Why waste our time with statistics?

I think after today - it is pretty apparent that whoever wins the leadership of the Liberals will be the new PM.

I for one am livid about this income trust decision, which has cost me more money than any tax savings I could expect to see over the next 5 years.

While I won't vote Liberal - I will no longer vote Conservative. It may be that this is the right long term decision - however, don't stand there and blast the Liberals last year for the uncertainty they caused in opening discussions on the tax treatment on income trusts.

They absolutely lied and deceived investors - many of whom who turned to income trusts for refuge in light of the summer volatility in the markets.

This crap about accountability and keeping promises no longer washes - especially with the Conservative base (myself included) who have been absolutely burned by the people we thought were our protectors.

4 more years of Liberal Majority - fine - better the devil you know than the one you can't see.

Suck it up Cappy! That is the first decent thing for ordinary decent people that this government has done. Too little, too late and not nearly far enough have they gone; but as I posted last night on the BIG STORY thread - its the first time I'll actually give Harper any credit for having half a heart and half a brain.

The billions your type have stolen from their fellow citizens are gone but at least they are trying to put a finger in the dike.

Good article Will - and it really shows - despite some reluctance on your part to say it - that Ignatieff should clearly win the Liberal leadership based on the numbers.

With 22 of the 27 leadership contests won by the front runner, Ignatieff is clearly well ahead of Rae, Dion and Kennedy and - if he doesn't blow it with gaffes - should come out on top after a few ballots.

This could easily be the case if Gerard Kennedy were to endorse him after ballot #1.

The other interesting piece is looking at the races where the front runner did not win.

Svend Robinson quit before the second ballot - presuming he had no growth potential against Alexa McDonough - Iggy won't do that.

The Skelly and first Joe Clark situations were highly unusual conventions where candidates with extremely minor support came up the middle due to deadlocked delegates unwilling to consider the leading alternatives to their candidates and hence went elsewhere.

The Johnston vs McCarthy battle on the first ballot had them essentially tied, so first or second is almost irrelevant.

Mulroney in 1983 - I was there - was a situation where Clark had alienated a majority of delegates and had no growth, while Mulroney was up and coming and the other candidates were minor by comparison. Whatever happened to Peter Pocklington anyway?

Anything could still happen - despite some commentators' predictions it's already over and Iggy has lost! - but smart money will be on Ignatieff unless he does himself in.

- Bill Tieleman

G West -

Consider this - I am Telus and I make $1. To pay this $1 back to my shareholder, I must first pay 34.5 cents in tax. Then I pass on this 66.5 cents to my sharholder - and it is his turn to pay 40% tax!

So in the end, it costs 60 cents in tax (60%) to return a shareholders profits. It is the most unfair tax in the land - it is called double taxation. You are being taxed twice on your investment.

Besides this Gavin - it is not the point. Don't make promises you can't keep. This is why Gooddale brought the issue up 1 year ago. BCE, Telus and several banks mused about converting into trusts. Gooddale talked about tax leakages as the Tories along with the Investment community ravaged him.

This was no secret. This was not some big loophole that was found and exploited overnight. This has been evolving for 5+ years.

Capitalism says

That is funny! Finally some one has instilled some humor into their thread,, sure hope you have a couple more of those one liners, as I suspect there are few more ground shakers coming out in the next while.(maybe you can sneak over to the bitching bimbo posting as their pretty sultry over there and could use some of your humor)

Gavin,

This may be the right long-term decision - who knows. I am more concerned about the trust concept as opposed to tax leakages. Generally, you would have slow growth cash cows converting to trusts. They maximized shareholder value by returning profits.

Telus on the other hand is growing - pretty fast too! The incentive is to return profits to shareholders as opposed to re-invest them. This could create problems.

That is not the point though. I shifted money into these assets because my government told me they weren't going to touch them. You can't trust these guys. It is ashame.

Who is Gavin?

If you expect me to engage your silliness at least direct it to the right person. As I recall, your real name is Mabel.

If you really think I'm concerned about the profits of the leeches who are ruining this country and selling it down the river to the highest bidder (at no tax benefit to the country) you're mad.

Corporations have been chewing on the stumps of what used to be the average taxpayer (and small businessmen’s) legs for years.

Suck it up. If it means a few less junkets to Vegas you might find it better for your own health too.

And the out of country unit holders of income trusts? You might want to check into their tax treatment relative to the 'needs' of the country where the profits were created.

Telus should be taken over by the government and turned into a crown corporation that offers a public service all BC's citizens need. It's long past due that vampires like you are allowed to suck the life blood of the productive members of this society.

Remember jerk - it's not just YOUR government. When Harper finally wakes up to that fact (although he probably won't) there will be lot more changes to level the playing field by creating a 'fair and equitable' tax system.

Reining in income trusts is just step one.

@ Capitalism

It's been a while since I've looked at a tax form but distributions from corporations to shareholders usually are not treated the same as income. They are usually dividends or capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate (probably not 40%) than standard income.

Corporate taxes recognize the benefit of limited liability. The shareholders of a corporation (ie. you) benefit from the fact that if Telus goes under and can't pay its debts, you won't have to pay any extra money.

If you don't like corporate taxes, I would suggest investing your money elsewhere like a private non-incorporated business (which does not pay corporate tax) or perhaps paying down your mortgage quicker.

How many times do you have to told it's Garf not Gavin!

Sh!t, So help me Mable,my last thread sounds like I twong twid.

Capitalism:

The general principle at Tax law is that the total amount of tax paid will be the same whether you funnel it through a corporation or whether you kept it private. [The surtax, the lower corporate tax rate, and dividend tax implications are designed so that the final amount going to government will be the same.]

You might be confused because corporations pay lower tax rates. But as far as the government is concerned, there is little difference.

The real benefits of corporations are that more income can be kept in the company to grow it, but the taxes work out when dividends are paid.

For a small businessmen (like yourself??), the biggest 'freebie' gotten by ioncorporating is the capital gains exemption.

The math does work out, with minor exceptions. I was studying corporate Tax law at the time the Liberals hesitated on income truts. The Liberal move not to act was shocking as it throws the whole principles underlying the income tax Act out the window.

The Conservatives move is correct in this case.

I would not vote for the Conservatives, but this is just another example where the Liberals' lack of courage is exemplified.

I can't wait to see Harper turfed out on his ear - any one of the Liberals would be better than him for the country.

rebel,

i don't know about that - though he won't be getting my vote because of the money he has cost me. you can't betray the public in the way they did.

Suck it up Cappy, when Gary Bettman undertands the principles of equity, fair play and a level playint field better than you do it's a pretty sorry day for capitalism.

Even Adam Smith would be aghast at the sellouts our governments have made to big robber business.

Gavin:

Spoken like a true communist:

Gavin,

As for Vegas - I'll be there for March Madness. It takes a lot more than a 13% decrease on Telus and Penn West to hold me back. I bought 10,000 shares of Telus at $13 a few years back. I sold 5,000 when they announced the conversion at $62. I had significant holding in Penn West too - this is where I truly felt the pain.

I bought some more Telus today at $53.80 so - I'll be better off in the long run.

Suck it up. You're not a capitalist mabel, you're a thief.

The first thing this godforsaken government has done for the roughly 80% of the population in this country (perhaps more) who are the victims of people like you.

I hate to admit that Stephen Harper has actually done something worthy of praise, but I'm man enough to admit it.

You're just a leech who sucks onto whatever political gravy train looks best for you whenever an election comes around.

Suck it up. For once you've rolled snake eyes.

Gavin - I've helped a lot of people. My profits are your tax dollars - think about that.

I understand balance and fair play. I am not saying I disagree with the decision. However, the Tories dangled a fair bit of money in my face and snapped it away - leaving my face in the mud.

This may well be the best decision. However, have the balls to campaign on it. Don't give me the false sense of security and pull it away!!!

The opportunity was there and I took it. They should have backed the Liberals last year. They didn't have to do it this way.

The big story in Montreal will be how the Liberals deal with the Quebec Nation resolution when it comes up for debate, as it will. If they embrace and adopt it then there will probably be a promise to open constitutional talks with all the baggage and opinions in that explosive file. If they don't adopt it the party will be deeply split and Quebec delegates outraged. The Bloc and the PQ elated. Ignatieff will probably loose delgates over this and the Qana issue and Rae will win after sealing his victory by grudgingly embracing what he knows will be be a truly divisive, for Quebec and Canada, promise.

Who is this Gavin guy?

If you want anyone to pay any attention, you have to try for a little accuracy.

You might not like what the conmen did today. I like the fact that someone has finally stood up for the average working man and woman in this country and for the amount of our assets and profits have been pouring out of the country into the hands of greedy investors who don't give a fig about tomorrow.

You don't understand balance and fair play because you only care about yourself.

If I found someone stealing from my business I'd clamp dowm hard on them - that's all the changes in the tax legislation do. Too bad they acted so slowly because a lot of the cookies are gone.

Your profits are not my tax dollars - your profits aren't treated like everyone elses's wages and that's where the inequity and unfairness - and the need to change comes from.

Thieves always take advantage of open windows and unlocked doors and the biggest thieves have been the governments who allowed these travesties in the first place.

In the false name of fairness and democracy.

I believe the Liberal Party no longer has a reason to exist. They have tried for so long to be all things to all bodies that they have imploded on themselves. The left leaning Liberals are really New Democrats, believing in Big Government and the right leaning Liberals (smaller government) are really Conservatives.

Oh and for those folks crying crocodile tears about their retirement nest eggs, consider what the changes today have done to personal exemptions for the retired; and the fact that existing income trusts will not get the new tax treatment until, I believe, 2011.

murdock wrote:

The scenario you propose is one of those funny things that reads like analysis, but is simply taking a "worst case scenario" in isolation without any examination of other realities.

True, but one does not need heavy lift to remove soldiers and abandon equipment in place.

In spite of your theory on the US interests in having Canada on this so-called "flank" there is less national interest for the US to have an ostensible ally get butchered with "100% casualties" as opposed to the rushing in to "rescue" an ally in trouble.

The Russians may want to laugh but they much rather have cold hard cash and a quiet giggle in the back room.

NATO motivations may be similar to those in the US regarding potential "rescue" of Canadian forces: it would be very bad PR to have them slaughtered.

That conclusion is based upon the same faulty reasoning that had no other country remotely interested in assisting a withdrawal. Your scenario, in summary, has NATO forces withdrawing en masse to the point where the sole non-Afghan contingent in the country is around 2,000 Canadians bravely drawn up in positions defending the Tim Horton's at Kandahar in a modern Diem Bien Phu. No doubt there will be plenty of media there sending back reports as the perimeter shrinks under continuous probes and assaults. How this would benefit other western powers in any way is beyond rational conclusion.

These "other vessels" appear to speak with your voice. The sad thing is how your conception of international relations appears to be grounded in schadenfreude rather than the pursuit of interests. The interests may be political, economic or simply the broad rubric of "national" but grounding them in schadenfreufe largely disappeared with the development of the bureaucracy and opinion polls.

Oops wrong tab and wrong forum.

Thanks, Gerhardius. It was getting a bit stifling in here.

You do have a point. Though, a vast portion of the population is uncomfortable associating themselves the right or the left. Quite frankly, the Conservatives really aren't all that Conservative after all. They've supported a stronger international presence (along with 1/2 of the Liberals) and have done a lot of talking.

They talk about reducing the tax burden - and - they've increased personal income taxes, cut the GST by 1% (whoopee) and merely re-affirmed corpate tax cuts already proposed by the Liberals.

They've cut some spending, which has been great and made the biggest debt payment of all time - however, these guys really aren't acting like a bunch of raving capitalists.

I don't know what they are trying to do. They are clearly trying to govern from the centre - so are they another Liberal party that spins it a different way.

On Environmental Issues, etc. - they are the exact same thing. The only difference is that the Liberals talk big and set huge targets only to miss. The Conservatives are setting achievable targets - who knows if they'll even hit them.

On the environment the Conmen have done worse than nothing - as the report on the economic costs of doing nothing clearly shows;

As for the rest of pee wee's project, it's all about getting a majority. But, he's handled the Quebec and the Foreign Affairs file so badly that even that will be nothing but a dream after the new Liberal leader enters the house.

In a contest against a leaderless party the best he can do is a tie. His move on income trusts has probably just alienated the financial community that bankrolls him so I'd say he's done like dinner.

Even so the trusts move was the right one and I'd bet a new Liberal government wouldn't change it if they came to power tomorrow.

By putting off the tax changes for five years he's even softened the impact of the change and I'll bet the market will be back to where it was before very long - barring any other big change in the international situation.

The increases in personal exemptions for retired people will cushion the impact on seniors as well. If the extra deductions don't protect them, they're making too much money and should be taxed anyway.

Alcibiades?
I totally agree with you on the income trust thing, but have to disagree on the Conservatives relying on Bay Street donations. They, like the NDP, depend on and receive their financing from the individual donations. It is the Liberals who have been almost totally dependent on the `40th floor` financing.

Maxwell: I'm not actually sure it's possible to make the case very adequately any more.

This is the state of the law right now:

I don't have data which aggregates the total of corporate contributions (and personal contributions from individuals who are also prinicipals in corporate and business entities) but, I do have the data from the 2005 financial statements of the 3 parties you mentioned.

The revenue figures for 2005 are:
Conservatives $ 17, 375,865.
Liberals $ 9,122,716

NDP $ 5,073,310.

I guess, in the absence of more carefully itemized data we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there was a massive sift in corporate donations (legally denominated in appropriate sized donations) from the Liberals to the Conservatives in the last 12 months.

And, I suspect - despite the necessity of the decision Flaherty has made - that won't change before the next election.

One thing is true, unions and corporate donations are less important as an organized source of political funds these days than they used to be. Which may well be another reason why the Conservatives thought they could get away with this.

Predictions on Liberal Campaign:

I think Ignatieff will win, mainly because I surmise his campaign has planted supporters in other campaigns, and that the 2nd round will show him siphon off supporters from others, however, how the votes fall will make a large difference.

The first round will leave us with Rae, Kennedy, Ignatieff, and Dion.

If after the 2nd round Rae falls behind, I think he will throw his support Dion, and Kennedy may follow. Result: Dion becomes leader.

If Kennedy falls, behind, his supporters may head to Ignatieff camp, (even if he doesn't) and Ignatieff take it.

If Dion falls behind, I think he will be the most vividly anti-ignatieff camp because of the Two Nation Debate, he may throw his support behind Rae, which may be enough early to throw momentum to Rae.

However, I think Kennedy will be the first out, and Iggy takes it.

Oh sure, you call Hedy Fry a "long shot hopeful" I call her insane.

To-may-to, To-mah-to I say.

Just a reminder that Ignatieff's in Canada to take Canada back home with him to the States, eh.

So why all this gnashing of teeth about the fact that Ignatieff has spent so much time outside the country? So what? Sometimes a fresh perspective unencumbered by lack of localitis is a good thing.

Not that I like Iggy - but if you're going to criticize someone, go after something relevant - there's plenty there.

I always considered Canadians to be more internationally-minded than our neighbours to the south. We've always been key members of the UN, have fulfilled our int'l obligations (well, usually. . .) and our citizenry is usually quite thoughtful about global events - or more so than the Americans - and genuinely respectful of other the sovereignty of other countries.

But knee-jerk statements about Ignatieff taking Canada "back home" to the States makes me re-evaluate my judgment about Canadians being internationally-minded. Notwithstanding the fact that Iggy lived in London for far longer than he did in the States, I find this whole argument dismaying.

incredulous,
Remember, everyting Truman posts is 'speculation' - when considered in that light it's not necessary to take him totally seriously all the time.

They are, and there is acres of market research to support this.

At least on a superficial level.

Canadians generally are more aware of International events.

Yes, G.West-Alcibiades. Yes, everything I post is speculation.

Which hardly makes me unique. Same thing's true of everybody, and everything posted.

Incredulous, try reading Ignatieff's essays and come back and tell me that he's not primarily interested in bringing Canada into the United States?

Maybe start with, "Who Are Americans TO Think That Freedom IS Theirs To Share," in the New York Times.

It's online.

This guy's a closet imperialist American neocon disguised as a Canadian politician.

Pure opportunism.

And yeah, I think it's pretty important for a future P.M. (that's all he's really interested in) to think enough of his chosen native-land to hang around the place for most of his life, not only when he wants to con Canadians into making him PM.

I think you're an extremely gullible person, incredulous.

Oops, that should have been "theirs to spread, not theirs to share.:

Other primers for Ignatieff, incredulous:

John Chuckman's "Canada's Prince of Darkness" and Michael Valpy's "Being Ignatieff" in the Globe and Mail.

And then make sure you vote strategically for Harper if it ever comes down to an Ignatieff-Harper election.

Harper's much less conservative, eh. At least he hasn't tried to rationalize torture, like Ignatieff.

Truman
DId you notice that that 'James Green' seems to have posted a piece on the homeless thread above here this morning?

Hey, I'm no Ignatieff fan, and I won't be voting for him, but, if it came down to a coin flip between Harper and Ignatieff I know where I'd hope the coin ended.

Both bad but Harper's worse - too many links to the moral 'majority'.

Harper doesn't try to rationalize torture - he just cooperates with the folks who 'do' torture.
I'd go with Iggy.

G.West. That was a huge coincidence. I had no idea Jimmy was on that other thread until you told me. I'm starting to believe in precognition or something. Thanks for letting me know.

Truman,

I'm no fan of Iggy - as I wrote in my post rather clearly - my beef is with Canadians knee-jerking to people who have spent time outside of the country, as it appeared you were doing.

Now, you point to several sources on which you credit your claim - I've read the Valpy article and don't interpret it as you do.

As for your last claim that Iggy and Green are soulless - I challenge you to name any politician who is not.

Doesn't make me gullible though - and I do appreciate your knee-jerking again - simply proves your MO. Seems like you enjoy calling everyone with a different perspective gullible or something else derogatory.

You're right, incredulous. I do come off like a know-it-all. It just seems so obvious to me, but I realize that it doesn't seem obvious to most others.

I think that once Ignatieff becomes Liberal leader, it's absolutely 100% positive that he'll become Prime Minister because he and Harper are so close together and very few will choose Harper over him, but will, I believe perhaps unknowingly have only a choice between two conservatives.

But I fear his agenda for Canada from reading his essays, and I think these next ten years or so will tell the tale of whether Canada is going to remain a soverign nation.

I'm going to cut the name-calling too, but I just feel that you don't understand Ignatieff--and I do.

When I read his stuff about Canada, I don't get the feeling that he's overly interested in this place and that his heart is in the United States.

Do you think I'm wrong?

Don't know Truman. Think the real Iggy will stand-up after he wins the leadership. I only know what the spin-doctors and media want me to know - t'is a broken prism. . .

Given the guy is an academic - think his social policies will be decidely liberal while his int'l policies will cleave to more conservative line. It's easy to write policy and parse history as a writer, broadcaster and professor - MUCH harder to work it in the realpolitik rough and tumble world.

I actually read the Iggy's father's memoirs - interesting family history, so he's driven by a sense of mission borne of a big sense of destiny.

incredulous,
I've been, over the months, a not exactly enthusiastic apologist for Ignatieff. I suspect Truman would confirm that if he were able to. Not that I have ever voted Liberal, I’d hasten to add…but I am a realist.

Until I read about how he treated his own family members in the long Valpy profile in the G&M...I think much of the academic stuff Truman uses to condemn him is ...well - academic, so I don't put as much stock in as Truman does. In addition, he's a very academic kind of guy; much of what he writes is part of a process of working things out intellectually for himself.

But for me the cruelty he exhibited toward his younger brother and the way he treated his parents - over the memoirs and family privacy, not to mention the care of his mother during her dementia - and last, but hardly least, his wife and family - makes me think far more critically about what kind of a Prime Minister he'd be. Just as I don’t think we can ignore Harper’s ‘private’ beliefs and prejudices – they come out in nasty ways in his behavior and his attitudes toward anyone who deigns to disagree with him.

I don't think Michael Ignatieff will sell us down the river to the US … if fact, I think Harper is much more likely to do that. Still, there's a little CP story in Macleans about how the Ignatieff camp is going after Rae supporters in BC that may give you pause. He appears to have allied himself with the worst elements of the Mau Mauing cadre in the BC branch of the Liberal party.

I'm not too sure you should be quite so sanguine about what kind of a PM he’d actually be.

Here’s a link to what I’m talking about:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n110627A

G West,

Points well-taken, but just to be clear, I'm no apologist for Iggy either and also not sanguine about Iggy's potential as PM - when I wrote

I didn't mean in a positive way, eg. a la Kennedy, but more in a Bush way. Sense of destiny can also be a bad thing.

I'm not a big fan of former academics/writers/intellegensia becoming heads of gov't - by and large far too rooted in ideas and unable to transition to the real world.

Incredulous
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I think, in some ways we are caught in a cleft stick in this country. Would you be happier with Stephane Dion? I can imagine what the Alberta troglodytes will do with him.

Bob Rae? Probably the best choice but Harper will eviscerate him because he once had a social conscience and belonged to that spawn of the devil – the NDP.

SO, seems to me Liberals (and I am not one) have to go with Ignatieff because they want power back more than anything else. Letting Harper best them in the last election is like ashes in their mouths.

But, in the end I fear Harper and his narrow-mindedness more than Ignatieff and his elitism ... so there you go.

That doesn't make me a fan. If he had the kind of personal life that I felt did not make him so arrogant and austere in his relations with people, if he had actually shown enough common tough to answer an email now and then from someone with a fair question....if only.

But he didn't.

We ought to feel our leaders are our servants and our brothers or sisters; at the very least, I thought that about Jean Chretien. He had a delightful unpretentiousness that I would welcome in a new prospective Prime Minister. At least he, it seemed, was OF THE PEOPLE.

Interesting perspective G West. Speaking as a fallen Liberal, I would consider this leadership race a rehearsal for the election after next, because I don't think ANY Liberal candidate would be able to beat Harper in the next election.

The grits were in power for too long - far too long - and their prolonged rule fostered unbelieveable arrogance, sense of entitlement, et al - much like what's happened south of the border with the Bush republicans. That's natural - a government/administration that serves too long without opposition will always morph into a loathsome beast.

Think the cycle is now with the Tories - it's their turn and they are resurgent for at least another term and maybe beyond. The grits need to spend time in the wilderness eating tree bark and shivering in the cold - like they did during the Mulroney years - before they will be able to focus and win. Right now, the grit fatcats aren't hungry enough to mount a winning campaign - they're motivated by discomfort and inconvenience, eg. we want to be the government again because we miss our nice comfy perks and power, while the Tories are still the lean, mean and business-oriented party. Memories of their long exile are still fresh and they are hungry to do what they perceive is good for the country.

Look at Martin - talk about ineffectual governance. After he was elected, the prick was holed-up with his advisors for his entire term plotting about how to exact revenge on Chretien-ites rather than providing leadership for Canada.

Harper is going to win a majority and there's nothing the Liberals can do about it except take it like adults and not like spoiled children. The question is whether Iggy would be content to lead them from the backbench for 4-6 years before getting his shot. I don't think he would be - nor do I think he would survive as a leader of the opposition. Of the candidates, I think that Dion and Brison could (because they've been there), but Rae and Iggy are looking for that quick fix, a short-cut to PM-ship - and that ain't going to happen.

The Liberals need to do some serious soul-searching and go through a gut-wrenching renewal. . . and these things take much longer than eleven months.

Incredulous
I'm not so sure! The Liberals manage, almost always, to find a quick way back to power.
They are never really into gut-wrenching analysis – they’re only into power.

Harper has done one good thing since his election - stopping the income trusts boondoggle - and that won't do him much good with the electorate because the press and the media have the same interests as the greedy bastards who are doing all the screaming.
Afghanistan is a quagmire and with Bush reduced to taking his daddy's advice pragmatism is going to have a big revival south of the border.
Consequently, since he's also screwed the pooch on the environment - which is every voter's second most important issue - I think he may be in real trouble.

The Liberals are slowly coming to realize that Ignatieff's Quebec policy - which is, in my opinion the right one, will not sell in the rest of the country. Sadly. This country is, in the end 3 nations: Quebec, the Aboriginals, and the rest.

So, does Ignatieff back down on Quebec to cajole the support of the rest of the country, or, does the party pick another man? I suspect the latter - probably Rae – who is still quite popular (surprisingly he has better numbers in PQ than Dion) in Quebec. Either way, I think Harper loses if he refuses to change himself. He won't, because all the changes he's made so far are just adjustments to hold on to power in the short term.

He's still a dangerous ideologue and more and more people see that now. With the Democrats in the ascendancy in the US, the press here will soon start to turn on Harper as well. New ideas, new leaders, new approaches. Harper has become a man of the past without ever having realized his idolatrous hope to be the savior of the present.

My view.

People have very short memories.

Just happened by here, incredulous, and thought I'd post a few bits from Chantal Hebert's column of Nov 10 for your consideration:

From Prime Minister Stephen Harper's perspective, the most ominous development of the American mid-term elections is not that his main ally on the international scene is now a lame duck.

Given the American president's dismal standing in Canadian public opinion, Harper probably did not plan to spend any more time than was absolutely necessary rubbing elbows with George W. Bush between now and a federal election widely expected for next spring.

More salient to the fortunes of Canada's rookie Conservative government is the fact that foreign affairs issues — usually a campaign afterthought — have been shown to have the power to mobilize a North American electorate.

In the process, the movement turned conventional assumptions on their head. As Bush mournfully noted at his post-election news conference Wednesday, one of those assumptions was that voters were less likely to rock the boat in relatively sound economic times.

Foreign affairs were almost completely absent from the last federal campaign. Neither the Afghan deployment nor the Kyoto protocol on global warming played a significant role in the outcome of January's vote.

Since then, though, those two files have dominated the national debate to the virtual exclusion of other topics. While they involve the larger issue of Canada's role on the world stage, they also hit close to home for large sections of the electorate.

Extending the deployment for two years at a time of mounting casualties on the Afghan front last spring inevitably raised the profile of what had until then been a second-tier issue.

Harper's hands-off approach to climate change reinforced the perception that he is only paying lip service to the cause of the environment. It is never good news for a Canadian prime minister when one of the rare major foreign capitals where he does not stand to endure public criticism for his environmental policies is home to a Republican White House.

By taking ownership of the Afghan mission, by treating climate change as an afterthought in his recent Clean Air Act, his government has done much to turn the next election into a referendum on its management of those two issues.

The environment is well on the way to overtaking health care as the Number 1 concern of Canadians. And according to an Environics poll commissioned by the CBC, a solid majority now want the troops out of Afghanistan before the 2009 deadline.

Compounding the Conservative vulnerability on those two fronts is a weak ministerial performance. In one of the hottest seats in the Commons, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose looks more uncomfortable by the day. It is awfully hard to project authority when one is on a tight PMO leash.

At Defence, Gordon O'Connor brings to the Afghan file the abrasive style of a Donald Rumsfeld without the credentials of membership in the Prime Minister's inner circle.

The most memorable performances to date of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay have involved a public show of puppy love for American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and allegations that he barked out of turn in the Commons.

There is also a message in all of this for the Liberals. The Afghan deployment and the environment are much more likely to dominate the next federal campaign than the lingering issue of the definition of Quebec's status in the federation.