It appears that Stephen Harper would like to run against the coalition in the next election.  There is no plan for a coalition. For a full history see the blog  A Coalition of Nonsense by Alheli Picazo http://apicazo.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/a-coalition-of-nonsense/

 

The use of "coalition" at election time is a ploy perfected by Ralph Klein in Alberta. Run your election against something or someone NOT on the ballot. Klein ran against Chretien and the federal Liberals. If people disagree they can't vote for Chretien since he isn't running.

 

When the media buys into the ploy they continue with the false alternative, short changing the real opposition's opportunity for exposure and in-depth consideration.

 

In Harper's case, he knows that Canadians were polarized on the coalition in 2008. Throwing the opposition parties into the 'coalition' bag together, Harper anticipates they will peck each other's eyes out. When parties and leaders show lack of trust for each other, Harper's minority of supporters just need to show up. In Harper's best case scenario, the supporters of the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are disgusted by their own leaders and don't vote, opening the possibility for a majority victory. In any event if they don't agree with Harper, they are given no image, direction or leader that Harper has empowered by acknowledgment.

 

Many of the Republican communication strategies are versions of this one. Don't acknowledge the issue, don't mention it, show no sign of respect or recognition. Create a new reality, flesh it out, breathe life into it, never let it die, continue after proven false, illegal, impossible or highly improbable.

 

If this were just a marketing game between widget co. and gadgets corp., it would be interesting.  It isn't, Harper's games do not respect democratic institutions, rule of law or the importance of reputation to Canada's health, success and economy. While putting your head in the sand can make life simpler, in the meantime Harper, has not been open to new information, relationships and solutions. Harper does not model the skills needed to be globally competitive. Harper's communication strategy about a 'coalition' is only an opening to a rabbit hole that leads to a nonsensical world of political illusions and deceptions.

This telus software has not been working. I will try one more time but otherwise I will link to a blog hosted by a different site. Sorry for being out of contact here. You can reach me on twitter @jcpollock or facebook, my profile is http://www.facebook.com/#/jenniferpollockcalgary?ref=profile. My direct email is still jennifer@jenniferpollock.ca.

Tuesday, July 22, 2009

The Aboriginal Commission hosted a meet and greet in the evening. Our nomination contest was put in perspective by the three MPs attending. One MP was elected five times but had never faced a contested nomination. Todd Russell, MP for Labrador, with only 20,000 electors in his riding, had 5,000 votes cast at his first nomination. What an exercise in democracy. Tonight we will have our first campaign meeting, if you want to join the team call Richard at 403-701-7313.

Monday, July 20, 2009

My campaign for the nomination was successful. Approximately 120 people attended. There were 88 votes cast and in accordance with the rules only the winner is announced. Speeches started at 6:40. The room was full, virtually all chairs were taken and people were standing at the back and in both the entryways.

Both Ernie and I used the entire 15 minutes we had been allotted. Neither of us spoke alone. Josh Fraser, former Co-chair of the Federal Liberal Aboriginal Commission led off for me, followed by Bryndis Whitson, VP of the National Women's Commission, and Dr. Bill Dickson, the former Deputy Chief and Acting Chief Superintendent for the Calgary Board of Education. Each spoke in their own voice. I am grateful for their kind words but also for their courage. The meeting was enriched by the voices of members, a good start to a new campaign that must involve more listening than speaking.

While Ernie's speech, by necessity, involved his introduction to the members, I focused on what the Liberal party and our campaign must do to earn the respect and votes of our friends and neighbours in Calgary West. We must be more democratic. The nomination meeting was a good start.

The Liberal party needs to build relationships with people, not for an election, but for a lifetime. Whether they agree or disagree, each citizen is an individual and should be treated as such by political parties. Like a friend, we should know issues and interests that are important to our constituents. Of course, the next step would be to act on those issues and implement those ideas of constituents. I will try to understand the individuals in Calgary West first, and if given the chance to represent them, demonstrate that I will deliver on the issues.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Every day this week the nomination team has offered their thoughtful advice. Thanks for your support and generosity everyone.


Monday, July 13, 2009

At noon today the membership was determined for the nomination meeting in seven days. It looks like the membership grew by about 50% over last year.

Thursday, July 8,2009

It's official. Tonight we received notice that the Nomination Meeting for Calgary West has been called for MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009 - 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. - Varsity Community Centre - Membership must be purchased before Monday July 13th, 2009 at noon to be eligible to vote.

Tough choice

Keep Harper and allow our Canadian values, reputation, economy and environment to deteriorate  OR

Go to an election and hope for the electorate to make a different choice.

 

Harper will be spending money irresponsibly all summer, without a plan or strategy outside public debate or the accountability of the House of Commons. Harper will continue to sell off Canadian assets and open the doors to foreign takeovers. Attack ads will continue with pre-election spending without limit.

 

I support Ignatieff and I don't want an election BUT maybe Canadians need to take back their country. If there is no election I hope there is some way to reverse Harper's summer of desperate promises and deceptive lies.

The decision to sell off Atomic Energy is wrong, wrong and wrong.
1. Placing an industry with the potential for catastrophic failure in private hands is a threat to national security and a healthy environment.

2. Selling this asset during an energy crisis and economic recession is a poor management decision. At the same time as Harper' is increasing its debt load to the max, the fire sale of assets is short sighted.

3. Atomic energy in private hands reduces accountability for "accidents" and solves the problem of disposing of radioactive waste.

,...unless Harper thinks Canadians would be better off with a weak and ineffective federal government. This is a ideological decision.
1.He doesn't want a healthy federal government. He thinks government limits freedom to make money.
2.He doesn't want the responsibility of improving the lives of Canadians. He thinks that's what the church and charities are for.
3.He doesn't care about TRUE national security. Harper thinks that's what the police and armed forces should do.

Harper doesn't understand the role of government. Harper doesn't appreciate the risks and benefits of atomic energy.

Michael Valpy of The Globe and Mail wrote Saturday about his interview with Michael Ignatieff in his article, "Portrait of a Patriot?" In the guise of a book review, Ignatieff's True Patriot Love, Valpy takes a human interest angle as opposed to offering us a probing political analysis.

Eastern Canadians, at least those from the Toronto area, seem more interested in refreshing our memory of their ancestors "aristocratic" lineage than those of us in the west. Personally I am not interested, and I recognize that I have a bias against those that name-drop ancestors titles into unrelated discussions. In short, I don't like this aspect of Ignatieff's background but he had to come from someone, and 'national' newspapers do want to sell in Toronto, so I understand. I did like the fact that Ignatieff had an uncle who was fat, disagreeable and a political pain in the a$$.

 

What I have come to see about Michael Ignatieff is that he is a hard working general. He marshals and commands volunteer, paid and democratic forces. He is not idealistic but he believes in making dreams a reality. He is accomplishment oriented. Michael Ignatieff is more of a CEO or university president than an ivory tower academic or a back room strategist. He is who he is and he seems comfortable and confident with that.

 

Hopefully Ignatieff won't have time to ponder his family's roots. There is work to be done by our federal government and the Conservatives are not doing it, either because of incompetence or by intent. I don't care which it is, I just want them gone.

 

I don't think Canadians need to like our Prime Minister but we do need someone who is honest and competent. Harper is neither. Ignatieff appears to be both.

 

disclosure: this blog is written using comments I posted on the Globe and Mail website

 

Donna Kennedy-Glans will challenge Rob Anders for the Conservative nomination. Her website is at www.ourcalgarywest.com. Donna has experience as a lawyer and business person. Although almost anyone would be a better representative, Donna is skilled, caring and democratic.

You may want to join the Conservative Party and pay $10 to remove the worst MP Calgary has sent to Ottawa in the last fifty years. I know many people who have taken out a membership to end this embarrassing episode in our history. Of course, Donna's victory at the nomination is not expected to be easily accomplished. Donna may need a "rainbow coalition" to win.

Hopefully, the diverse nature of Dona's supporters will not poison her support among those conservatives who have supported Rob Anders in the past. I know Donna is a true blue Tory. Unlike me, a former Tory, Donna cannot support the Liberal party. I respect her choice to fight for a fuller democracy within the Calgary West Conservative ranks.

I will not be joining the Conservative party but I do not hesitate to suggest that you might want to seriously consider the option. I will not give one cent to the Conservative party because I do not believe the current Conservative party has the skill to manage the economy, the ideas to lead, the conscience to assist the vulnerable or the will to change the disastrous social, environmental or economic path we are on.

Good luck to us all.

Today Dominic LeBlanc withdrew as a leadership candidate. I agree with LeBlanc and others who are demanding that the Liberal party choose a new leader as soon as possible. Stephane Dion has cooperated offering to resign as soon as his replacement is determined. That leaves a simple decision, either Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff.

Unfortunately the LPC constitution does not yet provide for one member one vote elections or amendments to the election rules. Tonight there were cross country conference calls soliciting voter intentions at the local riding level. This is a start but it can not replace a private ballot. Ignatieff never really lost his supporters and they were numerous among the Liberal caucus in 2006. Everyone knows that using a caucus vote will result in Ignatieff's selection. I reflexively push back when forced to a decision this way, especially when I am losing my opportunity to vote.

Times have changed since the last leadership convention. During the 2006 convention I decided that I could support Bob Rae if Stephane Dion finished third on the penultimate ballot. Bob Rae has charisma and a reassuring tone. In 2006, Rae was a more experienced and polished politician than Ignatieff.

Now, Ignatieff has a couple of elections under his belt. In January 2009, the question of budgets and confidence in Harper's leadership will be voted upon. In order to advance economic, environmental or social solutions a coalition may be necessary to produce constructive work and avoid an unnecessary and expensive election. Bob Rae remains strongly associated with the NDP. I don't believe that Rae should be the leader of a coalition that includes the NDP. I have such certainty that I have been stating publically that Bob Rae should withdraw as well.

 

 

Today is my 53rd birthday. I'm feeling optimistic because of the prospect of a coalition government in Canada, the election of Barrack Obama and the health and success of my family. Like most Canadians I am concerned, bordering on fearful, of the economic prospects for our family, fellow Calgarians, Canadians and Canada. It's definitely a time to pull together.

As a Public School Trustee, we faced financial challenges in the 90's. In those days, politicians spoke quietly about our need to change our values during tough times. I hear this refrain again in '08. Since our family didn't have much money when I was young, I strongly disagree with the stereotype. I take it as an ignorant assumption or an insult that the poor possess lesser values. I look at it as a political challenge to allocate resources so our progressive values are embodied in programs, revenue generation and budget allocations. We need constructive, collaborative politicians to take on this challenge.

Harper's financial update, the principal source of a unified coalition, employed the stereotype. Harper used the excuse of falling world markets and the prospect of reduced government revenues to justify reneging on pay equity, signed collective agreements, the right to strike and eliminating per vote funding to political parties. Originally the rationale was simply financial, but the Conservative rhetoric went further to link these actions to extravagence and waste. Harper discounted or ignored legislation, contracts, judicial decisions and the underlying values. Clearly, a government cannot claim they should be excused from such fundamental components of democracy. The opposition agrees.

As my former Board Chair used to say "you can't suck and blow at the same time". Harper maintains that he occupies the centre of the Canadian political spectrum while discounting and attempting to dismantle initiatives that are part of the fabric of Canadian life and culture. If Harper was in the centre, he would find political support among the opposition parties and he would have a majority. Harper cannot claim he has the confidence of the House of Commons without the support of the majority. Harper's right to hold the position of Prime Minister is at the pleasure of the House, his party and the Governor General. My last post summarized my views about her decision.

Harper has shown no respect for fellow Parliamentarians and progressive Canadians. Why is anyone surprised that Harper has lost support in the House of Commons?

Aside: It may be that Harper is exploiting instablity, a la Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, to intentionally shift Canada to the right or rather serve the private interests of the wealthy. Hopefully this strategy is not being employed.

 

1. Harper will likely avoid a vote of non confidence. This way he leaves it to the Governor General to rule on the extent of the confidence of the House of Commons. He will likely ask for the prorogation of Parliament.                                                                                                          

Aside: Harper’s avoidance of accountability is habitual. His communication style and actions indicate a pattern of denial of certain realities; climate change, recession, human rights and Canadians’ underlying small “l” liberal values.

 

2. In the alternative, if polls show support for the Conservatives, Harper may seek dissolution and propose an election. Harper claimed that Parliament was dysfunctional in August and obtained the election he sought. This time round, there is a signed agreement with dates and commitments representing the majority of the House. Harper used his “get an election immediately” card once this year.

 

 

For her part, the Governor General is left to decide i) whether Harper does in fact have the confidence of  the House, ii) whether the passage of time would change the situation, iii) whether an election would resolve the issue, iv) whether the coalition has the confidence of the House. Hopefully the Governor General will take a principled approach and not a political one.

 

i) whether Harper does in fact have the confidence of  the House

I hope the Governor General will consider the fact that, there has been no vote of non confidence because Harper has avoided it my procedural nimbleness. It would seem perverse reasoning if the GG determined that she cannot assess confidence through other means. In fact, for the GG to uphold Harpers claim to the role of Prime Minister I would submit she must conclude that Harper does have the confidence of the House. Since Harper is ten seats short of majority she must be relying on means other than the confidence vote. Harper will point to the vote on the throne speech. Notwithstanding the vote on the throne speech, the issue is not whether Harper once had the confidence of the House but whether he has it now. It is clear that Harper does not have the confidence of the House now.

 

ii) whether the passage of time would change the situation

Has a Governor General been a party to delaying the determination of the confidence of the House? When Joe Clark was defeated, the point in time approach was used, as it has many times before. Permitting the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament as a delay tactic has been employed before. The consideration is whether the use of prorogation has any productive, democratic purpose other than to avoid a non confidence vote. From the point of view of the Conservatives, it would permit an opportunity for the marshalling of public support through the media, advertising, meetings and rallies. In the alternative, it may not result in support but instability and conflict in the country. The lack of an active democratic government in this volatile economic environment could also destabilize Canada’s economy. The GG should consider that permitting this delay also furthers the Conservative Harper’s political strategy on how to deal with the economy. In this way, the GG upholds Harper’s laissez faire approach. In summary, I submit that the risk of delay outweighs any benefits and the GG should not support prorogation.

 

iii) whether an election would resolve the issue

The decision to dissolve Parliament and call an election also delays productive democratic leadership on the economy, furthering Harper’s laissez faire approach to the economy and the environment. The election option was recently exercised. The election option is still available if delay or coalition prove unsuccessful.

 

        iv) whether the coalition has the confidence of the House

The opportunity to allow a coalition to attempt to govern is constitutionally permitted and not rare in western democracies. The GG knows the number of MPs in each party and by simple arithmetic must at least consider the possibility of a disciplined cooperation among the three parties. The signed agreement with timelines may influence her assessment of whether there is the necessary confidence of the House. Politics is changing, the Conservative tactics notwithstanding. Collaboration and mutual respect among adversaries has been employed to negotiate an end to apartheid and peace in Northern Ireland. Barrack Obama plans to govern with the assistance of a politically diverse team of leaders. In these times it is appropriate for the GG to ask the leader of the opposition to form a government.