The Horwath NDP Remind Us Why They Lost

"The people of this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear or to vote out of fear as opposed to choose positive change," she said.

I really want to be sure I understand this. 

Using language that sounds a lot like a disgruntled pollster, Horwath came out today to remind voters that she's sticking around as NDP Leader.  Given that it was a day we were learning about new cabinet positions (well, kinda, given yesterday's leaks), I don't think this was a burning reveal many people were yearning for.
 

As far as Ontarians (or those of who pay attention to politics at any rate) are concerned, the election is done - and we're glad for it.  After a tense minority and a painfully long campaign, we're now settling in for the next four years and trying to determine the tone and focus of government. 

For stakeholders, this time frame is about getting the lay of the land, figuring out issues of concern that could crop up and best ways to get your issues before government for action.

Christine Elliot's leadership bid announcement was well timed - "hey Ontario, here are the new Cabinet players you need to be paying attention to, and at the same time here's the Opposition Leader who'll be engaging them."  It's a smart move for her and a considerate one for her Party - leadership stuff.

By demonstrating a continued embrace of her inner Howard Hampton, Horwath is essentially telling stakeholders that she's going to be of precious little value to them in getting their issues dealt with.  If there were many stakeholders still paying attention to her, that is.  Truth be told, she doesn't have the influence she once did.

It's probably a good thing Horwath's presser didn't get much traction.

This is really sad - while I was confident we'd be seeing a new leader and a new tone for the PCs, I had hopes the NDP would return to its broker role with a focus on solutions.  If there were three women leaders willing to focus on solutions rather than blame - and they found some pivotal common-ground issues to collaborate on - I pictured a potential for culture-change within the Legislature that could finally support the same in the Public Service, then Unions and the Private Sector. 

Systems, not silos; shared solutions, not pick fights and wins.

So, to summarize:

- after having lost and being reminded how she lost, Horwath holds a presser to rub salt in the eye of her supporters and generally blame her results on Ontarians at large.  It largely comes across as a "but don't forget me" plea for attention to the media.

- it's a presser that happens when nobody cares, and provides the wrong kind of contrast; Liberals, winners; Christine Elliot, likely leader of the Opposition; then Horwath, trying to remind people she matters.  While implicitly stating she doesn't, because she couldn't inspire voters to reject fear or whatnot.

It's a strategy that, frankly, makes no sense.  In a way, though, it feels like a continuation of the NDP's plan of attack that's been in place since before they triggered the election.

 

Traditional political wisdom suggests you stick to your plan come rain or shine; like an athlete mid-race, it's doubt that can take you out of the competition.  Stick to your plan if you want to win; deviate at your peril.

Only the electoral race is over and actual Parliamentary business isn't supposed to be race

-like in nature.  And the plan the NDP are sticking to demonstrably a bad one.

It started when the NDP attacked Ontario News Watch for a story which essentially stated the 3rd Party would be triggering an election.  "Lies!" they brought out Gilles Bisson to say - only, they proved accurate.  Attacking a reporter when she's right, at the beginning of an election, ain't good planning.

It was the same sort of mentality that carried throughout the campaign, though, which is why they gained no traction.

Is this the role Horwath wants to carve out or herself for four years?  She's essentially branding herself as the Return of Hudak; obstinate, blameless and bitter.  If she thinks four years of obstructionism will work out for her in the long-run, Horwath might want to rethink that.

 

Election 2015: Godzilla vs. The Zombie Apocalypse (UPDATED-IER)

He also wants Ottawa to fund infrastructure aimed at countering the effects of climate change.  It's not clear what he means by the latter.

It should be.  This could be a subtle stroke of genius by Team Trudeau - one all the lobbyists out there should be paying attention to.

Watershed management and floods.  Ice storm-ready buildings and the tools necessary for rapid response.  Emergency Preparedness plans that extend beyond the 72 hour cycle to what we've been witnessing, which is week-long or longer crisis impacts.

Oh - and individual training, community preparedness and better resource-allocation mechanisms between jurisdictions.  Not to mention the social-emotional learning, self-regulation and other things that go along with it.  Throw in some Open Government/citizen engagement for good measure.

Stephen Harper has done a great job over the years of positioning the greatest threats Canada faces as human (or not-quite-human) - terrorists lapping at our shores, separatists trying to tear us apart, special interest groups undermining everything that real Canadians hold dear.

It's man vs. man.

It has been in Harper's interest to get us angry, paranoid and functionally fixed on getting what we want right now, to hell with everyone else.

It's also how he's governed; fear the Zombie Apocalypse and build up the fire walls.

If Trudeau's team are being as clever as we should hope they are, they've landed on the perfect narrative to counter the Harpernian Progressive Apocalypse:

The Sustained Severe Weather Event.

It doesn't matter what kind of coffee you drink, whether you're a social elitist, a Bay Street power broker, a rural farmer or a middle-income worker anywhere.  When nature strikes, all of that gets stripped away.  If anything, in crises like these heroism tends to come from the ground up, not the top down.

Why?  Because it's in times of shared crisis that real leaders emerge, the kind that rally people to common purpose.  This doesn't tend to be a profitable enterprise, as leaders suck at putting themselves first.  It takes periods of darkness for their lights to shine fully.

In a people vs. nature conflict, it's in everyone's interest to work together.  We're still afraid - fear is a powerful motivator and politics is all about motivation - but what we fear isn't someone out there right now who wants to hurt us.

It's something that could happen to all of us that, collaboratively, we can prepare for.  It feels good to get ready.

Just(in) for fun, there are a growing number of man-vs.-nature movies coming out over the next year or so that will reinforce this concern into our social conscience.

Weather the storm together, or trust one leader to keep the zombies at bay.

The functionally fixed oak of a leader that is Harper, or the dynamic, empathetic force of nature that is Trudeau.  This can be portrayed as the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force.

It can also be framed as reaction vs. preparedness.

Now that would make for an interesting ballot question.

UPDATE:  Hard hit municipalities across southern Ontario had said the recovery efforts could cost more than $250 million, including $106 million just for Toronto.

I swear to god, I don't plan these sorts of narrative-builds out in advance.

Ontario is tapped out - you can reactively blame whoever you want, but the fact remains the province does not have enough cash to support municipalities in their ice-storm damage repairs.  And that doesn't even touch what damage might occur if we have a particularly torrential spring.  

Think flooded streets, flooded basements, mold, damaged cars and roadways - the potential costs are a nightmare.  When the storm hits, people (whether voters or not) aren't going to be focused on who to blame, but who can help.  

You know who does have some coin to spare, though?  Ottawa.  The federal government, if it was feeling civic-minded, could assist the provinces and municipalities directly in a coordinated effort to mitigate existing storm-damage costs and better prepare to avoid or minimize future damage.

To change course like that, though, you need to be more like a reed than an oak.

Winter's coming to an end, it's time to get ready for Spring...

UPDATED 27/2/14 - He noted, however, that more extreme weather - like Toronto's December ice storm - may be more likely in the future due to a warming planet.

Indeed...

UPDATED 8/21/14

"And frankly, this terrorist caliphate in our judgment represents an increasing long-term threat to the security of our own country.  It is that serious."

Terrorist caliphate, like a mindless hoard.  Increasing threat, security of our country. 

Not to minimize the horrific beheading of James Foley or to absolve the murderers of the heinousness of their act, but what exactly is the risk they pose to our own country?  Are we worried they're going to bomb us?  Are they coming here next to behead Canadians on our own soil?

The answer is no.  They are a threat to Canadians overseas; they present a threat in terms of recruitment, probably, but that's got as much to do with internal conditions that make terrorism seem like an appealing choice to some.

Maybe Harper believes in what he says; maybe he's being a political opportunist.  Both have happened over his tenure, though I'd say we've seen more of the latter than the former.

Either way, you can see why "only we can keep the zombies beyond the wall" is a compelling narrative for Team Harper.

Winter is coming, however, and they may find that trying to keep threats at bay simply isn't enough.

Time will tell...

 

Depressed Leaders Think Ahead

If depression didn't exist - if we didn't react to stress and trauma with endless ruminations - then we would be less likely to solve our predicaments.  Wisdom isn't cheap, and we pay for it with pain.

Did Dean de Mastro think ahead, or learn from his mistakes?  No he didn't.

Did Julian Fantino or Rob Ford or Vic Toews ever truly admit to responsibility, mull over their weaknesses and try to do better?  The evidence isn't promising.

Did Mike Duffy recognize guilt and try to solve his problem, or did he deny blame and try to make the problem someone else's?  Has Stephen Harper or his inner circle every accepted responsibility for mistakes, or have they blamed others and tried ever harder to obscure their actions?

We can go on forever with this list, but it comes down to this - the majority of our genetic programming encourages us to trust the people who shoot first and ask questions later.  It's a decent method in a small-band, survival-of-the-fittest scenario, but not for a complex, interdependent society.

The people we need to turn to the most in complex social times are the ones we're least likely to pay attention to until it's too late - sometimes for them, far too often for the rest of us.

While the boss asks, "what's in it for me right now?" the leaders looks ahead to what can be gained - or avoided - and acts accordingly.

We don't have a lot of leadership these days.

Which, I would imagine, is why we are constantly dogged by past mistakes.

Sea of Troubles Vs. Blue Ocean: A Strategic Choice

Red oceans represent all the industries in existence today - the known market space.  In the red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known.  Here companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of product or service demand.  As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced.  Products become commodities or niche, cutthroat competition turns the ocean bloody; hence, the red oceans.

That sounds a bit like the shrinking waterhole of our current political landscape, isn't it?  Parties are more or less on side in the broad strokes; where the Conservatives North or South of the border differ from liberal Parties, it tend to be in the vein of throwing chums into the water, sacrificing a bit of red meat to appease the sharks.

Blue oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today - the unknown market space, untainted by competition.  In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set.  Blue ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of the market space that is not yet explored.

If the landscape is not to your advantage, you change venues.  Why die atop a hill when you can turn around and fight down a valley?  This is the politics of value add - creating new things and building a track-record that establishes trust in your ability to keep bringing the people the something new they crave.

Threatening your populace by hanging "there be monsters beyond" signage on your firewalls implies the world is finite; it makes people hunker down, store their goods and dig out their pitchforks.  It's not a good strategy for long-term sustainability, social or economic.

When you throw down the walls, establish some common ground as a starting point and highlight the blue skies beyond, all it does is take a bit of encouragement and a lot of example setting to encourage the people to fly.

Never saw the sun shining so bright

Never saw things going so right

Noticing the days hurrying by

When you're in love, my how they fly

Love Your Enemy

To defeat an opponent, you need to understand him - not hate him.

 

 

Committing sociology isn't about thug-hugging; to say otherwise is simplistic.  Strength and simplicity can occasionally prevail, but they can never be sustained.  That's not winning - that's delaying defeat.

 

 

The only way to achieve victory is to destroy your opponent.  Killing is but one way to do this - ultimately, a resource-wasteful one.  They tend to fight back, doncha know.  The best way to foster sustainable, conservationist wins is through conversion.

 

 

It's been true since the days of Sun-Tzu; it isn't going to change for as long as we're human.

The War Room On War: An Opportunity for Sun Media?

 

I doubt there's a single War-Roomer in this country who would consider themselves qualified to offer advice on conduct in combat (or conduct-after-capture, which might be the front-line military equivalent to crisis management).

 

Yet the idea of politics as war has proliferated in Canada, thanks largely to the influence of one man - Warren Kinsella (haven't read The War Room yet? You really should).  The role of War Room or, more politely, Strategic Operations has become an essential part of modern political campaigns.

 

There remains a massive difference between the standard rules of engagement in politics vs. in the theatre of war (though in both, those rules are being trampled on) but as political combat becomes more strategic and employs more and more technology, there is definitely overlap.  The need for solid messaging and counter-offensive communications measures is pretty much the same.

 

More to the point, Canada's political chattering class spends more time listening to folk like David Akin and Tim Powers discussing the implications of Trudeau's pot admission than they do following Al Jazeera's reportage on Syria.

 

I think it would be a fascinating exercise - as well as a way to draw viewers and encourage Canadians to get informed - to have some of Canada's preeminent War Roomers debate what they would do in Syria, were they in charge.  Particularly as it stands to reason some of these back-room folk will probably be adding their two cents to government strategy, anyway.

 

Looking to draw viewers and unafraid of generating controversy, I think Sun Media would be the right outfit to host it.

What do you think?  Would the public be interested in hearing how War Roomers would conduct an actual war?

The Changing Game of Political Attacks

In other words, standard negative campaign literature, which, while distasteful to many, is entirely legal -- and, as noted above, is used by virtually every party. Interestingly, it seems that Trudeau did not opt in. According to Liberal caucus press secretary Kate Monfette, "he never used the cards referenced by the Conservatives."

That may have been a wise decision, as it would seem even the now standard negative campaign tactics employed by all parties can turn off potential voters

 

The Tories are masters of voter suppression - er, supporting the disengagement of opposition supporters.  They love their attack ads.  They believe politics is a bare-knuckle fight where whatever you can get away with goes.  As a result, they believe everyone else is playing the same game they are.  As such and with a growing burden of scandals of their own, Harper's Tories are doing the only thing they know how - digging up potential dirt on opponents and attempting to bait and switch.

 

Oops.

 

See, their way of playing the game isn't the only way of playing the game - in fact, I'd argue their approach is rather short-sighted.

 

When you aren't weighing the pros and cons of doing something you know is wrong, or of not thinking an action through, you're spending more time doing what you know to be right and making sure you've thought through the consequences. 

 

We'll see how committed the CPC are to their current approach - after all, that which adapts, survives.

The Neurochemistry of Strategic Thinking?

 

Study Appears to Overturn Prevailing View of How the Brain is Wired

 

Posted on June 27, 2013By Neuroscience NewsFeatured, Neuroscience, Neuroscience Videos

 

A series of studies conducted by Randy Bruno, PhD, and Christine Constantinople, PhD, of Columbia University’s Department of Neuroscience, topples convention by showing that sensory information travels to two places at once: not only to the brain’s mid-layer (where most axons lead), but also directly to its deeper layers. The study appears in the June 28, 2013, edition of the journal Science.

 

For decades, scientists have thought that sensory information is relayed from the skin, eyes, and ears to the thalamus and then processed in the six-layered cerebral cortex in serial fashion: first in the middle layer (layer 4), then in the upper layers (2 and 3), and finally in the deeper layers (5 and 6.) This model of signals moving through a layered “column” was largely based on anatomy, following the direction of axons—the wires of the nervous system.

 

“Our findings challenge dogma,” said Dr. Bruno, assistant professor of neuroscience and a faculty member at Columbia’s new Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and the Kavli Institute for Brain Science. “They open up a different way of thinking about how the cerebral cortex does what it does, which includes not only processing sight, sound, and touch but higher functions such as speech, decision-making, and abstract thought.”

 

 

 

The researchers used the well-understood sensory system of rat whiskers, which operate much like human fingers, providing tactile information about shape and texture. The system is ideal for studying the flow of sensory signals, said Dr. Bruno, because past research has mapped each whisker to a specific barrel-shaped cluster of neurons in the brain. “The wiring of these circuits is similar to those that process senses in other mammals, including humans,” said Dr. Bruno.

 

The study relied on a sensitive technique that allows researchers to monitor how signals move across synapses from one neuron to the next in a live animal. Using a glass micropipette with a tip only 1 micron wide (one-thousandth of a millimeter) filled with fluid that conducts nerve signals, the researchers recorded nerve impulses resulting from whisker stimulation in 176 neurons in the cortex and 76 neurons in the thalamus. The recordings showed that signals are relayed from the thalamus to layers 4 and 5 at the same time. Although 80 percent of the thalamic axons went to layer 4, there was surprisingly robust signaling to the deeper layer.

 

To confirm that the deeper layer receives sensory information directly, the researchers used the local anesthetic lidocaine to block all signals from layer 4. Activity in the deeper layer remained unchanged.

 

“This was very surprising,” said Dr. Constantinople, currently a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University’s Neuroscience Institute. “We expected activity in the lower layers to be turned off or very much diminished when we blocked layer 4. This raises a whole new set of questions about what the layers actually do.”

 

The study suggests that upper and lower layers of the cerebral cortex form separate circuits and play separate roles in processing sensory information. Researchers think that the deeper layers are evolutionarily older—they are found in reptiles, for example, while the upper and middle layers, appear in more evolved species and are thickest in humans.

 

One possibility, suggests Dr. Bruno, is that basic sensory processing is done in the lower layers: for example, visually tracking a tennis ball to coordinate the movement needed to make contact. Processing that involves integrating context or experience or that involves learning might be done in the upper layers. For example, watching where an opp

onent is hitting the ball and planning where to place the return shot.

“At this point, we still don’t know what, behaviorally, the different layers do,” said Dr. Bruno, whose lab is now focused on finding those answers.

 

A nerve cell in the thalamus (blue) sends its axon (red) into cerebral cortex, where it makes synaptic connections with thousands of neurons. While most of these connections are in a middle layer of the cortex (gray rings), some sparse branches connect to deeper layers.

 

Nobel-prize-winning neurobiologist Bert Sakmann, MD, PhD, of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, describes the study as “very convincing” and a game-changer. “For decades, the field has assumed, based largely on anatomy, that the work of the cortex begins in layer 4. Dr. Bruno has produced a technical masterpiece that firmly establishes two separate input streams to the cortex,” said Dr. Sakmann. “The prevailing view that the cortex is a collection of monolithic columns, handing off information to progressively higher modules, is an idea that will have to go.”2006-06-16 TC axon – high contrast MS1 repeat3-1

 

“Bruno’s work goes a long way toward overturning the conventional wisdom and provides new insight into the functional segregation of sensory input to the mammalian cerebral cortex, the region of the brain that processes our thoughts, decisions, and actions,” said Thomas Jessell, PhD, Claire Tow Professor of Motor Neuron Disorders in Neuroscience and a co-director of the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and the Kavli Institute for Brain Science. “Developing a more refined understanding of cortical processing will take the combined efforts of anatomists, cell and molecular biologists, and animal behaviorists. The Zuckerman Institute, with its multidisciplinary faculty and broad mission, is ideally suited to building on Bruno’s fascinating work.”

 

Notes about this neuroanatomy and brain mapping research

 

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Grant # NS069679), the Rita Allen Foundation, and the Klingenstein Fund.

 

The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interests.

Contact: Karin Eskenazi – Columbia University Medical Center
Source: Columbia University Medical Center press release
Image Source: The anatomical diagram of the cerebral cortex is credited to Gray’s Anatomy and is in the public domain.
Video Source: The video, “A nerve cell in the thalamus (blue) sends its axon (red) into cerebral cortex”, is available on the Columbia University Medical Center YouTube page.
Original Research: Abstract for “Deep Cortical Layers Are Activated Directly by Thalamus” by Christine M. Constantinople and Randy M. Bruno in Science. Published online June 28 2013 DOI:10.1126/science.1236425

Margaret Thatcher, Danielle Smith: Political Ideologue vs Political Operative

 

Two stories leaped off the screen at me this morning:

 

“What we learned after the last election is that there are a number of policies we had on the books that no longer made sense and were not fitting the needs of the times,” Wildrose leader Danielle Smith said Monday.

 

and

 

Beyond personal inspiration, though, you will be hard-pressed to find any trace of “Thatcherism” in the world today. As a set of political ideas, a tool kit of ways to run a country and organize the world, Thatcherism ended with Mrs. Thatcher’s political career.

 

Tell me if you've heard this one before: 

 

Auld Jock is attending the funeral of his wife; it's a sparse ceremony because the man has spent the bear minimum.  The man's friends, family and children weep in mourning as her body is lowered into the ground.  The man himself, however, is dry-eyed; in fact, he looks a little bored.  Eventually, the presiding Minister comes up to him and asks, "Jock, are ye not sad?  Yer wife of forty years is gone!"

 

With a bemused look, Auld Jock turns to the man of God and replies "Aye, but it's not like she was a blood relative."

 

I'm reminded of this joke by a tale from the political annals of Margaret Thatcher.  Her staff were recommending the inclusion of a riff on Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch in a speech.  The humour of the joke was beyond her; she couldn't understand why anyone would find it funny.  Instead of trying to understand the concept, she instead turned to her assistant John Whittingdale and asked this: “John, Monty Python – are you sure that he is one of us?”
 

Margaret Thatcher remains an iconic figure to representatives of the Randian political right.  She was a proud ideologue who set about casting off the shackles of big government, cleaved the wings off the Trade Union dragon and made her country stand out less because of anything inherent in Britain but because she herself was such an unrepentant force of nature.

 

Without question, the Irony Lady needed every ounce of unrelenting strength and forcefulness to rise above the fray.  Undeniably, Thatcher leaves a personal legacy of strength, discipline and tenacity that any individual would be well-served to learn from. 

 

The tools of single-minded aggression she needed to succeed personally were reflected in her policy; the state of the nation became less a reflection of the well-being of Britons and, as is always the case with ideologues of the political right, more about the institution of Britain.  This isn't to say Thatcher lacked empathy; she did indeed care about the well-being of people who enabled her work, like Cynthia Crawford.  It's just that empathy was afforded to those she knew were "one of us" - people she could understand or relate to.

 

Those who were not of that mold, though, were too-often viewed as disruptions, threats or irrelevancies.  In this sense, Right to Buy was typical Thatcherism; great for many but detrimental for Britain's most vulnerable.  This pragmatic disregard for the lowest tier of society informed her approach to Apartheid or the unification of Germany; as PM of Britain, the well-being of the institution of Britain mattered most.  The foreign policy stuff had to serve that mandate; if it didn't, she wasn't interested. 

 

There was nothing personal in her approach - it was all just good business.  The highest compliment she could pay a person, then, was this: "I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together,"  If you put the business case first, her approach makes total sense; a unified Germany, for instance, has eclipsed Britain's dominance over the European policy market.

 

Good business Thatcherism may have been, but despite what some leaders try to tell us, you can't sustainably run government like a business.  In business, you can carve off unprofitable ventures and forget about market share that will never be able to buy what you sell, but government has to be more all-encompassing than that.  When they don't, things fall through the cracks that society best not neglect.

 

Witness Canada's pulling out of the UN anti-drought treaty because, in the view of the Stephen Harper government, the business case wasn't compelling.  This singular-focus approach has made Canada look unsympathetic to the plight of impacted communities in the Sahel region and ignorant of the impact of climate and poverty on the growth of terrorism.  This one move has even damaged Canada's own business case to the US over the Keystone pipeline, undercutting the message that the Canadian government would be safe ecological stewards of Alberta's Oil Sands. 

 

Tying Foreign Aid to commerce is a variation on the same theme - other nations will be more constrained in dealing with a country that isn't seen to have a moral centre and, therefore, can't be trusted to commit.

 

Which brings us back to Auld Jock, the man who didn't care about his wife because she "wasn't one of us." 

 

U of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper sounds a bit like Jock when he suggests “There are permanent conflicts between Alberta and the rest of the country.  That’s not going to go away just because a bunch of people from Newfoundland and Quebec are living here.”

 

What are these permanent conflicts?  Cooper could have said something about the NEP and the problematic notion of a resource-rich west supporting an industrial east, but he didn't.  He focused on the Albertan equivalent of socialists and separatists taking up space in but not being part of his definition of Alberta.  It's the flip-side of the Harper government's tweaking immigration policies to focus solely on people they feel "are one of them" - it comes with an implication that everyone within national or provincial borders who doesn't think the way do simply don't matter.  After all, if you can't do business with them, they're not worth consideration.

 

The fatal flaw in this ideology is that the people who aren't like you do matter - they spend money, use services, share the same streets and might even get out to vote.  Unless you can remove or replace the portions of your population who disagree with your approach, you have to deal with them.  That's the challenge and the opportunity of democracy - lasting solutions must be shared solutions and political success comes as a result of broader public appeal.

 

Which brings us to Danielle Smith.

 

Danielle Smith tried being an unrelenting ideologue in the last Alberta election - she said she was committed to unrestricted free speech and stuck to that, even when comments from her own candidates began to hurt her chances of victory.  Seeing that victory is again within the realm of the possible next election, she and her Party brass are undertaking a review of various policy positions to make sure what they present to the public is palatable enough to get them into office.

 

Stephen Carter puts it thusly: “As a political operative, you try to present policies that people actually agree with. Wildrose’s problem has been that it’s so ideologically committed it’s not looked and seen the true ideology of the province is not theirs.”

 

Lots of people try to ape the Thatcherism approach assuming that if the model worked once, it can work again.  They invariably find that in reality, it's just not possible.  Reagan couldn't do it.  Stephen Harper hasn't been able to do it.  Harper is particularly worth looking at, because he doesn't face term limits the way American Presidents do and therefore, has to take a slightly longer view to how he plays his politics.  Every time Harper has tried to go big and bold, he's been shot down and backed away; whether this is an indication that he doesn't have the iron edge of Margaret Thatcher or that he's simply more strategic, wanting to build a legacy that lasts is an open question.

 

Of course, the world of Margaret Thatcher is not the world of today.  Margaret Thatcher was the first significant Western leader and an unstoppable force; this earned her a level of respect in comparison at a time where women leaders weren't so common and certainly weren't seen as iron-willed.  Women leaders are, thankfully, much more common these days, ranging from Angel Merkel in Germany to the Premier Danielle Smith seeks to unseat, Alison Redford.  Being a strong woman, a woman in power or an ideologue simply doesn't buy you the street-cred it did when Thatcher broke ground.

 

Social media has also changed the political playing field dramatically.  Formerly voiceless, faceless protests can now materialize as clever, personalized tweets or Facebook campaigns that last longer and have a more sustainable impact.  I imagine that if Margaret Thatcher were entering political life today, her career trajectory would be much different (and likely much shorter) than it was.

 

Then, there's the resource reality.  Despite Harper's best efforts, the Alberta Oil Sands haven't served him in the same manner Northern Oil served Thatcher.  The economic reality of today stubbornly refuses to let industrialized countries that have theoretical minimum standards for social well being coast along with cheap labour and a singular focus on natural resource sales.  You can either try to reduce wages and the availability of social services, lowering the bar for social well-being for the good of the realm, or you can add value through increasingly-coordinated supports for individual citizens.  This includes raising the social standard, expanding access to training and a focus on innovation.

 

Innovation, though, is the social equivalent to biological reproduction; if you only listen to those who you consider "one of us" you end up with inferior end products.  It's the confluence of ideas and the combination of differing approaches that creates lasting results.

 

You may consider Thatcherism to be principled, focused and effective and feel it was right to ignore external interests, but would you say that it lasted?  It didn't, because it couldn't.  Danielle Smith seems to have learned the lesson that ideology isn't a ticket to success in an increasingly integrated world - as such the Wildrose Party is evolving, adapting to the reality of modern politics. 

 

Coincidentally enough, so too has Alison Redford.  She is also softening her iron demeanour, flavouring it with a bit of charm. 

 

Thatcherism, like many a political experiment before it, has run its course.  As politicians across the world pay homage to the person, it's time for them to bury her ideology as well. 

 

I bet they'll find they weren't all that married to Thatcherism in the first place.

 

 

Sun Tzu on Strategy

3. Attack by Stratagem

1

Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. #

 

The equivalent to an army corps, according to Ssu-ma Fa, consisted nominally of 12500 men; according to Ts`ao Kung, the equivalent of a regiment contained 500 men, the equivalent to a detachment consists from any number between 100 and 500, and the equivalent of a company contains from 5 to 100 men. For the last two, however, Chang Yu gives the exact figures of 100 and 5 respectively.

2

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. #

 

Here again, no modern strategist but will approve the words of the old Chinese general. Moltke's greatest triumph, the capitulation of the huge French army at Sedan, was won practically without bloodshed.

3

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; #

 

Perhaps the word "balk" falls short of expressing the full force of the Chinese word, which implies not an attitude of defense, whereby one might be content to foil the enemy's stratagems one after another, but an active policy of counter-attack. Ho Shih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."

the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; #

 

Isolating him from his allies. We must not forget that Sun Tzu, in speaking of hostilities, always has in mind the numerous states or principalities into which the China of his day was split up.

the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; #

 

When he is already at full strength.

and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. #

4

The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. #

 

Another sound piece of military theory. Had the Boers acted upon it in 1899, and refrained from dissipating their strength before Kimberley, Mafeking, or even Ladysmith, it is more than probable that they would have been masters of the situation before the British were ready seriously to oppose them.

The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; #

 

It is not quite clear what the Chinese word, here translated as "mantlets", described. Ts`ao Kung simply defines them as "large shields," but we get a better idea of them from Li Ch`uan, who says they were to protect the heads of those who were assaulting the city walls at close quarters. This seems to suggest a sort of Roman TESTUDO, ready made. Tu Mu says they were wheeled vehicles used in repelling attacks, but this is denied by Ch`en Hao. See supra II. 14. The name is also applied to turrets on city walls. Of the "movable shelters" we get a fairly clear description from several commentators. They were wooden missile-proof structures on four wheels, propelled from within, covered over with raw hides, and used in sieges to convey parties of men to and from the walls, for the purpose of filling up the encircling moat with earth. Tu Mu adds that they are now called "wooden donkeys."

and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more. #

 

These were great mounds or ramparts of earth heaped up to the level of the enemy's walls in order to discover the weak points in the defense, and also to destroy the fortified turrets mentioned in the preceding note.

5

The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, #

 

This vivid simile of Ts`ao Kung is taken from the spectacle of an army of ants climbing a wall. The meaning is that the general, losing patience at the long delay, may make a premature attempt to storm the place before his engines of war are ready.

with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege. #

 

We are reminded of the terrible losses of the Japanese before Port Arthur, in the most recent siege which history has to record.

6

Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. #

 

Chia Lin notes that he only overthrows the Government, but does no harm to individuals. The classical instance is Wu Wang, who after having put an end to the Yin dynasty was acclaimed "Father and mother of the people."

7

With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. #

 

Owing to the double meanings in the Chinese text, the latter part of the sentence is susceptible of quite a different meaning: "And thus, the weapon not being blunted by use, its keenness remains perfect."

This is the method of attacking by stratagem. #

8

It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; #

 

Straightway, without waiting for any further advantage.

if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. #

 

Tu Mu takes exception to the saying; and at first sight, indeed, it appears to violate a fundamental principle of war. Ts'ao Kung, however, gives a clue to Sun Tzu's meaning: "Being two to the enemy's one, we may use one part of our army in the regular way, and the other for some special diversion." Chang Yu thus further elucidates the point: "If our force is twice as numerous as that of the enemy, it should be split up into two divisions, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear; if he replies to the frontal attack, he may be crushed from behind; if to the rearward attack, he may be crushed in front." This is what is meant by saying that 'one part may be used in the regular way, and the other for some special diversion.' Tu Mu does not understand that dividing one's army is simply an irregular, just as concentrating it is the regular, strategical method, and he is too hasty in calling this a mistake."

9

If equally matched, we can offer battle; #

 

Li Ch`uan, followed by Ho Shih, gives the following paraphrase: "If attackers and attacked are equally matched in strength, only the able general will fight."

if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; #

 

The meaning, "we can WATCH the enemy," is certainly a great improvement on the above; but unfortunately there appears to be no very good authority for the variant. Chang Yu reminds us that the saying only applies if the other factors are equal; a small difference in numbers is often more than counterbalanced by superior energy and discipline.

if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. #

10

Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force. #

11

Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak. #

 

As Li Ch`uan tersely puts it: "Gap indicates deficiency; if the general's ability is not perfect (i.e. if he is not thoroughly versed in his profession), his army will lack strength."

12

There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: #

13

(1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army. #

 

Li Ch`uan adds the comment: "It is like tying together the legs of a thoroughbred, so that it is unable to gallop." One would naturally think of "the ruler" in this passage as being at home, and trying to direct the movements of his army from a distance. But the commentators understand just the reverse, and quote the saying of T`ai Kung: "A kingdom should not be governed from without, and army should not be directed from within." Of course it is true that, during an engagement, or when in close touch with the enemy, the general should not be in the thick of his own troops, but a little distance apart. Otherwise, he will be liable to misjudge the position as a whole, and give wrong orders.

14

(2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. #

 

Ts`ao Kung's note is, freely translated: "The military sphere and the civil sphere are wholly distinct; you can't handle an army in kid gloves." And Chang Yu says: "Humanity and justice are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility, on the other hand, are military rather than civil virtues to assimilate the governing of an army"—to that of a State, understood.

15

(3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, #

 

That is, he is not careful to use the right man in the right place.

through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers. #

 

I follow Mei Yao-ch`en here. The other commentators refer not to the ruler, as in SS. 13, 14, but to the officers he employs. Thus Tu Yu says: "If a general is ignorant of the principle of adaptability, he must not be entrusted with a position of authority." Tu Mu quotes: "The skillful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. For the wise man delights in establishing his merit, the brave man likes to show his courage in action, the covetous man is quick at seizing advantages, and the stupid man has no fear of death."

16

But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away. #

17

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. #

 

Chang Yu says: If he can fight, he advances and takes the offensive; if he cannot fight, he retreats and remains on the defensive. He will invariably conquer who knows whether it is right to take the offensive or the defensive.

(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. #

 

This is not merely the general's ability to estimate numbers correctly, as Li Ch`uan and others make out. Chang Yu expounds the saying more satisfactorily: "By applying the art of war, it is possible with a lesser force to defeat a greater, and vice versa. The secret lies in an eye for locality, and in not letting the right moment slip. Thus Wu Tzu says: 'With a superior force, make for easy ground; with an inferior one, make for difficult ground.'"

(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. #

 

Tu Yu quotes Wang Tzu as saying: "It is the sovereign's function to give broad instructions, but to decide on battle it is the function of the general." It is needless to dilate on the military disasters which have been caused by undue interference with operations in the field on the part of the home government. Napoleon undoubtedly owed much of his extraordinary success to the fact that he was not hampered by central authority.

18

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. #

 

Li Ch`uan cites the case of Fu Chien, prince of Ch`in, who in 383 A.D. marched with a vast army against the Chin Emperor. When warned not to despise an enemy who could command the services of such men as Hsieh An and Huan Ch`ung, he boastfully replied: "I have the population of eight provinces at my back, infantry and horsemen to the number of one million; why, they could dam up the Yangtsze River itself by merely throwing their whips into the stream. What danger have I to fear?" Nevertheless, his forces were soon after disastrously routed at the Fei River, and he was obliged to beat a hasty retreat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Obi Wynne Kenobi

 

"I want to have that conversation with her. I want to find out exactly whether it is that thing she is looking for, or whether there is another way of getting at the information that she's looking at," Wynne said.

 

Brilliant. 

More experienced political pundits than I would say this is a tactical error on Wynne's part, not stepping on her opponent's throat while she has the chance.  I say, that sort of short-sighted thinking is what's gotten us into our polarized partisan predicament in the first place. 

By giving Horwath a safe exit, hinting that the initial overture might be nothing more than partisan posturing (which I'm inclined to believe it is) and starting to define the options available, Wynne isn't showing who's boss in an aggressive way - she's demonstrating she's thoroughly in command. 

 

You can only hold this line effectively and confidently when you're starting from a point of sincerity.

 

It's an effective approach, one that I doubt either Opposition Leader, but Hudak in particular, is prepared for.

 

 

"This little one's not worth the effort. Come, let me get you something..."

 

If not, there'll be someone else among your ranks who we will be able to work with.  Your choice.

 

UPDATE:  Kathleen Wynne picks Charles Sousa as finance minister after Sandra Pupatello declines

Why does that remind me of this?

With great calm, Sun Tzu said, “This King is only fond of words and cannot carry them into deeds.”

 Finance Minister is the most influential position in Cabinet, after Premier.  If one is committed to the vision, it's an excellent place to effect change.  Which brings us right back to the opening quote.

Again - brilliant.