Stealin' All My Dreams: A Modern Day Protest Song
29 September 2015
"I didn't want to talk about it, so I wrote a song about it."
Greg Keelor
Compelled to add their voice to the chorus of voices protesting Prime
Minister Harper's Conservative government, Blue Rodeo has written the modern
day protest song "Stealin' All My Dreams".
Recorded and filmed on September 9, 2015, the song and video chronicle the
failings of the current government and asks the question, "Have you
forgotten that you work for me?"
"Blue Rodeo does not always speak with one voice. However we feel
collectively that the current administration in Canada has taken us down the
wrong path. We do not seem to be the compassionate and environmentally
conscious nation we once were. As respectful as we are of the variety of
opinions held by our audience, we felt it was time to speak up and add our
voice to the conversation." Jim Cuddy
The song and video are available for free download on BlueRodeo.com. The
facts included in the video are also on the site accompanied by articles
encouraging the reader to delve further.
The key message to all Canadians is please vote on October 19, 2015. And
ideally vote for change.
Etihad's Italian job
22 September 2015
Alitalia's CEO has quit after less than a year on the job.
The Italian carrier has had a long history of turmoil, notably for regular
brushes with financial collapse during the past two decades. But Alitalia
appeared poised for some rare stability after Abu Dhabi-based Etihad bought
a 49% stake in the carrier last year. That was part of a broader partnership
and Etihad-backed restructuring of the Alitalia that called for a fleet
upgrade and a focus on long-haul routes.
While that effort appears to remain on track, it will now happen under an
interim CEO after Silvano Cassano relinquished that same role for
unspecified personal reasons, according to the airline. Cassano previously
was a top executive at carmaker Fiat and clothing retailer Benetton.
Taking over the CEO duties on an interim basis will be
current Alitalia chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, whose past includes a
role as the boss of sports car-maker Ferarri. The Associated Press says
Alitalia's chief operations and financial officers will handle the carrier's
day-to-day operations.
The Wall Street Journal mentions Alitalia's colorful past, describing its
history as "littered with rescue plans, including one in 2008 sponsored by
former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi aimed at avoiding the carrier's
insolvency. Five years later, the Italian government had to orchestrate
another rescue plan to avoid Alitalia folding."
To that point, the Financial Times writes "Cassano's departure will raise
fears that the transition is not going as smoothly as planned when Etihad
took its 49% stake."
Etihad CEO James Hogan said in January that his carrier's equity partnership
with Alitalia represented "the last chance" to save the long-struggling
Italian carrier, according to the Times. He added Etihad's rehab plan for
Alitalia would require a "radical change in its way of working to lower
costs and boost productivity."
21 September 2015 Washington Post Editorial Board
Citizens of Thailand would seem to have good reason these
days to question the generals who have been running the country since
staging a coup in May 2014. They might ask why the junta would have
appointed a committee to draft a constitution reflecting its plan for a faux
democracy, then induced another council they set up to vote it down, forcing
a restart of the process. Thais could wonder, too, why the country’s economy
remains stagnant, or why the regime has been so sluggish in responding to a
terrorist bombing in central Bangkok last month.
Anyone who asks those sensible questions, however, is likely to be deemed in
need of an “attitude adjustment” by the generals’ increasingly erratic
leader, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha. Last week, two opposition
politicians were taken into custody after criticizing the government’s
economic policies; on Sunday a leading journalist, Pravit Rojanaphruk of the
newspaper the Nation, was detained. The three were released Tuesday only
after signing a commitment not to criticize the military’s political moves.
That would include the generals’ torpedoing of their own constitution. A
handpicked committee spent nearly 10 months preparing a charter that would
have restored a veneer of democracy while leaving the military in charge.
Strict controls on political parties were aimed at preventing any more
election victories by followers of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra,
who have won every election in the past 15 years. An appointed senate would
have had the power to block legislation, and a “crisis committee” packed
with generals would have had the authority to step in and take control of
the government any time it deemed it necessary.
As soon as the junta’s drafters completed this authoritarian framework, the
junta-created National Reform Council voted it down. Nearly all of the
council’s military and police representatives joined the negative vote,
apparently acting on instruction from higher-ups. Bangkok analysts wondered
what had happened. Did the military perhaps conclude that its constitution
had no hope of being approved in a popular referendum? Was it wasting time
on purpose, hoping that delay caused by the writing of a new draft would
keep the present regime in place long enough to manage the looming
transition from ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the country’s most revered
figure, to a successor?
As it stands, the elections repeatedly promised by Mr. Prayuth now will not
be held until the end of 2016, at the earliest. That means, at best, more
stagnation for Thailand, which began the century as a prosperous and
promising democracy; at worst it could trigger an explosion of unrest and
more terrorism. Anyone who dares to point that out inside Thailand, however,
is likely to be subjected to a forced “attitude adjustment.” Asked who else
might be arrested, Mr. Prayuth told reporters that “everyone whose comments
cause division” was a potential target.
“If you let them blame me, the people and society will listen to them every
day, and one day they’ll believe in the things they say,” warned the junta
leader. We suspect many already do.
Qatar 777 takes out approach lights on Rwy 27 at MIA
17 September 2015
Two days ago a Qatar Airlines Boeing
777-300, registration A7-BAC performed flight QR-778 from Miami,FL (USA) to
Doha (Qatar). The airplane departed Miami's runway 09 but struck the
approach lights for runway 27 during departure. Both tower, departure
controllers as well as crew maintained routine communication. The aircraft
continued to destination for a landing without further incident about 13.5
hours later.
Those are the bare details.
The facts will no doubt come out in a
more detailed NTSB report; which no doubt Qatar will try to sugar coat.
But there are two key facts here. 1:
The airplane entered the runway at taxiway T1 and therefore had just
2,600metres rather than the full 3,900metres available. 2: Despite
damage to the airplane that was described as substantial the airliner
continued its 13 hour over water flight to Doha.
The airplane left from Gate D14 at Miami
Airport at 20:18 hours local time; it would have been just dark at that
time. The aircraft taxied via taxiway Sierra and entered runway 9 at taxiway
T1 for departure. Runway length available from this point was about 2610 m.
The full length of the
runway is 3,900 metres.
The underbelly of the aircraft impacted
the approach lighting system runway lights during takeoff at 20:32 hours.
The approach lighting system was located 2950 m from the point where the
aircraft entered the runway.
On Sep 17th 2015 the FAA reported the
aircraft struck approach lights on departure from Miami and continued to
destination. The FAA
reported that an inspection revealed damage that was described as
substantial damage to
its belly; the occurrence was rated an accident.
Related NOTAMs:
09/160 (A3018/15) - RWY 27 ALS U/S. 16 SEP 18:28 2015 UNTIL 16 OCT 20:00
2015 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 16 SEP 18:28 2015
09/159 (A3017/15) - RWY 27 ALS U/S. 16 SEP 17:55 2015 UNTIL 16 OCT 20:00
2015. CREATED: 16 SEP 17:55 2015
With a full fuel load for a 14 hour flight the airplane would have been near
its MTOW; the take off distance available from T1 was insufficient. QR has
Boeing Class 3 EFBs (electronic flight bags) fitted in all of their 777s,
used for takeoff/landing performance, charts etc.
So was the full length 09 not available? Did they base their numbers off
full length and then end up departing from T1? Why did they accept a T1
departure; it is clearly mid runway?
It does look like the crew calculated
full length RWY09 with ~3900m TODA available. And ended up taking off with
from T1 (fact) with just 2600m of pavement available.
This could easily have ended a lot worse. The crew would have seen the end
of the runway rushing towards them; did they push the throttles to TOGA?
There are pictures of the damaged lights on PPRUNE; the NOTAM suggests they
will be out of action for a month. And the airline would have crossed over
the freeway at barely 100'.
Yet the crew carried on as though
nothing happened and appear not to have communicated the incident with ATC.
Of course this will not get even a
mention in the Qatari media.
Thailand Suffers As Military Plans To Extend Control: Junta Delivers
Oppression, Not Happiness
12 September 2015 Doug Bandow in Forbes Magazine
Thailand long has been the land of smiles, a friendly,
informal place equally hospitable to backpackers and businessmen. But
politics has gotten ugly in recent years. Now a cartoonish dictator out of a
Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera runs a not-so funny junta which jails
opponents and suppresses free speech. The bombing of a popular Hindu shrine
in Bangkok should act as the famed fire bell in the night: if terrorism
becomes a tactic by the disaffected life in Thailand could generate far more
frowns than smiles.
In May 2014 General Prayuth Chan-ocha seized power. He claimed to have “a
democratic heart,” and his junta promised happiness, prosperity, and
security. But the regime has failed on all three counts. Those denied
political rights and civil liberties, and especially those arrested and
jailed, obviously aren’t happy. Only those now ruling, or with friends among
those ruling, have reason to smile.
The generals also found that economic forces do not yield to military
dictates. Growth has slowed and forecasts for the future have fallen. A
recent analysis called the country’s economic outlook “fragile with risks
skewed to the downside.” Poor economic performance led to a cabinet
reshuffle, with two new generals added. A government spokesman declared: “We
can say the challenges we faced are bigger than all previous governments.”
Military rule only makes it worse.
The response of the authorities to the recent Bangkok bombings has not been
reassuring. With the investigation yielding few answers, officials advanced
and dropped various theories before threatening anyone circulating “false
information” and causing “public confusion and fear.” General-Prime Minister
Prayuth suggested that the police watch the New York police drama “Blue
Bloods” for help: “They will get tips, ideas and insights into their case.”
(Apparently he is not aware of “CSI” and “Law and Order.”) After making
their first arrest of a suspect, yet to be named or charged, the police
claimed$84,000 in reward money for themselves.
The regime may use the bombing as an excuse not only to punish its critics,
but also to extend its rule. General Prayuth originally explained his
seizure of power as necessary “in order for the country to return to normal
quickly,” with new elections to be held within 15 months—which would have
been last month. Then the junta shifted the date to February 2016. Now 2017
is more likely. However, the military might hang onto power until it can
manage the expected royal transition from the revered, but aged and ill,
king to the healthier but less respected crown prince.
Head of the National Council for Peace and Order and army chief, General
Prayut Chan-O-Cha (C), arrives prior the opening of the National Legislative
Assembly in Bangkok on August 7, 2014. (PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL/AFP/Getty
Images)
Generalissimo Prayuth’s rule has been bizarre from the start. The regime
claimed the result of seizing power was neither coup nor junta. The regime
followed George Orwell in creating the National Council for Peace and Order.
Years ago the neighboring Burmese junta called itself the similarly
misleading State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
Despite General-Prime Minister Prayuth’s claim to support democracy, in
March he declared: “Our country has seen so much trouble because we have had
too much democracy.” In fact, he betrays a touch of comic megalomania. On
taking power the newly minted dictator declared that happiness had returned
to Thailand. He penned a song for the people’s edification and appears
weekly in a self-absorbed TV show which all stations are forced to carry.
He believes he should be beyond criticism. Last week he ranted against those
who urged rejection of the draft constitution, written to keep the military
and its allies in power. Legislators ousted by the junta had “no right” to
comment. “These people, now that they are being harsh to me, I will have to
be harsh in return,” the disgruntled dictator declared. While he said he
wouldn’t ban them from speaking, “when the time comes, I will deal with
them.”
Last December he complained that newspapers “made me lose my manners and
have ruined my leader image.” He added: “I will shut them down for real. I
cannot allow them to continue their disrespect. Otherwise, what’s the point
of me being” prime minister and declaring martial law? Irritated with a
journalist’s question, he stated: “Do you want me to use all of my powers?
With my powers, I could shut down all media … I could have you shot.”
Hopefully he wasn’t serious. However, Mr. “Shut-Up-Or-Else” often has
surrendered to his inner autocrat.
Freedom House reported that the coup pushed Thailand backwards from “partly
free” to “not free,” with a reduction in civil liberties and especially
political rights. Human Rights Watch observed: “One year after seizing
power, Thailand’s military junta has used dictatorial power to
systematically repress human rights throughout the country. The regime has
“prosecuted critics of military rule, banned political activity, censored
the media, and tried dissidents in unfair military courts.” While the Thai
military has not been as brutal as its Burmese counterpart, today people in
Burma arguably are freer than those in Thailand. A parliamentary election is
scheduled for November and there are fewer restrictions on speech and the
press in Burma.
For almost a year Generalissimo Prayuth ruled through martial law. On April
1 the junta replaced martial law with equally repressive measures under the
interim constitution, drafted by the military for the military. The regime
declared that whatever it does is “completely legal and constitutional.”
Amnesty International noted in June: “Thai authorities continue to
arbitrarily detain and imprison individuals, prevent or censor meetings and
public events, and otherwise suppress peaceful dissent.”
The military quickly cowed the media, knocking TV and community radio
stations off the air. Those eventually allowed to continue were ordered to
avoid politics. Print publications were instructed not to criticize the
military. Doing so resulted in threats of prosecution.
The generalissimo’s men blocked more than 200 websites, including the HRW
page for Thailand. In August the regime indicted a critic for allegedly
spreading false information about General-Prime Minister Prayuth on the
internet.
The government is prosecuting two online journalists for criminal libel
(defamation) for a 2013 report detailing military involvement in human
smuggling. A group of human rights organizations warned that “the use of the
Computer Crime Act in this case is also particularly troubling, especially
since this appears to be the first time that one of the services of the Thai
armed forces has ever used the CCA against journalists.” The judge dismissed
reliance on the CCA yesterday, but the navy said it may appeal.
Public meetings require government consent, which typically is not granted
to critics. The regime has prevented around 70 public meetings, including
academic events, involving political issues. For instance, the Thai Lawyers
for Human Rights planned a meeting to release its report on human rights
violations by the junta, but the military banned the event as “likely to
cause disturbance.”
Since taking control the Prayuth dictatorship has arrested or detained more
than 1,000 people, including student protestors, opposition politicians,
independent journalists, and even critical academics. Many were summoned for
“attitude adjustment” through TV or radio announcements; failing to respond
risked prosecution, causing some of those targeted to go into exile. The
last elected prime minister was charged with criminal negligence for what
most democracies recognize as typical pork barrel politics.
Many arrested have been held incommunicado, which, warned HRW, increases
“the risk of enforced disappearance, torture, and other ill treatment.”
Indeed, there have been scores of credible claims of torture, but human
rights activists reporting on those cases have been punished.
Thais released, noted AI, continue “to be subjected to conditions imposed on
them upon release, including restrictions on their rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly, expression and movement. They will face prosecution
should they breach the conditions.” Some 700 have been tried in military
courts, noted for neither independence nor fairness. This process continues,
observed Amnesty: “for acts that have been criminalized in violation of
Thailand’s human rights obligations, including participation in peaceful
gatherings and carrying out other peaceful acts of expression.”
The government banned anything seen as a political protest. Public
gatherings of five or more are prohibited, but when people meet in smaller
groups in protest they also face arrest. Thais have been detained for
standing, eating, wearing black on the king’s birthday, playing the French
(revolutionary) national anthem “La Marseillaise,” applying duct tape to
their mouths, making the Hunger Games three-finger salute, reading George
Orwell’s 1984 in public, wearing t-shirts with political slogans and
messages seen as political, holding blank paper, displaying papers and
placards with anti-coup messages, selling products with former prime
minister Shinawatra Thaksin’s face, talking to journalists, aiding arrested
protestors, and distributing a poem on democracy.
Students usually take the lead in the few demonstrations which still occur.
On the coup’s May 22nd anniversary more than 40 protestors were arrested.
One group went to Bangkok’s Arts and Cultural Centre and stood staring at a
clock. For this act 20 people were arrested and roughly treated—one ended up
with a dislocated cornea, another with a damaged spine. Three other
activists were detained for planning to file a criminal complaint against
the generals for staging the coup. Protests elsewhere resulted in additional
arrests. All face prosecution for illegal assembly, with potential sentences
up to seven years in prison.
The generalissimo and his cronies ordered university staff to prevent any
political activity on campus. Much like the Egyptian military dictatorship,
the regime instructed college administrators and education bureaucrats to
monitor and restrict student protests.
The junta has dramatically increased use of Thailand’s oppressive lese-majeste
laws. The military is employing these abusive measures to halt even modest
criticism in the name of “national security.” FH explained: “The charges
have been used to target activists, scholars, students, journalists, foreign
authors, and politicians.” There were only two pending prosecutions when the
military took control; now there are at least 56 cases. Moreover, lese-majeste
prosecutions are being tried in closed door military courts, with the
verdict preordained. Two recent cases, involving Facebook messages, resulted
in sentences of 28 and 30 years after guilty pleas.
Overall, AI warned of “an atmosphere of self-censorship and fear” compounded
by legal restrictions, prosecutions, and “informal pressure and public
threats by authorities, including the prime minister, against media and
civil society who voice criticisms.” Private violence backs the junta.
Warned FH: “attacks on civil society leaders have been reported, and even in
cases where perpetrators are prosecuted, there is a perception of impunity
for the ultimate sponsors of the violence.”
Nothing will change in the future if the generalissimo and his apparatchiks
have their way. For years a business-royalist-military-bureaucratic elite
controlled Thai politics, putting its interests before that of the rural
poor, who were expected to accept their unfortunate lot in life. That
changed with the 2001 election of Thaksin (as he is commonly known),
shocking members of a ruling class who forthrightly insisted on their right
to hold the majority in political bondage. There is much to criticize in his
rule, from self-dealing to abusive-policing, but his opponents were most
angered by the fact that they no longer ruled. Thaksin’s success triggered
an extended, sometimes violent political struggle highlighted by two coups,
the first in 2006. Then the military’s rewrite of the constitution failed to
prevent his allies from again taking power. Obviously Generalissimo Prayuth
doesn’t want a repeat performance.
Reducing state power and decentralizing government authority would be the
strategy most likely to enable antagonistic Thai factions to live together
in relative political peace. But that path never was considered by the
generalissimo and his cronies. The regime established three
military-appointed bodies to make laws and draft a new constitution:
National Legislative Assembly, National Reform Council, and Constitution
Drafting Committee. The proposed constitution, submitted by the CDC to the
NRC for its vote on September 6, is designed to prevent, not advance,
democracy. Explained Pavin Chachavalpongpun of Japan’s Kyoto University:
“The military is now trying to put in place an infrastructure through
constitutional drafting to ensure that even when it is forced out of power,
it could continue to control Thai politics.”
Niran Pitakwatchare, a member of the National Human Rights Commission,
complained that “This charter draft is a step back from empowering the
people because it gives the state a firmer grip and deprives people of the
rights they earlier enjoyed.” Even some of the politicians once expected to
benefit from military intervention oppose the draft constitution. Nipit
Intarasombat, deputy leader of the anti-Thaksin Democrat Party, warned that
the document would “give unlimited power to that government.”
The proposal immunizes the junta for all crimes committed. Elections would
be orchestrated to fracture votes and encourage coalitions over single party
government. The draft provides for the possibility of an unelected prime
minister. There would be a largely appointive Senate. Technically
non-partisan but overtly biased administrative and judicial organs, such as
the Anti-Corruption Commission and Constitutional Court, would continue
their role to destroy democratic movements such as Thaksin’s. The military
would dominate the new National Strategic Reform and Reconciliation
Committee, which would allow the armed forces to intervene in a crisis.
The military’s readiness to manipulate the system is evident from its
unwillingness to provide justice for the bloodshed of 2010. Noted HRW, after
seizing power the junta expedited action against Thaksin supporters accused
of violence. In contrast, “despite clear photographic and other evidence,
only a handful of violent crimes committed by” the military have been
investigated. Generalissimo Prayuth appears determined to transform Thailand
into what once was said of Prussia—an army possessing a state rather than a
state possessing an army.
The NRC could reject the proposed constitution and the people could vote it
down in a planned referendum. But then the military would remain in charge
and appoint another panel to draft another constitution, which likely would
be no better than the one rejected. This rigged process could go on for
years.
Yet further repression would sap the junta’s already declining legitimacy.
Worse, it would encourage violent resistance. After all, by insisting that
he cannot be criticized, held accountable, or removed by the people,
Generalissimo Prayuth risks convincing Thais that violence is their only
option. It is an alarming prospect for a country surrounded by countries
which have been overwhelmed by conflict.
After the coup the U.S. blocked some aid, disinvited Bangkok from maritime
maneuvers, and scaled back the annual “Cobra Gold” exercise. The Obama
administration also publicly urged a return to democracy, earning criticism
from the regime for having “negatively affected the reputation of the
country.” But newly confirmed ambassador Glyn Davies, previously responsible
for North Korea, is expected to reaffirm Washington’s support for liberty.
Such efforts would be most effective if coordinated with likeminded Asian
and European democracies. The generalissimo and his supporters obviously can
ignore such foreign “interference.” But then they should be treated with the
contempt they deserve.
Former U.S. defense attaché Desmond Walton warned that criticism “threatens
to undermine one of the Obama administration’s signature foreign-policy
initiatives, the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.” In particular, he worried
that Thailand “offers U.S. forces the only reliable access point to mainland
Asia.” However, rising Asian powers should take the lead in balancing
against China. The U.S. certainly has no reason to get involved in a
conflict on the Asian mainland. Moreover, Bangkok is not likely to follow
Burma’s mistake in becoming a veritable satellite of China, which eventually
encouraged the Burmese military to reverse course and open to the West.
Anyway, an unpopular junta run by an unstable general is a dubious pillar
for U.S. security policy.
It’s tempting not to take Thailand’s blustering generalissimo seriously.
Noted HRW’s John Sifton: “Prayuth seems genuinely flabbergasted by his
critics. To hear him tell it, the junta has not seized power, don’t want
power, haven’t exercised power, and don’t understand why anyone fails to
understand their motives and explanations in not seizing power and not
wanting it while holding it all the same. It really is like Alice in
Wonderland.”
Unfortunately, in the Thai version the slightly mad Queen of Hearts not only
bosses people around but jails them. So far no one has lost his or her head,
but if opposition rises, and especially if it grows violent, that might
change. The longer the generals and their cronies rule, the less likely
Thailand is going to enjoy stable democracy.
Jeremy Corbyn - the possible reinvention of new Labour
12 September 2015
Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the British Labour party, in a
stunning first-round victory that dwarfed even the mandate for Tony Blair in
1994.
Corbyn won with nearly 59.5% of first-preference votes, beating rivals Andy
Burnham, who trailed on 19%, and Yvette Cooper who received 17%. The
“Blairite” candidate Liz Kendall came last on 4.5%.
Strange events are abroad in British politics. In May the
Labour Party lost an election in which, under Ed Miliband, it was generally
considered too far left of voters. In the race to replace him Mr Corbyn, a
veteran socialist (and teetotaller), has outperformed his three opponents,
and his own expectations, energising the party’s grass roots and inspiring
thousands of new members to join up. He commands the support of more local
branches than any of his rivals, the endorsements of the country’s two
biggest trade unions and a lead among Labour’s overall selectorate.
He is the guy next door that you could have a debate with
down the pub; maybe disagree with; but still be pals. he would not look, or
sound, out of place in The Last of the Summer Wine. (BBC tv comedy for
anyone who needs to google it!).
Minutes after his victory, Corbyn said the message is that
people are “fed up with the injustice and the inequality” of Britain.
“The media and many of us, simply didn’t understand the views of young
people in our country. They were turned off by the way politics was being
conducted. We have to and must change that. The fightback gathers speed and
gathers pace,” he said.
The north London MP is one of the most unexpected winners of the party
leadership in its history, after persuading Labour members and supporters
that the party needed to draw a line under the New Labour era of Blair and
Gordon Brown.
Having been catapulted from a little-known member of parliament to leader of
the opposition, he will now set about apologising for the Iraq war and
strongly opposing cuts to public services and welfare. He will start off on
Saturday with a speech to a rally in London in support of refugees.
Addressing the party’s new members who helped propel him to victory, he
said: “Welcome to our party, welcome to our movement. And I say to those
returning to the party, who were in it before and felt disillusioned and
went away: welcome back, welcome home.”
Corbyn also launched a forthright attack on the media, saying its behaviour
had been at times “intrusive, abusive and simply wrong”.
“I say to journalists: attack public political figures. That is ok but
please don’t attack people who didn’t ask to be put in the limelight. Leave
them alone in all circumstances,” he said.
In generous tributes to the other candidates, he applauded Burnham for his
work on health, Kendall for her friendship during the campaign and Cooper
for helping to shape the political narrative on Britain taking more
refugees.
The new leader concluded by saying the poorest were suffering a terrible
burden of austerity and have seen their wages cut or are forced to rely on
food banks under the Conservatives.
“It’s not right, it’s not necessary and it’s got to change,” he said. “We go
forward as a movement and a party, stronger, bigger and more determined than
we have been for a very long time ... We are going to reach out to everyone
in this country, so no one is left on the side, so everyone has a decent
place in society.”
Throughout his speech, Corbyn stressed that he would be inclusive, in
comments designed to allay the fear of centrist MPs that they may no longer
have much of a place in his party.
Attention will now turn to who serves in Corbyn’s top team, with MPs such as
John McDonnell, Angela Eagle, Sadiq Khan, and possibly leadership rival
Burnham tipped for key roles.
The difficulty of this task was underlined as Cooper, the shadow home
secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, became
the first to say they would not serve. Jamie Reed, a shadow health minister,
published his resignation letter on Twitter while Corbyn was still speaking.
Corbyn’s victory is all the more remarkable because he started as the rank
outsider, behind rivals Burnham, Cooper and Kendall, and only scraped on to
the ballot paper when about 15 Labour MPs lent him their votes in order to
widen the debate.
Initially, the odds of him winning were around 100-1, but his campaign was
boosted when he won the support of two of the biggest unions, Unite and
Unison, and became the only candidate to vote against the Conservatives’
welfare bill while the others abstained.
His biggest challenge will be uniting the Labour MPS who overwhelmingly
backed other candidates by 210 to 20. He is basically a lightweight
backbencher propelled into the hottest seat in the party,
During his three decades in parliament, Corbyn has spent much of his time
championing causes such as the Stop the War coalition, campaigning against
the private finance initiative and supporting peace efforts in the Middle
East.
In the campaign, he promised to give Labour members a much greater say in
the party’s policymaking process, in a move that could sideline MPs. His key
proposals include renationalisation of the railways, apologising for
Labour’s role in the Iraq war, quantitative easing to fund infrastructure,
opposing austerity, controlling rents and creating a national education
service.
But turning the clocks back 50 years is no solution. So far
Corbynism appears to be less about creating something new and more about how
to shore up an old status quo; reinstatement over reinvention.
Corbyn appears to have engaged younger voters. They deserve
ideas responding to the convulsions—digitisation, automation, globalisation—through
which they are living. Others on the left are thinking big about these. A
post capitalist world, that has embraced trends like free information (think
Wikipedia) and the “sharing economy” (think Airbnb), along with the
explosion of data and networks that they symptomise, may need a very
different form of government.
The Tory reaction was predictable: Defence Secretary Michael
Fallon, giving the Conservative Party's reaction, said: "Labour are now a
serious risk to our nation's security, our economy's security and your
family's security.
"Whether it's weakening our defences, raising taxes on jobs and earnings,
racking up more debt and welfare or driving up the cost of living by
printing money - Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will hurt working people."
The good news; at least British politics may become
interesting again.
Curiouser and curiouser
Thailand spins in circles as the generals’ friends vote down their draft
constitution
11 September 2015 The Economist
Only the wildest optimists still believe that Thailand’s military junta,
which seized power in a coup last year, intends to step down soon. A farce
that played out in the Parliament House in Bangkok on September 6th has made
that even plainer. In a televised vote following a cheesy group photo, a
junta-backed National Reform Council voted to abandon a proposed new
constitution which a junta-backed set of drafters had spent ten months
drawing up. The decision starts a new drafting process, which will take
another seven months at least. There is little chance of fresh elections
until at least 2017, and possibly long after that.
When the generals launched their bloodless coup during political unrest in
May 2014 they promised to “bring happiness back to Thailand”. The draft
constitutional framework was supposed to usher that in. Its authors, doing
the junta’s bidding, came up with a set of rules which allowed for elections
but neutered the victors. The draft seemed designed to produce weak
governing coalitions able to be bossed about by higher powers. It would have
introduced a largely appointed senate. And it removed a requirement that the
prime minister be elected.
A last-minute addition to the draft was the naming of an extraordinary
committee tasked with ensuring that future elected governments stick to the
social and economic reforms which the junta says it is putting in place. The
two-dozen bigwigs to serve on this committee would have included heads of
the armed forces and police, as well as former trusted prime ministers and
other assorted bureaucrats. The committee would have been entitled to snatch
power from elected politicians whenever two-thirds of its number agreed that
it had cause.
The members of the National Reform Council were appointed from across
Bangkok’s monied classes. Some may have blanched at backing such a lopsided
set-up. Despite warnings from the junta not to comment, the draft had been
roundly blasted not only by the populist Pheu Thai party—which held power
before the army’s coup—but also by the Democrats, the party which Thailand’s
elites traditionally favour.
Many others on the council, however, may have voted against the unpopular
draft because they recognised it had no chance of winning the public
referendum which the junta had stipulated. The requirement that the draft
had to be approved by half of all eligible voters, not a majority of votes
cast, seemed an impossibly tall order. It may have been laid down in haste
and error. Yet the politicking that would have preceded a vote would have
merely underscored the social rifts that the junta claimed to set out to
heal when it took power. And a referendum defeat would greatly dent the
junta’s standing.
Yet the final blow to the constitution, and the most curious, appears to be
that the army itself lost interest in it. Thirty of the 33 members of the
security establishment who sit on the council voted against the proposed
charter, reportedly under instruction from their superiors. One
interpretation is that the junta’s hardliners, having tested the appetite
for the kind of “managed” democracy they appeared to believe in, decided
that the easier path was to maintain their direct rule.
Perhaps the process was intended to be a time-waster from the start. The
failure to produce a new constitution that is even vaguely palatable to
Thais is another sign that the generals may be digging in for the long
run—shades of the military rule that Thailand endured in the 1950s and
1960s. They are searching for a magic touch as the economy slows—it grew by
just 1.6% at an annualised rate in the second quarter. In August the junta
pushed aside its chief economic adviser. Strangely, his replacement is
Somkid Jatusripitak, a former deputy prime minister in the government of
Thaksin Shinawatra, which was toppled in a previous coup in 2006. Mr Somkid
is the architect of many of the populist policies that first incited Mr
Thaksin’s opponents in the establishment to oust him.
Meanwhile the junta’s response to last month’s deadly bombing outside a
popular shrine in central Bangkok—a direct challenge to the generals’
assurance that they can best keep Thailand safe—has also underwhelmed. Days
after the attack bystanders were still finding shrapnel and even human
remains at the site. And it looked odd that a police commander celebrated
the first arrest of a suspect by giving the investigating officers a cash
reward. Two men, said to be Turkish and Chinese citizens, have been detained
in connection with the attack, which some think may have been carried out in
revenge for Thailand’s decision to deport ethnic Uighurs to China, where
they face persecution. Authorities have pooh-poohed talk of international
terrorism, claiming that the culprits may be people-smugglers retaliating
against a crackdown.
The next step with the constitution is for the generals to appoint a new
batch of lawyers. They will have six months to produce a fresh draft. Yet
nothing guarantees that they will come up with anything more appealing. And
the process will certainly be interrupted, or indeed completely abandoned,
in the event of the death of Thailand’s ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who
at 87 is the world’s longest-reigning monarch. The junta is presumed to be
extremely keen to control a potentially turbulent succession. On September
7th palace officials said that the sovereign was recovering from a chest
infection that had been diagnosed a few days earlier. For now the mood in
the country inclines toward jitteriness. That same morning some Thais
thought that a meteor, which exploded dramatically in the sky, had to be a
worrying omen.
We are all to blame for Europe's refugee crisis
7 September 2015
Al Arabiya
Modern media can be a rather terrible thing: an assault on
one’s senses. Then again, perhaps sometimes we ought to suffer the effect of
that, while being totally aware of what we are getting ourselves into.
Because it appears we suffer another effect at present: being oblivious to
the suffering and destruction visited upon the noble and beautiful people of
Syria.
Fifty years ago, we would not have been able to see the gruesome killings
carried out by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or the chemical
attacks against civilians, blamed by much of the world on the Syrian regime.
As human beings, the more we see such things up front and personal, the more
we become normalized to it and see it as ordinary.
That has an effect on the human psyche that we should not underestimate. I
do not want my children’s generation to look at images of horror, except to
recoil in horror and be motivated to do something about it. The more we see
such images, however, the more they become typical to us.
For that reason, I have not wanted to look at pictures of young Syrian
refugees, especially Aylan Kurdi, the toddler who drowned en route to
Europe, trying to escape the ravages of war in a rubber dinghy. In that same
rickety craft, according to reports, was his five-year-old brother Galip,
his mother Rihan, and 10 more people. We do not have pictures of them.
Much is being made of the fact that these refugees felt they had to take a
rubber dingy, rather than be allowed access to European states on the basis
of suffering a tremendous humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Criticism is being levelled at Europe for treating the refugee crisis with
such callousness, making it ever more difficult for refugees to reach our
shores, and more likely that hundreds and thousands will die in the process.
Such criticism is wholly justifiable, because European politicians are far
concerned about not receiving more migrants than they are about dealing with
this humanitarian crisis.
Some politicians appear happy to allow the southern-most
states to bear the brunt of ‘dealing’ with the issue (and they are not
dealing with it well), rather than turn this into a Europe-wide issue that
requires a Europe-wide response - a response that would make successive
generations proud of ours rather than ashamed of it.
However, there are two greater criticisms to be made. There is a reason why
European states are the destination for these refugees: because they do not
think they have many other places to go. If they manage to get to Europe,
they believe, they may not be treated well, but if they make the trip they
will have a way to survive.
These refugees are Syrians. They are part of the Arab world - they come from
its heart. Some countries in the region have accepted a substantial number
of refugees. Turkey, which is not part of the Arab world, hosts almost 2
million Syrian refugees. Lebanon has more than a million, and Jordan almost
750,000. However, within the richest parts of the Arab world - the Gulf
states - the number of Syrian refugees is embarrassingly low.
There are more Syrian refugees in Brazil - across the Atlantic Ocean - than
there are in most Gulf states. Even small countries such as Armenia or
Austria have accepted more Syrian refugees than most Gulf states, which have
far more wealth. How can that be?
In 100 years, will historians note that ‘Arab unity’ meant Syrians were
unable to find refuge in the most affluent Arab countries, and had to flee
elsewhere, often many thousands of miles away? Is that the legacy that is to
be inherited?
There is another criticism to be made - not simply of Europe or the Arab
world, but of the international community. Kurdi’s life ended tragically,
but the international community could have avoided such an outcome. The
refugee crisis is part of the humanitarian crisis, beyond which is the state
in which the people of Syria find themselves.
This terrible conflict has raged for four years, and will be marked as the
great and awful disaster of our generation. How great the human cost, and
how little effort from the international community to confront it. Syrians
have suffered from the tyranny of President Bashar al-Assad, the extremism
of ISIS, and the unwillingness of the international community to truly deal
with both.
As we gaze at the pictures of young innocence like those of Kurdi, let us
remember that we could have saved him and many others. Will we allow his
death to pass us by, after the likes and shares on social media? The people
of Syria deserve far better than that.
Great nations are built by refugees
and immigrants
7 September 2015
Last Friday I overheard a couple of people at the airport FBO talking about
the refugee problem. They were not being generous.
Which is strange in a great nation built on 200 years of
immigration.
I suggested that it may in fact be a refugee opportunity; not
just for the countries that welcome the refugees but also to rebuild nations
like Syria so that their people do not want or need to leave.
I was not taken very seriously.
Every day our news broadcasts are showing scenes of Syrian
refugees struggling toward safety — or in the case of Aylan Kurdi, 3,
drowning on that journey.
How did this start and where does responsibility lie. The
Iraq war destabilized Syria to some degree, but Syria might have blown up
anyway. It was a minority-run dictatorship that had repressed previous
blow-ups (e.g. Hama 1982), and with the Arab Spring, Syrians were inspired
to protest--and then Assad started massacring people, so it became a civil
war. Assad's repression then led to the rise of IS. The USA did not start
this but like other nations the USA does have a moral responsibility to help
where it can. And the USA is not the only country that has made little
effort to date.
In in a nation of immigrants - be it Canada or the USA or
Australia or some of Europe, if you don’t see yourself or your family
members in those images of today’s refugees, you need an empathy
transplant.]
It took a little boy's broken body washed up on a Turkisg
beach to make the plight of the refugees into front page news.
Aylan’s death reflected a systematic failure of world leadership, from Arab
capitals to European ones, from Moscow to Washington. This failure occurred
at three levels:
■ The Syrian civil war has dragged on for four years now, taking almost
200,000 lives, without serious efforts to stop the bombings. Creating a safe
zone would at least allow Syrians to remain in the country.
■ As millions of Syrian refugees swamped surrounding countries, the world
shrugged. United Nations aid requests for Syrian refugees are only 41
percent funded, and the World Food Program was recently forced to slash its
food allocation for refugees in Lebanon to just $13.50 per person a month.
Half of Syrian refugee children are unable to go to school. So of course
loving parents strike out for Europe.
■ Driven by xenophobia and demagogy, some Europeans have done their best to
stigmatize refugees and hamper their journeys. That said other Europeans
have been rearkable in both generosity and accpetance.
This is not a massive invasion; about 4,000 people are arriving daily in a
continent with more than half a billion inhabitants. This is manageable, if
there is political commitment and will.
We all know that the world failed refugees in the run-up to World War II.
The U.S. refused to allow Jewish refugees to disembark from a ship, the St.
Louis, that had reached Miami. The ship returned to Europe, and some
passengers died in the Holocaust. The world also failed its refugees after
the war. A grim and little told story.
Aylan, who had relatives in Canada who wanted to give him a home, found no
port. He died on our watch.
Then there are the Persian Gulf countries. Amnesty International reports
that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates haven’t accepted a
single Syrian refugee (although they have allowed Syrians to stay without
formal refugee status). Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s bombings of Yemen have
only added to the global refugee crisis.
Assimilating refugees is difficult. It’s easy to welcome
people at the airport, but more complex to provide jobs and absorb people
with different values. Of course the real solution isn’t to resettle Syrians
but to allow them to go home. People want to return to live in their homes.
In the meantime it would be generous to remember that some of
the world's great nations have been built by immigrants.
The Refugee Crisis Isn’t a ‘European Problem’
5 September 2015 -
The New York Times - Michael Ignatief
Those of us outside Europe are watching the unbelievable images of the
Keleti train station in Budapest, the corpse of a toddler washed up on a
Turkish beach, the desperate Syrian families chancing their lives on the
night trip to the Greek islands — and we keep being told this is a European
problem.
The Syrian civil war has created more than four million refugees. The United
States has taken in about 1,500 of them. The United States and its allies
are at war with the Islamic State in Syria — fine, everyone agrees they are
a threat — but don’t we have some responsibility toward the refugees fleeing
the combat? If we’ve been arming Syrian rebels, shouldn’t we also be helping
the people trying to get out of their way? If we’ve failed to broker peace
in Syria, can’t we help the people who can’t wait for peace any longer?
It’s not just the United States that keeps pretending the refugee
catastrophe is a European problem. Look at countries that pride themselves
on being havens for the homeless. Canada, where I come from? As few as 1,074
Syrians, as of August. Australia? No more than 2,200. Brazil? Fewer than
2,000, as of May.
The worst are the petro states. As of last count by Amnesty International,
how many Syrian refugees have the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia taken in?
Zero. Many of them have been funneling arms into Syria for years, and what
have they done to give new homes to the four million people trying to flee?
Nothing.
The brunt of the crisis has fallen on the Turks, the Egyptians, the
Jordanians, the Iraqis and the Lebanese. Funding appeals by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have failed to meet their targets.
The squalor in the refugee camps has become unendurable. Now the refugees
have decided, en masse, that if the international community won’t help them,
if neither Russia nor the United States is going to force the war to an end,
they won’t wait any longer. They are coming our way. And we are surprised?
Blaming the Europeans is an alibi and the rest of our excuses — like the
refugees don’t have the right papers — are sickening.
Political leadership from outside Europe could reverse the paralysis and
mutual recrimination inside Europe. The United Nations system to register
refugees is overwhelmed. Countries like Hungary say they can’t resettle them
all on their own. The obvious solution is for Canada, Australia, the United
States, Brazil and other countries to announce that they are willing to send
processing teams to Budapest, Athens and the other major entry points to
register refugees and process them for admission.
Countries will set their own targets, but for the United States and Canada,
for example, a minimum of 25,000 Syrian refugees is a good place to start.
(The United States’ recent promise to take in 5,000 to 8,000 Syrian refugees
next year is still far too small.) Churches, mosques, community groups and
families could agree to sponsor and resettle refugees. Most of the burdened
countries — Hungary, Greece, Turkey, Italy — would accept help in a
heartbeat. Once these states take a lead, other countries — including those
wretched autocrats in the Gulf States — could be shamed into doing their
part.
So why are our leaders — President Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister Tony Abbott and President Dilma Rousseff — doing so little?
Resettling refugees, they fear, will trigger an even greater exodus, and
they don’t know how their teams could handle the chaos that would result.
Tough, resourceful management — clear quotas for Syrian refugees (especially
those with young families), simplified procedures and a commitment to
airlift people out quickly — could solve these problems.
Most of all, however, leaders aren’t acting because no one back home is
putting any pressure on them. Now, thanks to heart-sickening photographs,
let’s hope the pressure grows.
This is a truly biblical movement of refugees and it demands a global
response. If governments won’t help refugees escape Syria, smugglers and
human traffickers will, and the deadly toll will rise.
Once the Europeans know that their democratic friends are ready to take in
their fair share, it will become easier for them to take theirs, and the
momentum might emerge to reform the 1951 Refugee Convention, so that all
those fleeing civil war, state collapse and murderous militias will get the
same protection as those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution.
Let’s remember that we used to be able to rise to the occasion. My country,
Canada, sent a government minister to Vienna in late 1956 to support a
processing center that took in hundreds of Hungarians and airlifted them to
Canada after the Soviets crushed the Hungarian uprising. The Hungarians
themselves seem to forget that they, too, were once refugees. In the late
1970s and early 1980s, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States
received hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people. There were voices,
on both occasions, that warned, this will trigger a flood. It did — and what
excellent citizens these Vietnamese and Hungarians have been.
The Vietnamese and Hungarians were fleeing Communism. What’s holding back
sympathy for the Syrians? They’ve been barrel-bombed in Aleppo by their own
regime, they’ve been tortured, kidnapped and massacred by miscellaneous
jihadis and opposition militias. They’ve been in refugee camps for years,
waiting for that cruelly deceiving fiction “the international community” to
come to their aid. Now, when they take to the roads, to the boats and to the
trains, all our political leaders can think of is fences, barbed wire and
more police.
What must Syrians, camped on the street outside the Budapest railway
station, be thinking of all that fine rhetoric of ours about human rights
and refugee protection? If we fail, once again, to show that we mean what we
say, we will be creating a generation with abiding hatred in its heart.
So if compassion won’t do it, maybe prudence and fear might. God help us if
these Syrians do not forgive us our indifference.
Michael Ignatieff is a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Thailand Suffers As Military Plans To Extend Control: Junta Delivers
Oppression, Not Happiness
4 September 2015 - Forbes Magazine
Thailand long has been the land of smiles, a friendly,
informal place equally hospitable to backpackers and businessmen. But
politics has gotten ugly in recent years. Now a cartoonish dictator out of a
Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera runs a not-so funny junta which jails
opponents and suppresses free speech. The bombing of a popular Hindu shrine
in Bangkok should act as the famed fire bell in the night: if terrorism
becomes a tactic by the disaffected life in Thailand could generate far more
frowns than smiles.
In May 2014 General Prayuth Chan-ocha seized power. He
claimed to have “a democratic heart,” and his junta promised happiness,
prosperity, and security. But the regime has failed on all three counts.
Those denied political rights and civil liberties, and especially those
arrested and jailed, obviously aren’t happy. Only those now ruling, or with
friends among those ruling, have reason to smile.
The generals also found that economic forces do not yield to military
dictates. Growth has slowed and forecasts for the future have fallen. A
recent analysis called the country’s economic outlook “fragile with risks
skewed to the downside.” Poor economic performance led to a cabinet
reshuffle, with two new generals added. A government spokesman declared: “We
can say the challenges we faced are bigger than all previous governments.”
Military rule only makes it worse.
The response of the authorities to the recent Bangkok bombings has not been
reassuring. With the investigation yielding few answers, officials advanced
and dropped various theories before threatening anyone circulating “false
information” and causing “public confusion and fear.” General-Prime Minister
Prayuth suggested that the police watch the New York police drama “Blue
Bloods” for help: “They will get tips, ideas and insights into their case.”
(Apparently he is not aware of “CSI” and “Law and Order.”) After making
their first arrest of a suspect, yet to be named or charged, the police
claimed$84,000 in reward money for themselves.
The regime may use the bombing as an excuse not only to punish its critics,
but also to extend its rule. General Prayuth originally explained his
seizure of power as necessary “in order for the country to return to normal
quickly,” with new elections to be held within 15 months—which would have
been last month. Then the junta shifted the date to February 2016. Now 2017
is more likely. However, the military might hang onto power until it can
manage the expected royal transition from the revered, but aged and ill,
king to the healthier but less respected crown prince.
Stephen Harper wants a fourth term as prime minister. He
faces a tough fight
29 August 2015 The Economist
The hard-nosed, frontiersman’s personality of Stephen Harper has dominated
Canadian politics for a decade. However it turns out, therefore, the federal
election on October 19th will be fateful. If the Conservative prime minister
wins a fourth consecutive term in office, he will be the first leader to do
so since 1908. If he loses, it will be the end of an era, and what comes
next will be very different. The election might well bring to power the
left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP), which has never governed Canada
before.
To forestall that prospect, Mr Harper triggered the campaign earlier than he
had to. On August 2nd he asked the governor-general to dissolve parliament,
giving his Conservative Party 11 weeks to put its case to the voters. That
is double the length of recent election campaigns.
He needs the extra time. The slogan emblazoned on the Conservative campaign
bus is “Safer Canada/Stronger Economy”. Although the country feels
relatively secure, its economy is hardly vigorous. As the world’s
fifth-largest producer of oil, Canada has been hurt by the collapse in
prices. The economy contracted in the first five months of 2015. Confidence
among consumers and small businesses is sinking. The Conservatives may break
their promise to balance the budget after seven years of deficit. All this
has handed a cudgel to the opposition: the NDP and the centrist Liberals.
The politician best placed to wield it is Thomas Mulcair, who leads the NDP.
Formed in 1961 from a merger of socialist and union groups, the party has
governed five provinces but was thought to lean too far left to win a
federal election. That changed in May, when it won power in Alberta, Mr
Harper’s political home, ending four decades of rule by the Progressive
Conservatives, a provincial party much like the prime minister’s. The
Conservatives’ fortress in western Canada no longer looks impregnable. Polls
suggest that the Conservatives and the NDP are running neck and neck, with
the Liberals trailing.
The NDP would bring change, though just how much is unclear. It would raise
taxes on big companies and makes vaguer promises to support the
manufacturing sector. It would finance 1m child-care places rather than
support families directly, as the Conservatives have done. Mr Mulcair, a
veteran of Quebec provincial politics, has proved himself a political
scrapper. As leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, he has
exploited ethical lapses under the Conservatives. The campaign may offer
more opportunities: the trial of a senator in an expenses scandal is likely
to embarrass the ruling party, even though he resigned from the Conservative
caucus in 2013. But the hot-tempered Mr Mulcair has yet to show that he is
prime-ministerial material. He fluffed his answer to an easy question about
corporate taxes, and has sent confused messages about whether he supports an
east-west pipeline to transport Alberta crude.
Similar doubts surround the other opposition contender, Justin Trudeau. A
year ago he seemed likely to win. That would have been a return to
normality: the Liberals governed Canada for most of the 20th century, most
memorably under Mr Trudeau’s, father, Pierre. But Conservative adverts
attacking the son as inexperienced proved effective (even though, at 43, he
is just three years younger than Mr Harper was when he became prime
minister). Mr Trudeau hurt his standing with civil libertarians by backing
tough security legislation proposed by the government while promising to
soften it after winning the election. In an attempt to win back support from
left-of-centre voters, he is advocating the legalisation of marijuana and
the imposition of a price on carbon (also backed by the NDP). His relative
youth may appeal to ballot-shy younger voters.
Two-thirds of Canadians say they want a change of government. Mr Mulcair has
offered to govern in coalition with the Liberals, if necessary, to bring
that about; Mr Trudeau has so far been cool to the idea.
Despite the anti-incumbency mood and the weak economy, Mr Harper brings
formidable weaponry to the contest. He has been building the country’s most
effective political machine since 2003, when he united Canada’s various
right-leaning parties under the Conservative banner. He imposed iron
discipline on three successive governments, the first two of which lacked a
majority in the House of Commons. Backbenchers were kept in line, rivals
disposed of. Luck played a part in Mr Harper’s longevity. The Liberals put
up ineffectual leaders in earlier elections and the commodity boom spared
Canada the worst effects of the financial crisis. But Mr Harper’s skill
mattered as much.
Now, with characteristic belligerence, he has seized the initiative. By
calling the election early, he has silenced unions and other anti-government
groups, which had launched a barrage of hostile adverts in preparation for
the poll. Now that the campaign is officially on, they will be subject to
much stricter spending limits than parties. The Conservatives, meanwhile,
can ramp up spending; they have more cash than the NDP and the Liberals.
Mr Harper will use it to appeal to the groups he has assiduously courted
throughout his time in office, such as Ukrainian immigrants and Jews. On a
campaign stop in Mount Royal, a largely Jewish area of Montreal, he flaunted
his support for Israel and criticised Muslim women who veil their faces at
citizenship ceremonies (though the Conservatives are generally
pro-immigration). The economy may be wobbling, but Conservatives will ask:
can Canadians really trust the excitable Mr Mulcair, or the callow Mr
Trudeau, to steady it? The race may be long; it is unlikely to be boring.