Leadership, leadership, leadership

I'm leaning towards Justin Trudeau for federal leader and Sandra Pupatello for Ontario provincial leader. But I don't claim to be engaged enough to make an informed decision this time. I argued for Bob Rae when he lost to Dion and then lost to Ignatieff and then lost to party politics. I think Dalton McGuinty was a great premier but all I ever hear in local media is that he sucks. Apparently my opinion doesn't go very far.

On the federal front, we keep putting someone up there, watch the Harper attack ads undermine their credibility, and then turf them out.

On the provincial front, it's hard to get excited about electing our version of Kim Campbell - someone who, according to reports, will fight an election that results in a drastic reduction in party support. The party's modus operandi is that whoever oversees a poor election will get turfed out (or forced to resign): what's the point of getting excited about that scenario?

If I thought our party would actually get behind a leader and help them succeed in the long term, I'd be more interested. As it is: meh.

Liberal Leaders: Guaranteed Support?

Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails like failure. We Liberals have blown through four leaders in recent years (I count Bob Rae among the four because he has been much more than a caretaker). Our leaders have all failed - because we have not supported them. When the Harper attack ads started, we let ourselves be affected. When a new leader had some missteps out of the gate, we called for his head. When the first election the leader presided over didn't go well, we dumped his sorry ass.

It's obvious that what we need to do is give our next leader the time to learn the job. Historically, new party leaders falter in the beginning. Most Prime Ministers didn't get there on their first try. Many didn't look too sharp for the first term or two.

In particular, when we know the leader we've chosen is inexperienced (like Ignatieff), we have to not only give him some slack but be supportive. Any of our last four leaders could have led us to victory, given time and support. What failed is us, the party, not them.

Why does this happen? We have the recent memory of being called Canada's natural ruling party, and there is an impatience to regain our former stature. We blame the leader for not doing it - even though we should all know that it is going to take time for a leader to not just learn, but develop the right team, develop policies, build support in the electorate, make allies, and on and on. I suspect we also have a party loaded up with formerly powerful politicians who are now invested in finding controversial topics to please editors.

We may have to face a situation where our choices for leader are all at the bottom of the barrel. Gerard Kennedy's name is being bandied about - he with a three year college degree, little French, a trumped-up CV and unable to even keep his seat: the definition of an empty pretty boy. He may be what we get. Whoever we get, it is our responsibility to make the most of him: not to whine and complain and demand a replacement.

Why don't we guarantee our next leader that he or she gets the time needed to succeed? Why not say from the outset that they have a two-election term - and we don't expect that they will significantly increase seats in the first of those elections? What about making a pledge (with specifics) to support and help our next leader?

Why would ANYONE agree to take the position without something along those lines? Why would Justin Trudeau want to follow his four predecessors into the pit of humiliating failure?

I have been supporting Bob Rae for leader since he first threw his hat in the ring six years ago. Most of the party divided their support between the four front-runners (in order of support at the convention): Ignatieff, Rae, Dion, Kennedy. Supporters of the first three men have watched the party choose and then pick to death their candidate. It hasn't been a happy experience for any of us. It definitely hasn't helped the party. And it shouldn't happen again.

###

A Sad Regret that Rae Said No

Of all our options for permanent leader, Bob Rae is the most competent, experienced, principled, classy, witty, formidable, erudite and knowledgeable. We would have been very lucky to have him as permanent leader.

I was amazed he was willing to continue to stand for the job. It is six years since he first announced he would run for leader. In that time, two other candidates were chosen over him and then the party executive effectively boxed him out. His continuing interest in being permanent leader was a selfless act; the job ahead is to slowly rebuild a crumbling party, or destroy it in a merger with a stronger party, or watch it die. I believe he wanted to stand because he knew he was the best person to save the party.

Unfortunately, the party, or at least some influential parts, made that impossible. For Rae, personally, this has to be the best choice. As for the party, it is definitely a sad day. And let's remember this: it was Harper's attack ads that took down Dion and Ignatieff, but it was the Liberal party itself that brought down Rae.

###

Could We At Least Have a Debate?

The Ignatieff camp has been pushing for the party to anoint him as interim leader via a vote of caucus. The Rae camp objected that we need a more democractic approach, so the party has "compromised" and agreed to let party presidents and a few other people join in the vote.

I don't see how this is a compromise at all, but that's not my main concern. Who wins is no longer my main concern, as it seems to be a foregone conclusion.

What bothers me supremely is that the Liberal party is still running around like a chicken with its head cut off, being reactive rather than proactive, making decisions for the short term rather than the long term, and making poor decisions. It's understandable that Ignatieff wants to sew this thing up as quickly as possible. We are in the middle of a political crisis and he wants to change the direction of approach before parliament resumes.

What gets me is that there is so little leadership from the senior ranks of the party. They should be thinking long term, keeping steady, ensuring that the next leader has the support of the party, and working steadily to rebuild party unity. Instead they seem to be flapping their hands and running around in circles muttering "Oh my!"

Last week the leadership was all gung ho for the coalition; now it's the worst thing that ever happened. Those of us who stood up to support the party and fight for its policy, the coalition, are now left hanging out there like idiots, blamed for supporting a bad policy. No matter that the entire caucus (including Ignatieff) signed off on it.

After the election, the party decided we had to have a full-blown expensive leadership contest; now we can't have any democratic contest at all. Why the abrupt change in plans? The first decision was made out of pig-headed complacency and the reversal of that decision was panic pure and simple. It's not doing Ignatieff any favors to let him win this way. When Bob Rae says that anointments don't work very well, he's not speaking out of self-interest but for the good of the party. Paul Martin got off to a bad start because he was anointed.

Sober heads would do what Rae asks and have a compressed but democractic leadership race, taking a few weeks, involving debates and some sort of membership involvement. This "compromise" to allow a few more in on the decision is no compromise at all. The goal should be to increase party unity, but that whole idea seems to have been forgotten, and consequently it looks like party unity is going to be hammered once again.

What has become crystal clear is that our leader can't do everything. He needs better party management behind him. We blamed Paul Martin for missteps; we blamed Stephane Dion for missteps; at some point we have to look at what else is going on to make our leaders fail.

###

The Leadership Race

I don't know what form the leadership race should take, but if a small group in Ottawa tries to force Ignatieff on us without a fair, democratic contest, I am going to be mighty pissed off.

I have tried to keep an open mind about Ignatieff, but the last couple of weeks have made that really difficult. When his party needed him he showed zero leadership and schemed for his own career. In the midst of the coalition kerfuffle I got an email from him saying that "in this time of crisis I need your support..." Yesterday I got another email titled "Winning the Leadership the Right Way" - implying that he'd already won.

I have not seen one single media interview in which he has impressed. He is pompous, pedantic and boring. I have a huge vocabulary and yet when I saw him on CTV recently I had to look up a word in the dictionary. Imagine what people who haven't had seven years of post-secondary education are going to make of him. He has been no better on the floor of the House.

Forget the fact that I'm a Rae supporter. I'm no longer sure that Rae can win. He can't seem to overcome Liberal hatred of the NDP. All the crap about baggage from his time as premier of Ontario is just that - crap. The heart of the matter is that Liberal insiders cannot accept an NDP premier leading their party. Rae has already failed to overcome that prejudice in one leadership race and the two years since. His charisma, political skill and leadership ability are all apparently lost on Liberal insiders, and it seems there is nothing he can do about it. If he had more time he might be able to attract enough NDP voters to the Liberal party to sway a vote, but that opportunity seems to have passed.

So that leaves Ignatieff. But what Ignatieff needs to do is show me that he is ready to be PM. With less than three years in Canada out of the last 33, and with less than three years of political experience, he needs to do something to prove he can lead the party.

If Ignatieff is anointed without proving himself, which is apparently what he is angling for, he will not have my support. The fact that he's trying for that shows how inexperienced he is. We need a leader who can lead. We need a winner. We do not need "Dion: The Sequel." But that's what we're heading towards.

##

Tory Trolls

Online articles about the leadership race have interesting comments sections. The first two or three comments tend to be aggressively anti-Rae. A case in point today: The first two comments are "Give it up Bob. Save us the grief." and "Nothing illustrates how out of touch Bob Rae is than his own self image."

These nimble fingered anti-Bobbites who seem always poised to complain about him as soon as an article is published, who are they? There are some common characteristics: they get their comments at the top (the Globe shows earliest comments first), often within a few minutes of publication. They write very brief comments; you might almost call them sound bites. And they generally do not directly relate to the article (for example, nothing in the article had to do with Bob Rae being in touch or having an ego).

I think it's reasonable to assume that they're paid Conservative operatives, working to (1) interfere with our leadership selection process and (2) begin the process of undermining the next leader. It is really unfortunate that the current Conservative party has no scruples and no respect for democracy. They seem to have adopted the Nixon playbook of Dirty Tricks. The MP boasting (below) about keeping Bob Rae from becoming our leader in the last leadership race is now Minister of Canadian Heritage & Official Languages.

Here is what they admitted to doing last time:

Delighted Tories claim victory with Rae loss

ALEXANDER PANETTA

Canadian Press

December 2, 2006 at 4:10 PM EST

MONTREAL — A gaggle of beaming Conservative operatives waited mere minutes after Bob Rae was knocked out of the Liberal leadership race before boasting about the role they played in the former Ontario premier's defeat.

Just seconds after Mr. Rae was knocked out, a prominent Tory MP wandering the convention floor pulled out a handful of buttons mocking Mr. Rae and winked mischievously.

“There's a reason we handed out so many of these,” said B.C. MP James Moore, pointing to buttons that ridiculed Mr. Rae's track record as Ontario premier.

“They (Liberals) don't know how to play poker. . . The NDP is also feeling happy right now.”

In recent months some leading Tories admitted privately that Mr. Rae was the Liberal candidate they feared the most.

Their admissions became public the instant Rae was eliminated from the race.

One Tory operative described how a handful of government supporters proliferated at Liberal parties throughout Montreal on Friday evening and handed out anti-Rae buttons.

“Make Bob the first NDP prime minister,” one button said.

Another button aimed at underlining Mr. Rae's tumultuous time in Ontario said: “Vote Bob. Who needs Ontario?”

The party made similar buttons for all the other candidates — but it was mainly for show. Rae was their main target, said a government official.

“There were hundreds of Liberals wearing those (Rae) buttons when they went to vote today,” he said.

“It was great to watch.”

One Conservative aide took pride in pointing out that his party fabricated an internal party memo suggesting their troops were most afraid of Michael Ignatieff — and most anxious to face Mr. Rae.

The ersatz memo was leaked to a pair of English- and French-language newspapers and ran under headlines that cast it as a behind-the-scenes peek at Tory strategy.

The name of Tory campaign chair Doug Finley, the supposed author of the memo, was stamped on the document as an afterthought.

The Tories then made arrangements to get the memo leaked through a third party to English and French newspapers, Tory sources said.

Ten Reasons Harper Is Calling the Election Now

1. By-elections: Four by-elections are supposed to be held in September but will be cancelled if Harper calls the election on Sunday, as predicted. Tories were predicted to do badly in the by-elections (as bad as third place in Guelph), which would have weakened them considerably.

2. Economy: The economy continues to weaken and is possibly heading into recession.

3. Diminishing Support in Quebec: Harper did a lot to bring Quebec on side, but his recent cuts in arts funding may have started a slide, according to Chantal Hebert.

4. Scandal: Elections Canada announced that Conservatives exceeded the $18.3 million election advertising limit in the 2006 election and wrongly claimed taxpayer rebates. It is charged that they laundered money between local and federal accounts. This will go to the courts, but not until after the election.

5. A second scandal: Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier flagrantly broke the rules about confidentiality, apparently frequently, but finally by leaving important NATO documents in the care of a woman who has ties to organized crime. There is going to be some kind of inquiry but again, not until after the election.

6. A third scandal: There are disturbing allegations that Conservatives tried to buy dying Chuck Cadman's vote in parliament. New revelations came out just this week pointing at Harper's direct involvement.

7. A fourth scandal: Sometime soon, presumably, we will finally get our inquiry into how much money Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney got from international arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber, and under what circumstances. We may even learn a little about how Harper managed to cover up, or at least delay, the investigation.

8. Failed military policy: The war in Afghanistan is going really badly. It was one thing to go in initially to try to stabilize the country. Now Canadian soldiers and dying and Afghan civilians are dying and it's not clear that we're making any progress at all. There are also disturbing questions about the real motivation of the American involvement.

9. November US election: An Obama win in the United States will strengthen the momentum of progressives here.

10. PR strategy: After papering the nation for six or eight months with negative, scaremongering anti-Dion ads, the Conservatives apparently feel the groundwork is laid for them to "go positive" with touch-feely "at home in my mansion" ads featuring that ballpeen hammer of a charmer, Stephen Harper. (I caught the first one on TV last night.)

And a final reason... Every new opposition leader has a learning curve (someone did an historical analysis and estimated three years before they're fully effective) but Stephane Dion is coming into his own; with Bob Rae now in parliament, the Liberals are becoming more of a threat to Harper.

If you have more, please let me know!

###

Why the Liberals Can Win This Thing

Despite widespread polls showing the Liberals and Conservatives tied, the Globe recently published a poll suggesting that the Conservatives might be headed for a majority.

But what the polls don't show is fire in the belly and election readiness. From a number of factors, including two communications I got yesterday, I think the Liberals are going to rise to the occasion and win this thing. My riding association, which didn't seem very interested in including new faces in the last election, sent a great email asking for volunteers... a real call to arms. Plus, I received a charming and effective letter from Bob Rae, asking me to write, call or email him with my views so he can "give them voice in Ottawa and beyond." Small things perhaps, but they show that the party is pulling in the grass roots in a way they haven't done so well in the past.

I have no doubt that Harper is calling the election because he saw numbers similar to what the Globe published and thought this was his best shot at a majority. Cynically tossing aside his commitment to fixed election dates, he's telling bald-faced lies about gridlock in parliament and going to the polls more than a year early. Once again he's using tax-payer money to finance his personal ambitions.

It's going to rebound on him. A few days ago I was thinking of going back to the NDP (after some inspiration from James Laxer), but now I'm galvanized to support Stephane Dion. I can't wait to see Dion debate Harper: integrity and intelligence are going to look very good in comparison to nasty ideology.

Harper now has a solid record, and it's a record of dismantling principles we hold dear. Canada has a low (and declining) crime rate and internationally-renowned jail diversion programs: Harper has done what he can to fill our prisons, especially with his favorite target - youth. We have a strong civil society and vibrant artistic community: Harper has done what he can to strip funding. He has horrified us with his use of power to attack private citizens, such as his completely unfair recent denunciation of journalist Gwynne Dyer. He is underhandedly trying to chip away at a woman's right to control her own body. And there are some really shady election shenanigans that he has to answer for.

There are a lot of scary things Harper wants to do but has not yet been able to, but the scariest is the dismantling of our system of public health care. Make no mistake: if he gets his majority, or maybe even if he gets another minority, health care as we know it is toast. We already have private health care: any Canadian can go south and buy whatever they want. The only reason for instituting two-tier health care in Canada is to undermine the current system and force its demise.

This isn't like the last election, when the media undermined a legitimate line of attack against Harper by saying the Liberals were scaremongerers. This time around Harper has a record to stand by, and it's not pretty. Harper's vision of Canada has been exposed and it is a US Republican Mini-Me: militaristic, unregulated, polluted; with tax cuts for the rich and benefits cuts for the poor; with full jails; and with government hand-outs geared towards corporations, not communities.

This isn't like the last election, when the Liberals were crippled by allegations of corruption (some valid, some not) that sapped our fighting spirit.

This time we have a visionary leader who radiates integrity and who is in tune with the concerns of Canadians. And we have an energized base that is gungho to get Harper the heck out of Ottawa.

###

Brison Goes to Rae!

So far every Liberal leadership candidate who has dropped out of the race has thrown their support behind Bob Rae: Fry, Bevilacqua, Bennett, Volpe, Brison.

...I know, I had to get that in quick because that statistic may change quickly today!

Brison said, "Bob Rae has a tremendous love for Canada and a tremendous understanding of Canada. He will make a phenomenal Prime Minister."

###

The Ideas Man

If Bob Rae had spent this Liberal leadership race describing his vision for the party, he'd have been rightly criticized for being a newcomer to the party who had no place dictating what should be done.

Instead, his message has been clear and consistent: he stands for Liberal values; he is the most experienced and able leader in the race; he is listening to what Liberals want and will make our hopes and dreams for the party come true, including renewing the party and whupping Stephen Harper.

This was not the time for him to focus on ideas. But just watch him go if he becomes Liberal leader. As Garth Turner wrote in an admiring post last night, "Rae is the sum of all Conservative fears."

###

Speeches

Too much TV, too much TV. I want to stay up till the first ballot results are in, but I'm feeling sort of toasted.

Some random thoughts... Both Dion and Kennedy suffered by being shown up by their introducers. Glen Pearson, who introduced Dion, is a hell of a speechifier. By the end of his introduction I felt I must vote Dion or the future of the planet was in peril - and yet he didn't lambast, he just spoke reasonably. Then Dion came on and was sort of flat and seemed nervous. Kennedy had the same problem. Justin Trudeau is a million-watt light bulb of charisma and made Kennedy look lame by comparison.

I'm partisan so it's not going to surprise anyone that I thought Bob Rae was the best. I wondered if his decision to speak off the cuff was an appeal to the delegates who don't know him and don't trust him. It looked like the crowd was really engaged. In particular, there was a shot of Paul Martin listening to him, leaning forward and smiling; and a shot of Jean Chretien nodding along. It was also a real relief to hear someone talk in sentences rather than sound bites.

I didn't like Ignatieff's speech much. It seemed glitzy and political, and yet strangely flat. But my reaction may have been due to his being last and my being burned out on same-old same-old political stump speeches with massive applause following every trite sound bite. I didn't take many notes from tonight but here's one I took during Ignatieff's speech: "Together we are building a better Liberal party!" ---thunderous applause... "All Canadians will know what Liberals stand for!" ---clap clap clap clap clap clap

Brison and Dryden were very good. I liked the fact that they talked reasonably without all the constant breaks for screaming. Brison had the best line of the night: "Attacking Stephen Harper is easy - it's even fun!"

But for best speech of the week, I'd have to hand it to Howard Dean.

###

And the Voting Begins!

I'm so excited. We have three fabulous candidates in Rae, Ignatieff, and Dion and it's a real horse race. Keith Davey says that leadership races should be all about the weaknesses of the candidates - expose them, answer to them, and "satisfy the faithful" about them. We've certainly exposed them, and I think all the candidates have emerged looking better than when they began. That's a pretty good measure of success for a leadership race.

Of course everyone knows that I'm hoping for a Bob Rae win, but at this moment I feel like I'm in the eye of the hurricane... there's a certain stillness as events unfold. I am greatly looking forward to Bob's speech tonight as he is always brilliant and inspirational. I predict another barn-burner. But I wish all the candidates the best. It doesn't get much better than this!

###

Why Bob Rae Should Lead the Liberal Party (in his own words)

From today's Toronto Star

Why I should lead Liberal party
Nov. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM
by BOB RAE

I am offering a candidacy that is based on experience, sound judgment and a vision that is focused on our priorities, not divisive debate.

In this campaign I have been talking about a style of leadership that promotes the best traditions, values and aspirations of Canada, at home and on the world stage.

1 - I know and love this country. I have Canada in my bones and have been fortunate to have so many opportunities both in and out of public office to serve over the years.

For almost 30 years in public life, I have had a chance to work on many of the major public policy issues of our time. From Burnt Church to softwood lumber, terrorism to education, the Constitution to federal-provincial relations, I have been forced to think of practical, workable solutions to difficult problems.

Every project has introduced me to more Canadians, taught me about what is meaningful to us, and shown me who we are as a people.

2 - My experiences have taught me many lessons and prepared me to do and offer more. It is incumbent on a leader to demonstrate that he or she has the experience and the insight to deal with the most critical issues and the rigours of leadership.

I know what it means to be a leader, run a government and work constructively on the national stage with First Ministers to build a better Canada.

I am the wiser for my experience in public life and believe that we must apply the lessons derived from the early 1990s, which were a difficult time for Canada. I also believe I bring more than a little political experience to the arena, something that can help guide a party through the rapids of electoral politics.

I have been elected eight times to federal and provincial Parliaments and public opinion shows that Canadians know me and know what I stand for.

I bear, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, the scars of having fought in the arena. But the arena is where one learns how to fight for what one believes in — and how to win.

3 - Finally, there are the beliefs that motivate me to win, fundamental beliefs about what we owe each other as Canadians: a commitment to the public good; to making Canada more than the sum of its parts; to sharing opportunity and prosperity, especially with the most vulnerable; to helping Canadian students and workers to be competitive in a global economy; and to being a constructive presence on the world stage.

I have learned from hard experience the costs of the ideology that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives want to impose on Canada.

I am running for the leadership of the Liberal party because I have learned that Canada needs a party that is committed to change, that is open to all Canadians, and that understands that politics and governing are about making life better for one's fellow citizens.

It is about bringing people together with a common purpose. It is not about theories or divisive ideologies.

The Liberal party is optimistic, builds on hope, not fear, and believes in opportunity for everyone.

The Conservatives are attempting to take us down paths that do not reflect our strengths or speak to our most pressing challenges.

On foreign policy, Canada's voice has gone missing under the Conservatives. Most Canadians support Kyoto, child care, and rights for minorities. They want to see us investing in education, health care, and research and innovation. Canadians want and deserve an alternative that is hopeful, generous, dedicated to building prosperity and sharing opportunity.

I want to lead this party in shaping that alternative so we can get Canada back on track.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Rae is a former NDP premier of Ontario. He was the first chairman of the Forum of Federations, a position he held for seven years.

###

Setting the Record Straight

Perfect economic storm sunk Rae ship of state

Jordan Grant
Special to The Windsor Star

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A continuing sideshow of the federal Liberal leadership race has been the spectacle of Bob Rae being boxed about the ears over his economic record as premier of Ontario. But a little history please.

In 1989-91 a "perfect storm" of federal initiatives under Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney swept across the land:

- The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement set off a half-decade-long major restructuring of Canadian business.

- The introduction of the GST triggered a seven per cent inflationary surge.

- The Bank of Canada launched a single-minded quest for zero inflation, raising the prime interest rate to an eight-year high of 14.75 per cent. The four per cent spread over U.S. rates pushed the loonie up almost 30 per cent to a five-year high.

This high interest rate-high dollar combination just as the border opened up spelled disaster for Canadian industry. Our manufacturing plants could no longer compete with U.S. producers that quickly scaled-up to become the North American suppliers of everything from appliances to toothpaste.

Job losses from this industrial restructuring were foreseen -- in 1988 Mulroney promised "the finest adjustment and retraining programs that exist anywhere." Instead, the federal government cut billions in unemployment benefits and social and regional programs targeted by the U.S. as unfair trading practices.

The Ontario government would soon be faced with swelling welfare rolls and hard choices. Then-premier David Peterson saw the bad news coming, and called an early election. To everyone's surprise, Bob Rae landed in the hot seat in September 1990.

By the time Rae took office, both the federal and provincial deficits were soaring. In its first budget, the NDP government attempted to cushion the recession by raising welfare rates and fast-tracking capital projects such as Highway 407 and subway expansion.

STRUCTURAL DEFICIT

This added $2 billion to an inherited $8-billion structural deficit. But within a year Rae realized that a provincial government alone had no hope of countering such powerful economic forces.

Rae's government had taken office with an agenda to narrow disparities and improve ordinary people's lives. But with revenues collapsing, it had to focus on measures that would not strain provincial coffers: enhanced environmental standards; labour legislation that, despite initial controversy, contributed to a period of sustained labour peace and improved productivity; a forward-thinking new Planning Act; streamlining Ontario Hydro; and helping to save and restructure critical companies such as Algoma Steel and the Bombardier aircraft plant.

It's remarkable that the government accomplished as much as it did when "every cabinet meeting was dominated by the agenda of even more spending reviews and cuts."

Rae worked to win the confidence of the business community. He discarded some policy proposals (such as public auto insurance) and reached out to understand the business perspective. The government introduced a "market-led" industrial policy focused on enhancing the competitive fundamentals -- education and training, infrastructure, sectoral networking, export promotion, R&D and innovation.

"I was trying to move the party closer to the centre, to accept the market as a fact of life and to understand the need to work out a lasting understanding with business."

This lost Rae the support of some NDPers and was part of a philosophical journey that would eventually lead him to the Liberal party.

With the deficit still ballooning, the premier realized that more drastic spending restraint was needed. Most provincial spending ultimately goes to pay the almost one million people who deliver public services. Rae was faced with equally unpalatable alternatives: let the deficit grow even further and/or raise taxes significantly; or chop services and drastically cut the size of the public payroll.

To his credit, Rae devised a middle strategy termed the "Social Contract." Rather than devastate the lives of tens of thousands of families and drastically impair public services through layoffs, he asked everyone in the public sector to share the burden. Setting out a requirement to save $2 billion a year, he gave all public sector employers and unions an opportunity to find their own means of achieving their share of the savings. The guidelines were: Maintain services, minimize job losses, no general wage increases and protect the income of all employees earning less than $30,000.

CREATIVE FLEXIBILITY

Private sector unions had shown a creative flexibility during restructuring negotiations to keep their employers afloat, trading off lower wages or working hours for job security and future benefits. Disappointingly, many of the public sector unions dug in their heels and rejected the Social Contract on principle. For those who couldn't reach agreement, the government imposed up to 12 days a year off without pay (popularly known as "Rae Days").

The Social Contract was a typically Canadian and Liberal-type of creative compromise, but further distanced Rae from the NDP's political base. He regrets that he didn't do more to persuade others of "the necessity and logic and fairness of what we needed to do." From this experience and later mediating many difficult disputes he says, "I have learned the need to listen, to show respect, to accommodate, and to persuade."

Over the next couple of years through attrition and early retirement, the public service shrank substantially and program spending dropped. With a Liberal government in Ottawa shifting monetary policy to support broader economic objectives, the Ontario economy was well on the road to recovery. By 1994 it was leading the country in new investment and economic growth.

But Canadians were still angry about the damage wrought by the recession. They expressed it any way they could -- defeating the Charlottetown accord, turfing not just the NDP in Ontario but the Liberals in Quebec and punishing most other provincial governments. Notably, while Rae's NDP was reduced to 17 seats, Mulroney's Tories lost all their Ontario seats.

Rae has responded to jibes about his economic record with restraint and dignity. Let the facts speak for themselves -- they throw a bigger punch than the hooks and jabs of his detractors.

Jordan Grant is president of Seaton Group and in the 1990s as chairman of the Bank of Canada for Canadians Coalition, provided macro-economic advice to the Chretien/Martin government.

###

Recap: Why Bob Rae Should Be the Next Liberal Leader

Here are posts I have written over the course of the leadership race about Bob Rae:

Toronto Star Endorses Bob Rae
Ontario Prefers Bob Rae Over Any Other Leadership Candidate
On the Subject of Fighting Back...
Carolyn Bennett Drops Out of the Race to Support Bob Rae
The Big Mo
Thoughts on Recent Doin's
Bob Rae's Record of Governance
Playing to Win
Should Canada Recognize Quebec as a Nation?
Bloggers Talk to Bob
Where Will We Be On December 3?
Why I Left the NDP
Why I Endorse Bob Rae as Federal Liberal Leader
Trash-Talking a Leadership Candidate
Bob Rae on the Muslim Chronicle
What Our Leader Needs to Do

###

Toronto Star Endorses Bob Rae

Some quotes from today's Toronto Star editorial, Rae Our Choice to Lead the Liberals:

"Bob Rae stands out as the best choice to lead the Liberals because of his vision, progressive policies and experience."

"Giving shape to his activism, Rae has put forward a wide range of progressive policy proposals. Within the context of a balanced federal budget, he would increase grants and loans for higher education, invest in research and development, make better use of immigrants' skills, invest in "green" power, reinvest in cities, increase income tax credits and child support for needy working families, expand employment insurance and bring in catastrophic drug coverage. On Afghanistan and Mideast policy, he has taken sensible stands. And on the Quebec-as-nation issue, he only grudgingly went along with the misguided parliamentary consensus, saying that it was a debate he would not have initiated."

"He offers the best prospect of renewing the party, moving it boldly forward in a socially progressive direction and giving Canadians the government they deserve."

###

Should Canada Recognize Quebec as a Nation?

On Wednesday, Harper shocked the country by saying he was asking the House of Commons to approve a resolution recognizing that the "Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." - Toronto Star

Alas, we have someone who hasn't been living in the country for most of the past 30 years to thank for this new "crisis from nowhere." ...It encouraged the Quebec federal wing of the Liberal party — the sponsors of the sponsorship scandal — to think that this "nation" formulation would revive their fortunes. ...Confident in his skills as a strategic thinker, Stephen Harper has tried to one-up both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois by recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. ...How will this all turn out? It will either fizzle or explode. - Nelson Wiseman

It seems to be a semantic debate that doesn't serve any purpose. - Steven Harper in June, 2006 (from CBC radio)

When Stephen Harper announced that he intended to introduce a motion in the House of Commons declaring that Quebec constituted a nation within Canada, this seemingly profound gesture was more about political tactics than about setting right historic wrongs. Harper deftly inserted himself between the Bloc Quebecois and a divided Liberal party on the eve on its leadership convention with his sudden initiative. - James Laxer

I'm not going to oppose the motion. ...we've been through this soap opera for long enough and if it can be brought to an end with something that has no great legal or constitutional consequence, then that's one thing. But I think we all need to reflect on what's happened and how these things can get more complicated than they really need to be. ...it would seem that some people are interpreting it to mean something quite dramatic and other people are interpreting it to be much less, which is one of the reasons why these symbolic debates can be so difficult. - Bob Rae

It's an unnecessary step on a slippery slope... But since it says Quebeckers, not Quebec, because it implies no constitutional consequences, and mostly, because it allows us to move on and deal with bigger issues, let's use it to close a door that was foolishly opened. - Justin Trudeau

###

Ontario Prefers Bob Rae Over Any Other Leadership Candidate

Some partisan bloggers who support candidates other than Bob Rae persist in claiming that Rae is unelectable in Ontario. Poll after poll have proved decisively that this is not true.

Today's Globe & Mail said:

...29 per cent of Ontarians believe Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister, well higher than the 22 per cent who picked Mr. Ignatieff and the 20 and 21 per cent, respectively, who picked Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dion, respectively.

“It puts to the test — or to the lie —the notion that Rae carries the most baggage in the province of Ontario and that his five years as premier makes him unacceptable,” said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel.

But don't trust media interpretations. Look at the polls themselves:

Globe-CTV Poll October 18, 2006
Gandalf poll September 14, 2006
Decima poll September 14, 2006
Globe-CTV Poll September 19, 2006

Why is Bob Rae the first choice of Ontarians? If you haven't read it yet, take a gander at this article by a non-partisan senior civil servant during Bob Rae's premiership:

Deconstructing Bob Rae: Political Myth-Making, Ontario Style

###

The Big Mo

In case anyone missed Bob Rae on the Rick Mercer Report, here's a link. (Yes, they both get naked, but the big news is not the skinnydipping but the skinnydipping in northern Ontario in October. Crikey.)

Following his fishing expedition with Bob, Rick Mercer had this to say about the October 15 leadership debate: "For those of you who didn’t catch [the debate] here are the highlights in alphabetical order: Bob Rae. That’s it. End of highlights. ...Bob Rae has the big mo. Standing up there on the stage in front of all those Liberals – Bob Rae looked like a Prime Minister..."

Speaking of the debate, my hands-down favorite blog on it is this one by the Frog Lady. Way to go, Frog Lady!

###

On the Subject of Fighting Back...

I have some replies to attacks on Rae by bloggers recently.

Bob Rae is being painted as a traitor to the party because he gave some money to NDP candidates in the last election. I checked the government disclosure database, and Rae gave donations of $250 and $300 (a total of $550) to two NDP candidates, along with $300 to a Liberal candidate. It's a personal thing whether this bothers you or not, but it doesn't bother me because: (1) All three donations are probably to friends; (2) I have read a fair bit of political biography and I understand that politicians make cross-party friends, and often aren't as partisan as they may seem in a debate (and thank god for that; they need to be able to work together after all); and (3) it's not enough money to make any difference.

Rae's comments about ideas are being misinterpreted to mean that he is not a man of ideas or that he doesn't believe in ideas. It's so ridiculous to say that Bob doesn't have ideas that I don't even know what to say to this one. Go take a look at bobrae.ca. Bob Rae is all about ideas. A leadership race is about choosing a leader, not choosing a platform.

Lots of bloggers are claiming anecdotal evidence that Bob Rae is a disaster in Ontario. There have been three large, independent, credible surveys recently, all showing that Bob Rae has very strong support across the country and especially in Ontario, both in the general public and among Liberals. See here, here, and here. Here are some quotes from the survey results:

* "Dryden and Rae are significantly ahead of other contenders among the general public"
* "Rae does comparatively well in Ontario, where he is in first place"
* "NDP voters are disproportionately attracted to Rae"
* "Bob Rae continues to hold a lead in the number of people who say they would vote Liberal or consider voting Liberal if he was leader... In Ontario, Rae enjoys a wider lead..."
* "Bob Rae has increased his potential to draw soft NDP support, which is a very important segment of voters for the Liberal party to focus on."
* To the question, "Which candidate would make the best Prime Minister?", Liberal party members who said they were going to vote in the candidate selection ballots answered Igantieff 16%, Rae 15%; and in Ontario they answered 18% for both. These were the highest scores of any candidates.

Finally, some people persist in saying that Bob Rae was a disaster as Ontario premier. He was a very good premier. A North America-wide recession struck during his first year, and he was vilified by his own party by coping with it in a fiscally responsible way. The Ontario NDP is still bitter that he didn't embark on a $10 billion auto insurance program while the deficit was skyrocketing. Rae did the right thing. For more information, see here. For my personal recollections of his premiership, see Why I Left the NDP.

###