A Dufferin-Caledon FLA Member Speaks Out

Yes, I'm still blogging about the ignoble end of Garth Turner's candidacy in Dufferin-Caledon. Why? Because people aren't playing by the rules, and it's pissing me off.

So.

Today, I asked one of the board members of the Dufferin-Caledon Liberal Association for their take on the situation. Although they have identified themselves as one of the 'pro-Garth' camp, this person had already been involved in D-C riding politics long before Garth Turner showed up.

With that in mind, here are a few of the things they told me:

"The DCFLA Candidate Search Committee did due diligence in their search of over 25 viable candidate-prospects up here & Garth was the only one who emerged from that search willing to stand - the Report was accepted unanimously by the DCFLA in August & by LPCO thereafter. Consequently, there was no spectral 'other candidate' in the wings at that time. If one has come to the forefront in the last two weeks or so, then that is news to everyone I know!

As it happens, that spectral 'other candidate' emerged today in the pages of the Orangeville Citizen - Alton businessman Bill Prout. My contact knew nothing of this, but has informed me that this person has "no profile in the Association & will be hard-pressed to garner anything more than the paltry 8,000 votes won by Rebecca Finch in 2008."

"Ms. Rosenstock gave us the number of 170 in June/09 after consultation with an unknown LPCO official - I took that to be gospel, perhaps naively. At the time, the issue was exactly how many "Laurier Club" members we have in the Membership. Under such designation, the FLA is actually allowed multiple- memberships based on some arcane formula that LPCO has (ie.) 1 Laurier Club Member = 5 virtual memberships for the Riding Association. Ms.. Rosenstock has never clarified for us how many of these mulitple-memberships we indeed have: I believe it to be 4; she has argued that we have only 2."

Ms. Rosenstock is either confused or misinformed. The number 170 happens to be exactly 2% of the Liberal votes from the previous election, which is the threshold required for a riding with a sitting Liberal Member of Parliament. However as a riding with NO current Liberal MP, they would only be required to meet the one and a half percent membership threshold.

Also, there is no minimum required number of Laurier Club Members (those who donate the maximum in a given year). There is, however, a minimum number of Victory Club Members (those who donate $10 a month or more). That number is equivalent to 10% of the minimum membership requirement. However, a Laurier Club Member does count as 5 Victory Club members.

The rules are quite clear on this. All anyone had to do was look them up.

"At the August meeting of the DCFLA, we had representatives from LPCO, who assured the association that we were 'close enough' to the 170 (using the Laurier Club factoring) to request a Nomination meeting date, which we did by motion, for August 28th. At that time, it was ambiguous as to how many members we actually had, since Ms. Rosenstock could never remember clearly when asked & there was always a reason why she could not get a clear update from downtown. Nevertheless, we took the LPCO officials at their word & requested the meeting for the 28th."

This focus on the Laurier Club numbers makes me wonder if the real issue was the number of Victory Club members and not the total members. I've emailed the relevant person at LPCO for clarification.

"Amidst all the innuendo I see on the blogs & in the newspapers, let me try to be clear.... the association never would have been permitted to request a Nomination meeting by motion if we were not 'close enough' to meet the membership threshold...whatever the number was! We were encouraged to request this meeting (a) because electoral urgency permitted it (b) we understood that we had the blessing of LPCO by virtue of their two reps. sitting there & (c) we had a candidate green-lit, approved by the DCFLA Search Committee & ready to go!

"If there is a reason for the reluctance to grant us a Nomination meeting, then I do not know it. What I can say is that some people (Ms. Rosenstock & Jeff May) have been opposed to a Garth Turner candidacy in this riding, for whatever reasons they may have. Until recently, I have had no reason to suspect their motives, but when I read things they have said on Steven Janke's blog or in the local papers, I am led to be suspicious."

This might all seem to be nothing more than a petty internal squabble over an admittedly controversial local candidate. But I'll leave you with this thought for now:

If it should turn out that this riding association really did follow all the rules and meet all the requirements to select the candidate of their choice, what does it say about the application of those rules that they were still prevented from doing so?

Garth in D-C: Curiouser and Curiouser

There appears to be a difference of opinion between Garth Turner and Janet Rosenstock, the Membership Chair of the Dufferin-Caledon FLA, regarding the number of members required to hold a candidate nomination meeting.

As a lawyer's daughter, I personally despise this kind of discrepancy on such an easily resolved issue. And since nobody else seems keen to sort out fact from fiction in this case, I guess it's up to me.

To quote Ms. Rosenstock:

Every FLA must have a certain level of membership before a nomination meeting can be granted. The Membership level is lowered during what is called, 'Electoral Urgency.' Our 'Electoral Urgency' number is roughly 175. We needed about 12 more members.

In a later interview with CTV she claims that Turner was only 9 members short, but in any case, where did this magic number of 175 come from?

The Liberal Party does indeed have specific requirements for membership levels in these cases. Here's what the rules say:

“Minimum Membership Threshold” means, in respect of each Electoral District Association, the lesser of:
(i) 300 EDA members; or
(ii) a number of EDA members equivalent to one and one half per cent of the Liberal vote in the last federal Election, provided however that in no event shall this reduce the required number of members to less than 100;

In the case of D-C, the number of Liberal votes in the last election was 8,495. 1.5% of 8,495 is 127, which would be considerably below either the 166 or 163 figures mentioned by Rosenstock.

But what about this "Electoral Urgency" situation? Well, that gets a little more dicey. I won't quote the entire section of legalese, but here's the rub:

In any such state of electoral urgency, the National Campaign Chair or his or her designate may alter the time lines and procedures fixed by these Rules in such manner as he or she, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, may see fit, for any Electoral District(s), provided that any changes to these Rules so enacted shall forthwith be communicated in writing to any affected EDA president and to any Potential Nomination Contestant (of whom the National Campaign Chair or designate has knowledge) who may be affected. The failure of any such person to receive such notice shall not invalidate the declaration of electoral urgency.

In other words, all bets are off.

I'm waiting for further clarification of this from our own riding officials, but common sense would seem to dictate that any situation of 'Electoral Urgency' would only have existed before Ignatieff and Harper agreed to strike an EI reform panel on June 17th, and after Ignatieff announced his intention to vote against the government on August 31st.

Rosenstock claims that Turner was informed of the current membership requirements on June 18th.

The other problem is, Ms. Rosenstock was quoted as saying, "The Membership level is lowered during what is called, 'Electoral Urgency." Which could not possibly be the case in this case, since the number of members she's claiming would be required is higher than would normally be the case.

Don't get me wrong - I'm well aware of Garth's ability to place himself in a favourable light in any given situation. But there's definitely something rotten in D-C.

Garth Turner's Out in Dufferin-Caledon (Updated)

Wow. Just when you think Garth Turner can't surprise you any more, he goes and does something like this:

After being recruited to run for MP in the Ontario riding of Dufferin-Caledon, and having my candidacy approved by the Liberal Party last July, today I informed the leader of my resignation.

My hope in returning to Parliament was to help clear the path to a viable economic future. Stephen Harper’s $56 billion deficit and profligate spending are massive threats. But also threatening is a lack of debate about viable options and an honest conversation with voters and citizens on the looming consequences.

Therefore it’s hard to see what the coming election will be about if we’re not prepared to discuss the options in the wake of the Harper fiscal disaster. Economic growth alone won’t wipe out an historic debt load or the need for spending cuts and tax hikes. The looming HST in Ontario and BC is likely but a taste of medicine to come. This is what Canadians need to understand.

A year ago Stephen Harper said there would be no recession and no deficit. That was untrue. Now he says there will be no consequences of our record shortfall. Also untrue.

In my financial books and writings I’ve warned of the need for families to invest wisely, use debt carefully and live within their means in an uncertain world. Rather than tell voters interest rates and taxes won’t rise nor spending fall, leaders should guide us all into realistic choices. Sadly, that doesn’t win elections.

In Dufferin-Caledon I have been the only nominee for MP candidate since August. I’m interpreting the leader’s failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome.

The views he's referring to are, in this case, expressed in his post against the HST, and in another in favour of honestly discussing the fact that tax increases and/or massive spending cuts are going to be required to get us out of deficit. And yeah, I can see that not making him any friends when the Liberal Party is desperately trying not to take a solid position on either of these things.

What puzzles me is this. Dufferin-Caledon is regarded by most as a fairly safe Conservative riding. So, assuming that rumours are true and nobody at Liberal HQ likes Garth Turner or wants to see him elected again, wouldn't it seem the perfect solution to banish him to just such an apparently unwinnable riding?

And yet, if Garth's interpretation of events is correct, the leader of the Liberal Party has gone out of his way twice now to thwart even the faintest hope of Garth Turner ever attending another Liberal caucus meeting - once in Halton by appointing a candidate, and again in Caledon by leaving him in indefinite limbo.

I have no idea how likely any of this is. As with all things Garth, I am sure there's some combination of martyrdom and unspoken intrigue at work here. Still, the idea that an uncontested candidate could be blocked from being nominated in this way points once again to the potential for manipulation in the system. And that's something that should concern us all.

Meanwhile, the good people of Dufferin-Caledon are still without a candidate, and now they'll have to start from scratch to find one. Good thing we're not having an election any time soon.

UPDATE: Steve Janke, doing his 'Full Comment' over at the National Post, has a quote from Dufferin-Caledon FLA Membership Chair Janet Rosenstock:

"I am not sure Mr. Turner's reasons for leaving are indeed his reasons for leaving. Another candidate for nomination had come forward and was in process. Perhaps Mr. Turner did not want to face a fight for the nomination. As far as Mr. Turner's feeling that the Leadership would not grant him a nomination meeting is concerned, there are rules that must be followed. Every FLA must have a certain level of membership before a nomination meeting can be granted. The Membership level is lowered during what is called, 'Electoral Urgency.' Our 'Electoral Urgency' number is roughly 175. We needed about 12 more members. Mr. Turner and his supporters were told repeatedly that a nomination meeting could and would be held when the required level of membership was reached. Two and one half months later, Mr. Turner and his supporters had failed to sign up a sufficient number of members."

Two things about this: a) Janet Rosenstock is no fan of Garth Turner's, but b) It does have a ring of truth to it, given Garth's aversion to contested nominations.

Wheels within wheels.

Garth's New Digs

It looks like Garth Turner might have the nomination in Dufferin-Caledon all locked up. Word from The Hill Times is that the only other candidate in the race, riding association president Jeff May, has announced his intention to withdraw, leaving the field to Turner.

At least it looks like he'll be given a fair shot by the local paper this time.

Given everything that happened in Halton, I found it particularly interesting that there was enough speculation about a deal to justify this adamant denial:

Mr. Turner denied that his switch from the riding of Halton to Dufferin-Caledon was part of any deal.

"I can tell you categorically that Mr. Ignatieff acted independently in selecting a candidate in Halton for whatever reasons that he had. I did not file my nomination papers in Halton so I was not part of that decision. In terms of Halton, I'm aware of no influence from the party whatsoever...There was no deal, period."

All that may well be true. Technically. But given how much was left out of this version of the events Halton and what I've since learned about the machinations of the nomination process... remind me never to play poker with Garth Turner.

Meet Halton's New Candidate!

The Liberal Party is pleased to announce that Deborah Gillis has been appointed by Michael Ignatieff as the candidate for Halton in the next Federal election.

I'll give you a moment to get back in your seat. Take your time.

So. Without disclosing anything confidential (I hope... I'm pretty sure), here's what happened:

Garth Turner, as you may know, was our MP and Liberal candidate in the last election. He lost to Lisa Raitt. At our AGM last winter, he declared his desire and intention to be our candidate again, and most people seemed pretty happy about that. At least the ones I spoke to were.

Then some odd reports started coming out in the media and on his blog. Phrases like, "Stick a fork in me, I'm done" were used. And yet whenever he communicated with the board, he insisted that he still wanted to be our candidate. It was a little... confusing.

Meanwhile, a few up-and-comers started to smell blood in the water. Feelers were put out. Alliances began to form. Then in late May, it really looked like Garth was serious about not running. We were given the go-ahead to start the candidate search process and the contenders came out of the closet. There were several of them, some more serious than others. None seemed especially likely to be able to take down Lisa Raitt, although it's hard to say how it all would have worked out.

Overtures were made to Garth to try to get him to come back into the race, but he became more and more adamant that he wasn't willing to do that. And after speaking with him and with Esther, I began to understand why he wanted no part of this particular dog fight.

We like to think of a nomination race as a democratic process, and in some cases it can be. However, given the fact that most ridings only have a few hundred actual party members, the whole process is extremely easy to manipulate. Even when it works the way it's supposed to, the winner is rarely the one with the best ideas who can argue them persuasively to the existing membership. No - the person who wins is the one who can sign up the greatest number of 'insta-members' willing to come and vote for him or her. And if the potential candidate belongs to a church or an ethnic community or some other large organization, it becomes incredibly easy for them to sign up a busload of friends, family and acquaintances as members and get themselves nominated.

It happens all the time in both the Conservative and Liberal parties. I don't know about the NDP, but I wouldn't be surprised if their potential candidates run right out and sign up all the folks in their union local.

There is, of course, a shockingly simple solution to this problem: increase the amount of time someone needs to be a party member before they're allowed to vote in a candidate race. Say, six months. Even four. Even two.

Unfortunately, most political parties have absolutely no interest in doing this because new members mean new money. These 'insta-members' rarely renew their memberships or even stick around to volunteer during campaigns, but no matter. A candidate contest run under these conditions represents a quick infusion of cash to party coffers, so any attempt to change things is likely to be fought tooth and nail by the powers that be.

But I'll get more into that later.

Given these circumstances, and given that Garth doesn't have a lot of friends in the new Ignatieff regime, it was perhaps inevitable that our leader was going to make use of his prerogative to appoint a candidate in Halton. And given the circumstances, I'm not sure I can blame him. Garth wasn't willing to run if he was going to have competition, and the party wasn't about to appoint him or have him acclaimed. And since the Liberals apparently now want Halton back almost as badly as the Conservatives did in the last election, none of the candidates who had stepped forward thus far were seen as sufficiently competitive.

Enter Deborah Gillis.

I haven't met Deb yet, but from what I've read she's a serious player. She's kind of from Corporate World, but is better known as an advocate for women in business through a non-profit called Catalyst. She's also worked as a policy advisor in various governments, and was very active in Liberal Party politics in her native Cape Breton (groan... yeah, I know).

All good stuff. I have no doubt that she's going to give Lisa a run for her money, and I will be happy to support her and campaign for her in any future election. Besides, I have a feeling we are about to find out what it's like to have the full weight of the legendary Liberal Party Campaign Machine behind us on this one. Would have been nice to have that in the last election... but whatever.

My problem is not with Deb Gillis. Not at all. My problem is with the way in which this was done. Because while I sympathize with the reasoning behind appointing a candidate, and even appointing somebody other than Garth, and even going out of their way to appoint a woman, there's one thing that I just don't understand:

Could they not find a single worthy female candidate who was actually from Halton?

None had stepped forward, but I can think of two off the top of my head who would have kicked ass, both from Milton's Town Council. I don't know if either of them would have been willing - hell, I don't even know if one of them is a Liberal. But surely enquiries could have been made and Halton Board members could have been asked for their input before they resorted to bringing in a ringer.

Instead, we were simply informed that a decision had been made and this was our candidate. I think they call that 'consultation'.

As you might imagine, a few people are pretty pissed about this, especially those who are closest to Garth. There was much hair pulling and carrying on about 'the end of democracy as we know it' at first, but things have settled down now and it looks like most folks are actually getting excited about working with Deb.

I was kinda pissed at first (although not really surprised), but now I'm mainly curious to see what happens next in this never-boring riding. And since I'm the pragmatic sort, I'm far more interested in figuring out how to solve problems than just complaining about what's already been done.

So. How do we solve this problem? How do we make the candidate selection process more democratic and keep this sort of thing from happening again?

That's your homework, boys and girls. I'm off to the cottage tomorrow and I'm not sure what my internet access will be like, so comment moderation is on.

[duck]



(edit Aug 4 10:09)

The Teflon Blonde

So it looks like Lisa Raitt will be keeping her job. For now. I can't say I'm surprised, although I do expect that after the next cabinet shuffle she just might find herself sitting next to Gary Lunn as the Deputy Minister of Hockey Rinks.

It's very difficult for me to keep my personal feelings out of it when I talk about Lisa Raitt. After all, I spent five weeks helping Garth Turner campaign against this woman. Five weeks of fielding some pretty frightening anonymous calls to the campaign office, watching volunteer sign crews go out again and again to replace stolen signs, and seeing our campaign manager's face turn white when she found out that her son and granddaughter just had their names and faces splashed across the internet - collateral damage in an especially tawdry political smear.

And most of all, having to listen to that nasal, condescending, sanctimonious voice day after day in the media, complaining about Turner's "pornographic" website and telling him to "take a time out" - all while her supporters were out stalking him and harassing him and calling his wife and his staff whores. None of which, of course, could in any way be proven to be her doing.

So yeah. You're goddamned right it's personal.

That said, I do believe that Dr.Dawg is right when he calls for a little perspective here.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The issue is not a vainglorious Minister with a taste for fame, perks and expensive lunches. It's not even, in this instance, her cover-up of the full magnitude of the Chalk River fiasco. The issue is a government that proceeds under the confident assumption that it should be able to do whatever it wants.

It's a government that goes to court to argue that a Canadian citizen can be exiled by ministerial fiat. It's a government that insists that it has no obligation to any Canadian citizen outside our borders. It's a government that, from on high, revokes a training grant because a Minister has been called a name. It's a government that has allowed Border Security to screen the political opinions to which we might be exposed. And now it's a government that has just tried to drop the hammer on freedom of the press to spare itself--what? A little embarrassment?

In the grand scheme of things, Lisa Raitt is only a symptom of a much wider problem in the Conservative Party, and in our government in general. It's a problem in which the media and even the public is complicit, because most of us simply don't pay attention to serious issues unless sex, scandal or secret tapes are involved. So it shouldn't surprise any of us to hear a cabinet minister cynically discussing a complex and vital public health and safety issue purely in terms of P.R. value, spin and career potential.

These are the signals that have become embedded in the system. This is the kind of thing the public reacts to, so, in an almost reverse-Pavlovian response, this is what our politicians seek to provide. And so they focus, not on issues or policy or doing their jobs, but on the creation and careful maintenance of favourable public perception (or negative public perception against their enemies) by whatever mean necessary.

In fact, I found Raitt's most telling comments to be, not about the 'sexiness' of the isotope crisis, but about the political naiveté of her fellow MPs - Leona Aglukkaq...

“Oh, God. She’s such a capable woman, but it’s hard for her to come out of a co-operative government into this rough-and-tumble. She had a question in the House yesterday, or two days ago, that planked. I really hope she never gets anything hot.”

... and Joy Smith:

“I don’t do the Hy’s thing,” she says. “I can’t. I’d love to, but I can’t. That’ll be a career-limiting move, as we would say. Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that that MP Joy Smith brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking.”

“I didn’t see that,” says Ms. MacDonnell.

“She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things.”

If any further proof were needed that spin trumps substance in the government and the media, note that the emerging story today is that John Baird stacked the Toronto Port Authority Board last year in an attempt to override the board's ongoing objections to the Island Airport expansion, and also possibly to bury questions about Raitt's expenses during her tenure there. Which is great - except that some of us were banging that drum back in December, and nobody saw fit to run with it back then. But now that the Teflon Blonde has been touched by scandal - now that her perfectly polished image has been tarnished - well, anything might stick to her!

Garth Turner has his own personal reasons for wanting to see Lisa Raitt go down in flames, but he had some surprisingly cogent things to say about all this in a now-rare politically-themed blog post yesterday:

This is the callous, egocentric chatter you hear a lot of in Ottawa. Reputations are made or broken in the “managing” of “files.” Ministers or high-profile MPs who get their spins across in the media or QP can rocket in status overnight, and it’s that political momentum which is more important than the people affected by the actual issues.

This focus on party, leader and personal career is a cancer all its own eating away at the public body.

And not the sexy kind of cancer, either.

Travers, Turner and May on Democracy in Crisis

Michael Enright discusses the sorry state of Canadian democracy with Elizabeth May, Garth Turner and the Star's James Travers on this Sunday Edition podcast.

Every citizen of voting age in this country should listen to this episode. Then go read (or re-read) Travers' extraordinary editorial that splashed across the country like a glass of ice water last month. Then read Turner's book, and May's.

Sleepers, awake!

We the Sheeple

When I attended the Liberal Party Convention in Vancouver earlier this month, the number one question I was asked by MPs, bloggers and fellow delegates alike was, "Is Garth going to run again?"

The answer, apparently, is no.

I knew he'd been back and forth a couple of times on this since he lost the election last fall, but as far as I and the rest of the Halton Riding Association were aware, he was ready and willing to take another shot. So when he started telling the media in recent weeks to "stick a fork in me, I'm done", I thought he was just messing with them. But while nothing is 'official'-official yet, it looks like he's serious this time.

Who can blame him, really? Since he was ejected from the Conservative Party he's had garbage dumped on his lawn, had his vehicle followed and photographed, his wife and his campaign manager have had sexually degrading comments about them spewed across the internet, and he's been inundated with an endless barrage of harassing and threatening emails and phone calls. He's certainly not the first politician ever to be targeted in this way, but as someone who got to take a couple of those calls during the campaign I can personally attest to the devastating emotional effect they can have. Anyone who can stand up and take that sort of abuse for any length of time and continue doing their job the way that they see fit deserves our respect.

So rejoice, oh ye haters - you won't have Garth Turner to kick around anymore (that thud you just heard was the sound of Steve Janke's blog stats crashing to the ground).

Happily, none of this has prevented the man from continuing to speak out about the sad state of our democracy - specifically, the effect of having our elected representatives forced to toe the party line instead of being free to speak on our behalf. His own personal experience with this phenomenon is detailed in his new book, "Sheeple: Caucus Confidential in Stephen Harper's Ottawa". I'd give you a review, but sadly our rapidly expanding town still has but one tiny bookstore (not counting the excellent 'Recycled Reading'), and the two copies they ordered disappeared before they even hit the shelves.

Turner speaks about his book and his experiences in this excellent interview on CBC News: Sunday. There is apparently a later panel discussion with Turner, Elizabeth May, Michael Enright and James Travers which I'm hoping will be posted later.

By the way, before you write off 'Sheeple' as sour grapes or the revenge of the rejected, Turner isn't the only one concerned about the bubble of obedience that Stephen Harper has created around himself, both in caucus and in the PMO:

Mr. Jaffer, whose is married to Minister of State for Status of Women Helena Guergis (Simcoe-Grey, Ont.), said there are "caucus morale" issues in the Conservative caucus and he questioned whether there is enough of a "culture of dissent" within the party for Mr. Harper to be made fully aware of the political situation inside and outside of caucus.

"I often challenged certain things because I wanted to be sure he got the best information; whether he liked it or not was another thing," said Mr. Jaffer. "But that's always a challenge and the Prime Minister has to take a step back and ask himself that; is he being served in the best possibly way from the people who are currently around him? If he thinks that he's not, and, in particular, if he doesn't have that culture, if it's become more of a 'yes' culture than a culture of dissent, then he has to ask that question and maybe he has to make some changes, but only he can really be able to do that."

Whatever you think of Garth Turner and his ways, there does seem to be a growing consensus that there are some fundamental problems with our democratic system that must be addressed. Some are attempting to do that through digital democracy, electoral reform, or overhauling their own political parties to make them more internally democratic. Others, like Turner, are questioning the very role that political parties play in our system. They point out, as does Hassan Arif in a recent editorial, that Canada has one of the most rigidly partisan political systems in the world. Even in the U.S., where the relationship between Red and Blue is commonly characterized as a war, votes in Congress rarely fall strictly along party lines, negotiation is the norm, and each representative is fully expected to express the wishes of their constituents and not just their party.

Compare that to our current Parliament, where nearly every vote of any significance is a whipped vote, and any MP who goes against that can expect to be disciplined or expelled. What does that do to the ability or even the willingness of our representatives to actually represent us? What does it say when most MPs spend all of their time (and our money) parroting talking points, re-distributing identical pamphlets and essentially selling their party's position to their constituents? When was the last time you heard an MP speak an opinion that wasn't identical to the opinion of every other MP in his or her party? When was the last time your MP asked you what you thought about anything, or responded to an email with anything other than "Thank you for your comments"?

I used to have an MP. Now I have a spokesperson for the Conservative Party of Canada.

I'm gonna miss you, Garth.



(crossposted from HaltonWatch)

Garth's New Book To Be Released Tomorrow

Aaand... here. We. Go.



Because it wouldn't be a Garth Turner story if it didn't have a provocative title, right?

If you actually click through on the story, you will read that the "ruffled feathers" were over a passing reference to The Canadian Press printing a story that had been fed to them from the PMO about a caucus incident that Garth claims didn't happen. CP apparently felt he was impugning their professionalism, whereas he says he was just making a point about Harper leaking stories.

In the end, CP reached an agreement with the publisher to put a "notification sticker" on the inside cover, and that was that. Or it should have been. But no, this is Garth Turner we're talking about. Where he goes, the hyenas follow.

This is going to be fun.

UPDATE: Word was going around that the book had vanished from Amazon.ca and the release had been delayed, so I asked The Garth Man himself. He said the book will be released tomorrow (Saturday). However, I checked with the bookstore in the mall and was told that they have the books, they received the email from the publisher instructing them to put the stickers on... but they don't have the stickers yet, and he didn't know when they were expected.

Stay tuned.

En Famille

The Halton Federal Liberal Association held the second of two recent social events last night at the Ivy Arms here in Milton. Party members, supporters, and the merely curious all came by to meet, greet, have a pint and discuss the state of the riding, the party and the country.

I had apparently been appointed as the board's Unofficial Lefty Liaison, which meant that any time someone with NDP tendencies or concerns about the environment revealed themselves, I was gently grasped by the elbow and guided across the room to speak with them. It was kind of fun, actually, and I got to talk with some very interesting people.

Garth was there with his lovely wife, pressing the flesh and giving a little speech telling us all what he's been up to lately. The response was very warm and positive, although one woman interrupted him a few times to question his Liberal bonefides and critique his sometimes confrontational style. There was a bit of squirming - more from the timing of her questions than the subject - but her concerns were addressed and we eventually got into a spirited and productive discussion about a whole range of issues, from fundraising initiatives, to ways to better engage the membership, to the very meaning of Liberalism.



The main thing that struck me about this little get-together was the energy. It seemed less like a political meeting and more like a boisterous family gathering. We debated, we bickered, we laughed, we complained, we told stories of our experiences - and in the end, when someone asked "What does the Liberal Party stand for?", there was surprising consensus and considerable emotion in the answers that came forward.

What came out of it was this: that the Liberal Party stands for taking the best ideas from wherever they come and making them work for the long term. At its best, it's about looking beyond the next budget or the next election to the next generation and the next century. It's about celebrating differences and being strengthened by them instead of trying to squash them. It's not about the 'mushy middle', but the middle as a meeting place and a crucible of ideas, cultures and experiences.

It's a messy place to be, and it gets a little loud sometimes. But families are like that.

Memo To Garth

Even in exile, Garth Turner continues to be the most accessible and open-minded politician I know, and I would vote for him again in an instant (and received confirmation tonight that he is, in fact, willing to stand as our Liberal candidate in Halton again - yay!). However, being that the two of us represent, in some ways, the left wing and right wing of the Liberal Party, I suspect that we will continue to disagree on several issues.

I took him to task on a few of these tonight on his blog. Here is my response to his post on Michael Ignatieff:

I fear that I will have to disagree with you on a few points (but you know I still love you!).

1) The Coalition was not a dumb idea - it was an excellent idea with a very short shelf life (and what exactly would you have proposed as an alternative? More abstentions? Yet another election?). It may well have outlived its usefulness as leverage now that we have a leader who might actually pose a threat in an election, but at that time, in those circumstances, I would maintain that it was a brilliant manoeuvre that achieved the desired objective. And if nothing else, it got people passionate about Canadian politics, as well as dispelling the image of Liberals as wimps. Crazy bastards maybe, but wimps no more.

2) Mr. Ignatieff was on entirely the wrong side of the 'one member, one vote' debate, no matter how impractical Rae's proposal may or may not have been. Lloyd Axworthy is absolutely correct - there was a real opportunity here to engage people in the political process in a way that the last election failed to accomplish, and it ended up just being the same old same old. Ignatieff needs to get on the right side of this right now and push for OMOV at the convention, or I can guarantee the party will see a shocking decline in membership in coming months.

3) Sorry, I know it's your thing, but it's going to take far more than tax reform to make a real difference in people's lives and get them through this crisis. Having an income tax break or a tax-deductible RESP or an uptick in the TSX isn't going to make a damned bit of difference to someone who DOESN'T HAVE A JOB! What WILL make a difference is
a) job creation by any and all means, and
b) strengthening the social safety net for those who, inevitably, will find themselves unemployed or under-employed.

Infrastructure. EI reform. Investment in sustainable industry. Tax breaks and subsidies for industries where that actually creates jobs (like, say, the film industry), and SFA for those who will just use the money to get themselves out of the red and ship the jobs to wherever they can pay people the least in the name of "profitability". THESE are the things that will help real people in real, meaningful ways. Then we can look further down the road and look at how we can make our economy more resilient and less vulnerable to the whims of the global market.

That's all for now.

Lots of Love,

Your own personal bothersome left-wing social conscience

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

Now that Garth Turner is no longer a Member of Parliament, he's been focusing more on economics and real estate than on politics in his blog. Happily, this has resulted in most (but not all) of the more repugnant trolls losing interest, but it hasn't always made for the most fascinating reading for the rest of us political junkies.

Today's post is a notable exception:

Toxic Cash?

Do you know what’s backing your money? You should. Because in the last 90 days this has changed drastically. There’s a big gamble been taken by politicians which was never explained, never debated, never questioned, and yet could affect us all.

Here is the way the system is supposed to work, and until this autumn, did.

* Our money’s printed by the Mint and backed by the Bank of Canada. The central is expected to hold assets equal to the amount of cash in circulation, which is more than $50 billion.
* Because our nation no longer owns gold reserves, our money is backed by the safest of securities, long-term government bonds and Treasury bills. This is what gives our money true value. At least, until recently.

But in the last 90 days, without public notice, the Bank of Canada has sold off more than $11 billion of those secure T-bills, plus cashed in billions more of its bonds. As stock market researcher John Paul Koning discovered last week, the central bank now lists on its balance sheet a stunning $32.4 billion in “other” assets, which comprise a whopping 42% of everything it owns.

That means more than two-fifths of the total assets backing our money supply is – what, exactly?

Well, let’s flip back a month to the middle of November, when finance minister Jim Flaherty announced the federal government was purchasing $50 billion in residential mortgages from the Big Six banks, following an earlier deal to buy another $25 billion in mortgages. “At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada’s financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding,” he said, adding, “with no additional risk to the taxpayer.”

So, the “other” assets the Bank of Canada has swapped for secure, near-cash holdings appear to be tens of billions of dollars in high-ratio mortgages. The money to buy those assets apparently came from the central bank, through CMHC, and ended up in the vaults of the Big Six banks.

You know, I had been wondering how Flaherty managed to pull $75 billion out of his ass without toppling his little budgetary house of cards. Now I guess we know.

Dead Soldiers

(WARNING: I wrote this at three in the morning after a very, very long and emotional day and more than a couple of beers, and I went a little over the top in a few places. I was actually thinking of toning it down a bit in the bleary light of day, but then I figured - screw it. It's my blog, and that's how I was feeling when I wrote it. If you have tender sensibilities, feel free to skip it.)
_____________________________

I've been drinking a bit, so I will be posting in point form this evening.

- People get the government they deserve, and on that note... fuck you, Ontario!!! I hope you all enjoy the next 1-4 years.

- This is our Kerry year. You remember - that year when nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together could even conceive of the possibility that Dubya could ever win another election after demonstrably lying his way into a war and occupation and digging the U.S. into debt hole from which they may never recover? Yeah. That year.

Next year in Jerusalem.

- If you haven't heard already, Garth lost. And the blogosphere just became a little less interesting tonight. I was honestly shocked by how much he lost by, but it appears that he just fell victim to the mouldy blue tide sweeping across Ontario. Speaking for myself and Zorph and possibly others, I am BEGGING Garth to keep up his blog, or start another. Even if you aren't our guy in Ottawa for now, we still value your wit and insight.

Blog on, Garth. Blog on.

- I think it's a given that nobody in Halton will ever attend another Town Hall meeting, or receive a telephone or email response from Lisa Raitt regarding anything they wish to ask of her. We have just elected Stephen Harper as our MP.

- We received several 'crank' phone calls at the campaign office this evening. The least offensive was one I took myself, wishing us all 'bad luck' in this evening's vote. A worse one said something about setting election signs on fire with lighter fluid. Nice people you have onside there, Lisa. Have fun with them.

- North Oakville polls rawk. We need to re-jig the riding boundaries next time to include more of north Oakville, less of north Burlington. And the Milton developments are o-tay too.

- If my sister out on Salt Spring Island voted Green, I will be having serious words with her.

- We cannot go forward in the same way that we did during the last parliament. Something must be done about Stephen Harper declaring every piece of shite he puts before the House of Commons as a do-or-die confidence matter. The three opposition parties MUST put forward a motion to prevent the government from declaring anything but budget bills as confidence motions.

- I am deeply concerned for the future of the Liberal Party, and not just because we've lost seats or that we are about to further bankrupt the party through another leadership convention. Stephane Dion, for all his faults, represents the long-neglected left wing of the Liberal Party. His failure to sell his vision to the majority of Canadians in this election will be regarded by many of the 'old guard' Martin Liberals as a failure of the left wing in general, and will provide an excuse for a shift back to the corporatist policies of the past in the form of people like Michael Ignatieff.

That, plus the influx of orphaned Progressive Conservatives like (sorry to say) Garth Turner into the party may well knock the Liberals off of their traditionally slightly left-of-centre position into something more closely resembling a Red Tory party. Which means that I may well have to start voting NDP again.

- For a terrifying glimpse into the future of Canada, I strongly recommend "The Wrecking Crew" by Thomas Frank. It's sure scaring the shit out of me right now, and I'm only about half way through (I want that back, Esther).

- Speaking of Esther: THIS IS IN NO WAY YOUR FAULT! It was Harper and Dion and buckets of money and weak minded people crawling home to Daddy in fear. And yeah, a bit of it was Garth being Garth. You did nothing but help his chances. You are the best. Never forget it.

- I filked my own version of 'Barrett's Privateers' for the occasion tonight, but didn't feel it was appropriate to serenade Garth with, given the circumstances. I'll post my lyrics on his blog or mine later this week.

- Nothing lasts forever. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing lasts forever...

And here. We. Go.

One more sleep, and it will be off to the races. I'm excited. I'm terrified. I don't know where the hell I'm going to find another two scrutineers by tomorrow evening.

It's still a total crap shoot here in Halton. The polls and projections all say it'll be within a thousand or so votes either way, but none of them account for The Garth Factor: that pungent melange of infamy, gusto, brash outspokenness, and a lightening rod-like ability to attract controversy.

Or as David Akin put it in his 'Ontario Ridings to Watch' post:

HALTON
Garth Turner’s riding. Need I say more?

Garth wrote a lovely post this evening about the last street he and Dorothy door-knocked today. Good stuff.

I'm almost resigned to another Harper minority at this point. But if Garth loses, I think I'll cry for a week.

Here's something to keep us all in a good mood tomorrow.



Good luck everyone!

Why I Support Garth Turner

I am one of those left-wing types who has always swung somewhere between the NDP and the Liberals - with the occasional flirtation with bone fide socialism - for most of my adult life. So, WTF am I doing hanging around with a couple of ex-Progressive Conservatives like Garth Turner and Esther Shaye?

One word: DEMOCRACY.

It was two and a half years ago that I attended my first Garth Turner Town Hall Meeting. I was exceedingly sceptical going in, but after listening to Garth and meeting Esther Shaye, his constituency office manager and current campaign manager, I started to believe.

Since then, I have gotten to know Garth a bit better and Esther quite well, and to a lesser extent I have come to know many of those who stuck with Garth on his voyage from PC to Conservative to Independent to Liberal. And though I may disagree with some of them on specific policy matters, I can tell you this:

They are the REAL DEAL.

They believe in Canada, and they believe in Government as the instrument of the people of Canada. They believe that politicians are there to represent their constituents and not their party. They believe that they are there to serve our interests, not their own. They know Stephen Harper and his associates better than any of us would ever care to, and that experience has inspired all of them to do everything in their power to drive the lot of them out of Canadian politics forever.

Garth Turner is, to a large extent, everything you've heard. Opinionated. Self-aggrandizing. In love with the sound of his own voice. And on a fairly regular basis he lets his mouth (or his blog) get ahead of his brain.

Garth Turner is also the only MP I have ever had who has ever answered a direct question from me, or adjusted his perspective based on what I had to say. He is a fiscal conservative, but after some soul searching he has come to honestly support Dion's Green Shift and to embrace the notion that the rich hold some obligation to the poor. He's all about the tax cuts, but he totally gets why I went to Montebello to protest a year ago. I smack him regularly on issues like Senate reform, but I still hold out hope that some day Betty and I will wear him down.

When I listen to Garth Turner, I know that I am hearing what he thinks and not just what his party tells him to think. More importantly, when I speak to Garth, I know that he is actually listening to me and not just thinking up some way to convince me that I'm wrong.

A year and a half ago I had no interest in involving myself in the minutia of riding-level politics. This long weekend, I will be forgoing Thanksgiving turkey with the 'rents in favour of campaign activities as I somehow find myself responsible for the recruitment and training of 40+ election day scrutineers.

Three weeks ago, I couldn’t even spell scrutineer, let alone tell you what one did.

This is democracy. This is what it should be. This is what you should demand from yourself and from your own MP.

Me? I’m lucky enough to live in Halton.

A Further Thought on Strategic Voting

There was a little piece in the 'Ethics' column of the Toronto Star last weekend that really struck me. A card-carrying member of the NDP asked whether it would be 'ethical' to vote for a party they didn't favour in order to deny a majority to a party they despised. This was the answer:

Do I do the unthinkable to thwart Mr. Harper?

A: Strategic voting is a dangerous game that has a way of biting us back.

Many Liberals will attest to this: It was strategic voting at their leadership convention that got them into the Stéphane Dion mess in the first place.

But you are asking about ethics, not political strategy – and they are rarely the same. In this election you're caught in a situation of conflicting loyalties. You feel loyal to a group of people you have supported, worked with and come to respect.

But you also want to be loyal to your country, and worry that "wasting" your vote on a candidate who can't win helps deliver the nation into the hands of someone you detest – if not personally, then certainly politically.

So the question is: Which loyalty takes precedence? And the answer is clear, to me at least: Loyalty to country trumps loyalty to party. It's a question, ultimately, of who serves whom. Political parties exist to serve Canada, not vice versa.

I will repeat that:

LOYALTY TO COUNTRY TRUMPS LOYALTY TO PARTY.

And yes, he also says that the ethical thing to do would be to give up the NDP membership, at least for the duration. But I think a better idea is here.

I thought of that again today when I read about the three IPCC scientists who came out with a plea today for Green supporters to vote strategically to stop Harper.

What are your loyalties?

FYI, Halton is most certainly one of those swing ridings where the Green vote could make a difference. Or the NDP. Or, well, the Saturday night crowd at The Dickens.

Vote for Garth. I'll explain why later.

Halton's Xeroxed Endorsements of Lisa Raitt

Nobody was surprised when the Milton Champion, the Oakville Beaver and the Burlington Post all gave blanket endorsements to the Conservative candidates in their ridings, including Lisa Raitt whose riding straddles all three towns.

What is surprising is that Lisa Raitt seems to think she has just received endorsements from three different newspaper editors.

Perhaps she, like me, had been under the mistaken impression that these three newspapers, although part of the same Metroland chain, were actually independent entities. But although each has its own managing editor, all three are in fact run by the same production staff and the same Editor-in-chief, who is apparently the one writing the endorsements.

From the Champion:

At the local level, we feel Raitt brings invaluable experience as CEO and president of the Toronto Port Authority to a job that will see her focusing on Halton’s woefully underfunded infrastructure needs.

...While Turner is the riding’s most politically-experienced candidate, we believe the outspoken, rebellious, party-be-damned approach he has taken in the last two-and-a-half years will be counter-productive to the team-building environment we think Canadians want from their next government.

The Beaver:

Frankly, it sounds like Turner will say anything to get himself elected. While this may ingratiate him to many of his constituents, and even his followers across Canada, we fear his rebellious, party-be-damned approach will be counter-productive to the team-building environment we think Canadians want and need from their next government.

... Newcomer Lisa Raitt brings invaluable experience as CEO and president of the Toronto Port Authority to a job that will see her focusing on Halton Region’s woefully underfunded infrastructure needs.

And the Post:

At the local level, we feel newcomer Raitt brings invaluable experience as CEO and president of the Toronto Port Authority to a job that will see her focusing on Halton Region’s woefully underfunded infrastructure needs.

While Turner is the riding’s most politically-experienced candidate, we believe the outspoken, rebellious, party-be-damned approach he has taken in the last two-and-a-half years will be counter-productive to the team-building environment we think Canadians want from their next government.

To their credit, the Milton Champion ran the following letter two days after their endorsement which takes issue with their choice. And the guy even wrote it himself.

DEAR EDITOR:

When my son asked Lisa Raitt about being a drop-in candidate, she told him, “There was no choice; the election came up suddenly.”

That was, of course, blatantly false, as anyone involved knows that the local Conservatives have been begging to be allowed to nominate a candidate for more than two years.

If she’s elected, she won’t be the MP for Halton; she will be Stephen Harper’s MP, beholden to him. Many card-carrying Conservatives are upset about this.

This isn’t about affirmative action either; it’s not about more women candidates. It’s about Harper’s distrust of the local riding and its ability to select a candidate malleable enough to keep quiet and do her master’s bidding.

If Raitt is elected she will carry no weight for Halton in the House of Commons. She will simply be Harper’s messenger, bringing nothing but empty rhetoric to the riding.

When the Progressive Conservatives merged with the Alliance Party, there were many Progressive Conservatives who felt that this might be a new beginning to a right of centre progressive party. Sadly, Progressive has been dropped and the new party is far more draconian, ideological and downright mean.

Turner and other PCs were shocked at the direction the party took — the fact that there was no room for debate, or that expediency trumped accountability and ethics made it difficult for a real PC to last in the new party. Frankly, you will find that a lot of Progressive Conservatives have had to find a new home in the Liberal Party.

Turner is loud, but he’s certainly accessible. Constituents know where to find him. He has had many town hall meetings where people could express their opinions in an open forum and expect them to be taken to Ottawa. He has been a presence in Ottawa and a valuable Member of Parliament. I believe that the House of Commons needs more people like Turner, willing to speak truth to power. We certainly don’t need more ciphers whose only role is to raise a hand when Harper wants them to vote.

It saddens me that you would support someone like Raitt, who really brings little to the table. As far as her being the CEO of the Toronto Port Authority, did you do any research on how effective that organization is, and what the people of Toronto think of it? I don’t expect you did.

EDWARD BROOKS, MILTON

Harper's Job Creation Strategy: Call an Election

The Conservatives are all about putting a happy face on the rotting corpse of the economy this week, and new jobs numbers for September seem to bolster their stubborn insistence that everything's going so well.

The average estimate by economists is for the addition of about 12,500 new jobs in the Canadian economy in September, that's down slightly from the 15,200 jobs created in August. For the first eight months of the year the Canadian economy has created 87,000 jobs compared with 221,000 in the first eight months of 2007.

That's great, right? Except... wait... does that number include the nearly 200,000 temporary workers typically hired by Elections Canada during an election? John Ivison seems to think so, and... oh, look.

Yes. Yes it does.

[TD economics strategist Millan] Mulraine forecast the Canadian economy will grow by about 15,000 jobs in September, mostly due to hiring related to the Oct. 14 federal election.

"That's the only reason why we see a big bump for September," he said.

I see. Never mind.

Here's Garth and Lisa on jobs and the economy.

Halton Candidates Debate, Round 3

Practise makes perfect.

The three rookie candidates showed significant improvement in their debating skills for the third Halton candidates debate last night. Collard is getting a little better about getting her nose out of the page, Wagner managed to keep his tongue largely untangled and even worked up some genuine emotion (although he still talks too fast), and Raitt only mentioned her kids maybe half a dozen times.

I didn't get the tape rolling until a fair ways in (I was trying to be subtle), so I missed recording the opening statements which were... interesting. Garth started right off the bat saying that he would use his closing statements to say why we should vote for him, but would use his opening statement to explain why we shouldn't vote for Lisa Raitt. And then he went on the attack, hauling out everything from her parachute ride into Halton to her tainted record with the Toronto Port Authority.

It was a bold move for what should have been a quiet little local debate, and I'm not sure it was the wisest approach as it set a rather hostile tone that the audience didn't seem to appreciate. On the other hand, it got all that on the record and out of the way right from the beginning, it put her on the defensive, and left her looking like the hostile one whenever she tried to get her own back later in the debate. And it seemed to be forgotten as the debate wore on.

Still, I found it a bit much for the circumstances. But what do I know.

Here are the four candidates explaining their personal positions on Afghanistan. I started with this one because a) it shows Raitt falling back on the old "it's all about those poor oppressed women" excuse, which ranks up there with "bringing democracy to Iraq" and the Domino Theory as one of the most cynical and disingenuous post-invasion justifications for war this century, and b) Rob Wagner calls her on it and thereby gives his best answer of the evening - and I promised to say something nice about him.

There you go, Rob.



More video to come...

How's This For a Campaign Slogan?

"The only thing Garth Turner likes more than the sound of his own voice... is the sound of yours."



Consider it yours, Garth. Good job tonight.