FAKE NEWS

There’s a book on my mind that I don’t want to write.  For decades I’ve noted and socked away research relating to trends in message control, what some call “spin”, specifically as its being used by the Right in Canada and the US.  But getting into that mindset is painful.  It's like method acting, it doesn't turn off easily, so I really don't want to write about it despite feeling doing so is a public service.

And before Defenders of the Right try to chime in, let me stop you right there.  As I'll show in this post Conservative message control is intentionally evil and insane.  And I have decades of examples and evidence to prove it.

Yes, all political movements are guilty of spin, framing and trying to stage or control their message, but its use by other political parties is largely limited to their ideal vision of things.  Where it gets co-opted is when the compromises necessary in a democracy often subvert the ideal as a matter of practicality in order to get the support they need to make any progress at all. 

For example: Obama’s Affordable Care Act was compromised when the Democrats agreed to some conditions certain Republicans wanted put in.  Even though the Democrats knew those provisions were being put in so those same Republicans could then attack the ACA as flawed.  The Democrats agreed because ‘something was better than nothing’.  The idea on the Left was to compromise in order to move the goal post forward.  Society is a living thing so once the bar moved a bit then fixes could be put in later.  

The idea on the Right was to force compromise so they could later prove it didn’t work.  The very idea that because one version didn’t work no version could work is at the heart of Conservative attacks.  Liberals and Democrats lose support because supporters on the Left expect perfection first time and Conservatives know that.  This by the way is the real reason we end up with Conservative governments.

Where normal ideas by non-Conservative parties are corrupted is when those compromises lead to people who force decisions that benefit them in exchange for their support.  More often it’s third party benefits, delivering on promises to Lobby groups in exchange for support of a Bill or entitlement style kick-backs to those third-party supporters (ie: I’ll vote for this Bill if Component X  of this other Program is put in my State.  Knowing the only party that can win the bid is my biggest donor, Company Y). 

This was how the US Space Program got to the Moon.  They put an entitlement project in nearly every State they needed Senate support for so that those elected officials wouldn’t cut the program for fear of causing job losses among their electorate – even though that increased program costs by more than 12%.   That's compromise.

And in case you’ve spotted the similarity, these examples are 'quid pro quo', this for that or something for something.  And such compromises are actually the foundation of how democracies are supposed to work.  The current issue with Darth Cheetoh in the White House isn’t that there was a ‘quid pro quo’, it’s what the ‘this for that’ was about – election manipulation with the assistance of a foreign government.

And there will be ‘quid pro quo’ in Canada’s new Parliament because in order for Justin Trudeau to maintain the 'confidence of the House' he will have to ‘this for that’ with another party or block in order for his government to survive.  Whether he does a formal coalition with the NDP that will see the tiny party of 24 members effectively control the legislative agenda this Parliament, or whether he seeks support on a Bill-by-Bill basis as Stephen Harper did when he had the longest lasting minority government in Canadian history, only time will tell.  The risk of a the Harper option is while it avoids the pitfalls and overspending that trying to satisfy two party bases require in a formal coalition it can also see the mood of the House turn on you like a bitch.

But getting back to the reason I'm reluctant to write one particular book: Ever since Mike Harris won as Premier of Ontario, and I suspect even a bit earlier when Preston Manning began the Reform Party of Canada, there’s only one party openly and actively lying.  Deliberately saying what they believe their base and voters want to hear in order to get and maintain power and then doing what they really want to, often in opposition to what they said, and mostly to satisfy their big donors.

And Republicans, Reformers, and Conservatives do this by using two ideas that either originated in or were refined in the 1940’s.  Gaslighting and Propaganda.

The psychological term gaslighting describes a form of psychological abuse in which the victim is gradually manipulated into doubting his or her own reality, or more commonly in this era being fed an alternate reality (“alt+facts”).  Although it’s more commonly attributed to the second film adaptation from 1944, it originated from the 1938 play “Gas Light” written by Patrick Hamilton.  

Gaslighting means emotionally manipulating others by undermining their confidence and calling their credibility into question.  In a relationship this is mostly a form of attack but the techniques are used by the Right to both frame their message and attack their opposition. 

The second part of that, the attack, turns gaslighting into an art by incorporating an additional paradigm: The teachings of NAZI Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.  Goebbels taught, “Always accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty of.”  And sadly, when you look at the facts, the history of Debt spending in Canada, the Parliamentary record, the Bank of Canada reports and nearly every independent study of Government both in Canada and the US for the last 30 years clearly show that if a Conservative says "only they can unite" something it’s only because they’re principally the ones sowing the seeds of division.  In fact, nearly everything a Conservative or Republican tells you is upon investigation actually the opposite of what they're doing.

So, as Steven Harper did for 9 years, they’ll say they’re balancing the budget even while they blow the $100 Billion that was paid on the debt by the previous government over 12 years, and then borrow another $70 Billion while they hack away at minor support services that the most vulnerable in society rely upon, leaving government with the greatest non-war time spending increase in Canadian history.

Or as the Republican’s have shown, the 2 terms of George W Bush and Trump’s so far have tripled the US Debt three fold increasing military spending under the guise of 'Defending America' while decreasing revenue through tax breaks that benefit only a tiny percentage of Americans, yet they continue to attack Healthcare as the thing that will bankrupt America despite it costing a fraction of what the tax cuts did while helping nearly half the US population.  And Obama’s debt went up at the slowest rate of any President in the last 40 years.

But if those last 2 paragraphs are a surprise to you its because you’ve been emotionally manipulated by others who have repeatedly and systemically called into question the credibility of independent facts.  Or as the man most guilty of gas lighting calls it, “Fake news.”

SHAME DON CHERRY

"You people" is one of many dogwhistle phrases which in most cases are specifically used by racists to put non-whites in the "them" category.  It's too often followed by "go back where you came from" which is difficult for many Canadians of colour since they were born here.

Quebec has: "pure laine" for original wool, which is like Harper's "Old School Canadians".

The current Conservative movement likes "416 Elites" which, since the majority of voters in the 416 vote Liberal is an easy "us vs them" phrase.  It's a double whammy because not only do most of the elites that work in the 416 actually live in the 905 area around Toronto, a majority of the voters in the 416 are people of colour, so it isn't JUST another dogwhistle "us vs them" partisan phrase, it's also another example of hidden racist code.

Personally I would've accepted a heartfelt apology from Don Cherry even though he ought to know better being a public figure. And I would've used this as a teachable moment for everyone else, seeing as a majority of people who say "you people" don't even realize they're being racist.

But mostly because I fundamentally believe in people's right to say stupid things in a free society so long as everyone else also have a right to gang up on them, rip apart their argument and call them stupid in large groups. 

That's not censorship, it's shaming and we don't have enough of that in our society anymore.

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/dog_whistle_dumpster_fire.php?fbclid=IwAR1NSVJQXrF4WZHdx8xjjb8XWm7AyrEOm8jhYFaETMrHMLjcMV6KOMT57LA

SILVER LYING PLAYBOOK - Republican Style

One thing was sure this last Canadian Federal Election, the Conservatives are no longer hiding the interference and influence of their Republican cousins in Canadian politics anymore.  If that doesn't worry you then I'd guess, like Conservative party leader Andrew "No Dice" Scheer, you too are part American.
It bothers me.  ALOT!
I'd rather a fully French citizen become Prime Minister of Canada than even a 1/4 American for the very simple reason that America has invaded us 3 times in our history and one President actually ran on a campaign called "54-40 or Bust" which was a declaration of hostilities against the very existence of Canada.
And, as Martin Lawrence wrote in his book THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PRIME MINISTERS, nearly everything America has done in the history of Canada-US relations has been hostile toward the existence and sovereignty of Canada.
Not to put a fine point on it, but I trust Americans with Canada's future about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.
So rather than update my TOP SECRET CONSERVATIVE HANDBOOK I've begun researching a TOP SECRET REPUBLICAN HANDBOOK.  Fans of my Conservative book will note that the cover has at the bottom what I suggested the next logo for Canada's Conservative Party could be:

The book was published in 2015 but this wasn't a joke.  It was a satirical way of noting that the Modern Conservative in Canada was little more than a Republican cloaked in a Maple Leaf, and it's time to take that message home to them.
But the reason I haven't already written this is because wading into that swamp, and make no bones about it, the only swamp in Washington, DC is Republican made, takes a real toll on my psyche.
It's like hanging around with a bunch of Manic/Depressives, only they're the cynical, conspiracy laden-ed, tin-foil hat wearing type.
In short, it's exhausting!
So I'll share a link I'm using to research one angle of this new book, it's a bit of a give away because I'm going to apply these theories to a bunch of policy white papers to demonstrate how Conservatives, both real and imagined, think.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/communication-success/201908/8-ways-gaslighters-manipulate-and-control-relationships

And now back to the title of this post.  Don't worry, it's all connected.

Today the Conservative Party of Canada posted this:

I've nothing against seeing a silver lining when you're trying to keep your base energized but, the problem with this post is, as with everything Andrew Scheer and his Republican - sorry, I mean Conservatives - have stated in the last decade, it doesn't pass the smell test.

Worse still, it's basic math, meaning even a number challenged idiot like myself can prove it wrong.

In 2006 - the election where Stephen "Robot Boy" Harper first became Prime Minister of Canada, the Conservatives won 124 seats in a 208 seat House of Commons, while Paul "Mr Dithers" Martin's Liberals took 103 seats.  That means Martin formed an Official Opposition that had 83% as many seats as Harper and the Opposition side had 60% of the seats.

In 2019 - the election where Justin "Brownface" Trudeau was reduced to a Minority Government, the Liberals have taken 157 seats of a 338 seat House of Commons, while Scheer's Conservatives took 121 seats, and while that's almost as many seats as Harper had to form Government in a much smaller House, it means Andy heads a party that took only 77% as many seats as Justin did, and the Opposition side has only 54% of the seats.

Now the only place I know where 54% is higher than 60% is in Andrew Scheer and Donald Trump's addled brains.
But then, that's Gaslighting Method Number 6, isn't it?

CANADA'S GOVERNMENT for Americans

When I describe Canada's political system to my American friends I say:

EXECUTIVE: Imagine your Executive branch has no power, they're just a figure head, an official greeter, and instead of Veto's they just put the ceremonial stamp of approval on any bill that's been passed by the elected legislators. They aren't called President, that's our Governor General.

SENATE: Imagine your Senate is appointed, they aren't beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists because they don't face election. They do most of the committee work, taking bills passed into law by the House and working out the logistical implementation. It works best when they're former (experienced) legislators because they know the system, it works worst when they're semi-famous public figures who haven't a clue what the job is because they then cause Spending Scandals. One party has kicked their Senators out of the party so they aren't influenced by partisan politics. Another party that has never been in power says they don't want the Senate, but they haven't explained how the work will get done and they'll never form Government so it doesn't matter what they think. The third party will threaten to take their ball and go home every time things don't go their way, we just let them do that.

HOUSE: Now imagine your House of Representatives is the only place all the power is, your Speaker is called the Prime Minister, he actually has a vote like anyone else and he leads a Cabinet made up of people who are Ministers (instead of Secretaries) all of whom also sit in the House. There is a speaker but he's just a moderator. If the House has a majority of votes they pass their bills into Law after 4 rounds of debate. But we have 5 parties represented so if they don't have a majority there's a lot of wrangling, stuff still gets done but it has to be by compromise. It's a one stop shop and if the PM goes somewhere and agrees to something and has a majority in the House then he gets the job done, Unlike your President who then has to go back to the House and start a process of getting his deal approved.

There's no gridlock, no do-nothing sessions (unless its an unpopular minority government) and if they can't make it work then the whole thing is shut down and we have an election so the people can decide. It can happen within months of the previous election (if a very dysfunctional minority Government is elected) but no longer than 4 1/2 years after the last one.

WITHOUT ALBERTA

I've been to Alberta many times.  I lived there for 5 years.  I was there when the province abandoned the Federal Government and created their little artisinal boutique Reform Party.  I was there when the province feigned indignation when their regional little political movement failed to form Government and had to sit back in 4th place and listen to the Bloq Quebecois' Lucien Bouchard speak as the Leader of the Official Opposition in Parliament. 
In short, I witnesses the birth of the "Little Whiny Baby Wanting to Take Our Ball Home When We Don't Get Our Way" that is modern Alberta.
I'm not a fan.
So on election night, when the official spokesman of the "Big Whiny Baby" movement, Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer mentioned the Conservatives "won the popular vote" my sniff-detector went off.  The term "sniff-test" is a journalistic one referring to any statement a politician makes that carries a whiff of something foul and untrue about it.
The popular vote means nothing in a Westminster Parliament such as ours.  It wouldn't mean anything in a Regional Proportional Representation model either and if that surprises you then it proves you really haven't learned enough about PR to know whether you like it or not.
But that's for another day - very kind people who have said nice things about these posts have also reminded me I'm circumlocutious, so, back to the topic:

WITHOUT ALBERTA
I'm not going to talk about Wexit or Abexit or whatever nonsense the 63% of Albertans who didn't get their way this election call the stupid notion of Alberta leaving these days. 
Not this time.
Conservative support is largely saturated in Alberta and throughout the election we were watching these heavily skewed numbers make it look like the Nation was leaning Conservative when in fact Alberta was the bloated Conservative pissing pot weighing the nation down, and now that the final numbers are in I can demonstrate what that means.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - there were 14,472,789 votes cast.  14.4 Million.
And the House of Commons minus the Alberta seats has 304 members.

WITHOUT ALBERTA - the Liberals got 5,635,641 votes, the Conservatives 4,742,302 and the NDP 2,614,201 votes.  I'm not going to bother listing the other parties as they don't matter, even the Bloq, which got seats only because they too are concentrated in one area (the similarities between Alberta and Quebec agitate both equally so have fun with that if you can).
WITHOUT ALBERTA - those votes would've still given the Liberals 157 seats (exactly what they got); the Conservatives would've had only 88 (since 33 of their seats are in Alberta) and the NDP would have 24 (they'd lose that lone non-Conservative Albertan seat).  Since a House of Commons without Alberta has 304 seats then a Majority in that House requires only 152 and Trudeau, winning 157 would have a Majority.

NOTE THAT I HAVEN'T REMOVED SASKATCHEWAN which went entirely Conservative in their seat count for the same reason I didn't remove PEI which went entirely Liberal.  They may be symptoms of a problem, but they're not THE problem.

WITHOUT ALBERTA our Nation is clearly more equally represented and representative.  It's also more consistent with pockets going one way, and others going another.  Most importantly the results in the other 9 provinces and 3 territories better reflect the voting intentions of the Nation as a whole and by every measure Andrew "No-Dice" Scheer is still the biggest loser.

THE MYTH OF PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION

Let's put an end to the myth of Proportionate Representation, shall we?
In John Pepall's book AGAINST REFORM he correctly states three very important facts about PR in regards to Canada:
1. PR means endless Coalition or Minority governments, all of which under Westminster Parliamentary systems are either unstable or frequently shifting their priorities.
2. Canadians have repeatedly indicated they don't like Coalition and Minority governments because...
3. Coalition and Minority governments do not have any one party clearly responsible or to blame or accountable and therefore in every nation where they exist budgets are completely out of control.

If you think Harper's wasting of the $100 Billion Chretien/Martin paid off the debt was bad.  If you think Harper's further adding of $70 Billion to the debt through his nepotistic Canada Action Plan vote buying scheme was bad.
If you think Justin's $50 Billion investment in infrastructure that stimulated a stagnant economy was bad.
THEN imagine doing that PLUS trying to appease the additional demands of your coalition partners!!

The 4th reason Mr. Pepall gives against reform on all counts is that there's no way a political party can institute a political system reform without trying to put in, or exclude, a measure that benefits or hurts it.  None.  It's ridiculous to even expect that.

And the 5th reason Mr. Pepall gives against such reforms is that Canada is at the top of International Stability lists, Democratic Responsibility lists and at the bottom of Corruption Indexes.  In short, the system we have has ensured a stable, functioning and responsible democracy for 150 plus years so anyone wanting to change that is clearly trying to de-stablize us.

But let's pretend for a minute that a consensus is possible about PR.  That of the dozen or so possible systems out there, a majority of Canadians, or even Canadian politicians, could agree on one system.  There's no evidence of this being the case, and even when PR referendums have passed in places like BC no province has instituted one because none can get consensus on which method to adopt [see: item 4 for the reason why], but let's pretend that consensus on a Proportionate Representation system has occurred.

And because this is about myths, let's pretend a Regional Proportionate Representation system was in place, then, as pollster and the mind behind 338Canada.com, Philippe J. Fournier worked out in a recent article for MacLeans....

Under First Past The Post, right now the Liberals and Conservatives would each get around 132 seats.  They'd then need the NDP's 33 seats, the Greens 4 and the Bloq's 36 to either support or abstain from defeating them.

Under PPR, right now we'd see a minority government under Andrew Scheer with 112 seats, the Liberals would have 109, the NDP would have 61, the Bloq 23 and the Greens 32.  We'd have pretty much the same situation in government where 1 of the 2 main parties would need the smaller parties to either support or abstain from defeating them, but no one in Canada would have an MP that they elected or could turn to for help, and the country would never have a hope of having one party accountable for the decisions of the Government because this sort of mess would happen every damn election.

But at least the NDP and the Greens would have more seats - so that would make it all worth while, right?

Barf! 
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-338canada-projection-if-proportional-representation-was-real/

THE GOOD NEWS

Don't Panic!
The world will not end this year.  In fact I'm here to tell you that regardless of the outcome of Monday's Canadian Federal Election it's unlikely anyone will be affected for at least a year.
As of today, according to an aggregate of all polls, there is a zero percent chance of the Scheer Conservatives getting a Majority government, and while the two main parties are neck and neck in just about every measure at the moment, none of it really matters.

The most likely scenario right now is that Andrew Scheer becomes Canada's Prime Minister in a minority Conservative government.  So let's look at that:
In 2006 Stephen Harper formed government and despite claiming he would balance the books and cut, cut, cut he ended up spending $50 Billion more than planned that first parliament because he didn't have a majority.  Harper was a skilled tactician, a bully and a cunning negotiator and he couldn't do much more than make matters worse for the Federal coffers by cutting the GST 2%. 
I can't stress this enough, Andrew Scheer is no Stephen Harper.  If he forms government he's doing so in the most hostile parliament in Canadian history. 
By convention in Canada, if Scheer's party gets the most seats then he will be given the chance to form government but as the Canadian people won't want to go back to the polls any time soon, the most likely result of his government losing a non-confidence motion is the Governor General will turn to the other parties and ask if they can form a coalition.
Thing is, from day one I've been getting a Joe Clark vibe from Andy Scheer.  Except in Mr. Clark's case he had actually completed his degree, got a Masters in Political Science and gained the respect of people outside Ottawa as a journalist where he honed his ability to form sentences.
Andy is barely able to keep track of his own lies.
The point is a Scheer government will be, like it's leader, largely impotent.  The only hope he'll have to avoid an election and outlast Clark's 9 months is by conceding to the majority of the house and since he doesn't have the skill and cunning of Harper and isn't facing the shaky confidence of Paul Martin, don't expect he'll be even a third as effective.
And the last thing Scheer's government will need is a fight against the Government's unions.

The second most likely option is that Justin gets a minority.  He'll have two options.  Try to run it alone, meaning he'll need to stick to things that the NDP or Greens won't take offense to in order to avoid a non-confidence vote, or he'll need to copy his Dad's 1974 playbook and form a loose alliance with the NDP or Greens to get the plurality he needs to stay in power.  In both cases he's not going to be able to push anything through Parliament that's too ambitious or challenging unless he also takes a page from Harper's Minority playbook and gets the consensus on the Bills before they're put to the House.

Either way, despite all claims that minorities governments have been progressive, the only thing that's true of all 13 cases of them in Canadian history is you can kiss balancing the budget good-bye!  Too many hands with too many agendas and multiple bases to please are going to mean spending.

And sadly for Conservatives, I predict the next election will be within 12 months, Justin will still be around for it, Scheer won't and all the old-news crap they've been trying to use on him won't mean a thing, particularly if the scenarios happen in the sequence I've listed them, because if Canadians don't learn from this election what the cost of splitting the vote is, how important strategic voting is to keep Conservatives out of power is, then this country will get the government it deserves.

And God help us if we do!