Wither Canada or the second coming of Trudeaumania

Wither Canada, no not the Python episode from the 70's but the genuine question; what ever became of Canada.

Well the short answer is that it never went away, but from the day Stephen Harper became PM in 2006 to last Monday, Canada had been the 51st state, the pale imitation of trickle down Rayndian neo liberal petrie dish to the USA. For years people in the UK would, especially from the election of Barak Obama in 2008, naturally or rather unnaturally look to the USA for examples of how to do things and shining examples of small l liberalism or alleged socialism.  The only problem with that model is that the USA is not now nor will it ever be anything but an apple to the UK's orange. The histories of both nations divert in every significant way you can think of and the resulting political structures and philosophies that dictate world views as well as economic and societal structures could not be more different. And yet UK political and economic elites continued till a few days ago  to only go to  the well of America for inspiration .

I suppose I should point out the obvious or not so obvious, starting with the basic notion that Canada has a House of Commons and Senate modelled on Westminster. What that means is that much of the required assumptions of how government works be it central or  provincial will be the same assumptions that govern systems and applications of civil service, how a bill proceeds through Parliament and how members are elected and behave in the chamber. Party political fund-raising through to the rules governing elections and debates are closer than anything you will find in the USA. And yet when talk of reform surfaces, the last thing you hear is  why don't we ask our Canadian cousins for their experience.

Next up is of course the very basic veering off point between Canada and the UK... being where on the spectrum each country was in 1979.  In Ottawa a very likeable  but  slightly gormless Tory named Joe Clark was about to be lapped by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in February of 1980 after losing a non confidence motion on a money bill, while the UK had in May of 1979 embarked on the hell that would be the Thatcher era. Monetarism at it's worst v the Just Society and centralised mixed socialist economy. It's natural that while Canada built on the foundations of the late 60's and 1970's social and economic compact that preserved the welfare state and multiculturalism with a huge dash of leading the West and the South ( aka third world aka developing block of ) nations in a series of initiatives to fight land mines, global warming and poverty, it was seen as a genuine alternative player on the world stage and that of course included think tanks in the UK.  However, from the moment the Government in Ottawa joined the lock step march of the UK and USA in the trickle down world of the American Republican and Thatcherite war on the poor the sick and weak, it became easy even under the Blairite era to ignore any contributions to public policy and debate Canada would have to give. Let's be honest, for a while as much fun it was to kick the shins of American politicians for their ignorance, it was damn embarrassing watching the likes of John Baird the minister of selling off natural resources and national parks, deny global warming at International conferences. Harper himself would be the dull  invisible PM at  G8 and  Commonwealth conferences who if  Canadians were lucky; said nothing  and if not, made some deal that further put the country in the back pockets of dictators and multinationals.

And yet... even under these unproductive circumstances, there were and still are plenty of areas where UK policy can learn much from Canada. Federal structures and reform, party political financing, internal reforms of the House of Commons as it pertains to operating hours and the accountability of it's members to the House and the electorate. Why is it that even now the PM here still only faces questions once a week when in Ottawa there is no such thing as PMQ, it's just question period and the PM must be a part of it every time unless away from Parliament. The expenses scandal we had would not have happened if rules and regs  in place for over a decade if not longer in Canada, had been applied.  As for the NHS, every Province and Territory has had  universal health care since 1968 while the Americans still struggle with the concept of free health care at point of delivery.  Why when there is public discussion of the NHS and the mess it's in  are we not even alluding to Canada or other nations at least on the same page as we are? Gay rights, Canada quietly and without fuss allowed gays to marry over a decade ago ( something that still is news to many here), in 1967 the minister of Justice ( go on guess who) said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" thus decriminalising homosexuality. Women have had control over their bodies and reproductive systems for so long it's simply not an issue now. All still issues in the USA, home of the free and the brave.

Most recently and wisely the new Governor of the Bank of England was hired from Canada, that country that had been the direct neighbour of the USA, that didn't go down the route of Fanny May and Enron. Yet when the debate occurred here, till recently, it was still the fault of Gordon Brown???  How blind some media outlets and political parties  were to utterly ignore the facts. Our closest political cousins did not need to bail out the banking sector ( even under a tory administration) while here Thatcher's children pointed fingers at Brown and ignored the reality of a stable Canadian economy. Only the apparently brave and  ultra left wing fire brand  and threat to the nation.... Jeremy Corbyn winning, put an end to that lie.

Which brings me nicely to the events of Monday and why they happened. Justin Trudeau, the most interesting thing to happen in Canada since Celine Dion or that abomination Justin Bieber , if we're to believe the sudden eruption of serious news stories and  vid  clips of him kissing men and twisting the light bulb emerging on the net, became Prime Minister elect. If I were a brit for the last  30 years I'd be going, where in hell did this guy come from? But the answer is he was always there and is the natural extension of the what it is to be Canadian. To be clear, the Harper years are even referred to by Canadians as very un Canadian. The two issues that won Trudea the election were in order 1- Defecit spending and 2- The Niqab. then maybe 3- Taxing the 1%  followed by  the environment ...The reasons he won are very Canadian.

Before I say more, for those of you in the know, I do not acknowledge the existence of limp and useless Michael Ignatieff and mourn the kicking around of a wonderful but far too nice a man Stephane Dion who I had the honour of calling my MP and friend. His Green plan was years ahead of it's time and will most likely be the foundation of the new government's war on green house gasses.  

Let's start with deficit spending. Going back as far as the early 70's, Keynesian based policy that espoused the spending of money to make money and the tolerance of a certain level of deficit was the back bone Liberal policy.  Every minister of finance right up to several who themselves became Prime Minister were never shy of spending a little more than they had. In the last Parliament, Harper managed to extract a promise  from Thomas Mulcair and his NDP ( the allegedly real left wing party) to support a law forcing future Canadian governments to operate under a balanced budget.  Let's examine the terms  here . For Tories, here and there, balanced budget is another term for austerity. A policy that has seen veteran pensions reduced  by  more than half, services to the public  including door to door delivery of the post being withdrawn most  recently, and throughout the Harper years, a consistent effort to reduce the amount of money spent on citizens and  the services given them across the board. Even the hobbled and injured CBC so used to cuts from central government was on the verge of the final indignity of complete irrelevance as a national broadcaster. But The NDP felt they had to respect the public mood and take on board the will of the people if they stood a chance of winning the election. Sound familiar? It should.

The actual left in Canada, which has always been the Liberal Party,  under a controversial, bold, brave, perhaps even courageous leader said  NO. The accepted wisdom was that the Liberals had signed their own death warrant. Oooo I'm sure I've heard that here somewhere too... But then a funny thing happened on the way to the circus, the team explained what that actually meant. Municipalities and families  and farmers and small businesses signed on and supported the Liberal position. Shock horror! Except if you think about it, it 's perfectly sensible centrist policy that has  worked  on and off in Canada going as far back as 1948 or earlier if you take Mackenzie King's rural electrification policy that cut the legs out from under the CCF. The occasional slow down for a liberal balanced budget ( achieved by the way by Chretien and Martin) were exercises in socially just economic policy that still included taxing the wealthy and collecting taxes from large corporations.

Next up the niqab.  Oh what a lovely petard the right weaves to hoist itself upon. And this one did not fail to explode in the face of the Tories and the nationalists. The simple facts are that a woman who was going to a citizenship ceremony wanted to wear the niqab when getting sworn in. On the surface an issue that could be dangerous to anybody brave enough to touch it.  The Tories and the Bloc Quebecois waded in and  demanded the woman show her face.  Quickly and I mean  at light speed, the debate especially in Quebec, escalated to the levels where the EDL and UKIP would feel particularly comfortable.  It's at this point that the NDP again waffled, choosing to to finally appear to both support the woman and the existing rules. Trudeau in March had  said “You can dislike the niqab. You can hold it up it is a symbol of oppression. You can try to convince your fellow citizens that it is a choice they ought not to make. This is a free country. Those are your rights,” he said. “But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn. It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear.” So when the whole thing  blew up in Quebec and the party taking again a brave position to support the choice of that woman was seen as  taking a strong stand against the apparent public mood , it cemented in the minds of undecided voters and NDP voters that the only way to be rid of the Tories  was to vote Liberal. As the rot spread and the NDP vote collapsed in Quebec the rest of the country noticed and took a three way race and turned Trudeau into the front runner. 

The thing to take from this exercise in decision making and risk taking is that Justin Trudeau gambled that Canadian core values had not changed. A country built by immigrants would be tolerant and accepting, a country that had  as of Sept 3rd responded with a huge outpouring of anger and dismay at the death of a refugee boy who's family was already in Canada. The shame felt by people that such a government spoke for them with such miserly cold hearts that it killed a child in the name of austerity, immigration control and let's face it ... Islamophobia. The only decision then was which way were the the 60% of the electorate not voting tory going to go. Harper knew his goose was cooked by early September but  until that moment during the Niqab debate Mulcair was still in with a shout for a minority coalition.  The mesquinerie or pettiness of Harper had driven the final nail into the desire of Canadians to be well rid of him and the NDP was going to pay the price. This is  illustrated by an incident best related by Justin Trudeau himself on election night

 Last week, I met a young mom in St. Catharines, Ontario. She practises the Muslim faith and was wearing a hijab. She made her way through the crowd and handed me her infant daughter, and as she leaned forward, she said something that I will never forget. She said she’s voting for us because she wants to make sure that her little girl has the right to make her own choices in life and that our government will protect those rights.
To her I say this: you and your fellow citizens have chosen a new government, a government that believes deeply in the diversity of our country. We know in our bones that Canada was built by people from all corners of the world who worship every faith, who belong to every culture, who speak every language.


Lastly there is a trickle of issues that would make a leftist here giddy with delight if they thought there was a ghost of a chance of getting elected on these planks.. 

1- Taxing the top 1%
2- Legalizing the sale of marijuana as a priority 
3- Increasing exponentialy the representation of  women and natives in the Commons
4- Going on the world stage and reclaiming Canada's rightful place in the Green House Gas fight
5- Saying refugees are welcome and will not be allowed to die, target 25,000 before Christmas.
6- Withdraw from participation in the bombing of Syria and Iraq with as immediate effect as can be achieved.  


and some of you will positively wet yourselves over this one.

7- Vowing that the 2015 election was going to be the last ever federal election using the first past the post system. 

To quote his father in less happy and more dangerous times "Just watch me" 

 So what do we on the left have to learn from these strange creatures in Canada who are so related to us they are nearly us? Fate has given us Jeremy Corbyn. He's done three impossible things according to the establishment.  Get on the ballot, be a serious candidate and win.  Can he win an election? If a centrist Keynesian Socialist can take a mainstream party from 34 seats in the commons to a majority government of 184 MPs in a country where there is a belief  they are open , friendly accepting and progressive, then why not here? 





 

Wikileaks: An unpopular opinion

Before I peel the onion back and tell you what I think, let me tell you about myself first. It's important to understand where I'm coming from. I am a Socialist, like Ed Millliband , Pierre Trudeau or the great reformers of the Victorian era. I think the state has a responsibility for the greater good and that I as a citizen have my duties towards it. 

My family was honoured to have hosted in our home, the talks that led to the first Polish Constitution after WW1, my Grandfather was the local mayor after the war, whose job it was to make sure that everybody got along and that things worked well. Then during the second war, every member of my family in one capacity or another were involved in the struggle for the liberation of Poland and the World from Nazi and Soviet domination.  After the war, in the UK, Canada and the United States, we involved ourselves in the organization of the ex-pat Polish community, worked in local, and national politics and worked to make sure nobody ever forgot about KATYN. In later years, when it was my turn, I entered politics and community service. It seemed like the logical thing to do considering the family history.

In all that time several principles were drilled into us.

1- The best interests of the community
2- Honesty
3- Fairness
4- Judicious use of action depending on circumstances.
5- Discretion when needed, full disclosure when needed
6- Making sure you had the backing of the people most needed to make something work and the     agreement of those for whom things were done.
7-  Always seeking to avoid violence and death as much as possible
8- But defending ourselves when the time came.

These same principles govern every state ever created going back 10,000 years in one degree or another.In our "modern " enlightened times, the more radical, bang them over the head approach seems less and less necessary or desired. The problem is that we as a World community, do not all sing from the same hymn book, or worship at the same temple. And yet we have to get along, so we can trade, keep from shooting at each other and not forget that for every action , there is an equal but opposite reaction.  It  is here that politics enters the picture, it  is the art of the possible, the art of compromise without loosing face or giving up too much. In order to do that, we need to sometimes not speak every word that comes to mind loudly and without care. Sometimes we need to discuss amongst ourselves the options and speak frankly to each other in private to reach , lasting and proper decisions. Sometimes altruistic self interested motivations move us to act, other times it's altruistic actions that could be perceived to harm our direct interests, but are the correct thing to do.  But these actions, are at times harder to implement when governments are pretty much up front about it and stripped to basics.

Where does this lead to? Well for one, if you are familiar with the party model of the British Parliamentary system, you get a body called caucus, which is secret, precisely because it allows the Members of Parliament to come to some kind of agreement they can all as a governing party or opposition party, agree on as an acceptable public face to take to the voters and the Commons. Same goes for the cabinet, where cabinet solidarity requires a minister to vote with  the government or quit the ministry if he or she cannot bring themselves to do so.  But where would this system be if every word spoken in caucus or cabinet was leaked to the public? Where would our reasonable solutions be? The notion of allowing people to hash it out in private, before going public, leads to decisions, not always perfect, but at least generally acceptable to the party, the members and the Commons, and if they get it wrong, we vote them out in favour of another lot.

Policy, a question of good government is created by much debate, on the back of grey papers, green papers and white papers, each one  less divisive and provocative than the previous one, yet they are designed to be that to make sure there are no stones unturned or possibilities missed. But is it necessary to publish every discussion paper ever written, especially out of context and often on subjects that are sensitive to begin with. Packed with the very information that should it be made public, would be the very thing that would cause public consternation , legislative hardening of the arteries and much jumping to conclusions, which of course leads to even even bigger problems.

Then of course, we expect our Governments to protect us. But in so doing we sometimes have to expect the police, the army and the revenue service amongst many services, to be less than up front about what they do. I can just see it, Hello evil dooer, we are the police, we are required by total disclosure principle to warn you we are coming, we'll be there in 5 minutes, there will be 5 of us, two up front three in the back but nobody on the side, run fast now, .... we'll be in the ford mondeos, here are the police frequencies so you can listen, signed Bob Smith ..... And of course if you are bearing witness against a nasty person or other government and MI5 are hiding you in a safe house, the last thing you expect is to have your name and location broadcast all over the internet.

Why even have elected governments?  Because there is a compact, between the state and the people, that the state will do it's level best to work for the best interests of the people in all dealings be they public or private. Furthermore each political party agrees that there are certain basic foundations of belief in our societies  worth defending and building on. For without that agreement, we would not have peaceful hand overs of power from one  party to another. It's on these general principles that Governments work and engage other governments in, on a daily basis. For trade, for peace and for protection of the populations they govern. We end up in blocks, sometimes mutually satisfactory, sometimes awkward, but it does, in fact keep us from blowing ourselves off the face of the Earth in endless wars.  I hear you say , but there are wars. And you're right, but the number and the severity we'd have if every government and alliance was brutally honest and above board about the way they felt about everything, would be staggering. I mean  White Cricket robots bad, it would be back to warring city states like in the bad old days, but with far more fearsome weapons.

Governments talk for years sometimes to avoid shooting at people or dropping bombs. Witness the seemingly endless amount of finger wagging and cajoling in public and private, before the West finally had to step into Yugoslavia and stop the carnage. But when the decision was taken to start shooting, it was because every other avenue had been exhausted. Do you think they came to that decision lightly? No, were they perfect, or somehow idealistically without fault of any kind? No, but it was the only avenue left open to stop the killing of innocents. What would happen if the peace process, deeply flawed as it is, in the Middle East stopped? I can tell you that instead of a few Israelis or Palestinians dead, it would be on the scale of World War three. But those of you who still think there is an international conspiracy of the ultra rich to take over the World, go ahead, support WikiLeaks, 

Only in an idealistic, no consequence fanatically pure utopia can you be so perfect as to be near to G-d in wisdom. The World however does not work that way.  But you can have guide lines, you can have rules. And when somebody crosses the line, it's important to call them out. That's what journalists are for, historians and the opposition parties. Their job is to say, hold a minute there, you just did something awful and dangerous and for no good reason. You endangered lives , you broke your covenant with the people and with the nation you claim to represent.

What does that mean in practical terms? It means information must be made available as and when it is deemed necessary to verify the legitimacy and transparency of the process of Government. Specific documents that may show a Health Minister is taking kick backs and bribes from cigarettte industrialist, or perhaps a Minister hiring prostitutes to run his office instead of qualified staff. All legitimate, all proper targets. But when you start naming law abiding citizens, their companies, their employees, and the people who in our names, risk their lives in  our defence for the sake of "Transparency".,you cross a line. When you destabilize months perhaps years of negotiations by revealing sensitive information, draft treaties and briefing notes, you thumb your nose at the work being done to lead to an equitable agreement that will safegaurd lives, peace and tranquillity as well as local good government. When you disclose Security targets that are important to a government and insure that you  underline the most vulnerable, you not only work to undermine those targets, but the very people working there.

 The files are sufficiently precise and detailed that the only reason we don't know more from the news, is because the World's major media  have been holding back. Even if the press self censor you can be sure the terrorists and criminals of the World won't be as worried about sharing this information with each other.

And before you go all "We have a right to know" and "no one was harmed " or "it's idealism of the purest and highest  kind"  My uncle worked at a company on that list, a mate of mine was on mission in a part of the world against fanatics, and was exposed to unneeded danger. My own son wants to go fight in Afghanistan, so let me tell you, it's not academic to me. It's not academic to every soldier, civil servant, employee or diplomat whose work and security has been breached by this.

Now let me quote from a site my anarchist lefty freinds might want to visit., unless of course they don't want to know the truth.

A certain secretive fellow, currently in custody, attempts to conceal his record:

Julian Assange had a blog. But he deleted it.

Thanks to Peter Risdon, however, we can take a look.
UPDATE. Assange in August:

1,300 people were eventually killed [in Kenya], and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak.

Assange today:
WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. 

It's OK for ASSANGE to leak the locations of poorly defended people and places, MI5 Safe houses and the people in care, but not his address... You can't have it both ways mate. 

For the full details  

Julian Assange and his acolytes have behaved no better than the radical elements that rocked Europe in the 70's preaching total revolution, tear it down , then we can build from the rubble. But at what cost. How many died from the bombs? how many were murdered from kidnappings? WikiLeaks is just information you say, it's harmless.  Well information is power, and it kills. It kills as surely as a plane smashes into a high rise, as surely as a Taliban unit  sneaks into a town and blows up a school full of girls. Some have compared the Watergate tapes to WikiLeaks,  but I tell you it's not the same. Watergate brought down an administration, a corrupt one. It did not however strip away every layer of the US Government and it's operations in the entire world. It took down a few justifiably reviled criminals, it did not however, put in danger thousands of people across the globe and in many locations, most of whom are merely doing their jobs.

The critics of the crack down on WikiLeaks have the temerity to claim it's  McCarthyism on the net. What a load of hypocrisy, these self same people have targeted not just  the president of the United States, or the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, but the entire state apparatus of the United States of America. And by association, that of the states who have anything at all to do with them.  That is by my reckoning a massive attack that I can only qualify as e-terrorism. What government on Earth will correspond or cooperate with the USA now,  what administration regardless of politics in the USA will be able to do anything at all now until such time as every leak is plugged,  and by the way freedom and transparency loving folk who have till now cried trendy tears for Julian Assange, that means even less transparency in the future, not more.  Giving money to this man and his cronies, is like giving money to the Real IRA, or a radical cell of animal rights loonies who don't care who they hurt as long as the animals are ok.

I live in the real, practical , day to day world, I understand there is price for my security as a citizen of a country and this planet. I know I have rights but also have responsibilities. I know that sometimes there are things I don't need to know right away or ever, but there are other things I need to know now. I trust my Government to behave honourably and responsibly. But if ever there was a hint of wrong doing, I would attack it and the wrong dooers with as much vigour as I defend the compact they are supposed to be upholding. I am a soft left of centre socialist who thinks we should take care of the least among us without closing all avenues of initiative or difference of opinion on some things. I would never vote Tory, I'm not best pleased with  the Lib Dems, but I, because I feel best represented by Labour,  will support and  help them. But this assumes that I agree with the basic premise laid down by Charles Trevelyan in forming the modern civil service that is repeated in every western democracy, that they will regardless of my politics, protect me, work in my best interest and protect the government services we take for granted in every country by reflecting the will of the people as elected to the Commons, and in so doing, be qualified for the job .

If I for a second supported WikiLeaks and the current campaign to undermine the very basis of diplomacy, and security in the World, I would be harming myself. But the facts are even clearer, and more pressing, as I watch the news, and hear of one more place within miles of me, a company in the next country, yet another salacious memo designed to further enrage and embolden rogue states into rash actions or cause friction between allies, a security initiative revealed in some part of the world foiled that will lead to deaths and set backs, all for the vanity and vengeance of Julian Assange on the United States he so hates.  I'm no fan of the Bush White House, there are loads of things wrong in my eyes with America, but I would never go so far as to systematically destroy the entire Government even to the point of dragging in people thousands of miles away. It takes a certain kind of fanaticism reminiscent of  religious fundamentalists on the right and total anarchy as prescribed by the early communists and fascists alike.  I like my revolutions gentle, that take time and cause as little upheaval as possible without sinking into the kind of legislative coma some tired reformers sometimes fall into. Like the nobility of 18th  and 19 century Britain, I prefer we come to some kind of agreement and try and stick to it.

I was most shocked by the very real chill in the sincerity and openness of discussion by some of the most supposedly free thinkers and activists I know on this subject. It seems you are either with Assange or you are some kind of conservative throwback to the days when anybody who disagreed with you was evil and free speech meant shouting louder than the man trying to speak at the podium . If this is the future under Assange and his mates, they can stuff it up their holier than thou arses. I mention this because two days ago I was de friended on facebook by a WikiLeaks apostle along with the person, who horror of horrors, agreed with my two comments,  I was also told that I could have all the freedom of speech I wanted, but not on her time and told to stop "harassing" her, by that she meant of course, being wrong on her status.  I then found myself steering clear of any further discussions on the matter. Seems I wasn't alone, as the pro WikiLeaks people attracted few comments or likes and seemed pretty pleased with themselves.What did I say that was so terrible?

I pointed out three simple things.... 1- Given the magnitude of the leaks, regardless of what she thought or I thought, the governments of the world will be even more closed in, now more than ever before. 2- Naming companies and locations of important facilities around the world in order of least secure, as well as MI5 safe houses, was an invitation to less scrupulous types to use this information and lastly 3- That whatever she may think of diplomacy, it has over time stopped far more wars than it ever caused.  Whatever bogey men she may have fought in her life, she has clearly not taken the time to think that just maybe This guy has gone wayyyyy too far in his alleged Holy War  for whatever philosophical purity he espouses. At the end of the day I much prefer dealing with rational reasonable people who aren't going to take ME down because their neighbours dog peed on their shoes.
Last word on this, here is a quick quote from one my favourite songs in the 70's.Trooper's "Raise a little Hell"

If you dont like what you got, why don't you change it?
If your world is all screwed up, then rearrange it?

If you dont like what you see, why don't you fight it?
If you know there's something wrong why dont you right it?

Raise a little hell , raise a little hell, raise a little hell! 

Trooper didn't tell us to burn the house down, unleash the armies of Hell, and lay waste to our neighbours to give us a better sense of security; they said try and make it right, don't be silent and make sure you are on the side of justice. Raise a LITTLE hell.  What is being done in the name of transparency is plain and simple hooliganism that dictates if you hate the Bank of Scotland or McDonald's you need to beat up the clerk at the till and burn the bus at the corner.   The cyber attack by hackers closing  Mastercard, Paypal and  the attack on the lawyers defending the women in Sweden,  is the kind of thing that makes me sick about fanatics likes this. They are proving they are nothing but bullies who care nothing about whom they hurt and are only interested in their personal version of Utopia. I have no room for anarchists who wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the arse, no more than I want to talk to closed minded messianics who think this is some kind of game with no consequences.The sooner sanity is restored and the hackers and WikiLeaks are dealt with, the better.