Harpers new cabinet

Today, PM Stephen Harper appointed his new majority cabinet, with 39 MPs. People are calling it "bloated" and other derogatory things, simply because it's bigger than any other country's cabinet. For example, it is almost twice the size of the UK's cabinet, even though they have 650 MPs, 362 of which are part of the ruling coalition.

Well, to those of you who are all outraged by this symbolic example of government excess: have you ever considered that perhaps our cabinet is just the right size, and that every other country's is too small? Out of the UK's ruling Conservative/Lib Dem reckless coalition's 362 MPs, only 23 have been awarded full cabinet posts. In other words, only 6% of them are doing anything useful. The rest are probably just sitting there, collecting fat paychecks and charging their moat-cleaning bill to the tax payers.

By contrast, out of Harper's 167 Conservative MPs, 39 of them, or 23%, have cabinet posts. That's productive! Why not mobilize all the soldiers you can to take advantage of this historic opportunity to right all of the wrongs created by 5 years of minority rule and a decade of destructive Liberal negligence? You would be irresponsible not to.

With an inept minority opposition mostly composed of NDP newbies who need a GPS to find Parliament Hill, the government should have no trouble implementing the real conservative agenda that they have been yearning for all these years. With all these guys at work, I expect that within 1 year we'll have an elected senate with term limits, a balanced budget, and reduced crime. They will also unlock the shackles of the Canada Health Act, allowing provinces like Not Manitoba to experiment with health care reforms that could improve service delivery and lower costs.

2 Years, max. After that, they have to start thinking about getting re-elected, so they have to act quickly. But what's stopping them? Nothing! So mobilize those soldiers and go get 'em, Steevo!

Election 2011: Anybody Want A Peanut? endorses:

Maybe not "endorses". Everybody sucks. We can't endorse any of them. However, I got together with my advisors and the Anybody Want A Peanut? editorial board to decide who I should vote for.

Here's the thing: An NDP government would be a disaster for the nation. They are a well-intentioned bunch, but the misguided economic policies, spending increases and economic interventionism would be bad news. Fortunately, I don't believe the NDP will win the election. They may be surging, but I think there will be some pull-back today at the voting booth. Just like the first time you go sky diving: when the moment of truth comes, you look out the door of the air plane and say to yourself "what the hell am I doing? This is crazy!" Plus, if the announcement of Osama Bin Laden's death will have any any impact of the Canadian election, it will be to detriment of Jack Layton. It brings an issue to the forefront that Jack is in the minority on, plus it brings new hope that the war in Afghanistan is not futile. In fact, it may be more winnable now than ever before, making an immediate pull-out of troops irresponsible.

Likewise it is clear that the Liberals will not win the election. This is a good thing, because Ignatieff, who could have chosen a fiscally conservative platform, instead chose to veer left into NDP territory. Not quite as far off into the socialist bramble, mind you, but too far for my liking.

I happen to live in a riding that is a battleground between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Between incumbent Conservative Shelley Glover, and former MP Raymond Simard. Those are my only two meaningful choices. Andrew Coyne puts the decision this way: "would the Liberals do more harm to the economy than the Conservatives would do to democracy?" That is a tough question to answer, however, since the Liberals will not win, I don't have to answer it. Instead, the question becomes: do the Conservatives deserve (or need) a majority government?

I have argued before that Harper would be on a path to an easy majority if he was only less of a dweeb. He is his own worst enemy. Every time he gained in the polls, he pulled some aggressive or mean-spirited move that turned off marginal voters and knocked his rating back down. I do not like his style of leadership. I do not agree with many of the things that he has done, and I think his current campaign that primary revolves around coalition fear-mongering is absolutely terrible. I think the Conservatives would do much better under a different leader, and I think the Canada would benefit from that change as well. As a result, I am inclined to say that Harper does not deserve the majority that he is looking for. To give him a majority is to give approval of his horrendous campaign and his systematic destruction of parliamentary process in Ottawa. When this election is over, I want the Conservative advisors to sit down and say to themselves: "Okay, that didn't work. What can we do differently?". Politics in Ottawa is sickening, and it's largely because of Harper.

If there was a chance that any other party would win, I would probably vote Conservative, because the alternatives are even worse. For various reasons I don't believe there will be a Liberal/NDP coalition government if Harper gets a minority, and if there is, I don't think it will last long. Therefore, my decision is based on giving a vote of disapproval to Harper and the Conservatives by voting for Liberal Raymond Simard.

At least that's the decision that my advisors and I came to. I might get a sky-diving flashback and change my mind in the voting booth.

*****

Hey look! A couple of bloggers have awoken from their comas to post special election-edition commentaries!

Hacks and Wonks

Prairie Topiary

Good to see your blogs come alive again.

*****

My election predictions, as tweeted on Friday:
CPC 140, NDP 85, LPC 61, BQ: 21, GPC: 0, Ind: 1

Debate: quick impressions

Layton looked good. Some pre-debate face airbrushing going on there. Didn't think he made much of an impact though. NDP supporters will think he did great -- and he didn't do bad -- but most of what he said was just swatted aside like a bug.

I couldn't figure out what Duceppe was talking about half the time, but he made me laugh a couple times. "If you shoot a duck, you have to register the duck. If you blow away a dog, the dog is registered. The only thing not registered is the gun." He's good for entertainment value if nothing else.

Iggy was at his best when he got passionate about an issue. My favourite moment in the whole debate was during his one on one with Layton when he was defending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. He was off script, came across as being a genuine and intelligent person, and stomped all over Layton in the process. He had some other good moments too, but he appeared off balance at times and he returned back to his talking points too often, repeating the same things several times over. It was repeating that Liberal party script that lost me.

Harper never lost his cool. He answered everything with ease, and he denied every charge against him. A deal with the Bloc and the NDP? Denied. Corporate tax cuts? Denied. Didn't give cost data to parliament? Denied. And done with the same cool demeanor the whole time. His opponents were getting frustrated with him.

If I have to award a ribbon, it goes to Harper for his cool as a cucumber performance.

Notes:

1. The one-on-one format was awkward, and the one-on-ones between Layton/Duceppe and Iggy/Duceppe were especially lame. It was of interest to nobody and like a coffee break for Harper. Get rid of it.

2. Two national debates give Duceppe more air time than he deserves. He should be booted from the English language debate and replaced with Lizzy May, or with an empty seat.

How do you fire a senator?

Imagine if you were so bad at your job that you were disowned by the people who hired you, and actually forbidden from working. That is more or less the case with disgraced senator Raymond Lavigne, who was kicked out of the Liberal caucus and suspended from Senate in 2007. Yet for over three years he has collected his $130,000 salary as well as tens of thousands of dollars in various perks including travel expenses.


One Ottawa egghead stated, in reference to Monsieur Lavigne, “Every public officeholder has to be held accountable to a higher standard than the normal population”, yet that is far from the truth here. Any member of the "normal population" would have been kicked out on their ass long ago. Under Canadian law an employer is able to terminate employment without notice or severance in lieu of notice if there is just cause. I have some examples from my own employment travels to illustrate some of these instances, if you don't mind:

Insolence or insubordination
I don't know how this might apply to Raymond Lavigne, but I once worked with a guy who was prone to angry outbursts in which he would threaten coworkers and management. After one such outburst, he was called into the office, informed of his termination, and promptly escorted out of the building.

Theft
I worked at a department store where I was being trained on how to assemble and fix bicycles. One day I went to work and my mentor did not show up. "Where is he?", asked I. "He was caught stealing a video game last night". Just like that, his job was gone.

A $50 video game in exchange for a job, but that's how it works. Or, that's how it should work. Raymond Lavigne stole from the tax payers. He claimed travel expenses that he did not incur, and used office resources for personal reasons. Perhaps he thought that using his office assistant to cut down his neighbour's trees somehow benefitted the people of Canada.

Incompetence
You cannot just fire somebody for incompetence if they have been on the job for more than 3 months or whatever probationary period they agreed to. That is why, at one place of employment, we had something called the "Performance Improvement Program". In theory, the Performance Improvement Program was a warning that you had to get your act together or you would be let go. In reality, it was your three month notice that you were getting canned for incompetence. I don't think anyone was ever able to retain their job after getting PIPed.

Wouldn't it be great if we could PIP Raymond Lavigne?

In all three cases above, the person was walked out the door with no severance. You were a BAD employee. You lost your job. Bye bye. Why can't we do this with Raymond Lavigne? Because Raymond Lavigne has lawyers. He would sue for wrongful dismissal until the legal costs to the Crown ended up exceeding his salary, and in the end some lame-ass judge would probably award him millions of dollars in compensation. That is why "any move to throw Mr. Lavigne out of the Red Chamber is only expected to come after he exhausts all avenues to appeal his conviction." -G&M- Because only then can we be sure that he would not win a wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

But there is one other option: Reasonable alternate work. I have an anecdote for this one too:

I used to work for an IT company doing helpdesk reporting: average speed to answer (ASA), abandon rate, and so on. They let me make graphs. It was good. Anyhow, there was a fellow on the helpdesk (ie. he applied for, and accepted this job answering phones) who, sometime after his probation period had passed, had to go on sick leave because he was afraid of telephones. I am not shitting you. This really happened. I guess the stress of not knowing when the phone would ring caused him so much anxiety that he had to go on short term disability.

He eventually came back to work, but was unfireable because his incompetence was a result of a medical condition. Thus, he was reassigned from the helpdesk to an alternate job doing shift work down in tape ops. This job involved staying up all night mounting and unmounting storage tapes for the server farm. Fun stuff. Three months later he was gone. I don't know if he quit or if he was fired for being incompetent at this new job, but either way the company was rid of him.

I submit that since Raymond Lavigne is unable to do his job, being banned from the senate chambers and all, that we should find alternate work for him. Like, perhaps, personal bathroom assistant for Steven Fletcher. That's right, Ray. You are now on Steven Fletcher doody duty. Gretchen here will show you the ropes. Literally. There are ropes involved. Have fun!

Gun registry winners and losers

big winner: Jack Layton. Four words that I never thought I'd have to string together, but there it is...

I think Jack handled the whole gun registry debate better than anyone. While Harper was whipping his MPs to vote to kill the registry, as you would expect from a iron-fisted leader hailing from gun-toting red-neck country; and while Iggy was whipping his boys and girls to vote against killing the registry, as you would expect from a bunch of out-of-touch money-wasting urban lefty elitists; Jack was playing it cool. While he clearly stated his own preference -- as any leader should on an important issue -- he allowed his MPs to vote as they saw fit while proposing an alternative of some kind, thereby positioning himself as the moderate in this whole affair. Tired old Wacky Jacky is all of a sudden the captain of common sense and compromise.

Canadians are desperate for more of that: cooler heads, compromise solutions, and acknowledgment that different constituencies have different values. I personally would like to see more open votes in the House. The rhetoric will get toned down because you are less likely to fear monger and hurl insults when some of your own colleagues are voting the other way. Ultimately I think it would lead to a more productive parliament.

winner: Tory MP Candice Hoeppner
Who is Candice Hoeppner? A few weeks ago I would have guessed a third liner on Canada's women's hockey team. Now I know differently. Even though her bill failed, she has still put herself on the main stage and has performed reasonably well.

big loser: Harper. Lost the vote, again. The registry's never going away Steevo. Get used to it.

loser: Ignatieff. Even though you won the vote, you still alienated a bloc of voters, and you were out-classed by Layton. Jack Layton. Deal with that.

losers: anybody who changed their vote. Spineless wusses.

loser: Niki Ashton, for not saying how you were going to vote. You went from being open-minded and thoughtful to indecisive and annoying. Were you waiting for bribes? I ditto Policy Frog's tweet.

***

Where do I stand? The Anybody Want A Peanut public policy and cocktail mixing department (I had to consolidate due to cut-backs) has not provided me with a report yet, so I don't know what to think. The bastards are probably too busy drinking mojitos. I look at it from a cost/benefit perspective. A registry per se is not a bad idea, but is it worth all the money we're pumping into it? I can't answer that question.

Getting things other than the census done ...

On Friday the federal Conservative Party sent an email out to it's supporters titled "Getting things done..." In it, they list their recent accomplishments, highlighted with bold red check marks:

	Investments to deliver our armed forces with the tools they need to get the job done overseas.
	Agreements with the US, strengthening our commitment to open borders and free markets with our largest trading partner.
	Strategic investments in research facilities and equipment at colleges and polytechnic institutes across Canada.
	Improvements to our security by imposing increased sanctions against Iran.
	Re-affirmed support for abolishing the long-gun registry.
	The launch of a review of affirmative action hiring practices to ensure federal hiring is fair.
	Continued strategic investments across the country to create jobs now, and jobs for the future.

Why that is indeed an impressive list. Hey wait a minute, I think you forgot something:

	Protected Canadian liberty by replacing the mandatory long form census with a voluntary survey.

The conspicuous absence of the census announcement, even in an email to their own supporters, tells me that the federals Conservatives just want everybody to forget about it. They are too stubborn to admit they're wrong and change their mind, so they change the conversation and omit any mention of it. Eventually people -- especially the annoying press geeks -- will stop talking about it. Why the hell are those press geeks so interested in this anyhow? It's the census for crying out loud. It's the least interesting thing in the world, next to ... I'm not sure what ... something so boring that I can't even think of it.

The same email also says that there is only one way to prevent the "nightmare" of a Liberal-led coalition from becoming reality -- a Conservative majority government. Well I have this to say to the Conservatives: if you want a majority, maybe you should stop doing stupid things. Every time you build up political capital, you blow it all by peroguing parliament or doing something else that makes all those jittery voters in Toronto scamper off into the Liberal bushes. I'm telling you, the clock is ticking. The Libs won't always be engulfed in the charisma vortex of a doltish professor like Dion or Ignatieff. Sooner than you think, the Liberal Party will elect the passionate and outgoing Justin Trudeau as their leader and all the singing and piano playing in the world won't help you out.

***

In other news, Germany is getting attacked by radioactive boars.

Long form census

Canada must be a pretty damn boring country if the big issue of the month is scrapping the mandatory long form census. Still, while it might be a dry and esoteric subject, there is some significance to it. The significance is not just in the potential loss of accuracy in the data, or increased costs of collecting the voluntary surveys that will replace it; but in the bigger picture about how people view the government. Anytime the government implements a policy that costs more money, with explanations that don't make any sense at all, people get suspicious and cynical; and start hypothesizing about alterior motives -- very much like the Manitoba government and their unjustifiable direction regarding Bipole III.

Let me paraphrase some of the arguments:

Tony Clement: "We are scrapping the census because Canadians are complaining about the intrusion of their privacy."

Office of the Privacy Commissioner: "Uh, no, actually. We've only received three complaints in the last decade."

Tony Clement: "It was a recommendation from Statistics Canada. If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for you?"

Statistics Canada: "Uh, not quite... You asked us for options, and that was the least recommended of the options we gave you."

Let's let Maxime Bernier get in on this:

The state does not belong in the bedrooms of Canadians and Canadians must have the freedom to choose if they want to answer it.

Trudeau? Really, Maxime, you're going to pull a page out of the Trudeau playbook?

Then there was Dean del Mastro, who "has taken a number of statistics courses" in his life. Dean explains that, in fact, voluntary data is used all the time, and through the magic of random sampling, can be quite accurate within know parameters.

Hey, I've got a riddle for you: what has two thumbs, a green avatar, and has also taken a number of stats courses?

...

Me. It's me you idiot.

Maybe that would have worked better if you could see me. Anyhow, Dean is quite right of course ... voluntary surveys are used all the time. Money is spent and decisions are made based on the results of those surveys, and there is a whole science concerning the design of questionnaires and surveys, and the accuracy and biases therein. So why can't it be used in place of the long form census?

Well, for one, it's going to be more expensive because it's going to go out to more people. Also, if asking 1 out of every 5 people personal questions is wrong, is asking twice as many people personal questions not wrong?

There is also a question about potential biases: when response rates drop, accuracy becomes more questionable. With the sensitive nature of some of the questions on the census, one might expect response rates to drop significantly. This is more problematic when the response rates vary between different demographic groups. You might be able to adjust for that in some cases, but the long form census itself is one of the key sources for collecting that demographic data, and therefore is very important.

To me, this decision by the government is puzzling and disappointing. They still have failed to properly explain it, choosing instead to make unprovable claims about privacy concerns, and playing up the fear factor about soldiers smashing down your door and throwing you in the gulag if you don't fill it out.

My answer to them is this: if some of the questions on the long form are too personal and have outlived their usefulness, then change those. Shorten the form a little bit. Have a little chat with Stats Can and say, look, is this particular question really necessary? But you've lost this battle, and anything you say at this point will just make you look more foolish. Not only that, but Michael Ignatieff could run over a baby on his bus tour and nobody would notice because of this stupid census squabble.

Or maybe that's the point ... keep the press's attention turned away from Ignatieff's BBQ road trip, even if it means making a bad decision and creating a whole new wave of cynicism in the electorate.

Recalibrating and Snow Forts

You're perfect just the way you are (Macleans)

Apparently the Fed gov't has almost finished recalibrating, and surprisingly, their new finely tuned calibration is remarkably similar to their old broken calibration:

Two months after the Conservatives prorogued Parliament to “consult” with Canadians, government officials have revealed the broad outlines of Ottawa’s plans for the March 4 budget. In short, it’s more of the same—it includes no new spending or tax measures, and no cuts to pensions, health care or education transfers to the provinces. Despite signs the worst of the economic crisis has passed, the federal government will push ahead with $19 billion worth of stimulus spending announced last year.

When they consulted with Canadians, Canadians resoundingly told the government "don't change a thing, you sexy beast. We love you just the way you are!" (the poll numbers were just a statistical anomaly)

We've all been there. You know, like when your car is making funny noises and feels sluggish, so you cancel the road trip to the in-laws because you are sure the car is unsafe, then a couple of weeks later the garage phones and says "Hey, you know what? We couldn't find anything wrong with the car. You can come pick it up. No charge." It happens to me all the time. But you know what they say: better safe than sorry!


Upper Snow Fort Garry (Free Press)

Breaking news! A kid in Winnipeg built a snow fort. The snow fort even had a name: Camp Inukshuk. Wait! There's more: the snow fort got destroyed by a plow because it was built next to the street!

Sorry, I'll give you a moment to pick youself off the floor and recollect your thoughts.

There ... are you OK? Good. I didn't mean to blindside you with that bombshell. I'll be more careful next time.

Oh Gordon, what are we going to do with you? I blame it on the Free Press editors for forcing poor Gordon to write a column when he had nothing of public interest to write about. Poor Gordon had to strain every nueron in his grey matter to somehow twist this into a matter of relevance. Oh, how cruel the snow plow driver was! With a jagged sneer or his face and flames dancing in his possessed eyes he callously destroyed the dreams of a young community, by, um, keeping the roads clear. Much like how the evil Crystal Developers were hell bent on constructing an apartment building on an empty parking lot, and developing an adjacent park and interpretive centre to complement the Upper Fort Garry gate. Thank God there was a group a millionaire superheros to swoop in and prevent this near-fatal revitalization of downtown!

Where are the friends of Camp Inukshuk when you need them?


I think I may die of sarcasm one day.

Harper is afraid of a majority / Friday video

I've been thinking. Wait ... there's more! I've been thinking about the prorogation of parliament by Stephen Harper. Not so much the reason for it, but rather the strategy.

I have noticed that Harper has a tendency to take one step forward and one step back, and not very gracefully either. For example, Harper built goodwill in Quebec by introducing a motion to recognize them as a distinct nation with Canada, and later built good will among the First Nations by offering a long overdue apology for abuses in the residential school system, then he sabotaged himself late in 2008 when he moved to pull the lifeline away from the other parties. This reminded people of what a cold, calculating political machine Harper is, and the opposition parties, backed into a corner, almost took the government away from him.

This past year, Harper erased that image of him as a cold, calculating machine when he did his little piano singy-thingy with Yo-Yo Ma. A brilliant move, if it was in fact a move and not just a happy accident, that helped to bring him perilously close to majority territory in the polls. So what does he do? He reminds people again of what a controlling jackass he can be by suspending parliament and killing all of the legislation that was on the table for what appears to be reasons of convenience. And not even being polite about it -- he phoned the damn thing in. Literally.

My sources were able to obtain a tape of the call to the Governor General, which I shall transcribe for you, my readers:

SH: Hi, uh, Michale? Stevo here. Look, I need you to be a dear and prorogue parliament for me. Can you do that? Great. Thanks. Hey, it's been great talking to you. Bye.

MJ: Wait, aren't we going to talk about this? Why don't you come down and we'll discuss ..

SH: Look, just sign the damn papers, you seal-heart-eating bitch. Who the hell do you think you are anyhow?

MJ:

SH: Thanks. Hey, it's been great talking to you. Bye. *click*

There was some audio interference on the tape so I'm not sure if I got the quote exactly right, but I'm sure it's pretty close. Look, the point is, for somebody who is supposed to be a master political strategist Harper has made some big miscalculations. This latest one has allowed Mikhail Ignatiev to not only stop his free fall, but to pull himself into a tie with Harper in the polls.

Against the advice of the AWAP political analysts I'm going to go on record as saying that PM Stephen Harper will never get a majority government. If he played his cards right, he certainly could get a majority. In fact he might have one by now, and perhaps should have one, having been given the gift of two lame Liberal leaders in a row and a legacy of Liberal corruption. but either due to his cut-throat competitive instincts or bad judgment or something, he has not, and probably will not.

Perhaps behind that metallic exterior there beats a conscience that will not allow him to get a majority. A little subconscious switch that forces him to sabotage himself when he starts to become popular, because it knows that if Stephen Harper gets complete control of the government he will turn the country into cruel dictatorship where babies are stolen from Liberal parents and sacrificed before a giant stone statue of himself. That's the only reasonable explanation that I can think of.

***

One of the DJs on the Q94 morning show yesterday joked about John Fogerty opening for Lady Gaga on her new tour. As silly as that combination sounds, I would much rather see that tandem than Gaga and Boy George. Yes, that Boy George. Gaaack. That has to be the worst choice for an opening act since Slipknot called on Stephen Harper to open for them on their 2005 Harvest My Organs tour.

As punishment for Gaga, I will not feature her video this week. Instead, I will feature John Fogerty:

Proroguey Maker

I know that I said I would get Stephen Harper a portable video player for Christmas, but Best Buy was sold out by the time I got there, so instead I went on eBay and bought him a Hunky Bill's Proroguey Maker. Now he can prorogue parliament anytime he wants! Afghanistan torture hearings got you down? Prorogue parliament! Don't like the make up of the senate committees? Prorogue! Jack Layton complaining too much? Fuck him! Prorogue! Can't stand the pedestrian chatter and juvenile name-calling in the House of Commons? Fuck them all! Prorogue!!! It's fun and it's easy, and it only takes minutes to prorogue your way to happiness.

I think Stephen Harper is really happy with his gift.

My apologies to any of you who value democracy.

Oh please ...

Apparently there is a conspiracy going on with the Canadian Olympic logo ...

"Canada's Olympic Games belong to all Canadians. While it is clear that the Conservative government's multimillion-dollar infrastructure campaign is crassly partisan, can the prime minister at least stop trying to politicize the Canadian Winter Olympics?" Liberal MP Hedy Fry asked in the House of Commons. -oc-

If anything, it looks like this:

Of course, like lemmings, a bunch of other brainless opposition members jump on the supposed controversy as well. Here is a tip for the media: if Hedy Fry is talking about it, it is not worth paying attention to.

Don't stop stimulating us!

Everybody knows by now that the recession is over. The Bank of Canada said so, therefore it is so.

That wasn't so bad, was it?

It's amazing how fast that fiscal stimulus works. Why, just a couple months ago the government was throwing promises of money around at anybody with a shovel, and Blammo! Recession over! We gave money to stadiums that have yet to be built, we announced funding for sewers and fire stations and public transit, and we also gave money to festivals that would have gone ahead with or without the extra cash. Yet, even though the money has barely started to flow, the economy has turned around and is heading back up hill.

You might think that maybe this fiscal stimulus thingy doesn't really deserve any credit for the pending recovery. Maybe recessions go through a natural cycle to recovery, and maybe the record-low interest rates set by the central bank helped to get money flowing again. Maybe this Keynesian stimulus is just a bogus pile of crap designed to make it look like the government has some control over the situation.

You might think that, but you would be wrong. You see, the Economic Policy Division of Anybody-Want-A-Peanut? knows that the recession ended so quickly, not because money was spent, but because people think money is being spent. Just like golf, or the voices that tell me to strangle dogs, it's all in the head. Money for this, money for that: it is a subliminal message to consumers that money is flowing and good times are around the corner, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So then you might think, now that we have the ball rolling in the right direction, why don't we just cancel any additional stimulus spending to minimize the pain of future deficit reduction? No can do. We need to follow-through, because if we don't, people will begin to realize that the act of the government spending money in and of itself doesn't cure a recession, and so the future scam, er, strategy will not be effective. Job growth returns with a lag, so it should correspond nicely with the actual spending of the money, and so people will continue to believe that it works. And as long as they believe it will work, it will work. It is essential that we don't break that belief system. In fact, I really shouldn't be writing this post, but my readership is low enough that I don't think it will cripple the economic future of the country. Just don't tell anybody about this, okay?

Lying through her pyjamas

I was reading a two month old copy of Maclean's today, and found a little story about a "pyjama party" hosted by Lisa Raitt. She had invited female staffers over for a martini and mentoring get-together at her house. No word on if they all took off their clothes and had a big pillow fight. However we do know that Mrs. Raitt had some words of advice for the staffers which, in addition to "know your files" and "wear high heals", included "Do not trash other women—it reflects poorly on you, not them."

This is the same Lisa Raitt who we now know, three months earlier, was trashing fellow female MP Leona Aglukkaq to fellow pyjama-partyee Jasmine MacDonnell. Just thought I should share this little ironic discovery.

By the way, the pyjama party has turned into a martini party on the Maclean's home page.

Monday night doodles

A little editorial cartoon of Iggy and Harper:


My original version had Harper speaking in binary, but I changed it at the last minute. Done with pencil-on-paper and 'inked in' on the computer. I might do a full-colour version.

*update* I cleaned 'er up a little bit more and added some colour:


Better? Did I make Iggy's eye brows big enough? Because I can make them bigger ... just say the word.

Those little eye balls would make nice buttons

Breaking news out of Ottawa:

Canadian MPs have pushed forward a motion urging Canada's 2010 Olympic team to add seal skin to their uniforms to show solidarity for the embattled East Coast seal hunters.

It goes on to say that the motion received unanimous support. Really? This is surprising. Obviously none of our MPs are familiar with GAASP -- the Generally Accepted Animal Slaughter Principals.

GAASP clearly states that it is wrong to kill cute, fuzzy little animals. Only big, ugly and/or hairless animals may be slaughtered. How all of these highly-paid MPs could be ignorant of this important principle is beyond me.

Since you brought it up...

Here's the old abortion debate again, courtesy of an either bored or shit-disturbing Rod Bruinooge. He wants to push a pro-life agenda into the spotlight once again.

Very few Canadians appreciate the fact that essentially until a child takes its first breath, it has less value than a kidney -cbc-

That's just nonsense. If you could sell a fetus on the black market, the value of the stem cells alone would be worth far more than a kidney.

Wisely, the PMO is distancing itself from this crap hole of an issue. Stuff like this invokes the old fears of a hidden social conservative agenda that threatens to Americanize Canadian society.

So, Mr.Bruinooge, are you proposing that all abortions become illegal again, or are you proposing some kind of a compromise? For example, we could chop up (sorry, bad term ... um, segment?) pregnancy terms into trimesters: First trimester: all the abortions you want. Second: only under specific conditions (eg. pre-natal blood test shows that the baby is likely to be a socialist). Third: only if medically necessary. If late term abortions are rare anyhow, as pro-lifers claim, then is there anything to be gained by pursuing legislation like this? Is the status quo somehow broken enough to warrant opening this can of worms?

Those, like Bruinie, in the pro-life camp obviously feel that the status quo is not acceptable, and by not acceptable, I mean that people are getting abortions under circumstances that they do not deem to be appropriate. However that is a values question, and the values of the pro-lifers are most often driven by their religious convictions, and religion as we all know, has no place in the legislation of the nation. Stop foisting your bible-thumping ideals on us, Brunie, and let us be.

Shi, and the Art of Bloodless Coups

When I first started this blog I used the label "Let's burn Ottawa to the ground" to mark any post that related to federal politics. It used to be facetious, but it isn't really anymore. I'm beginning to think that we would be better off razing the whole place and starting over again.

But since that's not likely to happen, let's have a closer look at what's going on here:

Our constitution does allow for a coalition government. That per se is not a problem. However, there is a BIG problem with the nature of this coalition: the New Libs on the Bloc are composed of a weak and divided party led by a lame-duck leader who will be replaced by an as-yet unknown person in a few months; a "socialist" party with only 37 seats whose policies are never good for the Canadian economy, much less during an economic crisis; and a third party that does not have the best interests of the country at heart -- in fact, who's stated objective is the destruction of the country. This is about the worst possible coalition I could imagine.

But wait: Dion just said very clearly on national TV that the Bloc is not part of the coalition. Oh really? So this coalition is composed of only 114 seats, 30 less than the ruling party? How can the Governor General hand the government over to this coalition? How do we know the Bloc will hold up it's end of the bargain, and if it does what will we pay them off with in return?

Then there is the issue of "confidence". 'We have lost "confidence" in the government.' How exactly have they lost confidence? They don't have confidence that he can manage the economic crisis? He brought the country into the election in decent shape; people knew an economic slowdown was around the corner and they still voted him in. How can you say that the PM, an economist himself, is incapable of steering us through this recession when you haven't even seen a budget? What makes you think you can do it better? Do you think throwing $30 billion out there willy-nilly will make the difference, when our economic recovery depends primarily on the recovery in other countries? Let Obama do all the spending and lift us out of the recession. Let me just say it: this "lack of confidence" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY. It is a power grab. Period.

And somehow, all of this will fall on the shoulders of Michaëlle Jean, who is suddenly earning her paycheck as she moves from figurehead to king-maker. I wonder how she's sleeping tonight?

Setting aside the fate of the country for a moment, there is something graceful about the move by Layton and the coalition. They recognized the political Shi -- the situation and dynamic of the moment -- and exploited it. Sun-tzu wrote "Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting". That may be exactly what happens once this all plays out. Although it makes me a little bit nauseous to say "Dion" or "Layton" and "excellence" in the same paragraph, there is something a wee little bit admirable about the deviousness of this whole plan, and how they exploited Harper's foolish economic update. Harper may not be in this mess had he studied The Art of War more carefully ... or at all.

Stimulate Me - Updated (Jack and Gilles went up a hill)

The federal Conservatives are backing off some more:

Minister of Transport John Baird said the government would not eliminate the right to strike for federal civil servants, as pledged last week. ...

The government has said it will launch a stimulus package eventually, but Mr. Flaherty also insists that "temporary" stimulus does not work well, and the government will take a long-term approach. - g&m-

But now that the ball is rolling on this Liberal-NDP coalition thing, it might not be enough.

Michael Ignatieff said he heard nothing in Mr. Flaherty's announcement that would dispel coalition talks by the opposition.

Layton and Ignatieff can taste it. This is a once in a life-time opportunity for Layton to be part of a governing party, and a huge opportunity for Ignatieff as the most likely successor to the Liberal throne. Harper may have to let those two write the budget in order to avoid losing power.

The Conservatives really screwed this up. I can't help but think it could have been avoided if they hadn't been so arrogant as to try cut off the other party's funding in a confidence motion. They went in for the kill, they missed, and they exposed themselves to what could be a fatal shot from the opposition.

---- UPDATE ----

Oops. Silly me. I had supposed that Ignatieff, the former Liberal deputy leader and likely successor to the throne, might have been a part of the coalition negotiations, but apparently not:

The source in the Ignatieff camp said Mr. Dion is making all the running on coalition talks with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, and is not consulting with leadership candidates, Mr. Ignatieff, Bob Rae or Dominic LeBlanc.

Not only that, but CTV reports that the NDP was in talks with the Bloc Quebecois before the fiscal update ever came out. This is starting to look like it has nothing to do with fiscal stimulus, and much more to do with desperate leaders trying to subvert democracy. If Dion goes to the Governor-General with Jack and Gilles asking to form a government, she should seriously consider just telling them to go suck it.

We are (almost) all Keynesians now.

The Economic Policy Division of Anybody-Want-A-Peanut? has been doing a lot of thinking recently about the current global economic crisis. Well, they should have been at least, but those slackers spent most of their time playing Rock Band and looking at nude photos on deviantArt. However we do have some thoughts on the matter:

Richard Nixon once said "we are all Keynesians now". That is particularly true during a recession. We can generally rely on monetary policy to keep the economy on course by maintaining price stability, but when the economy veers off into the crapper like it is now, there is a temptation to use the turbo boost of a good old fashioned Keynesian demand shock to try to bump it back on course.

As far as I know, the jury is still out regarding how effective it is. For example, some economists has suggested that it could require tens of billions of dollars to make even a modest impact on the Canadian economy. Nevertheless, elected officials don't want to be seen as bystanders as people lose their jobs, so they "take action" by opening up the bank account and spending money to try to recreate those jobs.

Everybody is doing it: Britain is doing it; Obama has indicated that he's willing to pile on to the massive pile of debt in the US in the name of Keynesian fiscal stimulus; back home in Manitoba, spendaholic Gary Doer is practically drooling over the prospect of throwing around more money. He's like a kid at Christmas with a brand new excuse to spend, and new balanced budget legislation waiting to cover him in case he (oops!) happens to spend a little too much. Even here in Winnipeg there are big plans to spend more money.

The only leader not hopping aboard the Keynesian Express is Mr. Harper. The recent economic update included no fiscal stimulus, just a couple tweaks to cut spending and increase investment. What does The Peanut think about this? Well, the AWAP EPD couldn't give me a straight answer (I really am paying those guys too much) but the opposition certainly don't think riding out the storm is a good idea and they may topple the government to prove it. Can you imagine? A party with no leader trying to form a coalition to replace an elected government a month after the election? Ottawa is so damn disfunctional.

While I personally feel that Keynesian-type fiscal manipulation is generally overrated, Harper may have miscalculated on this one, because what I think doesn't matter. The thing is, most people are Keynesians whether they know it or not. They want to see their government doing something when the economy is falling apart, and ultimately that could be the downfall of Mr. Harper. I think the Liberals may back down now that the Conservatives have backed off their plan to cut funding to the parties, but boy .. it could get interesting if they stick to their guns.

wiki: John Maynard Keynes

Mr. Victim comes to town

It's easy to feel sorry for Dion. For some people at least. Here's a smart guy with a good ideas, they say, who got bullied and mistreated and suffered from a party that was not united behind him.

Dion is one of those people who feels sorry for Dion. After moping in his house for five days, he finally emerges like a little mouse, and reluctantly squeaks out his resignation.

"It's not my fault. It's all those other big bad people around me. They made fun of my accent. They posted an ad of a bird pooping on me. What could I do? I did everything right, but I never had a chance!"*

*this may not be an exact quote.

I didn't see his full press conference, but if Mia Rabson's column can be believed, he not only blames the conservatives, but his own party as well -- before he became leader!

Dion said the attacks on him and the propaganda against the Liberal Green Shift plan was a well-funded campaign by a Conservative Party which had far deeper pockets than the Liberals.

He said his party has struggled to adapt to new political fund-raising rules which were put in place by the Liberal government before it was defeated in 2004. (fp)

Wait a minute .. the fund raising rules that your own party created are responsible for your pathetic showing in the election?

Am I the only one who realizes that Dion was never equipped to be Prime Minister? The job of Prime Minister requires a number of skills, with 'Leadership' at the top of the list, and 'Book Smarts' somewhere around 16th or 17th.

If Dion had the leadership skills and ability to build a vision and articulate it to masses, he could have united the party behind him. He could have built popular support, raised more money and made people forget about Harper's ads. He could have showed better judgment in choosing his platform.

Leadership skills, good judgment, the ability to negotiate and articulate a vision, and to bring people with differing views together to common ground: these are not just useful skills in becoming PM, but in being an effective PM -- both in running national affairs but also in building a presence on the world stage and commanding respect from other leaders.

The man also appears to suffer from delusion. Just now on CTV Robert Fife reported that, as of this morning, Dion still believed he could survive a leadership review and had to be talked into resigning.

Good mental health, by the way, is also a useful attribute for a PM to have.