Opinionated Fool

To look at the current political situation, you might be inclined to think so. The liberal party is tied in the polls with Stephen Harper’s conservatives in the middle of a recession that some say Canada is on its way out of. Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party is getting ready for an all out dog fight with the liberals and conservatives, using some of the same strategies–namely, attack ads etc on Michael Ignatieff–as were employed by the conservatives for the past 6 months. And there’s some speculation going around that perhaps Ignatieff’s own party may be setting him up to fall flat on his face.

The liberals are still desperately trying to recover from their last leader, a virtually endless supply of stupid, while at the same time trying to shake off the last remaining pieces of an advertising scandal that plagued them during much of their time in power since the early 90’s. Combine that with the fact the currently governing conservative party is dead even with them in the polls, during a time when governments typically face a lot of heat over finances, and you don’t have a very comfortable position if your name is Michael Ignatieff, who would need at least the NDP’s support in order to secure anything resembling a majority were an election called today.

For the NDP’s part, they might support the calling of an election. They might even encourage Michael Ignatieff to do so. But for all intents and purposes, that’s likely about as far as it’ll go. The NDP has made it abundantly clear they’re no fans of either Ignatieff or Harper. But they don’t have enough federal support to make any significant headway on their own. They might have enough in the tank to maybe produce another minority government, either liberal or conservative, but that’s about as far as it goes. Realistic chances of the Block Quebecois being any help are slim to none, unless they could possibly get something out of it–like, say, more seats in Quebec.

There is also still the unknown but very likely support penalty any of the major players will take for calling an election. Particularly if an election’s called before 2010, during a time that most asuredly would not be popular among voters. If in fact Michael Ignatieff does so this fall, as he’s threatened to on more than one occasion over his proposed employment insurance reform, it may be a very short political career for the professor. If it happens during the opposition day granted him by Stephen Harper in September, it may sink his, and the liberals’ ship for the foreseeable future. If they’re not already sinking though, they’re at the very least taking on water. Either way, I would not want to be them right about now.

Update: Nevermind equality. Ignatieff is now officially trailing Harper in the polls. And we still don’t have any idea who he is or what he stands for. Canadians don’t like the “I don’t know” vote.

That’s what he’s saying this week, anyway, as he gets together with Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president this week. There’s just one problem. Everyone who’s not in Barack Obama’s employ tends to disagree with him–including Sir Flipsalot Michael Ignatieff himself, who criticised the legislation as it was introduced in Obama’s stimulous package. At the same time, Ignatieff was–and rightly so–criticising prime minister Stephen Harper for not getting on the US president over this sooner.

Now, of course, Obama points out to the reporter writing the article Harper brings it up to him every time they get together–he calls it representing the concerns of his nation. And, he’s right. When Canada’s own liberal party, who many believe to be more to the left than their US counterparts, balks at the measure as it stands right now, you know it has to be a little iffy. But, Obama says it’s nothing serious–said he needed the stimulous bill passed and passed now, so there wasn’t time to debate the issue. And we’re all supposed to just smile and nod, because that must be how it goes.

Barack, I liked your other idea better. Stick to that. You can at least pretend to know what you’re talking about with that–although, you could probably take some lessons on that from north of the border as well. Not that you will, of course, but even an average blogger can have a fantasyland. The only difference is it doesn’t make headlines.

That’s his reasoning to Mexico’s president for why it is Mexican visitors require visas when crossing the border. The requirement was introduced in early July in response to a sharp increase in bogus refugee claims from both Mexico and the Czech Republic.

You don’t need to look all that far to see why it is he can blame Canada’s immigration policies for the current situation–Mexico and the Czech Republic are supposed to be allies, as well as supposed to be legitimatly democratic countries. So there shouldn’t be refugee claims coming from those particular countries. Applications for refugee status are, or were pre-visas, getting to the point where legitimate refugees escaping legitimate crises ended up waiting significantly longer for their hearings than they should have been.

Canada is far too soft on immigration in a lot of cases–and this would be one of them. Now, though, that the hopefully temporary visa requirement is in place and claims have been appropriately decreased, here’s hoping Stephen Harper can actually push through some much needed reforms in that area. His press team will appreciate it.

Most especially, Canada does not need a national 360-hour standard for minimum eligibility. The fact that Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party are clinging to that like it’s some kind of life preserver is, well, typical of the Canadian liberal party of late. By that, I mean perhaps one of the most ridiculous sticking points to ever come out of an attempt by a minority government to make something work.

The conservative government has already refused that suggestion, more than once, but for reasons I fail to comprehend, Ignatieff won’t move from it. To his credit, he did say he would be more than willing to negotiate with prime minister Stephen Harper, and that his insistance on 360 hours is just a starting point–now he just has to negotiate, rather than dangle an election Canadians don’t want over his, and their, heads. Can he actually do that?

Rather than throw election threat after election threat in the face of the prime minister, why not, say, help him to actually extend employment insurance to people who aren’t, or who soon won’t be, getting it.

Unemployment insurance in the US is already being tossed about as in need of an extension to cover off the fact jobs are still being lost, and people are running out of money. But north of the border, they stick to the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. And if they don’t get it, they’ll try for a vote of non-confidence and kick this thing into election gear. It’s a rare thing indeed, but Canada’s liberals could stand to learn a thing or two from their US counterparts. And someone should really tell Michael Ignatieff negotiations don’t do a whole lot of working when your people don’t actually negotiate.

Second verse, same as the first. Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party set out to negotiate with the governing conservatives over reforming the employment insurance regulations. Except for one problem. Ignatieff and his lackies won’t budge from their position that a 360-hour national minimum is required for people to be qualified for benefits.

A minimum nationally like that is not just unreasonable, but outright ridiculous. And the minister of human resources, who’s leading the conservative side of the negotiations, said as much. And what’s Ignatieff’s response? It’s not to relax on his minimum qualifications and come up with, say, 400 instead–or even 375. Which, one would think, anyway, should be the standard approach to negotiations. Apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

Instead, Michael responds with exactly the same retaliation that prompted the striking of these negotiations in the first place–you either accept my terms, or I’ll call an election. This from the same man who now tells us he has a platform which he’ll reveal to us in the fall–no doubt containing about as much substance as the platform he had in January.

Mikey, I told you before. If you push that red button, you’re probably going to wind up regretting it. Canadians do not want another election. Least of all, I don’t think, do the majority of Canadians with any sort of inteligence at all want an election in which you could possibly be the one running the country. How about this. Stop waffling, play nice with the government, and actually negotiate. Can you do that? I thought so. There’s only one thing far more frightening than a conservative minority–a liberal majority. Please, Michael, don’t make me have to throw my vote away on some nobody just to avoid that happening.

And, just like every other government entity who’s ever been called to account for spending practices on both sides of the border, GM and Chrysler are saying a big fat I don’t wanna to the idea of actually telling the citizens of both countries, who’s tax dollars are keeping them afloat post-recession, exactly where their money’s being spent. For all the positive that can still come out of Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, if this ends up going where it looks like it’s going now, it could be more than cancelled out real fast. And, of course, Canada’s liberals twisted prime minister Stephen Harper’s arm into bailing the manufacturers out north of the border as well–thanks for that, by the way, Michael Ignatieff. The Canadian Tax Payers Federation’s not entirely too pleased with the auto makers at this stage of the game. I don’t imagine the US equivalent if they have one is jumping for joy either. As a tax payer, I can easily say I’m most definitely not. Say, Mikey, can I have my refund now?

The newspaper that initially reported on crackergate are dining on a fine meal of crow today, after having issued an appology for the story. Apparently, the theory that a communion wafer given to him at former governor general Romeo Leblanc’s funeral ended up maybe or maybe not pocketted was sort of casually stuck into the story by the editor pre-printing, and not written by the reporters who initially drew up the article. At least, that’s what they’re saying, anyway. But seeing as this appears to be the year for covering one’s own ass, yours truely will remain skeptical on exactly where it is that theory came from. In the meantime, mister Harper, I’d still recommend strongly you say no to crack. Or crackers. They don’t like you.

Dear conservative, liberal and NDP members of parliament,

I don’t know the correct way to say it, so I’ll just say it. Canada absolutely does not want a fall election. Least of all, Canada doesn’t want a fall election based on a non-platform–hear that, Michael Ignatieff? The polls are a dead lock between liberals and conservatives. The NDP may or may not actually get anywhere if an election’s called. And those other guys from Quebec are dreaming.

I can hardly say I speak for all Canadians, of course, but for God’s sake, unless you can offer something beyond “what Stephen Harper’s doing is wrong”, don’t hit that red button. You’ll probably end up not liking the result. Oh, and if you happen to be Stephen Harper and you call an election on your own, I won’t be held responsible for the lambasting you take in the polls. Why? … Did you even read this? Canadians don’t want a fall election. If any of the 3 big players in the House of Commons slap that button, I will be more than happy to throw my vote away on someone that doesn’t have a shot in hell–yes, even one of those guys from quebec if there’s one running here. Because, if you refuse to listen when you’re told we so do not want an election, none of the 3 big players in the HoC deserves to come out on top. Least of all someone running on a non-platform–yeah, Mikey, I’m looking at you again. Deal with it.

I believe Canada’s parliament is supposed to sit for a maximum of 5 years before an election absolutely has to be called. Since the last 2 elections, it’s not even been a year. And those two elections occured 8 months apart. Let’s try to make it last a little longer, shall we? It’s good for you. Of course, if you choose not to take that advice, you have been warned.

Sincerely,
the Opinionated Fool

That’s kind of the message Mexico looks like it’s sending. A whole two weeks after Canada closed the door on Mexican citizens floating across the border and then immediately applying for refugee status, Mexico has decided to get downright childish. Canada’s putting the breaks on the old habbit of folks coming across from the US, either by choice or by force, and claiming refugee status once they get here. And what does Mexico plan to do? Why, require the reporters etc accompanying Stephen Harper to Mexico, of course. And it’s not about diplomacy or anything, as I’m sure we’ll be hearing it is later on. If Harper wants the press to accompany him to Mexico, he’s not allowed to make sure his people get them their visas. Mexico wants every reporter, camera person, and equipment carrier accompanying the prime minister on his visit to apply for their own visas, sans assistance from the prime minister’s office.

I’m not exactly sure what that’s supposed to accomplish, aside from making sure Canada’s government has even less to do with anything going on on Mexican soil. The majority of Canada’s population–that is, those who aren’t actually going as reporters with the prime minister–also known as tourists, still aren’t required to get visas before entering Mexico. Which sort of begs the question, please do explain? I somehow don’t think requiring 20 members of the press to apply for visas will do a whole lot more than make Canada’s government do a little tiny bit of a WTF. Which may or may not be all Mexico’s after–I have no idea. But if their government expects anything more to come of it than that, well, good luck. That’s really all anyone can say.

I have to wonder if Michael Ignatieff isn’t in fact a conservative come back to put the final nail in the liberal party’s coffin. In a speech he gave in 2005 at an Irish university, wherein he escentially blamed Canada and its then ruling liberals for what he called a stripping down of their millitary, he criticised 3 liberal prime ministers, including 2 who were in power while he was hiding outside of Canada–Jean Cratien and Paul Martin, for their cutbacks to the millitary and their insistance that they maintain a peacekeeping role.

Ignatieff took it a step farther, though, saying Canada as a whole was perfectly fine with that supposed myth. He added that the ruling liberal party usually preferred to hide behind the peacekeeping label while calling out the US for not doing so–the US was one of the first into both Iraq and Afghanistan, Canada went in to clean it up. Ignatieff went on to say national healthcare, multiculturalism and bilingualism were equally as much a myth as the whole peacekeeper idea, blaming all of that on some believed liberal agenda.

Yet, even with that having been said, Ignatieff still came back to Canada in 2008. Still joined up with the liberal party. Still received the nod for party leadership after their previous leader was rather soundly stepped on by prime minister Stephen Harper. And still wants to lead that liberal party back to power. Or does he? His address in 2005 would tell me no. The fact that Ignatieff still hasn’t come up with any kind of a liberal policy platform or even a rough outline of one also tells me no. I would then be inclined to believe the answer is no. So, the question becomes, exactly what is Michael Ignatieff up to? And what’s Stephen Harper’s cut?

That seems to be the mantra for Canada’s prime minister, who’s taken to calling out his new parliamentary budget officer for daring to voice an economic prediction that was worse than what Harper’s finance minister, Jim Flaherty, offered to both parliament and the public. The budget officer, Kevin Page, who was appointed by Canada’s current government as a direct response to the financial mismanagement during the previous 13 years of liberal rule, warned that without either increased taxes or decreased spending, Canada would be looking at a significant debt that would survive for at least a decade. Harper more or less called the prediction, and the resulting idea, dumb–saying escentially that he wouldn’t be doing either.

Now, granted I’m neither an economist nor a politician, but it doesn’t exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in me as a voter when a department, created by the currently in power government, gets pretty much lambasted by the said government over doing its job. And, I’ll add, doing its job with less than the apparently necessary resources required with which to do it–also courtesy the current government. Did Page piss off the prime minister at some point previously and now is well within drop kicking range? Or is Stephen Harper really that much of an idiot? Personally, I could really care less which one of them is right–unemployment’s well above 8% and not showing signs of decreasing, prices of everything from electricity to groceries are on the rise, and in an economy that will see the average person not looking for a job in retail or fast food having to wait an average of 15 months, the best unemployment insurance arangement I’ve seen only sees you through for 9. But if you want to win votes in a situation where you desperately need to win votes, slagging on a department you created for doing what you created it to do doesn’t seem like the smartest move ever pulled out of the political playbook. Unless of course your objective is to not run the country beyond October of this year–Canadians will, I’m sure, love you for that, too.

Stephen harper has been rather inappropriately flambasted by the catholic community for supposedly either consuming or not consuming the body of Jesus Christ, A.K.A. a tasteless cracker, while attending a funeral for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. The initial report was that Harper took the wafer, and promptly pocketted it–something that would almost appear to be backed up by a video posted to YouTube. He was criticised for doing that by the catholic community when the initial report came out. A spokesman for the prime minister later countered that by saying he did, in fact, consume the thing–which drew even more criticism from the catholic community for doing that. According to the article, since only a catholic was supposed to accept the body of Jesus Christ, and Stephen Harper is most definitely not catholic–one would think that message would have been passed to the church at which the funeral was being held, the appropriate reaction from Harper would have been to cross his arms and “be blessed” instead. Which would have probably also drawn criticism from the catholic community–as it stands now, a New Brunswick church is demanding he appologise for either eating or not eating the thing anyway.

Now, I may not be Harper’s biggest fan, but can we at least try to not get our panties in a knot here, folks? Yes, I understand that to a devoted catholic, it’s the body of Christ. But to everyone else, it’s just a cracker–and not a very good one at that. And if he wasn’t supposed to have been given it, the priest should have probably–oh, I don’t know–not given it to him. But there I go doing something you don’t necessarily see in religion, oh… say… at all–making sense. Maybe Stephen Harper should invite PZ Myers along on his next funeral participation? He’s offered his services, and who knows, maybe it’ll make things a little bit easier. Unless the religious community will criticise that, too.

Update: Not guilty by reason of religious stupidity. How many of us called it? Or care?

While emphasis at the G8 summit has so far been put rather heavily on things like a possible second round of stimulous spending and renewing aid to Africa, prime minister Stephen Harper seems to be taking a bit of a different course. He’s already said he believes we should be more patient than Obama and Brown want to be, and not rush into a second round of stimulous spending. On top of that, he plans to pull resources out of Africa and focus on Latin America for reasons of trade. He’s also a little more than hesitant when it comes to stimulating or reforming the world bank or the IMF, though that’s more than likely got a lot to do with the fact it would probably just be throwing Canadians’ money away, seeing as Canada has very little to do with that–an advantage of the fact our banks are on less shakey ground than those of the US and europe.

The Globe and Mail rightly pointed out, in quoting a recognised speaker of the house, that all politics is local. And that’s exactly how it should be looked at, whether or not you’re speaking at a world summit. Canadians can’t aford a second stimulous–there are those who would most likely argue we couldn’t aford the first one. And that’s why even the more left-leaning media is reluctant to criticise Harper for acting precisely how it’s expected he’d act–conservatively.

While it does mean he’s at odds with Barack Obama and gordon Brown on what may be advertised as key issues at the G8 summit, right now more than at any other time, his primary concern needs to be focusing entirely on what would be best for Canada. Unemployment is still sitting above 8%, we still haven’t gotten a definite stopping point for this constantly increasing debt, and little if any of the first round of stimulous dollars has actually been translated into actual in-progress projects. Until that does happen, and the results of that translation become available, we shouldn’t be throwing even more money at what right now is still a rather large questionmark. For all the positives Obama brings to the table–and there are a lot of positives, to be sure–a money problem, which is what this recession really amounts to, more than likely won’t be fixed with more money. One doesn’t need to be an economist to know that.

The G8 meeting in Italy hasn’t even started yet, and already we’re seeing evidence folks can’t seem to figure out exactly what they want the rest of us to believe. On the one hand, US president Barack Obama has himself, and probably others, convinced everyone’s getting along rather nicely with regards the current economic situation and future plans for further stimulous action. Then, from seemingly a completely different G8 meeting, UK prime minister Gordon Brown almost completely contradicts that, saying while most countries participating in the summit this week seem to have some kind of a general agreement going in as to how we should proceed, Canada’s Stephen Harper, as well as Germany’s government, aren’t quite so ready to go along with what is apparently a generally accepted approach to the recession. And of course, we have Harper himself, who now says patience, not more stimulous money, is needed to wait out this downturn.

So, I ask anyone who gives a damn, can you figure out which of the three stuges actually comes close to what might, possibly, be considered a semi-truth? Somehow, I don’t think it’s Obama, seeing as his own administration seems to be in agreement with Harper’s general attitude, even if he himself isn’t. And Brown just seems to be continuing the British tradition started by his predecessor in sucking up to the US president of the day. I’m scared to say it–I’ve never been known for being a conservative supporter before, though there’s definitely a first time for everything–but could Stephen Harper actually be the closest to giving us the real picture? The honest to goodness “please save our country” part of me wants to say no, but… the links seem to stand for themselves. I don’t think the Michael Ignatief fan club will enjoy swallowing that pill.