the majority they achieved, and while I have been around long enough not to get too swept up in a self-congratulatory mood, this election experience does give hope that "the better angels of our nature" Abraham Lincoln referred to in his inaugural speech more than 100 years ago have not deserted us; rather, it seems more likely they have lain dormant, awaiting someone to reawaken us to their reality.

Slip Slidin' Away

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you're slip sliding away
- Paul Simon

I know, by his public efforts to appear reasonably normal, that Stephen Harper is a Beatles' fan. Whether he has ever listened to or crooned any of Paul Simon's songs is less certain. Yet I couldn't help but think of Simon this morning as I read Lawrence Martin's latest piece in The Globe and Mail.

Entitled The Harper machine is in disarray, Martin reflects on the many obstacles that have emerged to obstruct what I presume is Dear Leader's destination, not only to win the next election but to become Canada's long-serving prime minister. (Put aside for the moment that he seems to have blighted our political landscape for far too long already.)

Like an aging tiger, Harper seems to be losing some of his truculence. As Martin notes,

Few expected this. The bet would have been that the Prime Minister would have gone to the wall to protect Dimitri Soudas, as he has many other loyalists after acts of folly.

But just four months after having been appointed, the Conservative Party’s executive director is out the door. He joins a lengthening list. In recent months, Stephen Harper has also lost his chief of staff, his finance minister and a Supreme Court nominee, plus several senators as a result of the expenses scandal.

Dimitri Soudas' dismissal, suggests Martin, may mark an act of Harper deference to the rank and file who are becoming increasingly restive chafing under their leader's storied iron grip on all facets of the operation. Why? Matin cites several reasons:

-His party has been trailing the Liberals in the polls.

-He presided over a scandal he claimed to know little about, but should have known a lot about.

-Rebellious caucus types have confronted him, demanding some freedom of speech.

-Former finance minister Jim Flaherty contradicted him on income-splitting, a major policy plank.

One could certainly add to this list considerably, but perhaps the most egregious example of trouble has to be the almost universal repugnance with which his current favourite puppet, Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, is being met over the misnamed Fair Elections Act. I won't be surprised if loyalist Pierre is soon invited to sit in the party ejection seat as well.

Martin points out that similar problems of resistance and bickering have beset past prime ministers as they approach the 10-year mark, including Mulroney, Chretien and Trudeau, at which point it becomes a situation of fight or flight.

However unlikely, let us hope that Stephen Harper chooses the latter option.