McPolitics

 

(C) Daily Telegraph

This image of Barack Obama and Dmitrij Medvedev may conjure in many minds visions of incompetence, scarce grasp of protocol, unprofessionality, bad taste or all of the above. For all the faults we attribute to the current US President, I wouldn't hold burger diplomacy against him.

Escaping the tedium of official diplomatic protocol is a welcome diversion from the early 20th century top-hat summits and, in certain circumstances, is a useful reminder of one's irrelevance in the greater scheme of things. And I am not talking about Obama's.

See, in the States the title of President is transitory, its holder hooked to a timer counting down until the next election cycle. Such volatility is bound to bake a lot of humble pie and I believe Obama realizes this fully. Not so many of his counterparts.

Presidents and Prime Ministers in many tin-pot countries don't just hold their titles, but imagine themselves being the title's embodiment. The Oxford Dictionary entry's earthly incarnation so to speak. There is hardly a developing country where office holders don't see the Constitution as their plaything and the country's GDP as their legitimate purse.

Just watch the gold and marble palaces springing up amid rampant destitution, private Presidential jets in countries with hardly one paved runway, let alone an airline. Kim Jong-Il's Hennessy crates obliterated, one hopes at least temporarily, his knowledge of running a befamined sinkhole of statehood. 

I now want you to picture the contrast with the most powerful man in the world, running the world's military superpower and richest economy... having a burger. In a globalized world entering the information age, this message is more powerful than years of propaganda.

"I am the President and I don't need to prove it" the burger is saying. To a Westerner, this may be cheap. To the subjects of ostentatious thieves in countries where image is everything, it is a poignant message to see their own "El Presidente" brought down a notch from lavish state dinners in golden halls.

I certainly don't advocate such an approach to all foreign relations (treating Queen Elizabeth so would be an undeserved insult, unless she asked). Yet taking some would-be gods to a burger joint is a polite way of reminding them that for all their gold, medals and titles they're worth squat without legitimacy and good government.

It could always be bad taste, but I'd rather credit Mr Obama with more smarts than many allow him.

When in doubt, wear a muzzle!

There was a time when people knew when to speak and when to stay put. In the area of state service it seems the "all about me" mentality is making inroads into the top echelons of taxpayer-funded institutions. This is dangerous. Trust breakdown between the public and the government can be healed through an election cleansing. When intra-government trust goes down the drain, the consequences linger and simmer until we're left with a dysfunctional institutional jumble.

We've seen examples of this egocentrism in General McChrystal and, I'm sad to say, CSIS Director Richard Fadden.

In both cases we saw a powerful personality (and no doubt an ambitious one) use the media as tools to gain attention and, as some Russians would aptly say, "perform without a muzzle".

Between a private citizen expressing an opinion and a public figure criticising the government lies an ocean we call alternatively "public duty" and "institutional credibility". McChrystal's outburst against the White House was as much an opinion as an open insubordination, and he had to be removed. Mr Fadden's worrisome insinuations were completely out of place on CBC's National.

Would you, as an employer, tolerate your subordinates calling you a moron to your clients' faces, or suggesting at the water cooler without evidence that you were having an affair?

When in any kind of service, whether public or private, one needs to know one's limits. You can either stay silent, talk privately to the management, blow the whistle full-scale or resign. That's the choice.

If McChrystal has concerns, he should either voice them to his chiefs of staff and Mr Obama or resign. Mr Fadden's suggestions of foreign infiltration should have been passed to the RCMP rather than paraded (and unsubstantiated) on national television.

Why is it so bloody difficult to realize one's not the omnipotent and untouchable centre of the universe? How hard can it be to stop and think "am I doing the right thing?".

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Whenever education, children, religion and public money mix, you know there's an explosive cocktail brewing. A Quebec court has allowed a Jesuit school to teach its children about world religions however it wishes, rather than by governmental diktat. On the surface, this ruling is a welcome break from government intrusion into private education. On the other, Pauline Marois welcomes it as well, which promptly rings all alarm bells in my head.

Is it really a school's duty to teach religion in any way? Indeed, religious scholarship is so subjective as to be twistable into many shapes. If sociology and economics - those banes of the unflexible mind -  have axioms, shouldn't academically taught religion be expected to conform to the same standard? No sir, not a chance.

Rather than persevere in the vain attempt to reconcile religious parents, private schools and an intrusive secular government Quebec should at least try to transcend religion altogether.

There hardly is a single ethical teaching in any religion that does not contribute to making a good citizen. Charity, temperance, humility, fortitude, you name it. Who needs religion when these citizenly virtues can be taught as part of an all-encompassing civic education course?

Leave religion to the history courses, where children learn more than just the tenets. When studying a religion, one has to know HOW it emerged, WHERE and WHY. Otherwise it's just empty faffle. Classrooms should educate good citizens, and leave the forging of good Christians to the church pews.

Killing the hen that lays golden eggs

The spiralling vultures over BP do little to hide their motives.

President Obama, having realized he indeed can NOT walk on water, is desperate to kick some butt to show he can still do something besides waiting for a drubbing.

Across the Bering strait, Russia's Medvedev sees lucrative opportunities for the state's pet company Gazprom should BP be felled.

Not to be outdone, the rating agencies are desperate to prove to no-one in particular that they will not peddle garbage as Triple-A gold by, well, calling Triple-A gold garbage.

The onslaught against a perfectly healthy company is breathtakingly short-sighted. Though the billions extorted from BP's coffers will eventually trickle down into bureaucrats' pockets on the South Coast, the eventual clean-up costs will be much higher. How, please tell, are Obama & friends going to get any extra money out of a company they rendered unable to raise funds in the market through their empty rhetoric?

When BP bonds become junk, 29,000 Americans will be out of a job, millions of Brits will be out of a pension and thousands of Louisiana residents will be out of compensation.

This is what Obama wants. Anything for the prospect of saving face in time for November.

Update: and I boarded the same train of thought as a letter writer to the Daily Telegraph. No plagiarism, I swear.

It's taxpayer money, for God's sake!

Suddenly the Canadian Parliament votes against letting someone check their expense accounts. And the old adage that we don't learn from other people's mistakes is again proven true.

Did no-one see what happened in Britain? The cover-up magnifies the rage.

Why are they stonewalling? What do they not want the Auditor General to see? 

I really encourage all MPs who know their conscience is clean to publish their own, unredacted expense files for their constituents to see. If the shit hits the fan, it will spatter over everyone. Saints and sinners alike.

Bernier talks freedom

In ten minutes Maxime Bernier managed to say, at an event in the West Island, a lot more than most politicians say in an hour of pompous waffling.

His speech to an event organized by the Lac-St-Louis and Pierrefonds-Dollard conservative associations, the former Minister addressed the need for Quebec and Canada to embrace greater tax and individual freedoms in order to unleash Canada's potential.

I have been thinking lately: how can a "Less federal government" slogan not appeal to Quebec?

Why honest Labour voters must vote Tory

Push comes to shove today; tomorrow the shit will hit the fan.

I've never been a UK citizen and have been absent from the country for the good part of three years. A big chunk of my heart remains in Bloomsbury and with all the wonderful people I met over my four eventful years in London. I therefore unashamedly dish out one last bit of advice for all Brits.

Forget the Sun's front page, Clegg's soundbites, Brown's "bigotgate", UKIP's lunacy and Cameron's "heir to Blair" stuff for a moment. Just think with your heads.

Labour is exhausted by thirteen years in power and the crashing failure of many flagship policies that got them elected. Apparatchiks and trade unions have regained the sway that Blair managed to eclipse with his own brand of spin and deception. The Labour party going to the polls today is just a shadow of its former self, entirely devoid of any inspiring vision. How this wouldn't hurt a hot-blooded Labour voter is beyond me.

Within days of going into opposition Labour would elect a new leader and, hopefully, renew its managing and policy echelons. It took the Tories eight years in Opposition to realize they had to change their tune and deliver a new vision for Britain. With luck, the Labour party of 2014 can give the Tories a good run for their money.

Which brings me to the obvious conclusion. If you want a better Labour Party, you have to vote them out of office. Give them the chance to think about vision rather than reshuffles. 

The only outcome that can cement a better Britain and better politics tomorrow is a solid, stonking Conservative majority.

Show 'em it isn't business as usual

In two days time Britain will have a new Parliament and, hopefully, a new Government in waiting. Despite the adverse nature of the latest polls and the electoral boundaries, I am still confident David Cameron will win a majority. This will allow him to torch a great chunk of the rulebook additions Labour made, rendering an average Briton's life miserable beyond belief.

Following the expenses scandal the media and popular mood swung to demands of cleanliness and transparency. Neither newspapers or politicians delivered.

Candidates and leaders parading their holier-than-thou banners conveniently forgot their own closet skeletons (such as Nick Clegg's own fingers in the expenses till). Throughout the campaign many of the talking heads refused to give one clear answer to any single question, dodging figures and the reality that beckons: it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Nor did journalists embrace honesty either. Under the guise of "change" and "honest opinion" tribal loyalties and a deep-rooted contempt of the great unwashed electorate are rife. Many may have been delighted to know the Guardian endorsed the Liberal Democrats instead of Labour. An elementary analysis reveals exactly why this is empty piffle.

The Tories rely very heavily on taking CON-LD marginals in the South-West to win an overall majority. Giving the LD that little extra nudge might help keep the Tories out of power and draw the Lib-Dems closer to their natural partner, which is Labour.

Hardly a change for the latte-sipping Guardianistas.

On the other side of the fence, many voices claim Cameron isn't a Tory and doesn't deserve to win. These journalists' blissful ignorance of Cameron's astonishingly clear mandate (over 60% of Party members) leaves no room for doubt about the regard in which the proclaimed messengers of public opinion hold the average Joe Public.

Which is precisely why voters on Thursday need to leave the gentle lull of of the info-sphere and vote with their own minds. Labour has failed and the system favours them disproportionately. If they want a change at the helm, they should believe in themselves and put a cross next to their Tory candidate.

In 2005 members of a battered Tory Party voted for David Cameron to be their leader. Claims that it is the party for bigots, toffs and nuts stand no chance when scrutinised.

David Cameron is the legitimate leader of the party that deserves to legitimately govern Britain. Give him that chance!

Nip the institutional game in the bud

I like when common sense triumphs in a madhouse such as the House of Commons. Milliken's ruling on the Afghan detainee documents issue is a compromise and, IMHO, a good ass-kicking for the Conservative government. Because "national security" is a catchphrase I'm sick and tired of hearing. Relating to the mission in Afghanistan it is completely out of place. Sensitive strategy documents jeopardize the security of our troops, rather than Canada itself.

It is patently obvious to anyone gifted with neurons that hardly any information can be classified forever, but that classifying certain documents for the duration of a military mission is more than ordinary. Therefore, Harper should table several proposals before Parliament and have the Opposition approve at least one. 

But a greater question emerges. If the security of troops, mission and country cannot be put in jeopardy by revealing the documents' contents, how on Earth are the Liberals going to argue the Government is guilty of breaching international law? They would have to beg Parliament to take them on their word, destroying thus the foundation on which justice is built.

At the end of the Afghan mission most of the documents should be made public, and those suspected of "war crimes" judged.

The Liberals are therefore waiting to reject all Government proposals and hope for Milliken to find the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. We must not give them that opportunity.

Give Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton five days worth of meetings. Following that, table a series of proposals on how to arrange document access while waiting for the mission to finish, and make the approval of at least one a matter of confidence.

We shall see then how much the opposition is willing to play games with the institution of the Speaker. Before the two weeks are up we will either have a sworn committee or a dissolved Parliament. 

But for the love of God do not call the election yourself, Prime Minister. For once, just for once, make an eventual negative will of Parliament work in your favour.

The case for Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg is almost as popular as Chrchill, and I like his moment of fame. I cringe while writing these words. If I weren't a committed Tory I'd very much juggle the idea of lending Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats my vote. I'm not a serial kool-aid drinker, nor am I barking bonkers.

The Lib Dems want to join the Euro. None of the main parties will cooperate on scrapping the pound sterling, however it's about time the UK allowed transacting and accounting in the European denomination. Britain's debt aside, joining a weaker currency would give the country a nudge toward resuming its manufacturing. Ballooned by a weaker Euro, British debt would eventually make a default on several Treasury bonds a viable alternative. With its credit rating shot to hell, the UK government would have no money to finance its bureaucracy and be forced to cut mercilessly, whoever happens to be in power. Joining the Euro would be an unmitigated disaster leading to several potentially beneficial outcomes. 

Ridding yourself of tooth pain via an extraction without anesthesia.

The Liberal Democrats would scrap income tax for those earning less than 10.000 pounds a year. With exemptions already topping 5.000 quid, removing this peanut wage bracket from the tax system will hurt, but not significantly.

Tackling world hunger by donating a can of baked beans.

The Liberal Democrats would give long-time resident illegal immigrants an amnesty. By this time they are likely to be able to add up, write and speak English better than a school leaver if current exam standards are any benchmark. International law prohibits their return to some of heir home countries, while returning them to the country of first safe transit would annoy plenty of friendly nations. We might as well allow them to work without having to be paid cash-in-hand.

Disposing of a bottle of crap wine by making sangria. Hey, it's booze.

Lib Dem defence plans include scrapping Trident. Who in their right mind would want an island full of - according to some Brits themselves - knife-brandishing chavs, lazy asses, benefit scroungers and a basket case for a Treasury? Get real. We defeated Argentina without needing nukes, the Russian elite sends its brightest offspring to Cambridge and in Beijing teachers make an effort to teach the Queen's English. Be nice to the Americans, pay the French to keep up their subs, British-ize the russkies, send bowler hats to Hu Jintao and just enjoy the ride.

Realizing your quest for a Commodore software update is a little stupid, as it's a collector's item by now.

Nick Clegg's popularity might not last or it could result in a VERY hung parliament. Either way, his entry into the race is nothing but a much needed wake-up call. His party is the only one offering something radical enough to be remembered after the end of soundbite time. I really disagree with the Lib Dem stance of soaking the rich and businesses, yet the latest moods in Britain seem to want just that.

Read around the comment sections in most online newspapers and you'll be treated to nonsensical tirades against greedy businessmen and the rich, who deserve nothing but a 90% tax rate and tons of regulation.

If that's the country that goes to the polls, they fully deserve the Liberal Democrats holding the reins of power. If the populace is so incapable of seeing what's best for the country, it's only beneficial for Brussels to take over. 

Clegg's popularity isn't Britain's Obama moment. It's the indictment of an entire model of governance and communication. It's the agony moan of a Britain beginning a fall into a precipice and too hopeless to attempt clutching at the cliff top. They'd rather supinely fall, hope to survive and start from what is essentially a new blank slate. 

Maybe my cynicism is unjustified. I say bring it on, this Brave New Britain.

Just vote Tory. Please!