Australian prime minister Julia Gillard is escorted by police and bodyguards out of a award ceremony after aboriginal tent embassy protesters tried to get into the building in Canberra,on Australia Day, Thursday, January 26, 2012. Lukas Coch / EPA.

Internal website statistics showing a sudden burst of fresh interest in a blog we did on the last Australian federal election (“You can’t blame Bloc Québécois for no majority government in Land of Oz,”  Aug 23rd, 2010) has clued us in to fresh political hi-jinks in the exotic deep southern geography of  billabongs, coolabah trees, kangaroos, koala bears, etc, etc.

(It is part of Australia’s strangeness, for we inhabitants of the fellow former dominion of the British empire on which the sun never set, up here in the attic of North America, that, as we see it, today, January 26, 2010, is Australia Day. But in Australia itself  Australia Day was yesterday. Today is January 27, 2012. Happy Australia Day 2012, in any case, even if you too feel “Aussie. I love it, but leave me out of the flag-waving.”)

So … to quote from our August 2010 piece on the last Australian federal election: “to form the barest of majority governments you need at least 76 seats in what the Ozzies call their House of Representatives (following the American rather than the British nomenclature). The verdict of the voters this past Saturday was so close that the final word on all the seats is still not in.”

In the end Julia Gillard’s Australian Labor Party and its main opponents, Tony Abbott’s Liberal/National Coalition each won only 72 seats. When the dust settled, six “crossbenchers” (in the exotic Ozzie political lexicon) held “the balance of power: Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply; independent MP Bob Katter and National Party of Western Australia MP Tony Crook declared their support for the Coalition on confidence and supply. The resulting 76–74 margin entitled Labor to form a minority government.”

Andrew Wilkie, right, and senator Nick Xenophon on their way to a pokies reform rally in Sydney. Dan Himbrechts, The Australian.

The House tilted slightly more in Julia Gillard’s direction late this past year: “The Labor government increased their parliamentary majority on 24 November 2011 from 75–74 to 76–73 when the Coalition’s Peter Slipper became Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, replacing Labor’s Harry Jenkins.”

What has now happened in January 2012 to complicate these numbers further is that Julia Gillard has suddenly backed out of an earlier written agreement with independent MP Andrew Wilkie, regarding government policy on reform of the Australian poker machine industry (aka “the pokies”: CLICK HERE for an instructive BBC video on just what this means!). Mr. Wilkie regarded this written agreement as the price of his support of Ms. Gillard’s Labor minority government, and withdrew his support when she cancelled the deal.

Read the rest of this page »

Dalton McGuinty speaks at the Liberal Party of Canada Convention in Ottawa, January 13, 2012. Peter Power/The Globe and Mail.

[UPDATED JANUARY 24]. Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty’s welcoming speech was one of the highlights at the Liberal Party of Canada’s biennial convention in Ottawa, more than a week ago now, on Friday, January 13, 2012. One of its most striking passages, I thought, came somewhat before the middle: “Choosing a new leader is no quick fix. I am living proof of that. There are no saviours. There are no overnight successes. There is only hard work. Lots of it.”

Premier McGuinty’s penchant for this kind of rhetoric remains one of his strengths, in the political culture of his home and native most populous province of Canada. It reminded me of the Latin motto of my old Ontario high school: “Labor Omnia Vincit.” (Or for younger generations no longer required to study the dead language of the Roman empire, “Work Conquers All.”)

Dalton McGuinty attended St. Patrick’s High School in Ottawa. Its Latin motto is Religio Alit Artes (Religion Nourishes the Arts) — which has similarities to Labor Omnia Vincit, and probably to the motto of most other Ontario high schools too.

Back at Queen’s Park in Toronto,  during the work week of January 16–20, there were a few good reasons to wonder whether lots of hard work will be enough to conquer the challenges the new McGuinty “major minority” government is facing in the year ahead. To start with: “In the first major poll since the Oct. 6 election, the Conservatives, led by Tim Hudak … are at 41% to the Liberals’ 33%. The New Democrats, led by Andrea Horwath, are third with 20% and Mike Schreiner’s Greens are at 4% … in terms of approval rating, Horwath leads with 40%, McGuinty is at 33%, and Hudak trails with 26%.”

Opinion polls on Ontario provincial politics often  reflect confusion  between federal and provincial politics in the minds of Ontario voters — especially when no provincial election is close at hand. And this confusion is recurrently inspired by such Ontario politicians as Premier McGuinty himself, with the ringing peroration to his January 13 speech in Ottawa:

“When Liberals do once again earn the privilege of serving as the government … we’ll win because Canadians will see that Liberals have no greater desire, no greater ambition, than to put our country first … in all we do and say we’ll have demonstrated our faith in Canada … inspired by … our determination to build opportunity for all, right here in Canada.”

Lorne Bozinoff, Ph.D., CMC, President & CEO of Forum Research.

Lorne Bozinoff, president of the Forum Research organization that has conducted the first major Ontario poll since the October 6 election (when the Conservatives actually managed a mere  35.4% of the popular vote, compared with the Liberals’ 37.6% and the New Democrats’ 22.7%), has nonetheless proffered a more substantive explanation for the McGuinty Liberals’ latest poor polling numbers.

As explained in the Toronto Star: “‘I don’t think the talk of restraint has gone that well … People are getting very uneasy … ’” The Star goes on: “That’s a reference to former TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond’s looming report on government reform, which will help shape Finance Minister Dwight Duncan’s March budget … Bozinoff said the austerity chatter is hurting the Liberals, coming as it does against the backdrop of revelations in the Star about the ORNGE air ambulance service … ‘It’s just the wrong image right now,’ he said.”

One might reasonably wonder why, if Lorne Bozinoff is right on the money here, voters are more happy with Conservatives who would presumably go still further down the restraint and austerity highway? But then there is again the confusion factor between federal and provincial politics — and more significantly the confusing party leader approval ratings, which put the NDP’s Andrea Horwath first and the Conservatives’ Tim Hudak last!

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath — finished first in leader approval rating segment of Lorne Bozinoff’s latest poll.

In any case, I find myself wanting to stir two additional ingredients into the current mixture. The first is a January 9 New York Times column by the reasonable American conservative David Brooks. It is entitled “Where Are the Liberals?”, and it focuses on the belief of some North American voters today that “to put it in the economists’ language … the government has been captured by rent-seekers.”

The second is an unscientific sample of conversations with younger Ontario public servants I haphazardly bumped into at recent holiday season events, about just what it is like these days inside Ontario’s particular regional variation on the rent-seeking bureaucratic culture.

Read the rest of this page »

Ms. Deschanel — too busy at the Golden Globes and whatnot in LA to hang with Citizen X in northern wilderness.

It has me taken a while to get into the latest Stephen Colbert intervention in the real world of US politics (in conjunction with his colleague, Jon Stewart — who recently claimed that both “t”s in his surname are silent, to give “Sewar” when said out loud).

But I have now been drawn in by the “Pro-Stephen Colbert Super PAC” TV ad in the South Carolina Republican primary, which boldly urges: “A vote for Herman Cain is a vote for America … He’s such a Washington outsider, he’s not even running for president.”

Only a seriously intermittently free country would tolerate such constructive nonsense. And this has affected my decision on what to type about in this blogazine posting, apparently due yesterday. (I’d like to say I was distracted by Zooey Deschannel, but alas ….)

Too much time wasted on news articles this morning (or was that yesterday morning?) has left a half-dozen possible topics: Federalism and Canadian public health care ; In search of Canadian Liberalism … again ; Ontario — “surely one of the most inarticulate communities in human culture” (Northrop Frye) ; Canadian economy — ups and downs ; Rising sun of the new global village ; and High-speed rail in USA (and Canada) today — yet another boogie-woogie rumble Of a dream deferred. (With apologies to Langston Hughes).

Under the influence of the Pro-Stephen Colbert Super PAC, I have selected the last of these topics, on high-speed rail in the USA (and Canada).  Those who feel this was the wrong decision can click on “Read the rest of this page” below, and then scroll down to an Appendix, which includes links to various source materials about each of the five other possible topics.

California High Speed Rail Authority shows an artist's rendering of a high-speed train speeding along the California coast. (California High Speed Rail Authority / Associated Press).

Meanwhile, the sources for US high-speed rail begin with a January 7, 2012 editorial in the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Keep California’s bullet train on track … Despite recent negative reviews by experts, in the long term the rail project still makes sense.” This is followed by a January 11 response in the same illustrious publication headlined “California can’t afford the bullet train … At least, that’s the overwhelming sentiment among readers who’ve been responding to the board’s most recent editorial, ‘Keep California’s bullet train on track.’” Finally, on January 15 the sources conclude with a broader Washington Post piece headlined “Plans for high-speed rail are slowing down.”  And the first page of this more extensive report concludes with: “House Republicans were also among those who dug in against Obama’s high-speed rail vision, saying that outside of select regions, it did not fit a sprawling, car-loving nation served by nearly 50,000 miles of interstate highways and an extensive air travel network.” (And if you want to hear a bit more in this direction, you can also click on  “Read the rest of this page” below — or just read on if you already are below etc!)

Read the rest of this page »

In a number of respects the Liberal Party of Canada biennial convention in Ottawa this weekend has been a surprising success. It was, eg, attended by some 3,200 delegates — considerably more than expected.

As Jane Taber has also reported: “The party had wanted to show it can reinvent itself by becoming more open. It went some of the way by deciding to create a new class of ‘supporters’, who do not have to pay a fee to become a party member or join a riding association, but can vote for … a new Liberal leader.”  And delegates elected the 42-year-old Mike Crawley as party president, over the 59-year-old Sheila Copps (even if she does have “a good sex life”).

Those of us who harbour progressive left libertarian sentiments (as in, eg, Bernard Crick’s description of George Orwell as “left-wing, but also libertarian, egalitarian”) cannot help but be pleased as well that “an overwhelming 75 per cent of delegates” voted for “ the legalization and regulation of marijuana.”

(Even if: “The marijuana resolution is not binding on the leader or the party. And delegates rejected a proposal to remove the leader’s veto over the contents of future election platforms, so there’s no guarantee the party will ever actually campaign on the idea of legalizing pot.”)

At the same time, it apparently remains one of the problems of the federal Liberals that for all too many years now they have been a party of what passes for an old establishment in Canada. And, at best, it is apparently going to take considerably longer in the wilderness to shed this establishment past.

Thus even though the party went some of the way towards showing “it can reinvent itself by becoming more open …  by deciding to create a new class of ‘supporters’”(in Ms. Taber’s fine words again), “delegates rejected a US-style primary system to elect its leader.” And the new president, “Mr. Crawley, when asked what system he preferred during the presidential debate Friday night, was non-committal.”

Much more importantly for potential Liberal voters such as myself, only 38% of delegates voted YES for resolution 114 : “Canadian Identity in the 21st Century … BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada, urge the Parliament of Canada to form an all party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state popularly elected and sever formal ties with the British Crown.”

As the counterweights editors explained last week, “That’s democracy.” And we ardent supporters of an altogether and thorough-going post-colonial Canada at last can take some heart from continuing support for this ultimate democratic reform cause from the likes of  Liberal youth vice-president Sean Sutherland, and  Montreal MP Marc Garneau.

Like other supporters of a democratically elected Canadian head of state in Canada (on the Westminster parliamentary model of India, Ireland, Iceland, and other such places), I certainly intend to keep doing whatever I can to advance what strikes me as a crucial cause for the long-term future of our country. In this particular context, there is one obvious small thing I can do. And I have quickly discovered that, in reaction to the fate of resolution 114, that is what I intend to do.

Many Liberal opponents of the resolution, that is to say, have not been at all shy about stressing how if the party did support even just studying the prospects of some ultimate severing of our current residual “formal ties with the British Crown,” they would withdraw their support from the party. I find myself wanting to make clear, in the only small but immediate way I can, that this “divisiveness” cuts in more than one direction.

So … as someone who has often voted for the Liberal Party of Canada  — especially in the more recent past — I will certainly not be doing any such thing again, until and unless it reverses the position that 62% of its 3,200 biennial convention delegates have now taken on the future of the British monarchy in Canada!

Of course, no one will notice (or care) what I do, in my small corner. But I have no doubt that I am far from the only former Liberal voter who will now be taking this position. The ultimate democratic reform of politely moving beyond the British monarchy as Canada’s official head of state is growing into a more  fundamental issue than many who still identify with the old establishment think.

Jackson Lears: “ I don’t see the kind of leadership that Obama had a mandate to provide.”

Jackson Lears “teaches history at Rutgers University, is the editor of Raritan and author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920.” In the 5 January 2012 issue of the London Review of Books, he reviews two recent biographies of US President Barack Obama’s father and mother —  The Other Barack by Sally Jacobs and A Singular Woman by Janny Scott.

Lears suggests that these biographies “may help to provide a genealogy of disappointment — a fuller explanation of how [President] Obama came so grievously to disappoint his supporters as well as, perhaps, himself.”

The Rutgers historian spells out this grievous disappointment in the very first paragraph of his review: “To those of us who hoped that Barack Obama’s election marked a departure from right-wing rule, the president’s failure of leadership has been stunning. Seldom have insurgent expectations … been deflated so swiftly … One did not have to be a sentimental utopian to be disappointed.”

This is such a widespread opinion among people I talk with about such things that I feel bound to respect it, and even concede that it contains a few clear grains of plain truth. At the same time, it still seems to me that Jackson Lears’s kind of view on the disappointing Obama presidency also fails to take into account certain undeniable and even more disappointing facts of political life, about the wider parameters of democracy in America today.

Three different sets of Gallup poll statistics do a tidy enough job of illustrating what I am getting at here.  To start with, just yesterday the Gallup organization published its latest annual averages on “US Political Ideology.” And, according to this survey data, in 2011 “40% of Americans … describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.”

The good news is that this picture is somewhat better than it was in 1992, when 43% of Americans described their views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 17% as liberal. The continuing bad news is still that no one is going to win a US national election right now by tilting their public policies and programs very strongly toward the liberal end of the current American political spectrum.

Read the rest of this page »

Mike Crawley, candidate for President, Liberal Party of Canada.

[UPDATED JANUARY 18]. The main event in Canadian progressive politics this week is the biennial convention of the federal Liberals in Ottawa — Friday, January 13 to Sunday, January 15.  Our first big hope here is that the Grits in their wisdom vote YES for resolution 114 : “Canadian Identity in the 21st Century … BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada, urge the Parliament of Canada to form an all party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state popularly elected and sever formal ties with the British Crown.”

Our second big hope is that Mike Crawley is elected President, Liberal Party of Canada. Neither of these hopes may be realized. That’s democracy. Whatever happens we will continue to believe in both causes — and do what little we can to help move them ahead (with special reference to the first one, since no individual in his or her own right can exactly be a cause)!

NDP Leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair from Montreal looks at family photos with his Aunt Monique from Prince George, BC.

Meanwhile, the ongoing federal NDP leadership race may be, as the Winnipeg Free Press has just suggested, “a real snoozefest.”  But the irrepressible statistician Eric Grenier has nonetheless just figured out an intriguing if not entirely convincing approach to measuring who may or may not be ahead. See, eg: “Mulcair gathering steam in NDP race, Wikipedia tea leaves suggest” ; “Can Wikipedia predict the next NDP leader? If so, Paul Dewar is in trouble” ; and “What Wikipedia Can Tell Us about the NDP Race … beside who the candidates are and how to spell their names.”

Mr. Grenier’s essential trick is to judge the current eight candidates by the number of times the Wikipedia sites on them have been visited recently. He allows that the methodology is not perfect, on various grounds. But, applied judiciously, he argues that: “Over the last two months …  Mr. Mulcair has held a narrow edge over Ms. Nash. Mr. Topp has fallen to third. This matches nicely with what many have perceived as the current state of the race — that Mr. Topp is now trailing behind Mr. Mulcair and Ms. Nash.”

Niki Ashton, from northern Manitoba — youngest NDP leadership candidate.

Our own private soundings suggest that Nathan Cullen from northern BC is also getting close to this interpretation of the top three. We remain impressed by the youthful Niki Ashton from northern Manitoba, currently campaigning in Alberta, where she has nicely complained that: “We’re seeing a real arrogance arise with regards to our interests and the assumption that the Conservative government is the only authority to speak for Western Canadians.” And we remain impressed by the political mind of Brian Topp as well.

But in our talks with NDP insiders we have also been impressed by the extent to which Thomas Mulcair does appear to be gaining traction. (As someone, eg, who could stand up to Stephen Harper in an election campaign, mano a mano, etc. And btw: “Although he lives in Quebec and represents the Quebec riding of Outremont, Mulcair has a Prince George [BC] connection. His Aunt, Monique Wyse, has lived in Prince George for the past 40 years. She is also Mulcair’s Godmother.”)

“Like many younger Canadians, Nathan Cullen enjoys reading urban weekly papers” — even if he is an MP for northern BC! Photo: Charlie Smith.

We have similarly been intrigued by John Ibbitson’s assessment of the NDP race late last week, which distinguished between “progressives” and “social democrats.”  Mr. Ibbitson is of course a conservative himself, but equally a gifted observer of Canadian politics at large. And he thinks that: “Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair and British Columbia MP Nathan Cullen probably come closest to fitting the progressive label, while Toronto MP Peggy Nash is closer to the social-democratic roots of the party. Mr. Topp advised Mr. Layton, which makes him more of a progressive. But his rhetoric and platform lean more toward the social democratic.”

There are five more NDP leadership debates to go. The next is Sunday, January 29, in Halifax.  And the final decision won’t come until Saturday, March 24, in Toronto. A lot could change between now and then. Our most confident prediction at the moment — or at least our fondest hope — is that the race won’t continue to be a snoozefest for too much longer. (And meanwhile again, local party members have selected law professor Craig Scott as the NDP candidate for Jack Layton’s old “east-end riding of Toronto-Danforth.”)

UPDATE WEDNESDAY JANUARY 18: As it happens, and perhaps in an effort to deal with the snoozefest issue,  there will be a debate among the current eight NDP leadership candidates in Toronto tonight. As The Canadian Press has explained this “event is not one of six ‘official’ debates organized by the party, but is one of several such events organized locally … The next official debate is in Halifax Jan. 29, with others followed every two weeks in Quebec City, Winnipeg, Montreal, Vancouver and at the March convention.”

Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair’s position in the race has probably been affected in some degree by the revelation that he has dual Canadian and French citizenship. See “NDP’s Thomas Mulcair vows to keep French citizenship … Will this news hurt Mulcair’s campaign? … Not many Canadians seemed to care about the issue when former PM John Turner, who was born in England, was a dual citizen during his time in office … But, in 2006, when it was learned that then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion held French nationality, it triggered a nation-wide rebuke … At the time, several NDP MPs argued that a leader of a federal party should not have dual citizenship.”

Click on image for more details!

By this point we no longer remember how our Zzzzzzzzzzzzz department — on the bar at the top of the page in the Home mode: “Links to recent news for those who really cannot get to sleep” — got started in the first place. But we do know that it has been woefully out of date for most of the past year.

This year we’re promising things will be different. Already someone on staff has updated the thing as of FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012. Our further commitment is to make sure a fresh set of links to recent news for those who really cannot get to sleep appear at least every following Friday — including the inauspicious day of Friday, January 13, 2012 that lies immediately ahead.

So what, you may say. And we agree. But we are trying to do better at any rate, just in case there actually is some reward in heaven for people who keep such essentially pointless new year’s resolutions as this one.

And who knows? Over the year that now lies so turbulently and/or perhaps even enticingly ahead, throughout the global village, Zzzzzzzzzzzzz actually may come up with at least one or two links to recent news that you will find almost nowhere else, and that are in fact absolutely intriguing or even life transforming. We have at least 51 more chances to try to bring it off. Meanwhile, we can only say again: CLICK HERE to check the new beginning out.

The Conspiracy of Pontiac or Pontiac’s Rebellion, in 1763, can be viewed today in several different lights. In one of them it was the first dramatic assertion of modern Canadian identity and independence.

At their biennial convention next weekend the federal Liberals will be debating a policy resolution on the Canadian future of the British monarchy, at the democratic reforming behest of the Young Liberals of Canada..

The resolution is officially known as “114. Canadian Identity in the 21st Century.” Its operative section reads: “BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada, urge the Parliament of Canada to form an all party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state popularly elected and sever formal ties with the British Crown.”

CTV’s Don Martin recently raised the issue with Canada’s foreign affairs minister John Baird,  one of several aggressive monarchists in the present Harper government in Ottawa.

The early December march down Yonge Street in the Upper Canadian Rebellion of 1837 was another early assertion of modern Canadian independence. It failed but still led to the start of an autonomous Canadian (and British North American) parliamentary democracy, under Governor General Lord Elgin, in 1848.

Mr. Baird replied: “I got to scratch my head …If the big priority is to reopen the constitution and try to get unanimity through protracted constitutional negotiations — I think that’s the last thing Canadians want. And obviously, I strongly support the monarchy.”

Mr. Baird is referring here to section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982, which prescribes that an “amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to … the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province” requires the approval of “the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province.”

There is no doubt that ultimately severing “formal ties with the British Crown” in Canada will require just such a constitutional amendment. But perhaps because he does so strongly “support the monarchy,” Mr. Baird is not paying close enough attention to just what the Young Liberals’ policy resolution 114 is calling for.

First official Canadian citizenship ceremony, at Supreme Court building in Ottawa, January 3, 1947. The first Canadian Citizenship Act which took effect that year finally created the legal status of a Canadian citizen, as opposed to a British subject resident in Canada.

Reforming the present Senate of Canada, for instance, will also ultimately mean a constitutional amendment. This would require the approval of only seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population. But who can deny that it too would mean reopening the constitution and “protracted constitutional negotiations … the last thing Canadians want.”

Yet the Harper government is nonetheless going ahead with what it has called “step-by-step” Senate reform, that does not (in its opinion at any rate) require a constitutional amendment. And if Mr. Baird were to look carefully at the Young Liberals’ policy resolution 114, he might begin to appreciate that what it is actually proposing is a parallel step-by-step democratic reform of the office of Canadian head of state, without any immediate constitutional protraction.

Read the rest of this page »

Harper and McGuinty. Toronto Sun file photo.

Six recent articles, mostly but not entirely from the Globe and Mail, raise some provocative prospects about Ontario’s changing role in the Canadian confederation:

“Ontario Liberals brace for a tumultuous year” (Adam Radwanski) ; “Flaherty’s corporate-tax plan hits stumbling block in Ontario” (Bill Curry) ; “Saving John McCallum’s seat will be true measure of Liberal reforms” (John Ibbitson) ; “Tory and NDP slippage gives Liberals a polling boost in key provinces” (Eric Grenier) ; “Over-hyping the Liberal convention” (Robert Silver) ; and “NDP wants cap on salaries of hospital CEOs and an end to expensive perks” (Keith Leslie).

Some would say that the new Ontario role in confederation bequeathed by the May 2, 2011 federal election is to give a parliamentary majority to a Conservative government more or less effectively headquartered in Western Canada (with special reference to the oil-rich Prairie Province of Alberta). Consider, eg., the present allocation of Conservative seats by province in the elected Canadian House of Commons: Ontario 73 ; Alberta 27 ; BC 21 ; Saskatchewan 13 ; Manitoba 11 ; New Brunswick 8 ; Quebec 5 ; Nova Scotia 4 ; Newfoundland 1 ; PEI 1.

Yet to no small extent all this just reflects the skewed political arithmetic of our first-past-the-post electoral system. The picture already starts to look somewhat different when you contemplate the  May 2, 2011 Conservative popular vote by province: Alberta 66.8% ; Saskatchewan 56.3% ; Manitoba 53.5% ; BC 45.6% ; Ontario 44.4% ; New Brunswick 43.8% ; PEI 41.2% ; Nova Scotia 36.7% ; Newfoundland 28.3% ; Quebec 16.5%.

In fact, the Harper Conservatives only won a majority of the popular vote in the three Prairie Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. They did worst in this respect in la belle province. But even among today’s biggest anglophone provinces, the people of BC and Ontario remained somehow reluctant to go the full distance on the united right-wing wave.

Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horwath. Mark Blinch/Reuters.

Moreover, many would say, if Ontario’s definitive new role in confederation finally were to provide majority government ballast for the Harper Conservatives, then Tim Hudak’s Ontario provincial Conservatives would have won the October 6, 2011 Ontario provincial election.

Instead the Hudak Conservatives managed only 35.4% of the province-wide popular vote. The McGuinty Liberals won the largest number of seats (with 37.6% of the popular vote), but fell one seat short of a bare working majority in the Legislative Assembly.

Meanwhile, Andrea Horwath’s Ontario New Democrats won 22.7% of the popular vote. And the Ontario Liberals and New Democrats together have a decisive majority of 70 seats in the 107-seat Assembly at Queen’s Park (53 Liberals and 17 New Democrats).

Read the rest of this page »

I know Citizen X posted a piece yesterday, saying the “next article on this site will be in the New Year.” But on my way back from the far north I heard an enchanting new video on the world wide web —  Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel doing the Nancy Wilson classic, “What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve?”. And, even though it has already spread like wild fire, I couldn’t resist dropping quickly into the office this Saturday afternoon/last day of 2011 to add counterweights to the growing list of cyberspace admirers.

I have myself been an admirer of Ms. Deschanel’s work in movies for some time — for reasons nicely illustrated in “Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s New Year’s Eve song” or (on Ms. Deschanel’s own website apparently) “VIDEO CHAT KARAOKE SPECIAL: ZOOEY DESCHANEL & JOE GORDON-LEVITT – ‘WHAT ARE YOU DOING NEW YEAR’S EVE?’ (NANCY WILSON).”

For those less fortunate individuals who still don’t know about Zooey Deschanel, here (for starters) is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on her (and yes, I know, Wikipedia must be used with care, but sometimes it is quite good): “Born in Los Angeles in 1980, Deschanel is the daughter of cinematographer/director Caleb Deschanel and actress Mary Jo Deschanel (née Weir). She is of French (from her paternal grandfather) and Irish descent. She was named after Zooey Glass, the male protagonist of J. D. Salinger’s 1961 novella Franny and Zooey. Her older sister, Emily Deschanel, is also an actress and stars in the TV series Bones.”

As others will already know, Ms. Deschanel herself is also the star of a new TV series called New Girl. I must confess that I haven’t quite been able to get into this series myself yet. But the Wikipedia article in this case suggests I should be trying harder: “New Girl is an American television sitcom that premiered on Fox on September 20, 2011. It stars Zooey Deschanel, Jake Johnson, Max Greenfield, Lamorne Morris and Hannah Simone. On September 28, 2011, after two episodes aired, Fox ordered an additional 11 episodes to the initial 13-episode order, bringing the first season to 24 episodes.”

The article goes on: “New Girl has received favorable responses from critics since its conception, with many giving particular praise towards Deschanel’s performance. On December 15, 2011, the nominations for the 69th Golden Globe Awards were announced, with the show being nominated for ‘Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy’ and Deschanel being nominated for ‘Best Actress in a Television Series – Musical or Comedy’.”

Anyway, the very bottom line is that, whatever else, I do think pointing (once again) to the Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel version of the Nancy Wilson classic, “What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve?” is an excellent way of wishing everyone within earshot a very Happy New Year 2012. Hopefully at least planet earth will not quite explode in a fit of self-destruction over the next 12 months! And I am confident enough about the human future to predict that indeed it will not — even if much other turbulence looms ahead.