Saturday, March 11, 2006

Halliburton's Depleted Uranium Cover Up

File this story under the headline;

The Joys Of Privatization

Tony Blair is really Maggie Thatcher in drag, doing that Victor Victoria thing. As this story about the contracting out of a major British military establishment to Halliburton shows.

And meanwhile back in the USSA folks are all verklempt that a private British Company, good old P&O , currently contracted to run American ports is being sold to the UAE.

My guess is they would be happier if it was sold to Halliburton. I know Dick Cheney would be. And then Halliburtons cover ups of dangers to humanity could be excused as National Security.

Privatizing State functions means the state is no longer answerable to the public, to its citizens. The Privatized State is responsible to its stakeholders, that is the companies it contracts out to and their shareholders. This reveals the real meaning of 'stakeholder democracy' that Tony Blair and George Bush talk about.

Depleted uranium measured in British atmosphere from battlefields in the Middle East

by Leuren Moret

"Did the use of uranium weapons in Gulf War II result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, Berkshire, U.K.," shows such contamination, reported the Sunday Times Online, in a shocking scientific study authored by British scientists Dr. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan.

The highest levels of depleted uranium ever measured in the atmosphere in Britain were transported on air currents from the Middle East and Central Asia. Of special significance were those from the Tora Bora bombing in Afghanistan in 2001 and the "shock and awe" bombing during Gulf War II in Iraq in 2003.

Out of concern for the public, the official British government air monitoring facility, known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment, at Aldermaston, was established years ago to measure radioactive emissions from British nuclear power plants and atomic weapons facilities.

The British government facility was taken over three years ago by Halliburton, which refused at first to release air monitoring data to Dr. Busby, as required by law.

The fact that the air monitoring data was circulated by Halliburton AWE to the Defense Procurement Agency implies that it was considered to be relevant and that Dr. Busby was stonewalled because Halliburton AWE clearly recognized that it was a serious enough matter to justify a government interpretation of the results and official decisions had to be made about what the data would show and its political implications for the military.

In a similar circumstance, in 1992, Major Doug Rokke, the director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Cleanup Project after Gulf War I, was ordered by a U.S. Army general officer to write a no-bid contract, "Depleted Uranium, Contaminated Equipment and Facilities Recovery Plan Outline," describing the procedures for cleaning up Kuwait, including depleted uranium, for Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 10, 2006

Canada Out Of NATO

Another Progressive For War (PFW) the Galloping Beaver blogs on the background to the Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan. He is cheered on by Cerberus, and cross posted it to the Torch. So now all the bases are covered.

Galloping Beaver compares the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite right too. Both operations are different. And as a progressive he is opposed to the war in Iraq but then he continues to try and justify the war in Afghanistan as different, more noble. Because it is sanctioned by the UN and NATO.


But then again when he says it is sanctioned by the UN and NATO let us not forget that so was the war on Serbia over Kosovo. And that mess is still going on. With no resoloution. So far neither the UN nor NATO sanctioned wars have had much success.

See my Seeing the Forest for the Trees
Thesis on The Kosovo Crisis and the Crisis of Global Capitalism

originally written May 1999, Bill Clinton set the stage for George W. to invade Afganistan and Iraq for humanitarian purposes.


And the comparison could be made that initially we were involved in peace keeping in the Balkans and then we were part of the War in the Balkans declared by that other Progressive For War, Bill Clinton.

At that time those who opposed imperialism and war, and the two go togther like peanutbutter and jam, also objected to that war. And that war was fought on so called humanitarian grounds, which many on the left even, mistakenly, supported. Christopher Hitchens opposed the war but now he supports the War in Iraq. Consistency is the hobgobllen of opportunists.

The Galloping Beaver says;
If Canada were to suddenly withdraw because Canadians at home are getting squeamish, those who would have us do that should be aware that Canada would be forever viewed as an unreliable ally; not by the US, but by NATO. Canada relies on collective defence treaties to keep defence affordable. Withdrawl would result in no treaties, no collective defence and a huge price to pay in going it alone.

Exactly why we should withdraw from NATO. Something the NDP called for over many decades until Jack Layton decided to arbitrarily change the party platform. Thus leaving him in the Hobbesian dilemma he is in now over whether our Troops should stay or go. NATO is a cold war relic, whose purpose was to prepare for a European theatre of war with the USSR. Without the USSR, NATO has no purpose.That was until it was utilized to end the Balkan war it's member states had encouraged in the first place (with their recognition of Slovenia and Croatia).

Then the Beaver concludes; "No matter how comfortable people are inside our borders at the moment, they should realize that the world has become a much more dangerous place, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union."

Yep thats when the world changed. No longer did we fear the nuclear meltdown due to the Cold War. Nor could the Soviet Union do its job as an Imperialist power in moderating its client states and holding them accountable. Thus a vacuum was created. One into which marched the USA as it declared under the Elder Bush the coming of the New World Order. And the new mask of Imperialism was adopted, that of humanitarian wars.

Military interventions on supposedly humanitarian grounds have become an established feature of the post–Cold War global order. Since September 11, this form of militarism has taken on new and unpredictable proportions. Diana Johnstone’s well-documented study demonstrates that a crucial moment in establishing in the public mind—and above all, within the political context of liberalism and the left—the legitimacy of such interventions was the “humanitarian” bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999.

For those of us on the Left we are opposed to Capitalism, Imperialism and War we are not pacifists, we recgonize that all wars are the bosses war which is why we say No War But Class War.

This adventure in Afghanistan clearly exposes those who are the liberals and so called progressives, the new age social democrats who will go to war for humanitarian reasons; which is the new excuse for Capitalism and Imperialism. Like they once used nationalism and honor.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Contempt for Parliament

Opposition questions Harper's ethics Opposition MPs blasted Stephen Harper on Thursday for his refusal to co-operate with the federal ethics commissioner, with one MP threatening to hold the prime minister in contempt.

Only one?

The whole house should condemn Harper for being in contempt of Parliament.

Wait a minute wasn't that the reason we had an election?

The PM and the government had lost the moral right to govern? Yeah but that was after twelve years in power.

Harper has earned the contempt of parliament and the Canadian people after less than twelve weeks in power.


Harpers ethics? Simple. Run as a populist reformer. Once in power show your true colours as an autocrat.

“Government exists to serve Canadians; government must serve the public interest, not personal interests.”


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Cutting Your Nose To Spite Your Face

This headline says it all. Science vs. the Bush Administration. When it gets in the way of military projects for the weaponization of space say, or if it is controversial by pointing out patterns of global warming and climate change. Then out come the budget scissors and snip, snip. No more need to censor NASA when you can go for the jugular and put it on basic lifesupport.




The potential discovery of liquid water on a moon of Saturn is bittersweet for many scientists.

The discovery, however, is bittersweet for many scientists. NASA's proposed budget for fiscal 2007 calls for a 50 percent cut in its astrobiology program. Although the program is a tiny piece of the agency's overall spending plan for science, it's a significant source of money for probing fundamental questions of how and why life emerged on Earth and whether life arose elsewhere in the universe.

A 50-percent cut "is almost a going-out-of-business-level cut" in a vibrant line of research that stands as one pillar supporting President Bush's vision for space exploration, says planetary scientist Sean Solomon, who heads the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington



More NASA articles.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Harper Plays Charest

Harper, Charest do historic lunch
King Stephen the Harpocrite made a historic second visit to Quebec yesterdfay. Where again nothing significant was done, it was all photo op and puff pastery.

But the optics well that's what counts. Did they discuss the health care accord? Non. Post Secondary Education funding? Non. Fiscal Imbalance. Non. It was all about the future. Charest's and Harpers.

They are after all kin, Charest led the Federal PC party before becoming a provincial Liberal. Harper led the Alliance before becoming a born again Conservative.

Harper and Charest need each other. Harper's best hope of growing a minority into a majority lies in Quebec and it can only become reality with the premier's help. Charest's chances of morphing a lacklustre first term into a second turn on winnowing out of Ottawa the latitude and money, in cash or tax points, to pursue Quebec interests in its own ways.

But with discussions on Federal balance of payments being suggested, this draws the Bloc on side as could be seen by BQ MP Richard Marceau's response on Mike Duffy yesterday. Daycare he said is a provincial issue.

Uh oh. Here it comes. The BQ will back the Tories. Daycare should be publicly funded the Bloc will argue, and would be if we didn't have an imbalance of payments from the Feds.

Harper will promise Quebec, not the ROC, to fix their imbalance and the BQ will be happy to vote with the Conservatives.

It's not like they haven't before.
CBC News: Conservative, BQ MPs block meat packer fines

Charest's popularity has gone from rock bottom and is increasing after the federal election. A few scores of big bucks from the Feds and all will be forgiven. Its the perfect neo-con job.

Meanwhile the Quebec model of private public healthcare will become the model for the Conservatives revision of healthcare. Still feasible under the CHA, meets the Supreme court challenge and makes Ralph Kleins Third Way the boogie man.
And all will be well in the Harpocrites universe.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said Charest and Harper "seem to be working hand in glove to support the privatization of our health care," noting the topic didn't even come up. "There's some things going in this relationship between Mr. Charest and Mr. Harper that should concern Canadians," Layton said.

Yep, you tell em Jack.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Brison Affair Dejavu


Oh my gawd!

I just figured out why I kept getting this nagging feeling when I was blogging about Scott Brisons inappropirate email exchange on the Income Trust decision.

He and Martha Stewart both were in the investment business.

She contacted her broker and sold shares on insider information. She lied about it.

He contacted a broker friend and let him in on some inside information on Income Trusts. He lied about it.

She lied to the Feds, he lied to the Globe and Mail.

She knew better, he knew better.

She went to jail. He runs for the Liberal leadership to avoid jail.

She smiles he smiles.

Martha and Scott pees in the pod.


The reckless e-mails that Scott Brison sent

For a cabinet minister, there can be no such thing as idle speculation about future tax policy. Given his earlier investment career, Scott Brison had all the more reason to realize that it was highly indiscreet to predict happier times to a displeased investment banker on the eve of an anticipated tax change.

Mr. Brison compounded his sins this week by claiming that he could not recall his Nov. 22 e-mails about the fate of income trusts -- even though that banter, written when he was still public works minister, provoked a visit from the RCMP two months ago. Then, as more details of his imprudent messages emerged in The Globe and Mail, he protested his innocence. "At the time I was reluctant to discuss what I knew to be the subject of an RCMP investigation," he argued.
Loose lips on the Street came back to bite Brison

Mr. Brison denies he actually knew what was in store for trusts. Fair enough.

Intelligent people would take one look at that e-mail, and know what was coming. "Happier soon" could only mean a boost to the dividend tax credit, and no new levies on trusts. And that's exactly what the Liberals eventually unveiled.

This is the way the trust policy "leaked." The political types were giddy with good news. The Liberals had found a way to make everyone happy, and defuse an unexpected land mine. The impact such a policy might have on capital markets isn't exactly top of mind with politicians and their staff. They're focused on winning a country.

But news that the Street would be "happier soon" was transmitted loud and clear. When that information got into the hands of professional money managers, they knew exactly what to do. Hence the rally in dividend stocks and trusts in the hours before the Finance Minister finally cleared the air.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

American Fascism

This is scary it sounds very familiar.

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

U.S. VP Henry Wallace, 1944

Also see:

"The Century of the Common Man"

Henry A. Wallace's speech articulating the goals of the war for the allies. From his book The Century of the Common Man. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1943.


A tip o the blog to Blah3 for this. Read the rest of the post there. Plus they have a great graphic. Like this one.


http://www.oldamericancentury.org/new_century.jpg



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , ,
agorism, counter-economics, left libertarian, new libertarian or Movement of the Libertarian Left.

Proudhon


Found a couple of good posts on Proudhon. One is Proudhon on government over at CLASSical Liberalism. Where Proudhon denounces representative parliamentary democracy as a sham. Considering the election of King Stephen the Haropcrite this passage seems particularly apt.

"It is completely otherwise in democracy, which according to the authors exists fully only at the moment of elections and for the formation of legislative power. This moment once past, democracy retreats; it withdraws into itself again, and begins its anti-democratic work."

"In fact it is not true, in any democracy, that all citizens participate in the formation of the law; that prerogative is reserved to the representatives."

"It is not true that they deliberate on all public affairs, domestic and foreign; this is the perquisite, not even of the representatives, but of the ministers. Citizens discuss affairs, ministers alone deliberate them."

"...According to democratic theory, the 'People' is incapable of governing itself; democracy, like monarchy, after having posed as its principle the sovereignty of the People, ends with a declaration of the incapacity of the People!"

"This is what is meant by the democrats, who once in the government, dream only of consolidating and strengthening the authority in their hands."


The other is on Anarkismo.net.

text Time to abondon our concept of Collectivism for a concept of Mutualism?
Proudhon and the 21st Century

As I have said here before the real nature of Proudhonian anarchism is self government, something embraced by Max Stirner and late Nietzsche. As well as by Kropotkin and Emma Goldman.

In self government, the individual is soverign, and no decision can be made without my input. Any decisions over my life must be done by my consent. It is classical liberalism taken to its logical teleology.

And yet the post-modernists who rant on about the teleology of Marxism as being essentialist, accept this of anarchism. Post Modernism is also a teleology of liberalism.

While Anarchy means No Government we can see that the government it denies is Monarchy and representative democracy, parlimentarianism. Instead Prodhoun saw government, as did Kropotkin, as self organized by individuals as community.

That is in community or workplace councils, with revocable delegates going out ot present positions within a larger federation, and coming back from those federations with proposals for approval.

This particular article on Proudhon in the 21st Century introduces Prodhoun to North American readers who may not have heard of him. I present an exerpt of this very interesting paper. Discuss amongst yourselves. Those who would call themselves Libertarian would do well to read their Prodhoun.

A NOTE TO NORTH AMERICAN READERS

Most people in North America are unaware of Proudhon, but he did have an influence here. The newspaper editors Charles Dana and Horace Greely were sympathetic to his ideas and he influenced the American individualists, most especially Benjamin Tucker, who translated and published some of his most important writings. Proudhon's criticisms of the credit and monetary systems were an influence upon the Greenback Party. His concept of mutual associations and the People's Bank were forerunners of the credit union and cooperative movements.

WHAT DID PROUDHON MEAN BY ANARCHY?

The public thinks anarchy means chaos or terrorism. But many people who claim to be anarchists are also confused as to its meaning. Some think anarchism is a doctrine espousing the right to do what ever you want. Others dream that one day a pure anarchist utopia, a kind of earthly Paradise of peace and freedom will come to be. Neither of these conceptions were Proudhon's. "Anarchy" did not mean a pure or absolute state of freedom, for pure anarchism was an ideal or myth.

[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation.[2]
...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear...[3]

Proudhon wanted people to minimalize the role of authority, as part of a process, that may or may not lead to anarchy. The end was not so important as the process itself.

By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune.[4] NB. "Commune" means municipality.

In the real world, all actual political constitutions, agreements and forms of government are a result of compromise and balance. Neither of the two terms, Authority and Liberty can be abolished, the goal of anarchy is merely to limit authority to the maximum.

Since the two principles, Authority and Liberty, which underlie all forms organized society, are on the one hand contrary to each other, in a perpetual state of conflict, and on the other can neither eliminate each other nor be resolved, some kind of compromise between the two is necessary. Whatever the system favored, whether it be monarchical, democratic, communist or anarchist, its length of life will depend to the extent to which it has taken the contrary principle into account.[5]

...that monarchy and democracy, communism and anarchy, all of them unable to realize themselves in the purity of their concepts, are obliged to complement one another by mutual borrowings. There is surely something here to dampen the intolerance of fanatics who cannot listen to a contrary opinion... They should learn, then, poor wretches, that they are themselves necessarily disloyal to their principles, that their political creeds are tissues of inconsistencies... contradiction lies at the root of all programs.[6]

In rejecting absolute anarchy and favoring an open-ended process, Proudhon criticized all forms of absolutism and utopianism. He saw that utopianism is dangerous, and was a product of absolutism - the sort of thought which fails to distinguish between concrete reality and the abstract products of the mind. Anarchist theory should be open-ended, or "loose". No hard-edged determinism or "necessary stages of history" for Proudhon.

...writers have mistakenly introduced a political assumption as false as it is dangerous, in failing to distinguish practice from theory, the real, from the ideal... every real government is necessarily mixed...[7]

...few people defend the present state of affairs, but the distaste for utopias is no less widespread.[8]

Not only was utopia a dangerous myth, the working people were too practical and too intelligent to bother with such pipe dreams.

The people indeed are not at all utopian... they have no faith in the absolute and they reject every apriori system...[9]

There was no easy way out - no Terrestrial Paradise, things might improve, but we still have to work. Such was his hard-headed realism in contrast to all the fancy dreaming and system-mongering of the intellectuals. Poverty, by which he meant lack of luxury, not destitution, was the foundation of the good life.

In rejecting absolutism, Proudhon never waffled on the question of freedom. As opposed to the modern left which pits equality against liberty, and demands the restriction of the latter for the sake of the former, Proudhon was a resolute libertarian:

Lois Blanc has gone so far as to reverse the republican motto. He no longer says Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, he says, Equality, Fraternity,
Liberty!... Equality! I had thought that it was the natural fruit of Liberty, which has no need of theory nor constraint.[10] ...the abolition of taxes, of central authority, with great increase of local power. There lies the way of escape from Jacobinism and Communism.[11]

MUTUALISM

Proudhon proposed mutualism as an alternative both to capitalism and socialism. Mutualism was not a scheme, but was based upon his observation of existing mutual aid societies and co-operatives as formed by the workers of Lyon. But the co-operative association in industry was applicable only under certain conditions - large scale production.

...mutualism intends men to associate only insofar as this is required by the demands of production, the cheapness of goods, the needs of consumption and security of the producers themselves, i.e., in those cases where it is not possible for the public to rely upon private industry... Thus no systematized outlook... party spirit or vain sentimentality unites the persons concerned.[27]

In cases in which production requires great division of labour, it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among the workers... because without that they would remain isolated as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage workers, which is repugnant in a free and democratic society. But where the product can be obtained by the action of an individual or a family... there is no opportunity for association.[28]

Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of small-scale property. He opposed individual ownership of large industries because workers would lose their rights and ownership. Property was essential to building a strong democracy and the only way to do this on the large-scale was through co-operative associations.

Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists.[29]

...the more ground the principles of democracy have gained, the more I have seen the working classes interpret these principles favorably to individual ownership.[30]

[Mutualism] ...will make capital and the State subordinate to labor.[31]

Alienation and exploitation in large-scale industry was to be overcome by the introduction of workers' co-operative associations. These associations were to be run on a democratic basis, otherwise workers would find themselves subordinated just as with capitalist industry. A pragmatist, Proudhon thought all positions should be filled according to suitability and pay was to be graduated according to talent and responsibility.

That every individual in the association... has an undivided share in the company... a right to fill any position according to suitability... all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to approval of the members. That pay is to be proportional to the nature of the position, the importance of the talents, and the extent of responsibility.[32]

Proudhon was an enemy of state capitalism and state socialism. At the very most, government could institute or aid the development of a new enterprise, but never own or control it.

In a free society, the role of the government is essentially that of legislating, instituting, creating, beginning, establishing, as little as possible should it be executive... The state is not an entrepreneur... Once a beginning has been made, the machinery established, the state withdraws, leaving the execution of the task to local authorities and citizens.[33]

[Coinage] ...it is an industry left to the towns. That there should be an inspector to supervise its manufacture I admit, but the role of the state extends no farther than that.[34]

The following quote is a good summary of Proudhon's economic and political ideas:

All my economic ideas, developed over the last 25 years, can be defined in three words, agro-industrial federation; all my political views... political federation or decentralization, all my hopes for the present and future... progressive federation.[35]


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,

agorism, counter-economics, left libertarian, new libertarian or Movement of the Libertarian Left.

Child Care Not Jobs

That's what the Social Development Minister Diane Finley said on Politics with Don Newman today. "We want to provide child care not jobs".

She was under a lot of pressure from Olivia Chow of the NDP and Carolyn Bennett of the Liberals. Flustered she blurted out the truth. Its not about choice but jobs,that is the Conservatives are opposed to job creation by the State. I am shocked. For them there are two clear cut models of child care, one where children are together supervised by child care workers and the other is where the little woman stays home and takes care of the kids. Thats the Tories real choice for Canadian families.

Stuck with their neo-con ideological blinders on they refuse to see that the private sector does not create child care, it expects the state to do it, in order to shift the burden from the capitalists to the worker/taxpayer. Which is why the provinces and business supported the Liberal plan.

And we know the Tory plan won't create jobs. Cause the Tories have only one plan to give out a baby bonus, which will barely pay for babysitting. Their tax credit plan for business to create day care spaces won't work. Didn't in Ontario under Mike Harris.

But their point is made, they are about choice. Not for working mothers, or for women working in Child Care. Choice for stay at home moms rich enough to afford nannies. For everyone else well leave your kids with baba.

It was ironic that she said this on International Womens Day when Stats Canada identified that Canadian women are still stuck in the pink ghetto, low wages lack of advancement. Like child care workers.
Women still paid less, says 10-year study


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , ,

Liberal S'Tory

Liberal throws in the towel chortels Tory Thoughts. In Alberta. I am shocked. Not. But what is interesting in this turn of events is that this particular wet behind the ears Liberal/liberal blogger has correctly spotted Jim Dinning as the Liberal/liberal running for leadership of the PC's (Party of Calgary).

I have joined the Progressive Conservative Party and will throw my support behind Jim Dinning.

Dinning is in the Lougheed school of politics. He is Calgary liberal, cosmpolitan, a CEO rather than a country bumpkin (Lyle Oberg) or a right wing ideologue (Ted Morton) who are also conteders for Kleins throne.

Dinning is the Great Liberal Hope of Calgary. The Liberals were out of power after their grand defeat in 1921 at the hands of the Farmer Labour Government which was the UFA. They remained out of power until the eighties when resurected by Nick they finally became a challenge to the Party of Calgary in the early ninties when the battle of the Mayors occurred. Ralph Klein newly elected Leader of the PCs versus Lawernce Decore newly elected Leader of the Liberals. Klein had been Mayor of Calgary, Decore Mayor of Edmonton. Klein ran on Brutal Cuts and Decore ran on Massive Cuts. Both had a deficit cutting agenda. As it was Klein won and Dinning imposed massive and brutal cuts. When the budget balanced he left office a hero of the neo-conservatives Liberal and Tory.

But for twenty years prior the Liberals were nowhere to be seen provinicially. Because Lougheed cobbled together a PC party made up of Liberals in the Calgary establishment and Conservatives. Lougheed also added the more cosmopolitan urban arm of Social Credit, thanks to a back room deal with Ernest Manning who stepped down for a position in a Calgary law Firm leaving the Socreds with a lame duck leader for Premier. And with the three way amalgamation, based on the new power of urban Alberta, swept the election of 1971.

Since that time the Tories knowing their weakness and their base is the old Socred base in rural Alberta, has shored up its seats by geremandering rural districts, and by removing seats from Redmonton, which votes against the PC's, and giving more seats to Calgary.

Today Jim Dinning is forging a Lougheed like alliance between social liberals and fiscal conservatives, and like Lougheed leaving the extreme right wing to its own fractured leadership contenders. There are several. They will split the vote. Dinning has been out of office and connection with the Klein government for a decade. He brings a 'fresh' face to PC politics, and he has the ear of the Calgary and Edmonton business establishment. Friends like former Liberal neo-con Mike Piercy at the U of A. He appeals to the youthful exuperance of up and coming Tories and business graduates.

During the recent Finning strike, he is a member of the board, he took time to meet with striking workers and their union on a couple of occassions. Unheard of in Alberta politics.

If Dinning wins, he is the front runner, he will be a liberal in a roost full of neo-con ideologues and good ol boy Tories. The party will fracture. Internal politics will be played out, and those on the right will have to chose to shut up and be part of the parties turn to the centre or join the emerging tiny right wing rump party the Alberta Alliance.

It will also mean a move by liberals/Liberals into the PC party and the final nail in the coffin of the Liberal party. A party based in Edmonton, and too far left for ebullent well off Calgary liberals. As our former Liberal blogger shows.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,