Politics in 2013

[pbi]

Having been, as I have mentioned before, in a "chief of staff" appointment, serving a very senior officer I can sympathize with Mr. Wright's dilemma. One wants to spare the "great man" the burdens and details of the solutions to many problems. It is, often, usually, enough that he knows that a) there is a problem; and b) his trusty COS has a solution in hand. I remain amazed that Mr. Wright, by all accounts a sterling business executive, was either ethically challenged or unaware of some of the legal possibilities probabilities. But I am also conscious of the fact that people in "executive suites" develop a sort of tunnel vision ~ seeing every problem through a "fix it" lens.

Having been a COS myself, I can also attest to the truth that no matter how hard you think you are trying to run a good HQ, a few people can act in ways that will surprise and shock you. It's disconcerting that in the relatively limited and focused world of an HQ, there can be other agendas at play, and people who appear to be "towing the line"  are then discovered not to be doing that at all. So, in that sense, maybe I have a bit of sympathy for Wright.

But, on the other hand, is it possible (as you suggest) that in his single-mindedness he contributed to the existence of a staff environment in which "fixing" problems (and problem people...) became the goal without regard for ethical considerations or possible second or third order effects/unintended consequences?  The "bad apple" theory is a popular one, but remember that "bad apples" are often encouraged by the environment they sense around them. That environment is created by leadership, good or bad.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Having been a COS myself, I can also attest to the truth that no matter how hard you think you are trying to run a good HQ, a few people can act in ways that will surprise and shock you. It's disconcerting that in the relatively limited and focused world of an HQ, there can be other agendas at play, and people who appear to be "towing the line"  are then discovered not to be doing that at all. So, in that sense, maybe I have a bit of sympathy for Wright.

But, on the other hand, is it possible (as you suggest) that in his single-mindedness he contributed to the existence of a staff environment in which "fixing" problems (and problem people...) became the goal without regard for ethical considerations or possible second or third order effects/unintended consequences?  The "bad apple" theory is a popular one, but remember that "bad apples" are often encouraged by the environment they sense around them. That environment is created by leadership, good or bad.

In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my opinion again, the most likely explanation.

It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the perceived need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in process that ethical issues often arise.

 

[Old Sweat]

In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my opinion again, the most likely explanation.

It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the perceived need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in process that ethical issues often arise.

And it is entirely conceivable that after having been blindsided by Duffy and/or his lawyer introducing new and unpleasant material on several occasions, the objective in Mr Wright's mind came to be to put an end to the mess and move on.

 

[Lightguns]

In my opinion it is not only possible it is, my opinion again, the most likely explanation.

It seems to me that the higher the office - and, consequentially, the more media interest in it - the greater the perceived need to "manage" problems. Men like Nigel Wright - classic Type A personalities - while, generally, honest, are most interested in results than in process, and it is in process that ethical issues often arise.

I think that is an excellent assessment and I think that Wright felt he was dealing with a team player, not a self important twit like Duffy.  Although the moment the PMO had to deal with Duffy through his lawyer there should have been red flags waving.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, we need to remember that, despite what are, I'm certain, his many sterling qualities, in his efforts to "fix the problem" Mr Wright broke, at the very least, the letter of a a law or two: the ones that say that one cannot give a legislator a 'gift' and expect something in return ... something like his cooperation in covering up a mistake. It may be that Mr Wright's intentions were good but there's a reason Prime Minister Harper, initially, distanced himself from him and, later, threw him under the bus: Sen Duffy looks, to my untrained (legal) mind, like someone who committed fraud, and Mr Wright looks like someone who offered him a bribe to help cover it up.

The more I read abut this the less it looks like inexplicably bad judgement (my initial assessment) or an ethical lapse (my second reaction) and more like a simple crime: bribery.

I understand that Mr Wright was/is well liked and respected in business and political circles but, IF what we are reading is true, he broke the law .. plain and simple. It may not have been his intent but it looks like that's what he did.

 

[Old Sweat]

I think that you are correct, although Mr Wright may not have realized it. This begs the question of who else outside him, Duffy and Duffy's lawyer knew? It makes one wonder about the competency of the political operatives who woek in the PMO. A warning signal should have gone off when the Tory fund keeper refused to reimburse the expenses above the original figure.

 

[Kirkhill]

... A warning signal should have gone off ....

All stations, Charlie Charlie or "memo to self".

As COS managing this I assume you mean the latter.

 

[Nemo888]

But, we need to remember that, despite what are, I'm certain, his many sterling qualities, in his efforts to "fix the problem" Mr Wright broke, at the very least, the letter of a a law or two: the ones that say that one cannot give a legislator a 'gift' and expect something in return ... something like his cooperation in covering up a mistake. It may be that Mr Wright's intentions were good but there's a reason Prime Minister Harper, initially, distanced himself from him and, later, threw him under the bus: Sen Duffy looks, to my untrained (legal) mind, like someone who committed fraud, and Mr Wright looks like someone who offered him a bribe to help cover it up.

The more I read abut this the less it looks like inexplicably bad judgement (my initial assessment) or an ethical lapse (my second reaction) and more like a simple crime: bribery.

I understand that Mr Wright was/is well liked and respected in business and political circles but, IF what we are reading is true, he broke the law .. plain and simple. It may not have been his intent but it looks like that's what he did.

I am rather partisan but it does really look like Wright got snookered by Duffy. Everyone always underestimates the fat guy. His threats to damage the PM were anything but idle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, provides what I regard as a fair assessment of the Conservative party of Canada at the end of 2013:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/by-elections-show-tories-looking-weaker-and-a-little-out-of-shape/article15600335/#dashboard/follows/

Tories looking weaker after by-election nail-biter

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Nov. 26 2013

Four by-elections took the pulse of federal politics, and found the Conservatives looking older and a little out of shape. There’ll still be some heart-thumping today after a pretty nasty scare.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government narrowly escaped an embarrassing ballot-box rebuke, and saw signs of disaffection in their heartland. The Senate scandal affected the mood of Tory supporters, and their votes. And in one key riding, Brandon-Souris, there were other elements that rankled the grassroots that may leave other questions.

Mr. Harper’s Conservatives will breathe a sigh of relief that Monday night ended as it began, all square, with two Conservative seats and two Liberal ones. But they were given a scare as true-blue Brandon-Souris, solidly Conservative in every election but one over the last 60 years, remained a squeaker until Tory Larry Maguire was declared the winner when the last poll was counted.

For Justin Trudeau, it was the passing of a real election test to establish himself as a competitor who can attract voters who look to his party as the viable alternative. His Liberals won no new seats, but they placed first or second in every race, and shook the Conservatives in their own house. That provided a sense the party is rebounding. And it made it a night of small consolations for the NDP.

These four by-elections don’t provide a full examination of the nation’s politics, but there was plenty to learn from the races.

Mr. Harper’s Conservatives were clearly hurt by the Senate Scandal, with the Tory vote down in all four ridings. In Brandon-Souris, bitterness over the Conservative party nomination – two candidates were disqualified, leaving provincial MLA, Mr. Maguire, acclaimed as the candidate – left some Tories feeling a top-down party was controlling the grassroots. It’s the kind of disaffection that ageing governments tend to suffer. The Harper Conservatives, who like control and discipline, but are obsessive about their political base, have now been warned that a repeat elsewhere could be dangerous.

The cliffhanger results in the southwest Manitoba riding provided a glimpse of the potential danger: The Conservatives, who won 64 per cent of the vote in the 2011 election, garnered 44.1 per cent this time, according to unofficial results. The Liberals, who were fourth behind the Green Party in 2011, were this time only a shade from a win, with 42.7 per cent.

Even in Provencher, the Manitoba Tory stronghold vacated by cabinet minister Vic Toews that the Conservatives won handily with 58 per cent of the vote on Monday night, there’s evidence that Mr. Harper’s support has been dented: the Conservative vote went down by 12 percentage points from 2011, to the lowest percentage since the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives united.

For the moment, at least, Mr. Trudeau is the leader capturing the hope, and even without winning new seats, his Liberals will count the night as a win. Apparently still enjoying a honeymoon seven months into the job, Mr. Trudeau was a draw to voters, winning his party another look. In Manitoba, that brought the party back from single-digit percentages to the main opposition. In Brandon-Souris, it made Mr. Harper fear for his own turf.

Mr. Trudeau can’t crow too much about wins in two urban Liberal strongholds, in Toronto and Montreal. But his party still fought off full-bore challenges from the NDP, and widened their margins of victory while replacing two high-profile MPs – former Ontario Premier Bob Rae and new Montreal mayor Denis Coderre.

For the NDP, the moral victories mostly rang hollow. Winning Liberal seats in urban Toronto and Montreal was always a long-shot, but their high-profile candidates didn’t close the gap.

The most important bright spot was a solid second in Bourassa that placed them far ahead of the Bloc Québécois. For the NDP, whose base is now in Quebec, it’s crucial to keep the once-mighty Bloc to the margins – to be seen as the viable choice to defeat other parties in future elections.

But the Manitoba results will raise the NDP’s worst fears. In the recent election, they had displaced the Liberals as second choice in both ridings. This time, they were reduced to also-rans, and the Liberals bounced back as the main competition to the Conservatives.

The brief exam of these by-elections doesn’t make a prognosis for 2015, but it does give a new assessment. Mr. Harper looks weaker, Mr. Mulcair is under stress, and Mr. Trudeau has emerged looking a little stronger.

While I agree with Campbell Clark about the malaise that infects the Conservatives, I'm not so sure Conservative weakness translates, nearly two years from now, into Liberal strength.

The Senate Scandal® is real, it matters to Canadians ~ maybe to Conservatives more than many others ~ and it has tarnished both the Conservative and Harper brands. Suddenly Stephen Harper does not look as "clean" as he likes to paint himself. He wanted to use the Senate Scandal® to make himself look like a "good guy" who was making Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin pay back their ill-gotten gains, instead he looks like a co-conspirator. Prime Minister Harper and his party can recover from this, and there is time enough to turn this sows ear back into a political silk purse.

But, for now: the CPC looks old, tired, somewhat dirty and in need of a rest on the opposition benches.

See, also, this, about one possible outcome.

 

[Remius]

That's a pretty fair assessment.  As much as the CPC took a hit, I agree that Mulcair was the biggest loser in all of this.  This despite his stellar performance in the House of Commons recently.  While I believe that the CPC can recover (barring anymore scandals) I don't know that the NDP can.

One thing of note though, is that the number of Liberal Party memberships in Brandon and Provencher, more than doubled.  Even though they are still low in comparison, is more telling (given that part of the country) than an increase in popular vote and may indicate a trend. 

 

[Haletown]

ER,

Agreed the CPC looks old/tired, but what of the alternatives.

NDP is beyond old and tired, still mired in 1930 style trade union dreams and schemes and with a deeply divided membership - Urban green tinted champagne socialists vs blue collared mine and forestry workers.

The GPC  is a minor protest party with a tiny voting bloc that has zero national footprint, failing credibility and a leader who is two steps away from the nutter cliff.

The LPC has no policies, a leader who thinks he is Canada's Hopey Changey guy and relies on sympathetic media to cover up his goofs.

What the CPC has, if they care to use it, is time before the next election for some mea culpa politics and an improving economy that will likely deliver  the budget surpluses that will translate into political competency and election tax relief.

 

[Lightguns]

Ack that, the government is always punished in by elections and the Globe and Mail is hardly an unbiased assessment of anything not Liberal.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It, the Senate Scandal® poses a dilemma for Prime Minister Harper. It is a dilemma with political, legal and moral dimensions according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/26/nigel-wright-lawyers-face-legal-repercussions-unless-harper-knew-about-the-duffy-deal-expert-says/

Nigel Wright, lawyers face legal repercussions unless Harper knew about the Duffy deal, expert says

Stephen Maher, Postmedia News

26/11/13

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is stuck in a box, with legal pressure on one side and political pressure on the other, says former parliamentary law clerk Rob Walsh.

In the documents filed in an Ottawa courthouse last week, RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton stated that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Nigel Wright violated Section 121(1)(b) of the criminal code when he paid $90,000 of his own money to Senator Mike Duffy.

That section, entitled “Frauds on the government,” forbids anyone dealing with the government from making a payment to a government official “unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place.”

That means, Walsh says, that Wright may face prison, and two lawyers who had knowledge of the deal may face sanction from their law societies, unless Harper says that he knew about the deal.

“He can’t say that,” said Walsh. “He would then be publicly responsible for the shenanigans that were going on. That’s a political problem for him. Now, legally if he were to say that, these guys get off. If Harper knew what was going on, that removes the criminality.”

Walsh says this situation may explain why Harper has been reluctant to discuss in detail what he did know about the deal.

Walsh doesn’t think that the RCMP is properly interpreting the criminal code, since as a senator, Duffy is a parliamentarian, and not an official of the government, but it appears the RCMP has received different advice.

The Toronto Star reported this week that the RCMP have been consulting with a provincial Crown attorney in the Ottawa courthouse on legal matters, but neither the Ottawa office nor the attorney general’s office would confirm that Monday.

The act requires that “head of the branch of government” must be informed in writing of any payment, but Walsh said a defence lawyer should be able to prove reasonable doubt for Wright even if the prime minister was informed verbally.

“Can you imagine someone being convicted under 121 in the face of evidence that the prime minister was aware?” he said. “I just don’t think it can happen.”

Last week, the Law Society of British Columbia said that it may look into the conduct of Benjamin Perrin, the PMO lawyer who, according to court documents, negotiated with Duffy’s lawyer.

The documents also state that Arthur Hamilton, counsel for the Conservative Party, was also aware of the deal.

If those lawyers didn’t tell the prime minister what was going on, Walsh says, they may face trouble with their professional associations, because if you are the lawyer for an organization, you have a responsibility to make sure that the head of that organization knows

“What’s the duty of the lawyer?,” he said. “The first question a lawyer has to ask himself with a question like that, is who is the client? If Wright were later convicted, the question is, was Wright the client, or was not he just the instructing officer for the organization? I would think it would be the latter. In which case, the head of the organization, Harper, would be the one that these lawyers would need to inform about the activities of the subordinate, Wright.”

If they told the prime minister, and warned against potentially illegal activity, Walsh said, they ought to be in the clear.

“Having done that, if they have no further involvement, they’re clear,” he said. “It all depends on whether they have dirt on their hands.”

The opposition has recently been posing questions about an email exchange on Feb. 22, in which Wright reports to Perrin that he is was “good to go from the PM once (Perrin) has confirmation” from Duffy’s lawyer.

The exchange appears to refer to a plan to pay Duffy’s disputed Senate expenses out of party funds, a plan the prime minister says he was not aware of.

In the House of Commons on Monday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair cast doubt on that assertion, suggesting the prime minister must have known the party was planning to pay Duffy’s bills.

Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, responded that Harper was told Duffy was going to pay the expenses himself.

“We were told that he was going to repay those,” he said. “We subsequently learned that was not true.”

Later, Mulcair said that if Harper wasn’t told about the deal, his lawyers weren’t looking after his interests.

“There’s a code of ethics governing the behaviour of any member of any bar anywhere in Canada,” he said. “It simply defies belief that these people would have been acting without the knowledge of their client. So either they were doing that, in which case they have a serious ethical problem they’re going to have to eventually answer for, or they weren’t doing that and their client was very much aware, which we think is much more likely.”

The investigation poses a real problem for the prime minister, says Walsh.

“He’s got it either way,” he said. “He can’t admit that he knew anything without having the effect of causing himself political and legal problems.”

Predictably, in another newspaper, the Globe and Mail, Liberal/Laurentian elites shill Jeffrey Simpson argues that Prime Minister Harper is political "dead weight" and that the coronation of Justin Trudeau is a foregone conclusion while the arch Harper Hater® Lawrence Martin declares that "the credibility of the highest office in the land is being shredded." (One might wish to quibble and argue that the Governor General or even the Queen, herself, is the "highest office in the land,' but you get the idea ...) It, the current political situation, IS a problem, Prime Minister Harper is wounded, the sharks are circling, but time and "events"* have a habit of changing the political landscape.

_____
* "Events, dear boy, events," is the answer that the late Harold Macmillan is reputed to have said (but probably didn't) to a reporter who asked him what is most likely to blow governments off course.

 

[Remius]

This article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen by David Sachs (by all accounts an active and stalwart conservative)shows that, indeed, the sharks are circling.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html

One has to wonder if this is the opinion of many conservative members who may be feeling disallusioned by recent events.

**Grammar**

 

[Journeyman]

One has to wonder if this is the opinion of many conservative members who may be feeling disallusioned by recent events.

**Grammar**

**Spelling** 

Unless of course, you are referring to those people who don't feel that recent events are alluding to anything.     :nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen by David Sachs (by all accounts an active and stalwart conservative)shows that, indeed, the sharks are circling.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Stephen+Harper+puts+Conservatives+bind/9211218/story.html

One has to wonder if this is the opinion of many conservative members who may be feeling disallusioned by recent events.

**Grammar**

It is, certainly, the opinion of some Conservatives ~ I'm not sure how big a number (percentage) "some" represents.  My guess is that many Conservatives - the religious right, the "law and order" wing, the social conservatives, and so on - are not too troubled.

I am troubled by the centralization of power in the hands of political "backroom boys," the infamous "hacks, flacks and bagmen," but I recognize that: a) this began 45 years ago, under Pierre Trudeau, it's not Stephen Harper's fault; and b) government is, now, a big business and it needs a corporate HQ with all that implies. I am more troubled by the fact that here in Canada, in the 21st century, as we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation, we still have an unelected chambre in our national legislature. I am most troubled by something to which I alluded: the very size and scope of government. I am firmly and unalterably convinced that the major threat to our democracy is the government itself. It is not an issue of trust for me ~ I actually believe that most politicians and civil servants are decent, honest people who want to serve their country and their communities. But I think the HUGE, bloated morbidly obese construct in and around Ottawa cannot be controlled and will, one by one, strip away our liberties in the name of the "greater good" until democracy, itself, is meaningless.

So, I want Stephen Harper to:

    1. Contain and then reduce government ~ focus on the (relatively few) things that are the "core business" of a modern, federal, democratic nation state ;*

    2. Reform the Senate ~ steamroll an elected Senate, notwithstanding whatever the Supremes of provinces say. An elected Senate may take decades - it took the US twenty years early in the 20th century to move to an elected senate - but it will make
        itself effective. Equality may be, Constitutionally, too hard;

    3. Reform the machinery of government by strengthening ministries and parliamentary committees at the expense of the centre (PMO);

    4. Contain discretionary spending and move authority over (and tax points for) most social policies back to the provinces, where they belong;

    5. Focus on protecting and promoting Canadians' fundamental rights: life, liberty, property (as defined by John Locke circa 1662) and privacy (as defined by Warren and Brandeis in 1890).

I think five tasks is enough - maybe too much.

_____
* And I suspect that you could delete ½ of the departments and agencies on this list and still have too many useless, even counterproductive organizations interfering with the fundamental rights of Canadians.

 

[Remius]

**Spelling** 

Unless of course, you are referring to those people who don't feel that recent events are alluding to anything.     :nod:

Crap...thanks.

 

[dapaterson]

Or, to quote a comic book, "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  Governments should be afraid of their people." (Alan Moore, V for Vendetta)

 

[mariomike]

Where is Frank Magazine when you really need it?

Nov 25, 2013

Rob Ford, Mike Duffy inspire Frank magazine return
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rob-ford-mike-duffy-inspire-frank-magazine-return-1.2439895

Website:
http://frankmag.ca/

 

[pbi]

Or, to quote a comic book, "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  Governments should be afraid of their people." (Alan Moore, V for Vendetta)

Increasingly, a motto I subscribe to.
But governments will never fear a politically inert population of disengaged net surfers who can't even be bothered to vote.