New column day

Here, on how leaders who stand up to hysterical calls to abandon peace and human rights in the name of fleeting threats tend to be vindicated by history - and how Thomas Mulcair is carrying on the NDP's legacy on that front even in the face of criticism from Very Serious People.

For further reading...
- The two prime examples of media attempts to strong-arm Mulcair into writing a blank cheque for war in Iraq (based a combination of threat hype and a general affinity for hippie-punching) come from John Ivison and L. Ian MacDonald.
- Meanwhile, Janyce McGregor offers the latest comparable spin on free trade. And Tim Harper manages to fit both corporatism and war into the same column.
- To be fair, plenty of commentators are rightly calling into question the rationale for war in Iraq, with the Globe and Mail recognizing the Cons have failed to make any reasonable case, Chantal Hebert pointing out that Stephen Harper's rhetoric is nothing but warmed-over talking points from 2003, and Neil MacDonald offering some much-needed perspective on how ISIS compares to other international realities. (For a more thorough review of that point, see Nicolas J.S. Davies' take here.)
- And Lysiane Gagnon goes so far as to recognize Mulcair's role in dialing back an unwarranted call to arms.

Friday Morning Links

This and that to end your week.

- Paul Wells comments on the NDP's new style of opposition:

When I used to ask the Liberals, when they were the Official Opposition, why they didn’t calm down a bit in QP, they would complain that gesticulating was the only way to get on the news. And indeed the calmer New Democrats are not getting a lot of space on the news. What is getting space is Bev Oda’s global OJ adventure, Stephen Harper’s 70-year digressions, and private members’ bills that seem inspired by the Danielle Smith playbook of political success. Which may explain why the NDP does not begrudge the government its time in the spotlight.

The sharply reduced tolerance at Langevin Block for Oda’s expense account, once it became public, and the clear signal of disapproval for Stephen Woodworth’s motion, suggests Harper is realizing he is no longer facing the ineffectual histrionics the Liberals threw at him for five years.

And it looks like there's ample reason for Harper to be worried.

- Lysiane Gagnon points out that Quebec's child care system - so often highlighted by the right as example of unsustainable spending that should be stopped through an end to interprovincial transfer payments - is in fact a smart use of resources which more than pays for itself. But that won't stop the Cons from trying to demlish it.

- Althia Raj reports on concerns that the Cons' tight time frame for comment on proposed electoral boundaries might shut Canadians out of the process. But I'd view the concern more as reason to be prepared than reason for panic - as it's still open to anybody to be heard as long as we recognize the limited opportunity to do so.

- Finally, Brian Topp cites Wildrose's campaign flop as an example of parties needing to rein in their candidates, and points to the leading precedent for the type of hypercentralization that's now seen as the default setting in Canadian politics:

Our political system tends towards hyper-centralization, and imposes a discipline on elected representatives that, at least some of them sometimes believe, disrespects and disempowers them. A “crisis of surplus consciousness” can result, in which the few at the top end up with too much to do (and therefore cannot do it well), which the vast majority of other team members end up with too little to do (and aren’t happy about it). This, to be precise, used to be said with reference to the hyper-centralized system in place in the Soviet Union. It could also be said of a number of poorly-led, hyper-centralized private corporations. It may be what parliamentary systems inherently drift into.

That said, I'd think it's worth distinguishing (as Topp does to some extent) between "bozo eruptions" that reflect poorly on a party primarily to the extent they call into question whether its candidates are fit to hold public office, and the use of respectful disagreement a political gotcha.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- While I don't share her pessimism about the possibility of votes translating into seats, it's well worth noting Lysiane Gagnon's column on the NDP's position as the top national party in Quebec:

Mr. Duceppe used to focus his attacks on Stephen Harper, since the biggest fight in Quebec is waged between the Conservatives and the Bloc in the Quebec City area, while the Liberals are painfully holding on to their old bastions in a dozen of Montreal’s predominantly anglophone ridings. Rumour, meanwhile, has it that, because of the bonne entente between the Bloc and the NDP, the Bloc is running a weak candidate in Outremont to help Thomas Mulcair, the lone NDP MP in Quebec and the right-hand man of Mr. Layton, keep his seat in what used to be a traditionally Liberal riding.

But the latest Angus Reid poll is a wake-up call for the Bloc. For the first time in its history, the NDP has become the second political force in Quebec, with 24-per-cent support – only 10 points behind the Bloc, which lost two points since the previous Angus Reid poll on March 24.

Moreover, Mr. Layton is more popular than ever in his native province: 36 per cent see him as the best choice for prime minister (against 15 per cent for Mr. Harper and 10 per cent for Michael Ignatieff).

- Cheryl McNamara points out plenty of the good reasons for Canada's current opposition parties to work together in unveiling a new citizens' group pushing for a post-election coalition:

Harper is banking on a disengaged and ill-informed electorate for his political success. He accuses the opposition of forcing an election on Canadians, who clearly do not want it or understand the magnitude of the contempt of Parliament charge; and he presents a Conservative majority as the only stable solution to the dysfunctional Parliament that his government has orchestrated over the past six years.

If his party is handed another minority, what then? The contempt of Parliament charges and past indiscretions have made it impossible for the opposition to work with it. The only alternative is a coalition government, and Harper knows this.
...
If the Canadian electorate are sick of elections every few years, they better start warming to the idea of coalition governments.

Everything Harper has worked hard for is in danger of taking a hit. He will not go down without a fight. Caving into his anti-coalition tactic will neither serve the left nor democracy. It's up to the engaged electorate to give the Liberals and NDP the political will to stand up to Harper and do what they must do to restore stable governance.

- Most of the criticism of the Cons' latest patronage arrangement has understandably focused on the plan to pay more salary and severance to political staffers. But perhaps the more telling change is that the Cons are also robbing from the non-partisan to pay the partisan by funding ministers' and staffers' travel expenses out of the pool of money normally directed toward the civil service:

(M)inisters will have a little more money to play with since the government has decreed that their offices should no longer have to foot the bill for international travel by ministers, their staff and parliamentary secretaries. Those costs will now be absorbed by government departments instead.
...
The policy document specifies that separation payments "are to be funded through departmental operating budgets," a policy that does not apear (sic) to have changed.

However, the offloading of international trips onto departmental budgets is new.

- Finally, Bill Curry trumpets a "new" development model for First Nations communities - consisting of partnerships between band governments and developers which is leading to direct investment returns for the communities themselves in addition to the development they're seeking to promote.

Needless to say, that outcome looks like a win-win for the communities involved. But it raises the question of why our municipal and provincial governments are bound and determined to avoid any development models which would result in similar returns for our own public sector.