The Suzuki Factor

David Suzuki’s endorsement of Stephane Dion’s carbon tax initiative is a mixed blessing.

Suzuki’s outspokeness has made him a bit of a lightning rod for criticism that he’s an extremist, a granola munching tree-hugger.

I think Suzuki sees the global warming issue as a politico-scientific challenge. Both sides have to work together like a team of horses or nobody gets anywhere – ever.

If Dion truly has the fortitude to stand behind the carbon tax policy and if David Suzuki genuinely believes there is no other way, the two must work together and very publicly.

For his part, Dion has to show a degree of genuine leadership that’s rarely seen in the timid. He must refine his initiative, stand behind it, explain it, defend it and then persuade Canadians that it’s not just a nice idea but an imperative.

For his part, Suzuki must use his considerable professional influence to enlist a large body of the best scientific minds in our country to join him in supporting the carbon tax proposal. They need to lend their voices, their credentials to present a solid scientific consensus on the issue. They need to assist Mr. Dion by doing everything in their power to explain the merits of carbon taxation to a sceptical and sometimes ill-informed public.

I think the concept is workable. A lot of the already stated fears are misplaced. For example, there’s no reason that home heating fuel cannot be exempted from these taxes. I believe there are similar workarounds for other problems.

That’s not to say that carbon taxes won’t be felt. Of course they will as they must if they’re to work. That’s the whole point. The idea is to get people to change their energy consumption habits. If you must commute an hour each way to work, you might want to help us all out by ditching that SUV. Maybe you’ll suddenly see the merits of car pooling or mass transit. Maybe jobs will have to relocate closer to the available workforce as has happened elsewhere, relieving already chronic congestion in our metropolitan cores.

Here’s another thought. We don’t consume energy equitably so why should those who consume substantially more not expect to contribute more in tax? If you want to live in a 4,000 sq. ft. house in exburbia because that’s where you can afford that elevated lifestyle, don’t complain that it’s expensive to clog up the highways commuting downtown to work. That’s your choice, live with it. If you want to spend your weekends racing about the lake in your ski boat rather than kayaking, that’s your choice, live with it. If the taxes are unacceptable, change your lifestyle. Just don’t bitch to me about how you choose to live your life.

 

A Pox on All Their Houses

Who is going to lead Canada’s next majority government?

I don’t know and neither do you because that person hasn’t won their party’s leadership yet.

Neither Stephen Harper nor Stephane Dion has struck the essential chord with the Canadian public to lift their parties out of the minority rut. If anything, each is propping up the other’s mediocre performance. The best thing Stephane has going for him is Stephen and the best thing Stephen has going for him is Stephane.

Stephen has shown even the Tory faithful that he’s a cold, secretive, manipulative guy, the sort few are willing to trust. Stephane has shown himself a weak and uninspiring leader with utterly atrocious communications skills.

Now before you jump on me for critiquing Stephane Dion, think about this. When you run for the leadership of a party, you’re representing that you have the skills and the aptitude for the job. You’re representing yourself to be able to reach beyond card-carrying party faithful and connect with the general public. After you win that leadership you have to make good on those promises. All you won was the right to lead but you have to perform and perform well.

Stephane Dion is a good man. He’s certainly intelligent and well-intentioned. He probably has enough skills to get at least a passing grade. It’s on the other part, aptitude, that he fails badly. It’s the aptitude that’s necessary to reach out to the general public – charisma, confidence, clarity. This is where Mr. Dion repeatedly comes up empty.

Stephane Dion’s command of the English language is not good and it’s not one bit better than it was when he was running for the leadership. He ought to have dealt with that, he plainly hasn’t and that’s inexcusable.

So, let’s clean house. It’s time for an election. Conventional wisdom in Liberal ranks holds that Mr. Dion, regardless of his performance, has won the right to lead our party into the next election. If that’s the way things are then, fine, let him lead but let’s get this over with so that the Liberal Party of Canada can actually move ahead.

Look at it this way. The first party, Liberal or Conservative, to move to a powerful, effective leader will form the next majority government of Canada. Wouldn’t it be great if that party was ours?

 

Wake Me When It’s Over

They folded on Afghanistan. They folded on the Tory budget. They even folded on their own amendments. They folded on the environment. Every time the Tories shout “boo” Stephane Dion dives for cover and takes his MPs with him.

He was supposed to get his government ready to fight an election. That’s the first rule when leading a party in a minority parliament.

Now he’s up against it. He goaded the Tories with a tax cut and they’re calling his bluff. Will Dion fold again? Does it even matter? James Travers, writing in the Toronto Star, argues that Dion allowed himself to be outflanked even on his strongest issue:

While the Conservative performance is long-term threatening to the environment, the Liberal failure is more immediately politically damaging.

The difference for Dion is that the environment is a point of a departure, an easily grasped way of presenting Liberals as the vector for a country moving forward in optimism, not back in nostalgia.

How the party skidded past that point puzzles even many Liberals. But two factors are clear.
One is that Dion’s green credentials had more currency with the party than they now have with the public.

The other is that Conservatives were as skilfully swift in positioning Dion as an impotent environmentalist as they were framing him as a weak leader.

Even before the echoes of Dion’s victory speech faded, Harper’s spin-doctors were tracing the sorry record of Liberals who signed Kyoto but did next to nothing to rise to its challenges.

Since then, outflanking Dion on potential ballot questions has become the Conservative norm. They succeeded on Afghanistan and the management of a slowing economy while the renewed climate activity coupled with last night’s vote on the NDP motion leave Dion without a compelling election issue.

– Update – This post has attracted a great deal of interest from Blogging Tories and their ilk. Before you do something embarrassing in your drawers, calm down. This post is about Mr. Dion, not the Liberal Party which, as each of you knows in the dim recesses of your narrow minds, will be back in due course. You, my friends, are gloating on borrowed time.

A quick question. Where would you be if you didn’t have a leader like Harper? If there was ever a time you ought to be steamrollering the opposition into a powerful mega-majority, this is it. But you’re not, not even close and you can blame lard-ass for screwing up your great and yet fleeting opportunity.

 

And Now a Word From Our Leader?

Well I said I would post any response I received to my open letter to Stephane Dion about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. I did get an unsigned reply, one that I was reluctant, for the sake of the Liberal Party, to post. Yet, here it is. You may note that it doesn’t even attempt to address any of the fundamental questions I posed.

“Thank you for taking the time to write to the Liberal Party of Canada. As you know, the Liberal Opposition recently put forward an amendment to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s motion to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011. Since that time, the government has modified its own motion to reflect many of our amendments.

We will not abandon the people of Afghanistan, but Canada’s mission has to change. We are pleased that the government has adopted some of the Liberal language in its motion, but we will carefully study the new motion before deciding whether or not to support it.

Regards.”

 

Muddling Along Meaninglessly

It looks as though Harper and Dion have found a compromise on Afghanistan – stay until 2011 and then out.

Excuse me while I wretch.

What these clowns have compromised on is a big bag of nothingness. It is less than a joke, darker than a farce. Where to begin?

Let’s start with the absence of the most important players at the negotiating table – NATO and Washington. Harper and Dion can agree to anything they like. Without the agreement and binding committment of NATO and Washington, it’s as meaningless as the previous agreement to extend “the mission” to 2009.

When we said “out in 2009” what did that comedian de Hoop Scheffer do in recognition of our offer to extend our nation’s committment, to sustain further losses? He did nothing. The Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took it as a freebie and gave absolutely nothing in return. He didn’t begin pestering other NATO members to have replacements ready to take over in early 2009. Neither did Washington which, after all, intends to maintain permanent garrison forces in Iraq and needs NATO soldiers to make that possible by carrying America’s baggage in Afghanistan.

Surprise, surprise – here we are long after the deadline has passed to muster a replacement force and Brussels and Washington have done SFA. So, now we’ll draw another line in the sand, this one two years further down the road, 2011, and – naturally – we’ll neither demand nor obtain any committment from the US or NATO.

So let’s flash forward to 2010. That’s the year the Dutch say they’re pulling out of Afghanistan. What are the chances Scheffer is going to be bothered with Canada’s deadline in 2010? We’ve shown him what Canada’s deadlines mean – nothing. Ignore us and we’ll bitch and then roll over.

Better yet, what does 2011 mean to the Taliban? Two years is essentially meaningless to a nationalist insurgency. “We have all the watches, they have all the time,” remember?

And what of Afghanistan’s New Government, Karzai’s Kabul Klan? There’ll be elections next year and word has it that the Americans want to get rid of the hapless Karzai in favour of a more reliable water boy. But power in Afghanistan has already passed into the hands of the warlords who have ensured the countryside is safely contained in fundamentalist feudalism. If we don’t have even a small fraction of the soldiers needed to combat the Taliban, just how are we to wrest power from the iron fists of the warlords and drug barons?

And what of Pakistan? Now that the Pakistani army has been “militarily defeated” in the autonomous Tribal Lands and the Northwest Frontier to the point where it has again negotiated a ceasefire with al-Qaeda and the Taliban forces, what will staying until 2011 do to ease that threat? Is it A: Nothing, B: Nothing or C: Nothing. Full points if you chose “Nothing.”

So, if staying until 2011 isn’t likely to result in any significant change on the ground in Afghanistan, then why stay at all? Of course if you’re interested in fighting a political war at home and indifferent to the military war abroad, you can duck that question entirely.

By the way, who do you think will be leading the Liberals and the Conservative parties when 2010 rolls around and we find ourselves still stuck firmly in Afghanistan and playing politics over whether to stay or leave?

 

The Battle of Kabul, Ottawa

Well it looks like our Furious Leader has found an issue he’s prepared to hang an election on – Afghanistan. Word has it he’s going to toss out a confidence motion calling for an extension of Canada’s Afghan mission beyond 2009.

Sounds to me like Stephane Dion had better pull his thumb out and find a clear position he can explain to the Canadian public, a position they can support. I’m betting that’s what Harpo believes Dion can’t do and he plans to make the election a referendum on the Liberal leader. The way everything else is going for Lardo this is probably his best bet.

The first thing Dion needs to do is to ensure that his policy is viable. As Hillier has said we can’t stay in Kandahar and not fight. It’s bandit country and, unless Dion can get the Taliban to go away, they’ll take over if we don’t fight to defend our turf. Can’t be any simpler.

Reconstruction? Sure, just as soon as we establish an adequate level of security. Oops, there we go again, fighting.

No, I think this is a “take it or leave it” question and the Libs are going to have to support the Cons or fall into line with the Dippers. I’m pretty sure that’s what Harpo’s thinking too.

Maybe it’s time to reassess the whole business. Let’s not get snowed by the Manley panel report. It’s simply not reality based. An extra thousand soldiers and a few helicopters isn’t going to secure Kandahar province, not even close. That’s a political sop, nothing more, and Manley ought to be ashamed for playing Harper’s stooge.

We could begin by asking what “success” in Afghanistan would look like and then contrast that with conditions on the ground to see what needs to be done to get there if that’s even possible. What do we want out of this? What’s our bottom line?

If our goal is simply to be a dutiful member of NATO, success or failure against the Taliban is irrelevant, the corrupt and chaotic central government is irrelevant, the Afghan security services that alienate the people in the countryside are irrelevant, the looming unrest and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan are irrelevant. Just by staying there, we succeed. Afghanistan may utterly fail but that doesn’t matter.

If the Canadian people want a “goal oriented” approach then our participation in the NATO/ISAF mission becomes less significant and all the irrelevant considerations above suddenly become very meaningful. Suddenly it becomes relevant that we’re not winning against the Taliban. It becomes relevant that the central government is corrupt and unviable. It becomes relevant that the Afghan security services are actually undermining our best efforts to build support among the Afghan people for their central government. The descent into violence and destabilizing religious extremism across the border in Pakistan becomes relevant.

So what we need is to engage the voting public on these issues, to make them see the fundamental flaws in the Afghan mission. The Canadian people have been kept in the dark about this little war and that’s understandable – the less they know the better it is for Lardo. The same goes for Hillier. Then there’s John Manley. Manley has done Harpo an enormous favour, a shield that Stevie can hide behind and a club he can use to bludgeon Dion.

Working around Harpo, Hillier and Manley will be tough. It’ll require a clear message and solid communication with the voting public and I’m not sure the Libs can manage either challenge. Their message is muddled and indecisive and, as for a communicator, well it’s Stephane Dion.

 

Dion, Make Up Your Mind – Stay or Leave?

I’m not sure where Stephane Dion stands on the question of Canadian participation in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It strikes me that he’s more intent on finding a place to stand that’s not already occupied than in taking a clear, genuinely principled position.

He’s allowed himself to get snookered again. Harper’s occupying the “stay” corner, Layton has staked out the “leave” corner. It seems that Dion’s focus is to define a posture that is somehow betwixt and between – as though that were possible.

So we’ll stay in Kandahar but someone else will do the fighting. And NATO is going to adopt rotational deployment so that all those other nations that are lining up to jump in can get their fair share of the combat mission.

The trouble with Dion’s position is reality. If you’re in Kandahar you’re going to fight. Option B doesn’t exist. And NATO doesn’t have any suitably sized reinforcements available to rotate in. That’s the problem Stephane, that’s why we’re in this 2009 predicament.

Germany’s defence minister announced today that his country’s forces, like those of Italy, France and Turkey, will be staying in the relatively peaceful north. They’re not budging and so any prospect of rotation is unrealistic.

Unfortunately for the Liberal leader, Harper’s also got the “stay, but…” option, the Manley option, staked out.

Between them, Harper and Layton have pretty much got the reality options filled. So, Stephane, who are you going to side with?

 

The Coherence Vacuum

These days the leaders of Canada’s two top parties – and no, that doesn’t include the NDP – are eager to avoid having to set actual policy. With their support wobbling like jello in the low to mid-30’s, it’s as though each sees the way forward as something of a minefield where one mistep could be fatal.

Harper has done almost nothing of consequence this past session of parliament save to lower the GST by one point. He doesn’t dare bring out his social conservative agenda for fear he might hand the Liberals a solid majority by default. He talks about global warming and greenhouse gas curbs but ducks and weaves his way around any concrete action. He even dodges Afghanistan, the one issue where his opinions are fixed.

Then there’s Stephane Dion, the man most responsible for Harper maintaining even a slim lead in the polls. He says he’s green but won’t say what that means in terms of the Athabasca Tar Sands and its pending expansion. He says he wants Canada out of its combat role in Afghanistan but wants NATO to somehow kick ass inside Pakistan. He too seems to have less to offer by the day.

Nobody has a coherent policy save, perhaps, for Smilin’ Jack, the guy whose greatest ambition is to advance out of the political cellar. Safe from the prospect of ever having to govern, Layton is the very image of clarity and decisiveness. Policies are wonderful things when you’ll never have to enact any of them. Wind and noise, that’s all there is to Jack Layton.

Mr. Layton’s posturing, however insincere and opportunistic, lets neither Dion nor Harper off the hook for failing to express coherent, effective and acceptable policies of their own.

My guess is that Harper truly doesn’t want to act. He certainly doesn’t want to betray his ideological fellows by being responsible for withdrawal of the Canadian contingent in Kandahar. That may account for the deft way in which he backed Canada into a “too late to leave” corner. It may be duplicitous, manipulative, even despicable but it’s been done and, for the far right, it is at least a temporary victory.

On global warming and carbon emission reductions, I suspect that Harper only feigns his conversion to belief. He probably still sees the potential advantages of also backing Canada into a deadlock where economic growth is only notionally balanced against emissions. After all, when it comes to carbon curbs, it’s a charlatan’s paradise. That’s not to say he won’t set some emission reduction targets. He will. Yet they’ll likely be little more than “intensity based” tomfoolery, mere window dressing.

In these things, Harper will be aided and abetted by Stephane Dion. The well-intentioned but timid Mr. Dion has shown that he’s unwilling to genuinely press Harper because that would require him to spell out clear and meaningful policies of his own. That is a risk only to be taken by someone who can capture the public’s imagination, confidence and support. That is the work of a leader of a nation, not a mere party boss.

There’s talk of Mr. Dion triggering an election. Maybe that’s just what we need to get the long overdue debate on so many important issues.

 

Dion Undercut by Afghan Ambassador

If Stephane Dion thought he was able to have a private conversation with Afghan president Karzai in Kabul, Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada set him straight on that.

According to the Toronto Star, Ambassador Omar Samad reports that Karzai told Dion that “calls by the federal Liberals for a new, non-combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan could undo the gains made so far and mean the sacrifices made by slain soldiers have been in vain.”

“This type of threat, in the form of terrorism and extremism, needs to be dealt with directly and head-on. That point had been made by the president.”

After his meeting on Saturday, Dion said Karzai would “welcome” whatever role Canada plays in rebuilding his troubled country even if it’s not a combat mission.

Samad didn’t indicate when Karzai intends to sling his drug baron brother’s ass in jail or, for that matter, any of the other drug lords Karzai is dependent upon, the very people whose opium industry funds the insurgency. Then there’s the corruption and compromise that undermines the Afgan government and leaves Karzai, in effect, the mayor of Kabul. If Samad and Karzai want to find something that “needs to be dealt with directly and head-on” they can begin by taking a real close look at themselves.

 

Or Else …What?

Jack Layton has taken control of the plum, Afghanistan airstrike issue, calling on Harper to demand an end to this tactic by US and NATO forces.

It’s a good issue to grab. Surprising, in a way, that other opposition parties, including our own Liberals, haven’t run with it before now.

The deplorable over-reliance on airpower by the Afghan Western forces is much easier to criticize than government corruption or even opium production. People just plain don’t like the idea of our side bombing village kids into oblivion.

What Layton hasn’t said is what he wants Harper to do should our side decline the suggestion. Leave Afghanistan perhaps?

I am disappointed with the lacklustre way Stephane Dion has handled the Afghanistan issue. He’s certainly reinforcing the message that I get from people that this was a Liberal venture from the outset.

Just where is Dion anyway? He needs to take advantage of these summer months to really raise his profile but turn on the news and he’s nowhere to be seen. Layton and Harper aren’t wasting a single opportunity to speak out on just about anything. Dion wanted the job, he needs to act like he still wants it. I’m sure there are plenty of Liberal insiders who can tell me that Stephane has been busy doing this or that but the public sure as hell doesn’t know that. To them, he’s all but invisible.