Liberals need to head west

The race for the liberal leadership is officially underway and I am already shaking my head.

If you hadn’t heard, Treadeau would win the leadership if the election were held today.

Other notable names being bandied about include John Manley, Michael Ignatieff, and Bob Ray.

These candidates were born in Ontario, Ontario, Ontario, and Ontario.

There seems to be a trend here.

Sure Ontario is the countries most populous province, and until recently one of the countries wealthiest. But times have changed and the province, much like the Liberal Party finds itself, is on the ropes, desperate to bounce back.

With one of the worst election results in party history still in the rear-view mirror the party needs to do some serious re-evaluating of its priorities if it ever wants to find itself in the position of forming government again.

The Grits longtime strategy has been simple; carrying Ontario, parts of Quebec and a smattering of seats across the rest of the country and voila you’ve won the election.

In the last 20 years the country has been regionally divided, to the advantage of the Liberals. Western Canada has been strongly Conservative/ Reform, while the Libs carry central Canada.

Because of the population breakdown of the country the numbers were always in their favor, throughout the 1990’s they simply couldn’t lose.

But since the Conservatives made significant breakthroughs in both provinces (with minimal gains in Quebec) the Liberals find themselves without their traditional strongholds, without their ace in the hole.

And that’s the real problem for the party.

The Conservatives found fertile ground in Ontario, but the Liberals have not even bothered to sew their seeds in the west.

That’s the kicker.

The Liberals are once again turning inwards and will renew their focus on Ontario and Quebec, when they should be grooming western candidates rather than the same old boys that got them into this mess in the first place.

There is too much wealth and an ever growing population in western Canada that can no longer be ignored by the federal Liberals.

Yet they do nothing.

The Grits need to immediately re-launch their image in western Canada. As long as Québec is not voting for the Liberals they cannot form government without inroads into western Canada.

I understand that finding interesting and exciting members to represent the Liberal party in western Canada is easier said than done, but really they have had a generation to cultivate the image of the party in the west. But looking back they have done little. From the Manitoba-Ontario border to the Pacific Ocean the Liberals have a paltry 8 seats of a possible 94.

This is Canada’s “natural ruling party”?

I think not.

Hologramific

CNN has hologram technology.

Wolf Blitzer's beard is a sign of the apocalypse.

I wonder if John King has a clause in his contract that no one else is aloud to touch his magic screen.

The end is near.

Jay Teneycke Practices HTML

Contact Me

Then Fall Caeser

While it is difficult to say that there was a clear winner in Tuesday’s election, there is little doubt that Stephane Dion was the only real loser.

The political science professor turned overnight politician and federalist stalwart was soundly beaten on Tuesday.

Despite modest gains in Quebec, the blood letting across the rest of the country was much too severe giving the Liberals their worst election result in Canadian history.

Every party gained at the expense of the Grits, and that is a pill the oligarchs of “Canada’s natural ruling party” cannot swallow.

Right out of the gate Dion struggled. Conservative attack ads, a platform that did not connect with Canadians and a noticeable language barrier quickly took their toll.

He was labeled a weak leader within weeks of winning the title and soon faced opposition from within his own party.

Jump to the election aftermath. Now out come the knives.

Post-election, the question is not “if” Dion will lose his position as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, but “when.”

This spring Ray, Ignatieff, Kennedy, McKenna, Manley and maybe even a Trudeau will be in the hunt.

Then fall, Caesar.

Strange Days

The current proposed bailout for the American financial centre deserves serious debate.

However it’s something that has occurred consistently every few years over the last decade.

Since the tech bubble burst in the late 90’s, and the events around 9:11 the American government under president Bush has bailed out the auto industry, the airline sector, the energy industry, and now the financial sector.

What strange times we live in when a right winged administration that is a staunch advocate of the free market and touts dog eat dog business tactics is leaving a legacy of public funds used to bail out private business.

(Aside: I’ve attended lectures and ready essays from academics such as Gwynne Dyer that have suggested we are witnessing the beginning of the end of American global dominance.

I've never really thought much about the idea until this week.

Because financially the United States is essentially broke.

Where does a country that regularly runs a deficit get 700 billion dollars?

They borrow it.)

What sort of impact is this going to have? 700 billion is more money than any of us can comprehend.

What message does it say to the people who run these mega-corps when the government gives public money to stabilize private business?

It says that if you’ve convinced everyone that your big enough and important enough and you run your business into the ground by poor decisions the government will swoop in and save you with public money.

It says you don’t have to be accountable to shareholders or risk losing your job because you know someone will be there to save you.

It says your over inflated salary and year-end bonus is secure because society will pay for your mistakes.

This bailout will go through in one form or another.

Something tells me this bailout won’t be the last.

The "new" age old question

This evening I attended a lecture from Naomi Klein at the University of Regina, her discussion was on how governments use disasters (i.e. terrorist attacks, wars, storms etc) as a way to fast track otherwise unpopular or unethical public policy into law.

Thats all well and good.

However after the main lecture was over Klein answered questions from the audience.

There were close to a thousand people in attendance, and by the applause that peppered her lecture it would be a fair conclusion that most were on the left side of the political spectrum.

One gentleman questioned the amount or lack of media coverage this idea has received in both Canada and the United States, and then concluded that it must be because 'the right wing media has an obvious bias'.

This has always stuck me as odd, as often the media is referred to as "left winged". Especially Canadian broadcasters such as the CBC.

We seem to have a problem here, which is it? Is the media left or right winged?

I think it really comes down to individual perception, and in this case both camps are correct.

I'll explain.

Conservatives say the media is a tool of the left because statistically it is. Most of the major media outlets are located in the north eastern United States, namely New York city. Or in Canada, southern Ontario/Toronto.

Traditionally these regions have been Democratic/Liberal/NDP strongholds, and would be expected to have a somewhat left of centre leaning when reporting the news. The reporters, producers, anchors etc are generally well educated, urban individuals products of their environment who perpetuate the areas political ideals.

So yes it may be fair to say there is a liberal media.

However a conservative media also exists, in fact its the same media as the liberal media.

Media organizations are owned by larger companies. Companies that operate within a free market system and have one single objective, which is to increase profits. This idea of big business is fundamental to the concept of "right wing".

Management traditionally is associated with the right, while the employees can be considered left.

So the owners of the media outlets are probably right leaning, and the people who make up the media are left leaning.

In the end both sides are right.

Geeze concensus building sure is boring.