Assorted Links: February 24, 2007

New Labour, Old Idea

Heavens, two decades after Thatcherism and Gordon Brown is nationalizing a failing bank.  Will he be inviting the TUC leadership to Cabinet next week too? 

When the once-unthinkable finally happened, there was a weary inevitability about it. In the six months since Northern Rock's cash dried up and it turned to the central bank for help, would-be rescuers of the stricken mortgage lender had fallen one by one by the wayside. By the time Alistair Darling, the chancellor, announced on February 17th that Northern Rock was to be nationalised, only the Sunday timing was unexpected. And for all the party-political outcry that erupted on the news, there was little doubt that Parliament would pass a law bringing the bank into public ownership.

The truth is that there was never much chance a private-sector buyer could be found willing and able to get the bank on an even keel and to repay the government promptly its £55 billion ($108 billion) in loans and guarantees. So two things are interesting now. The first is what sort of fist the bank's new managers will make of things (see article). The second is how much damage his reluctant decision to nationalise it will do to Gordon Brown, the prime minister.

If that non-entity, who is the Tories' current leader-of-the-week, has any sense, doubtful, he will use this to destroy New Labour.

The Sound of Conservatism

The Steyn was right, McCain only sounds like a conservative, but it sure is a pretty sound, ain't it?

"Fidel Castro announced that he would not remain as president -- whatever that means," McCain said in Indianapolis.

"And I hope that he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon.

"But the point is, the point is that apparently he's trying to groom his brother Raul. My friends, Raul is worse in many respects than Fidel was."

In a formal written statement, McCain also took a shot at Obama, the Democratic front-runner who renewed his offer to speak to leaders of US foes without preconditions in a campaign debate with rival Hillary Clinton in Texas.

"So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections," McCain said.

"Senator Obama says he would meet Cuba's dictator without any such steps in the hope that talk will make things better for Cuba's oppressed people.

"Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill."

The Boy Wonder, who will save the Democrats from the cynicism of Hillary, and the American people from the warmongering of Bush, had this to say in reply:

Obama hit back in his own strongly-worded statement.

"John McCain would give us four more years of the same Bush-McCain policies that have failed US interests and the Cuban people for the last 50 years," he said.

"My policy will be based on the principle of liberty for the Cuban people, and I will seek that goal through strong and direct presidential diplomacy, and an immediate change in policy to allow for unlimited family visitation and remittances to the island.

"I am confident that the American people will choose the promise of the future over the failed policies and predictable political attacks of the past."

Obama said during the debate on Thursday it was important for the United States to have contact with its enemies.

"I recall what John F. Kennedy said: we should never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate. This opportunity that Fidel Castro has finally stepped down I think is one that we should take advantage of."

Yes, I'm sure President Kennedy's name just sprang to mind.  The similarity between the two men is real, but mostly unflattering.  Both were inexperienced Senators with oratorical gifts.  The less noted similarity, yet historically the most important, was that their candidacies represent watersheds.  What is often forgotten about JFK's brief term, yet it was culturally its most important aspect, was that he was America's first Catholic President - however nominal a distinction.  Al Smith, a highly popular New York Governor, lost his 1928 bid in part due to his Irish Catholic background - a booming economy and his origins in NYC Lower East Side were probably far bigger factors.  When Kennedy ran in 1960 fears that an anti-Catholic sentiment would cripple his candidacy were quelled only by his primary victory in staunchly Protestant West Virginia.  This is the important parallel between the two men, their careers represent a historical moment when ancients wounds, if not exactly healed, ceased to be quite so vexing and divisive.  A far greater hope than any of the empty rhetoric being emitted by the junior Senator from Illinois.

"The most startling incident in my life was the time I discovered myself to be a poet, which was in the year 1877."

I came across this Wikipaedia entry and just had to link to it:

McGonagall has been widely acclaimed as the worst poet in British history. The chief criticisms of his poetry are that he is deaf to poetic metaphor and unable to scan correctly. In the hands of lesser artists, this might simply generate dull, uninspiring verse. However, McGonagall's fame stems from the humorous effects these shortcomings generate. The inappropriate rhythms, weak vocabulary, and ill-advised imagery combine to make his work amongst the most spontaneously amusing comic poetry in the English language.

Of the 200 or so poems that he wrote, the most famous is probably The Tay Bridge Disaster, which recounts the events of the evening of 28 December 1879, when, during a severe gale, the Tay Rail Bridge near Dundee collapsed as a train was passing over it.

Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.

[...]

McGonagall had previously written a poem in praise of the Tay Bridge: The Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay "With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array". Once the new replacement bridge had been built, without the least feeling of irony, he proceeded to compose an ode to the new construction: An Address to the New Tay Bridge “Strong enough all windy storms to defy”.

[...]

McGonagall also considered himself an actor, although the theater where he performed, Mr Giles' Theater, would only let him perform the title role in Macbeth if he paid for the privilege in advance. Their caution proved ill-founded however, as the theater was filled with friends and fellow workers, anxious to see what they correctly predicted to be an amusing disaster. Although the play should have ended with Macbeth's death at the hands of Macduff, McGonagall believed that the actor playing Macduff was trying to upstage him, and so refused to die.

But his poetry lives on.

Beneath the Bad Hair Cut.....

....the enormous brain plots.....

Finally, Mr. Harper moved a resolution on Afghanistan as a confidence measure, which meant the Liberals would support the government or face an election.

The Liberals responded by saying lots of different things. Mr. Rae, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Dion and Denis Coderre all spoke out, resulting in a mishmash of conflicting messages. The Tories, by contrast, had one spokesman — Mr. Harper — and one message.

Behind closed doors, the Liberals struggled. They could either compromise with Mr. Harper or face the extremely well-organized Conservatives in an election for which they do not seem to be ready.

Mr. Rae, remember, is still waiting for a chance to win a seat and get into the House of Commons. He and Mr. Ignatieff — friends and rivals since college days — must both be hoping Mr. Dion will lose the next election because they both have a realistic chance of taking the leadership of the Liberal party.

Mr. Ignatieff daily outshines Mr. Dion in the House, which must be painful and awkward for both men. When Mr. Rae arrives on the scene, the situation will be stranger still. In terms of political experience, communication skills and public policy expertise, Mr. Rae will be the only person in the House in the same league as Mr. Harper. He needs time in the House to demonstrate those qualities before the next Liberal leadership race.

So he had a good reason to urge Mr. Dion to compromise with the Tories. With both Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff urging Mr. Dion to bend, and a caucus that is divided and confused, Mr. Dion eventually bent.

Many conservatives wonder where the old Reform firebrand went.  He seems to have been replaced by a calculating politico with the grace and timing of Fred Astaire.  Was it only five years ago we were all complaining that all the clever politicians were in the Liberal Party?  That we had the principles but no practicality.  Despite the moaning we are still in a better position that we were two and half years ago.  Can you imagine Paulie Martin thinking twice about signing a Kyoto II?  Would the Wheat Board be under constant bombardment?  Is giving Bob Rae a cabinet post, and perhaps the keys to 24 Sussex Dr, a good thing for the future of Canada?  Intellectually no defense is better than a critically weak one.  A poor intellectual defense of capitalism and freedom in general - as displayed by many conservatives in the 1930s and 1940s - greatly empowers its enemies.  Silence allows the possibility of better voices coming to the fore without the stigma created by the weak defense.  Politics, however, isn't an intellectual debate, though it exists within an ultimately intellectual context.  There are things we may permit those whom we support politically, which we should never admit to those we support intellectually.  The Conservative government is better than any practical alternative, we should make it clear that more often than not it is conservative in name only.

American Troops, In Our Cities

Yankee Go Home soon to replace O Canada as our national anthem.

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

I won't bother quoting our own loons on this, you know the drill.  The American loons, on the other hand, are quite amusing.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S., it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one Web site. "The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember -- Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Yes, you caught us.  It's all part an elaborate plot by which the Canadian army, whose full strength force is smaller than most major urban American police departments, will be used to quell dissent to the coming American Corporate Fascist Theocracy.  The American military, which is larger than the entire province of Saskatchewan, will be employed to overawe the Canadian Left when Stephen Harper proclaims himself President and Chief Tory for Life.  I think Margaret Atwood is writing a novel and David Cronenberg is slated to direct the adaptation. 

The Yahoos Strike Back

Randy Hillier, the Man from Lanark, gets published in the Red Star.  No doubt the responsible editors have been fired, or dispatched to the Winnipeg bureau.

It is a rare occasion when an esteemed university political science professor demonstrates both intolerance and ignorance in a single interview.

Mr. Hillier, as is apparent from that last sentence, never went to university.  Demonstrating intolerance and ignorance in a single lecture is practically mandatory in most modern humanities classes.

One recently left his comfortable academic chair and waded into the swamps of political leadership. Along the way his foot found the traps his mouth had set and his mind had baited. Had he armed himself with some knowledge of history and a measure of respect for others, the swamp and the alligators may have been avoided.

During an interview with the Star, the professor expressed significant bias and a large dose of disdain for rural Ontario, commenting that political leaders from the countryside are likely to be "rural yahoos." The professor further demonstrated his ignorance in stating that "smart people realize this." Most Canadians will find these statements both repulsive and ignorant.

Objective readers with a basic knowledge of Canadian history will recognize the falseness of the professor's statements. Canadian history is paved with a marvelous collection of rural leaders who helped build a prosperous, just society and, along the way, built the academic classrooms where generous paycheques abound. Sir John A. Macdonald leads this list, followed closely by farm kids Sir Robert Borden, Wilfrid Laurier, prairie populist John Diefenbaker and Baie-Comeau lad Brian Mulroney.

Great rural leaders are certainly not confined to federal politics. In Ontario, the rural cast includes farmer Mitch Hepburn, Frank Miller and Mike Harris, to name a few. Anyone looking at Canadian history through these misinformed academic eyes would have to conclude that Canadians are uneducated and have been led by, and voted for, a series of "yahoos."

Those familiar with Mr. Hillier will know of his disquieting admiration for Sir John A.  Father of the country he was, skilled politician he was, defender of freedom a little bit less so.  A 19th century Tory is still, however, better than any 21st politician in defending the values of individual rights.  Macdonald, it should be noted, showed a respect for the core values of Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence with few rivals in Canadian history, even offering appointments to the bench based on merit rather than patronage, a rare act of political courage at the time.  Still, one feels Mr. Hillier might profit more studying the career of George Brown, the Voice of the Intelligent Yeomanry of Upper Canada, men much like himself. 

My own historical hobby horses aside, the member for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has made a vital point.  The conceit urban dwellers feel for rural Canada is palpable and a problem not simply for rural Canadians but for urbanites too.  In losing sight of what economists term correctly the primary sector of the economy, of the labour and thought that makes our lives possible, we lose something of ourselves.  There is such a thing as horse sense and we in urban areas, removed from the often blunt alternatives of rural life, lose it.  You can assuage a client or manipulate numbers, but the hewers of wood and haulers of water are faced with objective reality everyday.  You can't bullshit a cow or a farmer.

I recall an old story, which I may have told in this space before, of my maternal grandfather, a day labourer in the Portuguese Alentejo.  Years after retiring he and a friend made a trip to Lisbon dressed in their usual simple workmen's clothes.  Finding himself in one of the fancier areas of the city he soon heard a woman's voice say:  "What are these shits doing in Lisbon?"  My grandfather turned and replied, "If it wasn't for these shits you bitches would have starved years ago."

It Just Isn't An Assorted Links post without....

...something from Micheal Coren:

Pierre Trudeau must be rolling in his grave. His good friend Fidel Castro has stepped down from power, handing the dictatorship over to his brother. There's democracy and people's choice forayou. Then again, that old charlatan Trudeau had a thing for authoritarian thugs the world over. Thank the Lord he wasn't prime minister in 1940.

Cuba is an open wound, bleeding away the integrity of Canada and any other country that refuses to condemn Havana's brutality, oppression and imperialism. The country is dominated by a cruel, hypocritical junta that has arrested, tortured and killed more people than most of Latin America's leaders combined.

[...]

He initiated a system of political oppression that has outlived Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Secret policemen abound, interfering busybodies on the street have the authority to condemn people to prison and any independent thought is seen as dangerous and threatening.

Cuban soldiers have been sent to fight and die all over the world on the orders of their leader and his sordid attempts at extending his power. In Africa uneducated, under-trained Cubans fell in enormous numbers, but also extended civil wars and thus caused the deaths of Africans, particularly in Angola and Mozambique.

Killing far more people, and destroying what positive work that was done by the Portuguese colonial authorities.  Those seeking proof that Fascism was a less virulent pathology than Communism, despite the yelping of the Left for decades, need look no further than Angola, Mozambique and Cuba.

Apologia Pro Bureaucratia Sua

Dispelling the myths about the Public Service:

Canada's top bureaucrat has come out swinging against the "misconceptions" of the public service, held by bureaucrats and the public, that are dogging its turnaround.

In a rare speech, Privy Council Clerk Kevin Lynch bluntly told 1,000 federal bureaucrats at a town hall in Vancouver this week that the public service has plenty of problems, but it's not the "broken, pale shadow of its former self" portrayed by critics. He acknowledged much of the criticism has a "kernel" of truth, but "the reality is a more nuanced and complex story."

"Criticism of the public service is not new and it is not always without merit," he said. "But I fear we have allowed some misperceptions about the public service, from both inside and outside the public service, to go unchallenged too long," he said.

[...]

He listed his top myths and "misconceptions" about the public service -- which, left unchecked, will undermine the government's ability to recruit and retain talent in the face of the fiercest labour market in 35 years. Mr. Lynch took over the job two years ago and made "renewal" a priority, a promise cynically dismissed by many bureaucrats and observers as another reform plan that will go nowhere.

Mr. Lynch's list of the top eight misperceptions include:

- The public service is a pale shadow of its former self;

- There is nothing wrong with the public service, so we don't need renewal;

- The public service can't compete for talent anymore;

- The capacity to develop public policy is not what it used to be;

- Public servants are afraid to take risks;

- The public service isn't well managed;

- Public service reforms never accomplish anything;

- The public service is out of touch with Canadians.

The speech posted on the PCO website drew mixed reaction. Some who read it found it defensive and even whiny, but others who heard the speech at Vancouver's Centre of Performing Arts called it a much needed "pep rally of the troops" that praised their work without glossing over the warts and problems plaguing the public service.

We here at the Gods are known, as far as we are known, for our Liberal baiting and bureaucrat bashing.  While Liberalism in its modern variant is beyond hope, we think differently of the Public Service. We need a state and people to administer it.  There is nothing shameful in working for the common interest, though it is not morally superior to working for legitimate private interests.  For a society to function there are those who need to operate beyond the particular and the private.  Our criticism of government is that when it exceeds its proper function, when it attempts to do what only the private sector, either profit or non-profit, should be doing, that it fails.  It is from this violation that the Public Service passes from an important and honourable profession, to a comically inept and then finally, should it begin to infringe on basic liberties, a Kafkaesque nightmare.

John Tory, We Hardly Knew You?

It's unlikely this weekend will mark the last days of John Tory's leadership of the provincial Conservatives.  There are no credible alternatives and political assassinations almost never bring better leadership, while at the same time weakening party unity.  Tory was brought in as the party's Great Red Hope.  He would be the moderate to rebuild bridges to urban Ontario.  He would not only recapture the 905 but push into the 416.  Didn't happen and it won't.  However much the 905 has changed since the halcyon days of Mike, people still need something to vote for.  What, exactly is John Tory for that, substantially, Dalton McGuinty is not also for?  Besides, Randy Hillier needs a few years to find his way around Queen's Park.

In that true blue Ontario way, few within the party want to be overtly critical of John Tory's leadership. Sure, former party president Reuben Devlin has been outspoken about the party's disastrous election outcome. And my fellow Sun columnist John Snobelen, a former Mike Harris cabinet minister, has been characteristically blunt in his assessment of Tory's leadership.

Until now, though, it's been widely assumed that their views are a minority within the party and Tory will comfortably garner a substantial percentage of delegates tomorrow.

A Sun Media poll released yesterday by Nanos Research suggests otherwise. Pollster Nik Nanos' figures show support for Tory is tepid at best. Less than 56% of those who identified themselves as Tory voters supported him as leader. Almost 31% of Tories supported a leadership convention.

And while Tory says he's consulted with the grassroots of the party since the dismal election showing last October, many in the party's rank and file are doubtful.