Power And Dollar

John Manley Smells Blood? Or Avoided His Own Peril?

John Manley is gauging his support level.  With Bob Rae around, it will be a difficult race for Manley.  Bob Rae is a veteran: he knows how to build an organization for it.  And Bob Rae probably expected Manley to return for this election.  How did Bob Rae come to this conclusion?  Well, not that he read this or this.  it is just very reasonable.  Bob Rae probably saw the “dual use” of everything Manley did.  And, Harper helped Manley to get to this point. 

 

This is exactly what Harper wanted and what Harper planned.  

 

Age may become a factor for Bob Rae in the next round.  So, time will soon wear Bob Rae out.  This maybe the last time Ignatief can run a leadership race since he did not spend that much time in Canada.  But then, how many years do you need in Canada?  Manley has been preparing this race for elections now.  He could be contemplating about joining in the race this time.  But the variable is: is it the time I should return?  Not: should I return?

 

John Manley did not want the leadership then when Paul Martin left because he saw a defeat.  He could not have saved the party from another defeat and so he saved himself from being at the position of Dion’s.  He was preparing himself to be a white knight to enter the stage when the party is at the bottom.  Now is his chance, or so thinks.

 

John Manley is now facing a different world, namely a world defined by the election financing law that he did not have.  He has good access to big donors.  However, does that matter when the donation is penny on the dollar of the donation amount these donors can actually give?  This is a new game that John Manley has to live with: quantity translates into dollars; not dollar buys into quantity.  

 

That means he has to have a ready made organization.  He can rely on his old riding Ottawa South’s David McGuinty.  John Manley passed on the seat to his pal David McGunty, brother of the provincial Premier Dalton, to keep it from falling to the hands of enemy.  Now, he can burrow the infrastructure there. 

 

Why is John Manley declaring it now?  Yes, leadership review will be held early next year.  So, he needs some time to prepare and get to the spot light.  Also, Ignatief, Bob Rae and John Kennedy cannot exactly start a race since they are still supposed to be loyal to Dion.  It is only when someone declares to be contender can they actually get out of the closet.  John Manley is forcing everyone to enter into the ring.  If these people do not, then they will have to forfeit the entrance ticket.  So, John Manley is simply asking: “if no one else wants take the crown, then please let me have it.”  

Advertisements

October 28, 2008 Posted by | canada, Current Events, election, politics, wordpress-political-blogs | Leave a comment

Electioneering 102: A Lesson From Green Party of Canada

The federal election in Canada concluded on 2008.10.14.  The incumbent party won another mandate.  There are a lot of interesting content in this election to fill the media.  However, for the purpose of Electioneering, this story may not make the cut to the paper, let alone to the headline.  This case study lesson is experienced by the Leader of Green Party of Canada.  This biggest contribution of this race is: how to choose a spot to run.  The most applicable lesson of this is still city councilor.  

 

Green Party of Canada has been increasing its vote share ever since the turn of the millennium.  In 2006, they got 4.48% of the votes and no seats in the parliament.  After that election, the Leader of the party then did not run in the leadership race again.  It then became an open race and Elizabeth May won the leadership.  She was an Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada, with government bureaucrat experience, a law degree and a recipient of Order of Canada.  She ran a by-election earlier, against all parties and got the second largest votes in that race.  

 

Green Party has long held the position that they are unable to win a seat because they are excluded from the televised debates.  This election proves that a televised debate did not help.  

 

May was looking for an epic race.  This could have been the first sign of trouble.  An election is not about making a statement.  Election is about finding the most representative will of the people.  By being the leader and possibly the first elected officer of a party, May’s election is more important than any other candidate.  There is a lot of media attention, political resources, volunteer resources, and money involved in a leader’s race.  Therefore, it is only prudent to maximum the vote, not to dramatize an epic.  

 

If you are running in a city councilor race (or county board, school board, etc), you run to win.  Any other objective is mischievous, and misleading the voters.  It is true that people run elections for all kinds of reasons, some of them noble too.  However, it is only when you aim to win would you be serving your voters, be honest to your voters, donors, volunteers and other kinds of supporters.  Furthermore, if you do not run to win, your result tends to sink, even if you got some special interest groups’ backing because your true primary motives usually affect your plan, execution and result.  For instance, since your real motive is a geography A, you divert more resources to that area instead.  However, that area may be a contestable area.  if the votes are already secured, no need to get vote there.  However, you are doing it there to serve your personal interests.  So, your volunteer hours are lost, your lawn signs are wasted.  Alternatively, you may be interested at a specific donor group.  Similarly you wasted your campaign.

 

Liberal party delivered their promise not to contest against May in order to maximize her chances to a seat, wherever her choosing.  This promise is also unlikely to be offered in the next election since the leader of Liberal party is also in his trouble.  And no one should plan a race with the expectation that this offer will be made twice anyway.  

 

May placed this epic over at Central Nova, where the incumbent runs a dynasty there: 2 generations of incumbent, close to 10 elections.  This is where the second problem is.  One should contest in a place to win, not a place to dramatize.  By being the leader, she can choose any leader she wanted.  She should have picked a riding where

 

1)       The Liberal candidate is not the incumbent, however strong enough that the votes actually matter in her race;

2)       The Green votes are decent, say above the 2006’s record of 4.48% votes;

3)       Incumbent votes are actually weak; below 50% is minimum requirement.  The lower the better. 

4)       Since there are 3 major parties contesting in every riding in Canada, an ideal riding is where all three parties split their votes, i.e. around 30% each.  Of course this is unrealistic.

 

Election is a contest of organization, stamina of the salesman (candidate), branding (party), money (fundraising) and product (platform).  A leader got the luxury of choosing a riding, which most people cannot afford the infrastructure investment to do.  Building up a local political network to support is not easy.  However, this is fairly accomplishable if you were interested at a city race.  Changing a house from this corner of the town to that corner is not too difficult.  What is the ideal demographic for you?  Ethnic group? Income class? Age group? Occupation?  Family status? 

 

If she spent 30 minutes to look around the >300 ridings in Canada, she maybe able to see that there are multiple ridings where Liberal is the incumbent, however with >25% of votes; Green votes are above 5%, and the incumbent got votes around mid 30%.  

 

With 30 minutes of your time, you can see that Welland is one such riding where the incumbent is Conservative.  Vancouver Kingsway is another one, where the incumbent is NDP.  There are probably others.  These 2 may not deliver an ideal environment for victory.  However, the point is there are potential sites to choose from.

 

If May knew that it wasn’t going to be a victory, then dramatizing an epic is not a bad option.  However, in your case, don’t run.  An election is costly not only to you, but also to your supporters in forms other than money.  

 

If you plan to remove a low performing incumbent, then get all the prospective candidates together.  Gamble all resources in only one person.  So, all your prospective candidates may want to have a quasi primary to determine who will have the best shot.  

October 22, 2008 Posted by | activism, advocacy, canada, Current Events, Democrats, election, Election 2008, Electioneering, environment, fundraising, nonprofits, politics, Republican, wordpress-political-blogs | Leave a comment

What defines McCain vs Obama?

Although McCain may not be as much of a moderate as you think he is, McCain is out of line from his Republican party than Obama can be from his Democrat party.  Although McCain’s platform may not be as environmentally friendly as Obama’s platform, McCain is trying harder to sell his environmental policies than Obama, see CNN.  It all means McCain is trying to define the stage the environment better: to choose his battle field to his advantage.  

 

Environmental crisis is more than oil.  Climate change is also driving the food cost.  The ethanol market is now driving food prices world wide.  It is also driving the agricultural land prices up as well.  Consequently, we are now having a farm bill that is trying to cut down on the farm subsidy.

 

This is the first time that a Republican President is saying the cut in farm subsidy is not enough.  And this insufficient in farm subsidy cut is the cited reason for veto.  

 

On the contrary, a Democrat constituency group would want to support a farm bill and may even want to decrease the cuts in order to lower food prices. 

 

McCain may not have been explicit about his position in farm subsidy.  However, a thorough environmental policy will eventually lead to that point: cut farm subsidy.  

 

Environmental crisis is eventually down to this point: efficiency on resources, i.e. economics.  Traditional tree huggers, the ones from 60’s, cannot tolerate the word “economics”.  However, this is what it will go down to.  And McCain will feel very comfortable if he will be able to define this issue.  

 

If McCain is able to define environmental crisis well, McCain will be able not only to fight Obama better than any Republican can, but also expand Republican base to a new territory and grab the traditionally Democrat constituency group over: intellectuals, and some religious left (both Christians and otherwise).  More importantly, McCain can do something other countries have not been successful: take the green voters to the right wing rather than letting left wing to hog them.  Better yet, eliminate the possibility of growth for the Green Party.  

Green parties are getting strong footholds everywhere around the world.  Germany had Green Party to be part of the ruling coalition.  Green parties in Canada are getting 10% of the world both federally and provincially.  The way to starve off your competitor is to offer products the buyers have been looking for.   

Any third party can successfully come out and stay alive if it can find an issue that

1)       the other two parties seldom address;

2)       draws an equal amount of voters from both sides.

 

Environmental crisis is such an issue.  The biggest loser from McCain’s aggressive environmentalism is to starve off the Greens and continue a 2 party system.  If McCain is successful, then he can make the game even by 2012.

 

The most difficult asset, in politics, to obtain is not policies or platforms.  In politics, policies and platforms are commodities.  Message is produced.  Brand is a product of time and money.  This difficult-to-obtain asset is the salesmen: politicians.  Obama is a great weapon for Democrats’ long term growth.  Can Obama contribute to this environmental debate? 

 

 

May 12, 2008 Posted by | Barack Obama, canada, Current Events, election, Election 2008, environment, John McCain, mccain, obama, opinion, wordpress-political-blogs | Leave a comment

Market Reacts to Taiwan’s Election

The general sentiment of the economic outlook written on 03.21 is reflected today in markets.  The article on 03.21 is here: 

https://royho.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/taiwan-count-down-1/

This is from Reuters:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/taiwan.elections/index.html#cnnSTCText

CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/24/news/international/taiwan_markets.ap/index.htm

CNN has a summary of the post election here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/taiwan.ma.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/03/24/taiwan.markets.ap/index.html

Some stocks are going up in Hong Kong and Shanghai as well.  Stocks in Shanghai will have a much shorter ride.  Since you probably cannot trade in Shanghai’s market, you cannot be exposed to it.  Your mutual fund may.  If your mutual fund does not have a local office, it may not actually understand political dymanics and the reasons for its short ride.  This is a good opportunity to watch your fund manager. 

You may happen to have some stocks in Hong Kong since HK is a lot more accessible to foreign capital and quite a good amount of their listed companies are also listed elsewhere (London, NY’s 2 markets).  This ride could be slightly longer.  New president does not come until much later.  So, all these trades are also emotional. 

Some Taiwan companies are traded overseas.  These rides are longer.  Again, new president does not come until May 2008.  So, these are sentiment trades.  One may want to wait untill some announcements come.  But it is the time to study the annual reports. 

Is the Taiwan the safest bet while the USD continues to fall?  It is not as easy to hold foreign currency in US as in some other countries.  So, holding a foriegn currency at the retail level is not easy.  The second best is to find a foreign currency/foreign money market fund.  The third is to find conservative funds with foreign positions, foreign as in outside of North America (Canada is not safe enough).  If you are a hands-on kind of guy, and you are interested in this region, then Taiwan banks are okay (among the public tradable in NY).  Avoid banks in Mainland China (for a different reason).  Some other FIs are okay, but not banks.

March 24, 2008 Posted by | business, canada economics, China, china politics, chinese, Current Affairs, Current Events, economics, election, 馬英九, finance, market, Money, opinion, politics, stock, Taiwan, Thoughts, trading, 中國 | 2 Comments

Obama’s Nafta leak denial and Harper’s Mission Accomplished

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_nafta

Obama denied he back tracked the NAFTA through his economic adviser to Canadian diplomats.  Canadian Prime Minister Harper promised to investigate how this information got leaked – not denying that it happened.  The second part is the key.  So, Harper got what he needed: he discouraged the most anti-NAFTA candidate of the 2 Democrat candidates to have a conversation.  In fact, Harper got what he expected: Obama said he did not mean it.  

Now, why the leak?

Harper wanted to establish the fact that “Obama does not mean to re-negotiate NAFTA”.  Harper thought it was very likely that Obama would win Whitehouse.  Harper then decided to push Obama to promise that he would not because Obama has no chips to bargain back at this moment (one can only bargain when at strength).  That is why Harper said no, you do not want that.  On top of that, Harper wanted to make sure no one is getting away with it.  So, he decided to leak it.  Of course Harper expected Obama to deny it.  And so, an investigation ensured, which will drag on.  And this investigation will produce the result to the effect that “yes, it actually happened” with whatever memo, audio or video files necessary to put in front of Obama, if he ever one day decides to negotiate NAFTA.  That’s right.  This investigation will not end until Obama says “let’s re-negotiate.”  Harper just did not trust a much stronger neighbour, especially someone he did not even meet.  And Harper will not have much chips by then.   Harper got his Obama promise.  And he will have something to show for it before the Americans’ TV, just in case.  

This later package is what makes Harper feel comfortable about the promise.   Harper’s mission is accomplished.

March 10, 2008 Posted by | america politics, canada, canada economics, canada politics, Current Affairs, obama, politics, US politics | Leave a comment

Canada Unemployment Data and $$

Ignore the Arbor story.  Ignore the NAFTA leak probe story.  They may provide some content for talk shows, but they matter not to anyone’s pocket money.  

On 2008.03.05, Toronto Real Estate Board published the sales record for 2008.02.  The result is “respectable”.  Today, StatsCan published the employment/unemployment figures, +43k jobs, higher than the +3k jobs from Bloomberg’s pooled 21 economists.  Immigration policy continues to favour home building industry.  Reading these 2 news would lead anyone to think that Canadian housing market should continue to do well.  Therefore, buy more builders’ stocks. 

You may want to read the news more carefully before you hit the confirm button.  Ontario is the leader of the pack.  Some losses are in manufacturing, but still a positive for Ontario.  A lot of white collar jobs to offset the manufacturing jobs.  And the majority of the growth comes from home building jobs.  And this is where my caution is. 

Does Canada truly have the domestic demand for the housing sales?  Canada is having a decade long housing boom, especially Toronto.  Canadian economy is heavily dependent on US.  The Canadian balance sheet is risk averse to US that everything, including Canadian elections depends on US trade.  

The job growth in building industry is a time lagged data.  A lot is purchased.  Then a building permit, blue print, etc.  This is a long time.  While the sales is slowed, the building process has to continue.  It may slow down, but it has to continue because the cost of stop is worse (the builder still has to pay for interests).  However, sales may be low or even at a loss, at least the builder can minimize the loss when compared to costs of inaction.  Furthermore, a builder can control supply: they can simply sell 2 units at a time.  Note that this is a luxury that only the supply side can afford and is denied to the demand side.

In the short term, meaning within a half a day trading period, or 1 day trading period.  Stocks will of course do well in TSE.  However, institutions will go over the figures.  A retail investor like you may not be able to afford that kind of work.  So, be very careful.  Do not jump on this opportunity to buy.  If you wish to sell, well, you can get a few extra % of gain based on today’s rally sentiment.  

This affects the Flaherty vs McGuity feud a little bit.  It makes McGuity the argument that “Ontario is trouble” weak.  However, McGuity can find reasons to say what provincial policies made it work and to discredit “lowering corporate tax” becomes a no-use medicine.  Anyway, this is immaterial until election time.  Sit back.

March 7, 2008 Posted by | canada, canada economics, canada politics, Current Affairs, economics | 2 Comments

Who wants to re-negotiate NAFTA in Canada?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228.wharpnafta0228/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080228.wharpnafta0228

NDP’s Layton wants to negotiate NAFTA.  Conservatives says they want to negotiate too.  Well, that seems like the country can get some consensus since the left most and the right most parties agree. 

Not so fast.  Harper says it would be a mistake for the Americans to renegotiate.  This is a warning.  Harper actually does not want to renegotiate.   No, this is nothing ideological.  He is being very practical.   Harper is Albertan, but he is not reckless to lose his next election.

You would want to initiate negotiation only when you are at strength.  Harper is only saying I dare you to negotiate: discouraging Americans from negotiation.  Oil is at $100 USD / barrel.  Canadian dollar is about at par.  Why aren’t Canadians at strength?

Who needs the other partner more?  The one who needs more of the other is at disadvantage and has less chips on the bargaining table.  Canada continues to have more than 3/4 of its exports going to the States.  This factor alone is a good start. 

Oil? Sure America is dependent on Canada to sell.  Is Canada selling to anyone else though?  And, remember America secured Iraqi reconstruction contracts?  Remember who got the drilling rights?  How much royalty will they have to pay for the Iraqi oil?  Oil price may fluctuate.  But please do not doubt the supply of oil going to the States. 

If Canada truly wants to re-negotiate NAFTA more to their liking, then the first thing to do is to broaden its own customer base: export products to other countries; reduce its own external political risk.   

International negotiations are to secure their national interests.  Negotiators are responsible to their domestic constituency.  Fairness is about the best deal your chips can buy, not about balancing your gain versus their gain.

March 3, 2008 Posted by | america politics, canada politics, Current Affairs, politics, US politics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is “laissez-faire” outdated? Is government participation anti-free market?

“Harper government’s style caught in time warp, McGuinty says”Globe And MailKAREN HOWLETT AND STEVEN CHASE From Wednesday’s Globe and MailFebruary 20, 2008 at 4:26 AM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080220.wmcguinty20/BNStory/FrontCanadian federal government thinks Ontario is “lack of vision” and is the one responsible for the sluggish Ontario economy.  Ontario provincial government thinks the federal government’s idea of more tax cuts (business tax cuts) would save the province is “in a time warp”.  Why? 

The federal government is employing the most traditional economic thought that says do nothing is the best government.  And therefore, the best and only tool for affect market behaviour is taxes.   

Ontario government is saying: Not only is business tax cutting not the only tool, but also not the best tool in this case.  Worse yet, it is no longer an effective tool.   

The first question that sets them about is:

Is tax the only tool to improve the economy? 

If taxes were the only tool, then it is the best tool.  So, let’s look at this first.  The government can also make laws to make the market behave in a certain way.  For instance, Chretien made government matching fund to RESP.  And that created a huge investment market for RESP funds.  That is a good example.  Government can purchase more Canadian made low emission buses to drive down the manufacturing costs and therefore to be in an exporting competitive position.  The counter example of this is snow bird.  The aviation/aerospace industry of Canada got killed because the snow had no contracts.  So, government can do things other than taxes. 

The second question:Is tax cutting the best tool?

Depends on the problem and the objective.  Obviously, if the problem is inflation, then cutting taxes would make it worse.  So, what is the problem with the Ontario economy?  Currently, the manufacturing is having problems.  The currency is high.  Well, you cannot help this one and this will continue for quite a while.  Ontario goods are competing against China and India.  Well, that means product upgrade.  In this situation, business tax cuts can help.  And there are other ways to help.   

Many manufacturing owners will have to liquidate their assets in the years to come due to retirement.  New generation of business owners may not set up shop here.  Why: they are immigrants from China and India.  And they are capable of managing their assets overseas.  So, this would undercut the tax effectiveness right away.  “If China/India can produce those goods, why do it here?” they would ask.  If anyone is to manufacture products here, these goods must be higher grade products that they cannot produce in China/India.  High technology is an answer.   

Does Canada have these technologies?  How can Canada develop new technologies?  That is already something Canada or Ontario government can do.  The government does not need to develop the technologies.  The government can create an environment where the brains can get to work on the technology development.  For instance, can patent filed easily?  Does the province/country have strong intellectual property laws?  Is graduate education student friendly? I.e. can students afford to go to graduate school?  Notice that they are the actual assembly workers in technology development in a lot of cases.  If the students have to work to pay for tuition anyway, why not let them have part time jobs available only to the students? And campus jobs for full-time students’ income tax free?   

Does Canada have enough demand for the goods? Even Canada may have tax cuts, there could be no demand for the goods.  To create demand, the tax cuts should be placed on the personal income tax, especially in the form of increasing personal exempt is the most effective way of creating demand across the board.  And the government can reduce the need of welfare if it is to increase personal exempt.   

How can Canada develop more demand overseas?  Flag follows the trade or trade follows the flag?  The government, in international trade as well as in any aspect of its function, is to protect the interests of its citizens.  A do-nothing attitude in international trade is to do nothing to protect the interests of Canadian citizens.  What is the government to do in promoting international trade?  Market Canada.  Canada is brand.  What can one say about a Canadian product?  Or, can anyone name a Canadian product?  A lot of people can name French products, say about the French product.  Have Canadian governments to introduce Canadian firms to new overseas opportunities?  For instance, with all the infrastructure projects going in India and China, which Canadian financial institution participated in their financings? 

Stock exchange (or futures exchange, options exchange, etc) are also important financial infrastructure.  Have governments of Canada tried to promote the Canadian exchanges?  Ever US implemented SOX and other regulations in SEC, banking and other financial industries, doing business in the states is getting more and more expensive.  So expensive that London got more IPO than NYSE in 2006.  Why can’t Canada get a share of that pie?  Canada is definitely cheaper to get listed, close to US, where the main and ultimate market is.   

Toronto/Vancouver are good points from North America to fly to a lot of major Asian cities because they take less time in the airport to fly, and they take less flying time to those Asian cities.  And these 2 cities take about 1 hour to reach a lot of North American cities as well.  This is a unique quality to be an institution’s HQ: cut down travel cost between the executives and their highest potential market.  Yet, Canada does not have a lot of HQs. 

Is the Canadian market a competitive market?  Only a competitive market can create competitive products.  How many monopolies or oligopoly markets in Canada?  Airlines, bookstores, landline telephones, cable TV, gas, electricity, intra city transits, cell phones, banks are all either monopolies or oligopolies. 

Media content is another business Canada needs to stress on.  This is one way not only to define a Canadian brand, but also a revenue source.  This is the dark time of the USA brand.  And Canadian media content compete in the English language market.  So, this is the time to be aggressive.  Are there Canadian film-nights in foreign campuses?  Who markets them?  Do Canadian companies how to market them overseas?  Or are they relying on some American content distributors?   

There are a lot of things that can be done.  All of them are not related to business tax cuts.  

February 20, 2008 Posted by | canada politics, Current Affairs, politics | , | Leave a comment

Manley is getting warmed up

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080220.wmanley20/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Why did Manley accept to head Afgan panel chairmanship?  Harper wanted to see the divide in the post Dion Liberal leadership contest.  Manley did not want to participate in the last leadership contest since Martin’s contest was too bitter and it would have been difficult for Manley to unite the whole party anyway.  That open race gave Canada Dion.  If Liberals continue to stay weak, Dion will be out after the coming federal election, whenever that is.  And it is only then could Manley go for a contest.  For that reason, Manley has stayed with his private law practice in Ottawa. 

However, Manley was not out of politics.  He was already preparing for the next round.  He cultivated his clientele properly.  He enlarged his donor base.  He continues to reward his supporters in order to oil/maintain his political machine. 

The fact he accepted the panel chairmanship was an indication that he wants to stays current in the TV box so that voters will not see him as outdated, as voters would see Sheila Copps as outdated, should she choose to run for leadership again next time.  Even today, many people may already find Sheila Copps outdated, but not really so for Manley, although Manley has more white hair than Copps.

Harper “may” make Manley a super envoy means Harper already thinks Manley would accept the position, whether it was communicated between the two is another business.  After all, even if they did not communicate personally fact to face, they had been MP together for a long time.  If they did not know each other that well, there are enough people to serve as the go between.  So, this mutal understanding is immaterial.  The fact remains that there is a great certainty the buyer and the seller have met.  The dealing probably is still on the pending status and not closed.

The next question to ask:

Why would Harper want Manley?  Why wouldn’t he reward some of his allies?

One: maybe Harper prefers fighting Manley, thinking Harper would be in an easier position to beat Liberals if Manley were in charge.  Manley, ideologically, is a little more right than some of the Liberals, especially in the environmental issues.  Manley’s donor base is the traditional Liberal type.  This is a clear advantage to Harper.  An elitest right wing/middlepath party cannot compete against a populist right party because public funding for election has rubbed off the benefit of being financially elitest.  Public funded election is about head counts.  Election without public funding is both head counts and dollar counts.

Two: Harper wants to see a divide after Dion.  Harper wants to see a bitter fight within the Liberals.  Harper may not be too concerned if Manley is a better politican than Harper.  Harper may simply be thinking that the divide would weaken Liberals greatly and make the good Manley (however/what this good is) ineffective. 

Did Harper see Manley vs. Rae? Manley vs. Ignatieff?  Manley vs. Kennedy?

Harper probaly would not have been concerned with Rae.  Time will take care of this problem already, however good Rae is.  Kennedy?  Harper may think the loss of Dion may weaken Kennedy as well since Dion does not represent an interest as much as an ideal (and some Quebec tradition).  Besides, Kennedy means the left would get very crowded and leaving more space to right for Harper to take.  Harper should be fairly comfortable with that.  Harper was probably thinking about Manley vs. Ignatieff or Manley vs. unknown.  Harper wants to strengthen Manley so that there will be a long lasting, bitter, trench warfare among the Liberals for the years, just like Chretein and Martin. 

February 20, 2008 Posted by | canada politics | , , , , | 1 Comment

Gore and Dion

Part 1:
http://torontofirstnet.com/radioplay.php?file=20071207-1730

Part 2:
http://torontofirstnet.com/radioplay.php?file=20071207-1800

Part 3:
http://torontofirstnet.com/radioplay.php?file=20071207-1830

December 17, 2007 Posted by | canada politics, Current Affairs | | Leave a comment