Time to call it. A Dion victory.
http://thetyee.ca/electioncentral/
Friday, December 01, 2006
As an ever credible source of future prediction in politics, I am going to take this opportunity to predict the outcome of the Liberal leadership race.
Dion on the third ballot.
"What?" you say.. well let's look at this Liberal leadership race seriously for a second.
You've thought about it seriously for a moment?
Ok good, so you've dismissed all the candidates from your mind except Dion.
Right, well there you are then.
Rae and Ignatieff just clearly aren't serious candidates for the Liberal leadership. One is a war mongering ex-pat flown in from US acadaemia and the other is a failed NDP premier who's idea of good social policy was laying off government employees without pay for 10 days a year. One is a right-wing hawk and the other an Iraq security consultant. These guys aren't politicians, they are like fans wearing the CCCP jerseys at the 1972 Soviet-Canada game 4 in Vancouver. The fact they can put together a team at all and field delegates says much more about the interests they represent than themselves.
Having said that, Dion will still have to beat them. But, they have both been so far 'ahead' for so long and they are both so unpalatable, it's clear. Dion will win it on the third. Of course this says nothing positive about Dion, other than maybe he really is a Liberal, but who needs positive in politics.
This outcome is annoying though really, don'tcha think. I was looking forward to the NDP minority government that Rae and Ignatieff would have brought about through the political demise of the Liberal Party.
Oh well I can only hope I'm wrong... I usually am.
Dion on the third ballot.
"What?" you say.. well let's look at this Liberal leadership race seriously for a second.
You've thought about it seriously for a moment?
Ok good, so you've dismissed all the candidates from your mind except Dion.
Right, well there you are then.
Rae and Ignatieff just clearly aren't serious candidates for the Liberal leadership. One is a war mongering ex-pat flown in from US acadaemia and the other is a failed NDP premier who's idea of good social policy was laying off government employees without pay for 10 days a year. One is a right-wing hawk and the other an Iraq security consultant. These guys aren't politicians, they are like fans wearing the CCCP jerseys at the 1972 Soviet-Canada game 4 in Vancouver. The fact they can put together a team at all and field delegates says much more about the interests they represent than themselves.
Having said that, Dion will still have to beat them. But, they have both been so far 'ahead' for so long and they are both so unpalatable, it's clear. Dion will win it on the third. Of course this says nothing positive about Dion, other than maybe he really is a Liberal, but who needs positive in politics.
This outcome is annoying though really, don'tcha think. I was looking forward to the NDP minority government that Rae and Ignatieff would have brought about through the political demise of the Liberal Party.
Oh well I can only hope I'm wrong... I usually am.
Labels: opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Bush and Blair.. are they taking on the spies?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2023856.ece
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
I highly doubt they are seriously going to combat spying, but I am encouraged by the latest quote from Blair (one of my least favourite fellow members of the Socialist International) on the Litvinenko poisoning. In this the Independent article Tony Blair was quoted as saying, "that there would be no diplomatic or political barrier" to the inquiry into Litvinenko's death.
This is of course akin to a nuclear first strike in diplomacy as it signal to at least the FSB and probably to the rest of the world's secret services that anything they have done may become public. The killing of a former spy is not something that normally is allowed to hit the front pages of the papers anywhere in the world. Exposing the activities of a foreign spy service leaves your own services open to public criticism. The uncomfortable side of espionage is usually dealt with secretly and through diplomatic back channels. I think the repercussions are already being seen in the public reporting of the arrest of Paul William Hampel.
Of course Bush has always been a fan of secrecy, however, I have to look back and applaud ole' K. Christian Rove for his public naming and shaming of Valerie Plame. Not that his reasons were even slightly laudible, but the shear act of opening to public criticism and allowing public debate about the actions of a Spy was worth it. Everyone needs to know that they are accountable for their actions. This includes the employees of the CIA, CSIS, the FSB and the military intelligence agencies they work with.
The spy services of the world have taken a significant leap in size over the last 5 years. I think it is definitely time that their activities start coming under increasing public scrutiny. There is no justification for hiding the activities World War II/Cold War era holdovers any longer. Of course this still needs to be handled very carefully as the world's spy organizations are domestically very powerful. I believe the secrecy they currently operate under is no longer justifiable and more likely to start wars than stop them. I think it is worth noting that Igor Gouzenko would never have been able to defect if Prime Minister King had not been defied by his own staff.
How many times have legitimate law authority organizations been forced to abandon long running and effective investigations because of the kind of diplomatic interests that Blair claims aren't going to impede the Litvinenko inquiry? How many times have legitimate political parties been suppressed because they accidentally received support from another countries spy service and then found themselves on the wrong side of their domestic agency?
How much safer would we all be if no one was allowed to get away with subverting a common set of laws?
This is of course akin to a nuclear first strike in diplomacy as it signal to at least the FSB and probably to the rest of the world's secret services that anything they have done may become public. The killing of a former spy is not something that normally is allowed to hit the front pages of the papers anywhere in the world. Exposing the activities of a foreign spy service leaves your own services open to public criticism. The uncomfortable side of espionage is usually dealt with secretly and through diplomatic back channels. I think the repercussions are already being seen in the public reporting of the arrest of Paul William Hampel.
Of course Bush has always been a fan of secrecy, however, I have to look back and applaud ole' K. Christian Rove for his public naming and shaming of Valerie Plame. Not that his reasons were even slightly laudible, but the shear act of opening to public criticism and allowing public debate about the actions of a Spy was worth it. Everyone needs to know that they are accountable for their actions. This includes the employees of the CIA, CSIS, the FSB and the military intelligence agencies they work with.
The spy services of the world have taken a significant leap in size over the last 5 years. I think it is definitely time that their activities start coming under increasing public scrutiny. There is no justification for hiding the activities World War II/Cold War era holdovers any longer. Of course this still needs to be handled very carefully as the world's spy organizations are domestically very powerful. I believe the secrecy they currently operate under is no longer justifiable and more likely to start wars than stop them. I think it is worth noting that Igor Gouzenko would never have been able to defect if Prime Minister King had not been defied by his own staff.
How many times have legitimate law authority organizations been forced to abandon long running and effective investigations because of the kind of diplomatic interests that Blair claims aren't going to impede the Litvinenko inquiry? How many times have legitimate political parties been suppressed because they accidentally received support from another countries spy service and then found themselves on the wrong side of their domestic agency?
How much safer would we all be if no one was allowed to get away with subverting a common set of laws?
|
|
|
|
|
