Video: Bonus Bob Rae piano footage

Before you head out to the local anti-prorogation, pro-democracy rally near you today (if you're in Toronto, we'll be at Yonge & Dundas Square at 1:00 pm) here is some bonus Bob Rae on the piano footage from Thursday's Liberal event in Toronto.

The highlight was certainty "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues" which I shared yesterday, but he also entertained the crowd with "You are my Sunshine" (sadly, not sang as a serenade to Michael Ignatieff) and Auld Lang Syne. The first song is a little shaky, he and the fiddler had a little trouble getting in key.



And here again is the new hit single, "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues":

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Ignatieff promises "concrete and specific" policy proposals on youth unemployment

As promised, here are the highlights of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech last night to Liberal Victory Fund members in Toronto, which included the tantalizing promise of actual real, non-vague Liberal policy during next week’s “back to work” policy forums in Ottawa.

He covered a range of topics, including what he heard from Canadians during his campus tour about their anger over prorogation. He said people told him it was undemocratic for Stephen Harper to prorogue while he was facing tough questions on the Afghan detainee torture file, and he promised to defend the integrity of Canadian democracy. He also spoke about the return to work policy forums, and the policy renewal process leading-up to the Montreal conference.

It was a decent speech, not a barn-burner by any means, not a stump speech at all but more a speech for Liberal supporters designed to tell them we have real work to do if we’re going to re-earn the trust of Canadians, that it will be long and hard, but that we need to do the work and win based on our ideas and our vision for the future.

The strongest part of the speech for me, and the one with the first hint of addressing the call for actual, honest-to-god Liberal policy, was when he segued from talking about his campus tours to talk about youth unemployment. The unemployment rate for young Canadians out of college, he noted, is 17 per cent. That’s double the national average.

He continued (it’s at about 3:00 in the video):

“Yes, this is Canada (in 2010). Don’t let anybody tell you we’re out of the woods economically. To have a country where the best and brightest go to an unemployment rate double the national average tells you something serious.

Young people want action on unemployment, and next week we will have concrete and specific proposals that will make a difference.

Canadians are looking to us to lead on unemployment. I think this is the key domestic issue in 2010. You can’t have an economy firing on all cylinders when the best and brightest can’t get a darned job. So we have to say that.

We have to say it clearly. We have to lead. We will lead. We will not let these people down.”

The promise is out there now, so he needs to deliver on this. I know I’ll be watching. As I’ve said before we need to deliver real and meaningful policy alternatives, not just identify the problems.

That’s what people want. That’s what will make these forums and the rest of the process on the road to Montreal substantive, meaningful and effective. So I look forward to hearing our ideas on this, and hopefully in other areas beginning next week.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Bob Rae on piano singing "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues"

Last night I attended a party at the Royal York for supporters of the Liberal Party's Victory Fund. I'll have more a little later this morning, including video, on Michael Ignatieff's speech and his promise of concrete and substantive policy at the policy forums the party is holding next week as Liberals return to work on January 25th.

First, I wanted to share some video of what was for most of us there the highlight of the evening. Among the entertainers was Liberal MP Bob Rae, who sat down at the piano and played (and sang) a number of songs for everyone. (Alas no, he didn't play With a Little Help From My Friends.)

In the highlight, he re-wrote the lyrics to Let it Be by The Beatles (what is it with politicians and The Beatles?) and called it Stephen Harper: He Prorogues.

Enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Final thoughts on the shuffle

With my post yesterday on Rona Ambrose’s prorogation mountain climbing I did touch somewhat on this week’s shuffle of Stephen Harper’s cabinet, but I did want to comment a bit more broadly on the topic before moving on.

I don’t think it was really much of a shuffle of note. Most of the major jobs stayed the same. Sure, Lisa Raitt was down (but not out, what do you need to do to get booted by Harper?) and Rona Ambrose was up. Whatev.

Much attention seems to be focusing around Stockwell Day’s move to Treasury Board, which is being taken as a sign that the government is about to get serious about cutting spending. I need to take a contrarian view on that one for three reasons.

First, this government was the highest spending government in Canadian history BEFORE the downturn and stimulus, so if they did suddenly decide to be fiscally prudent it would be quite a turnaround for them.

Second, even if they did want to go on spending cut bonanza, what is it about Stock Day that makes him the ideal poster child for probity? I don’t recall his term as Alberta Treasurer being marked by spending restraint. All I do recall is the government having to pay for him to defend against lawsuits and pay for settlements.

Third, there seems to be some fundamental confusion about the role of the president of the Treasury Board. To quote the Winnipeg Sun:

The president of the Treasury Board’s job is to monitor that spending after a fiscal blueprint has been approved by Parliament. If the budget itself — expected in March — does not contain the kind of frugality required to start reversing this orgy of government spending we’ve seen in recent years, Harper could appoint Ebenezer Scrooge to head the Treasury Board and it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.

If the government wanted to launch a rationalization and efficiency kick, asking departments to give back existing budget, then TB head would be the guy to lead it. I recall Reg Alcock leading a program review under Paul Martin. I wouldn’t count on big savings though. Every government comes into power promising to cut waste, and always finds there’s far less waste then they thought. Or are willing to cut.

No, if you want to cut spending it’s not done by Treasury Board. It’s done by Finance during the budget process. And last I checked, that department is still headed by the highest spending finance minister in Canadian history, the same guy who left Ontarioins with a massive hidden deficit. With Jim Flaherty still in his job, I’ll believe this new probity when I see it.

No cabinet personalities

The overarching thought I had when considering this shuffle is how bland and interchangeable most of the Harper ministers are. And it really speaks to the differences in governing philosophy and the role of government between Liberals and Conservatives.

It seemed to me that the Liberals always many activist ministers, who pushed and fought for programs and initiatives that they believed in and were important to them. John Manley and later Brian Tobin on wireless broadband. Lloyd Axworthy on land mines. David Anderson on a range of environmental files. And many others. They had things they wanted to get done, and they lobbied hard to do so. They had personalities.

In contrast, the Conservative ministers seem more simple managers. They get their marching orders from the PMO and they work quietly and diligently on the file, managing the day to day. But I get no sense of a vision, of any minister being truly engaged in their portfolios, bringing drive and a personal interest to move files forward. Perhaps the one exception is Jason Kenney who, while I often disagree with him on policy, is very much personally engaged in his portfolio and seems to have a vision driving him. The rest of them, I sense you could have everyone trade with the minister to their left at the cabinet table and it wouldn’t change a thing.

Of course, both Conservatives and Liberals would say that their approach is the right one. And it wouldn’t (just) be partisanship. Liberals believe in activist government as a force for good in society, Conservatives want government to manage its narrow responsibilities well and otherwise stay out of the way.

It’s an interesting contrast, though. In the end, there’s only one minister that matters, and that’s the one in the Langevin Block. The other pieces are entirely interchangeable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On restricting the power to prorogue

My highly influential Liberal blogging friend Steve has a post up on the NDP's proposal, or I guess musings about a proposal, to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to prorogue parliament, and lamenting the NDP seems out ahead of the Liberals on this issue. I left a few lengthily comments on the matter there that probably merit further exploration here.

It should be noted that it seems the NDP are just talking about writing a bill, so it's hard to comment with too much authority about a hypothetical proposal. Essentially, they think that the PM shouldn't be able to ask for prorogation, but that it should require a majority vote by the House of Commons. (They seem to have forgotten about the Senate, not sure if that's intentional or not. Hard to justify excluding them though, if it was intentional. They get prorogued too.)

That said, I do have some thoughts, however.

First, I don't think the power to prorogue is the real problem here. Any tool can be abused. That doesn't mean the tool is flawed, though. Take guns. Guns have legitimate uses: safety and protection. They can also be abused to commit criminal acts. So we don't ban guns, but take steps to restrict their use. Still, gun control alone won't solve crime. The deeper problem is the criminals. So just as I support reasonable and effective gun control, I'm open to exploring reasonable and effective prorogation control, to coin a phrase. I'll get more into that in a moment.

I don't think prorogation is the real problem here though. It's the abuse of prorogation. The abuse of prorogation is a symptom of a larger disease: a prime minister contemptuous of parliament and democracy, our of touch with the priorities. Treating the symptom is fine. But it won't cure the disease. That's where our focus should be. Let me put it another way: Stephen Harper is a serial abuser of parliament. We can run around finding ways to change parliament; he'll just find other ways to abuse it. The problem isn't with parliament. The problem is with Stephen Harper. We need to get him into treatment.

Now, back to prorogation reform. I have to wonder, isn't there a constitutional question here? What I've read from the NDP today talks about restricting the PM from asking for prorogation. But it's my understanding that prorogation is a power vested in the Governor General who, by convention, accepts the advice of her Prime Minister on the matter, largely without question.

I'm no constitutional or legal scholar, but it seems there are two angles you could address it from: stop the PM from asking the GG for prorogation, or stop the GG from taking the PM's advice on it.

On the first, I don't see how you can legally bar the PM from stopping by Rideau Hall or, horror of horrors, phoning over and asking her for whatever he wants. Whether she says yes is another matter entirely, but you can't restrict his right to free speech. He can still ask for it.

Which leaves us with restricting the GG's latitude for accepting her PM's advice. Can that be done by simple law alone, or is that a change to her powers as described in the constitution? I'm no lawyer, but that would seem to tread into constitutional matters, which trump any legislation passed by Parliament alone.

So, to this layman, merely passing legislation that seeks to restrict the PM from being able to ask for prorogation seems largely symbolic and legally unenforceable. He can ask, and legislation won't change the fact prorogation is the GG's to grant, or to not grant. Now, it's true, a GG could feel morally obligated to heed the advice of Parliament as expressed through such legislation, and decide to overturn the convention of accepting the advice of her PM. She wouldn't be legally bound to do so without constitutional reform of her powers, but she does have that discretion, in theory.

She'd be under no obligation to do so, however. Indeed, the debate would have many parallels last year's prorogation, when the GG was asked to set aside the PM's request for prorogation in favour of the petition from the opposition coalition. We know how that one came out, and the unfortunate precedent set.

So, if we want real reform I really don't think this is as simple as saying "let's write a bill to restrict the PM's ability to ask for prorogation." I trust though he NDP has considered all the legal and constitutional questions, and crafted legislation (or plan to, I guess) that is intended to be legally binding and effective, and not mere symbolism. When they do come up with a proposal, if it will be binding and effective I'll be on board.

I know the Liberals are studying proposals for democratic reform, and are consulting with legal and academic experts on the wider issues. I'm not overly concerned that the Liberals haven't lept forward on this issue IF they're taking the time to craft legislation that could actually be effective at improving the system. Because I think it's effective reforms people are interested in, not symbolism, and I'd rather get it right than get the headline first.

In the mean time, let's not get so bogged-down treating symptoms we forget the disease. Look for the anti-prorogation rally near you on Saturday, come on out and make your voice heard.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We had to prorogue so Rona Ambrose could take a vacation

We have heard many reasons from Stephen Harper's Conservatives to explain why they had to prorogue parliament. They had to recalibrate, they said. They had to stop the instability of parliament so they could focus on putting the next phase of their economic action plan in place to ensure the economic recovery won't be thrown off track.

What prorogation wasn't about, Harper insisted, was a two-month vacation for government MPs. No sir, they'd all be working hard in their constituencies, and ministers would be hard at work on the economic action plan.

One would think the labour minister might have some work to do around that. After all, the labour market has been taking a beating in the downturn. Unemployment is up substantially, and always lags a recovery. Strategies for dealing with unemployment will be key to the success of any budget and recovery plan the Conservatives launch in March.

It seems though that the presence of the labour minister isn't really necessary for formulting labour policy, as the former minister, who got what' s being called a big promotion in yesterday's cabinet shuffle, was spending her prorogation many miles away from her ministry:

The only drama behind this week's Cabinet shuffle was the call MP Rona Ambrose received on her satellite phone just hours after cresting the summit of Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. The Prime Minister's Office wanted his labour minister back in Ottawa for reassignment. Immediately.

Actually, if you think about it, Ambrose's prorogation vacation only makes a mockery of the Harper government's rationale for padlocking parliament if you consider the labour minister to be someone that has anything to do with, well, labour policy. If you accept Harper ministers as mere figureheads, then it doesn't really matter how his cabinet spends its time.

Indeed, Ambrose's career-path since being turfed from the Environment portfolio in 2007 bares this out. Having learned her lessons about having visibility and actually doing things (misguided though those things were), she took the message and spent her terms in Intergovermental Affairs and Labour doing as little as possible. Allowing the apointees in the PMO to set policy for her department she kept a very low profile, advancing no agenda, making few announcements.

So it's emblematic that, when she got the call for promotion, she wasn't hard at work at her cabinet office helping craft labour policy to help see the workforce through the downturn, but was instead on vacation on another continent.

Be quiet, follow orders, don't do anything or say anything. It seems that's the surest way to advance in the Harper cabinet.


UPDATE: I'm informed that climbs of Kilimanjaro need to be scheduled well in advance, so Ambrose's trip likely wasn't taken to take advantage of prorogation, but was probably planned for some time so she could be back for the previously scheduled return of Parliament on January 25th.

However, even if her trip wasn't scheduled to take advantage of prorogation, the wider point stands. If the situation is really as dire as Harper puts it, if he really does need to prorogue and have all hands on deck to manage this crisis, why did his labour minister still go mountain climbing?

Maybe she didn't buy prorogation insurance, but if the situation is serious enough for Harper to shut down Parliament, surely it's serious enough for his labour minister to come to the office?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's Top Ten Cabinet Duds

So, apparently Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet tomorrow. And hopefully apologize to New Zealand on Greg Thompson's behalf, before they cut off our sheep supply.

And by the by, I'm willing to fly business/first class to New Zealand and can be at Rideau Hall for the morning, if anyone at the PMO is reading this. If you fly me Air Canada, you can even book it in economy and I'll use a certificate to upgrade. See, I'm saving the taxpayers money already!

And if the PMO is reading, hopefully the reports that tomorrow’s minor cabinet shuffle will reward incompetence by retaining ministers who have failed miserably in their portfolios are untrue. But alas, Stephen Harper seems content to keep a tight rein on the Conservative agenda and stick to a course that lacks any vision for Canada’s future.

If Harper was willing to start clearing out the deadwood however, here are ten ministers he'd be well advised to shuffle off into the sunset:

1. Lisa Raitt

Her greatest hits: Botching Canada’s medical isotope supply; her insensitive “cancer is sexy” comment caught on tape; leaving a top secret briefing binder at a TV station and then forcing her young ministerial aide to take the fall for it; signing off on thousands of dollars of questionable expenses as President and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) and then, once in federal cabinet, organizing a partisan fundraiser out of the TPA offices. She now faces no less than three investigations – by the Ethics, Privacy and Lobbying Commissioners.

2. Peter Mackay

Ever since becoming a reality TV star, Mr. Mackay’s ratings have plummeted – first for attacking sympathetic civil servants who speak the truth, and then for using the Canadian Forces as a shield for all political criticism.

3-5. Jim Flaherty
Tony Clement
and John Baird

In a move that should terrify investors, Mr. Harper is leaving his Harris-era cohort of front-bench ministers intact.

John Baird has little more to show for his infrastructure spending spree than delayed projects and underwhelming job creation.

Jim Flaherty is responsible for a record $56 billion deficit.

And Tony Clement shrunk his side of the balance sheet after giving away Nortel’s made-in-Canada technology.

Mike Harris would no doubt be proud of what his children hath wrought.

6. Jim Prentice

The onetime cabinet superstar has lost all independent willpower. Charged with the impossible task of trying to communicate the government’s excuses for inaction on the environment, he became the laughing stock of the world in Copenhagen.

7. Gerry Ritz

Combining his cavalier attitude with a dangerous mismanagement style, Minister Ritz felt it was funny to make jokes while Canadians were dying of listeriosis.

8. Jay Hill

Conservative MPs use Mr. Hill’s Parliamentary "disruption" manual as a guide on how to dismantle important committee work. Mr. Hill’s Afghanistan committee no-show technique wasn’t even good enough for Mr. Harper, who took it a step further and canceled Parliament altogether.

9. Helena Guergis

After nearly two years of promising an ‘Action Plan’ to advance women’s equality, we wish that Minister Guergis had achieved nothing. Instead, she has stood silently in the background while her cabinet colleagues chipped away at women’s equality rights – whether through cuts at Status of Women, the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program or attacks on pay equity – leading to a growing gender gap under her government.

10. Stephen Harper

Our Prime Minister has shuttered our dearest democratic institution for the second time in a year so he can stage daily Potemkin village photo ops. He followed up his tirades against delayed government legislation by killing 36 of his own bills, and blew up his Senate reform agenda by appointing more cronies in one year than any Prime Minister in history.

But if Stephen is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, perhaps it would be best if the captain went down with the ship...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Better know an LPC(O) VP-organization candidate: James Curran

The biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) is coming-up in Windsor from February 5 thru 7th. Most of the executive positions have been acclaimed, but there is one big race: vice-president, organization.

With James Morton’s decision to withdraw from the race there are two candidates contesting the position: James Curran and Jamie Maloney. To help those of you that will be delegates in Windsor (alas, I won’t be able to make it myself) I prepared a few questions for the candidates about their experience, and their priorities for the position and for the Liberal Party.

This morning, I brought you the answers from Jamie Maloney. This afternoon I bring you the answers from James Curran (who may be better known to blog readers as the What Do I Know Grit). Be sure to seek them both out in Windsor to learn more about them and then cast your votes for the candidate that best reflects your concerns and priorities.

(Note: I present their answers unedited and unabridged. The same questions were asked of both candidates. Both candidates submitted their answers by Sunday evening, so neither had the opportunity to review the other's answers before responding.)

Why do you want to be the vice-president for organization?

I want to make it clear that I expressed my intention to be Vice President Organization for the LPC(O) over a year ago, long before the riding President for Etobicoke Lakeshore announced his intention to stand. In fact, I launched my campaign at the Leadership Convention in Vancouver in 2009 with the reception entitled ONTARIO! Ours to Recover. It was a successful event bringing Liberals together from coast to coast exchanging ideas about grassroots involvement.

Over the past several years, I have seen that the position of VP Org has been neglected, in terms of energy, commitment and resources, and coincidentally, we have seen a dramatic drop in Liberal held seats in Ontario. This is unacceptable.

My bottom-line is that I want to work hard for the Leader and the Liberal Party of Canada and build the necessary team and framework to ensure that we are successful in our efforts to elect more Ontario Liberal Members of Parliament in the next election and that we are in the best possible position to form the next government.

I want to ensure that all of the Ontario ridings and their campaigns are completely prepared for an election. In order to achieve this, we must professionalize the Liberal Party's campaign-waging abilities by ensuring that ridings and campaigns have the best tools, training and assistance at their disposal when they need it.

I believe that we always need to be working, developing, building. The status quo may be acceptable when we are winning or when we hold government. I don't think that I need to point out the position in which we now find ourselves.

The status quo is no longer acceptable.

We need to break out of our current holding position with new energy, new ideas and yes . . . new people. We cannot afford to have placeholders occupying important positions at any level of the Party, simply because of who they are. We need people who are committed to rebuilding OUR PARTY from the foundations up!

What experience and background do you bring to this position, both inside and outside the party?

First and foremost, I am a life-long Liberal.

I have organized at the local, provincial and national level for many different candidates and causes. In addition, I have been giving seminars on campaigns and internet strategies for campaigns over the last two years in order to assist the future leaders of this province in their quests for office.

My experience working with the grassroots of the Party is one of my clear strengths. In addition to being elected as a four-time riding president, I have a strong network of Liberal friends, colleagues and contacts, from Thunder Bay to Niagara Falls and from Windsor to Ottawa and all points between. These are active Liberals who work the telephones, raise funds, build the membership and who are all joined by the common desire for the Liberal Party to represent the best this country has to offer.

I have business and management experience in both the hospitality and real estate industries.

Finally, I am passionate and pragmatic with respect to the job ahead. I realize that there are significant tasks that must be immediately undertaken if we are to rebuild our Party in Ontario and regain so many of our lost seats. After consulting with a wide range of committed Liberals from across the Province, I have developed a serious plan to tackle our challenges and build on the foundation that is already in place.

What is the biggest challenge facing the Liberal Party of Canada in Ontario today?

All Parties are challenged by the ambivalence and apathy that has permeated throughout the political system, in large part due to the focus on strategy and tactics, rather than solid policy development and meaningful dialogue.

While at the riding level, fundraising in most parts of the province is a challenge, I believe if we look at the bigger picture, the most significant challenge facing the federal Liberal Party in Ontario is that we have not rationalized a general and coordinated strategy for the organization.

To put it bluntly, we have no plan to implement and therefore, there is little or no buy-in from the members and ridings and this affects all aspects of the Party's operations, from membership to fundraising and from policy to participation.

We are having difficulties attracting new members and ensuring that we are a Party that is growing, rather than a Party in decline.

We must address these fundamental shortcomings by focusing on the creation and implementation of a solid plan.

We must once again become a party of inclusion, rather than exclusion.

We must identify and recruit new leaders and ensure that they are given a chance for meaningful participation and are developed into the Party's future leadership.

We must ensure that merit is at the centre of inclusion, not nepotism or backroom manipulation.

Our Party must continue its efforts to modernize our data collection, management and use, and we must continue the great efforts made by Rocco Rossi to ensure that our fundraising base is fully utilized and that strategies are developed to secure new revenue streams at both the riding and LPC(O) levels.

Specifically on the fundraising front, we must work to secure every vote possible during elections and this means winning BIG where we are strong and fighting for every last vote in challenging ridings, so that we receive the maximum possible share of the $1.75 per vote.

What is your view of a 308-riding strategy?

First Jeff, I’d like to thank Navdeep Bains, Steve MacKinnon and the entire committee for publishing the Liberal 308 document and the countless hours they spent assembling it.

The 308 riding strategy as it applies to Ontario reflects the Liberal Party of Canada's commitment to Ontario voters to show that every riding counts, that every person in every riding counts.

The 308 riding strategy is premised on the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada will be A GOVERNMENT FOR ALL CANADIANS, not like the Harper Government that only looks out for the narrow interests of a select few and who chooses to divide, rather than unite and to create friction and division among Canadians.

Practically, the 308 riding strategy means that we must ensure that each riding reaches its potential and that we have meaningful representation and strong campaigns in each area of the country.

To reiterate my comments from above, we must work to secure every vote possible during elections and this means winning BIG where we are strong and fighting for every last vote in challenging ridings, so that we receive the maximum possible share of the $1.75 per vote.

How will you ensure organization is a party priority in unheld and so-called “no-hope ridings” both during and before an election campaign?

There is no such thing as a "no hope" riding in my opinion. In my opinion any riding can be won within 2 or 3 elections with the right approach, but that takes resources, training and funds. By teaching all ridings how to squeeze every possible vote for the lowest possible cost, we can increase the party's resources for the next election. More votes equals more money, more money equals more votes. This is a building process until we can win any given riding. We know that it is possible, because we have done it before.

What are your top three priorities if elected?

1. To professionalize the Liberal Party's campaign-waging abilities and Riding Association practices;

2. To develop and implement a Organizational Strategic Plan, based on best practices for campaigns and Riding Associations; and

3. To ensure that there is a proper budget allocated for Organization along with the formation of an Organization Committee (there currently isn't one).

How will you work to build a team and get new people involved that perhaps haven’t been involved in the party or in organizational roles in the past?

As I stated above, "merit" must be at the heart of our team-building efforts.

As part of the Organizational Strategic Plan, there will be a considerable component that will develop an identification and recruit process that starts at the Riding Association level and goes up to the LPC(O) Executive level. This may be one of the most important aspects of the job of VP Organization, as many active and dedicated Liberal members from across the province and across the country are feeling alienated, ignored and, in many cases, disrespected by the entrenched powers within the Party.

I will practice what I preach, which is constant and sustained outreach efforts. I will give every member, every Canadian a say and a stake in the future of this Party.

Anything else you’d like to add?

I have been to over many, many Delegate Selection Meetings and Annual General Meetings over the past few months engaging Liberals on the front line - in their ridings. I am already on the job identifying the "problems" and "issues" affecting the riding associations.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Better know an LPC(O) VP-organization candidate: Jamie Maloney

The biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) is coming-up in Windsor from February 5 thru 7th. Most of the executive positions have been acclaimed, but there is one big race: vice-president, organization.

With James Morton’s decision to withdraw from the race there are two candidates contesting the position: James Curran and Jamie Maloney. To help those of you that will be delegates in Windsor (alas, I won’t be able to make it myself) I prepared a few questions for the candidates about their experience, and their priorities for the position and for the Liberal Party.

This morning, I bring you the answers from Jamie Maloney. Watch this afternoon for the answers from James Curran. Be sure to seek them both out in Windsor to learn more about them and then cast your votes for the candidate that best reflects your concerns and priorities.

(Note: I present their answers unedited and unabridged. The same questions were asked of both candidates. Both candidates submitted their answers by Sunday evening, so neither had the opportunity to review the other's answers before responding.)

Why do you want to be the vice-president for organization?

The Vice President Organization has a great opportunity to help every Liberal riding association in Ontario as they prepare to fight and win the next election. There are several aspects to this job, but I believe this to be the priority.

Organization, to me, means structure, support and training. Support can be provided to our riding associations in several ways. Members of our association’s executives must have a clear understanding of their roles, and they must have the tools and techniques necessary to carry out the tasks required of them in those roles. They cannot and should not be expected to do this alone.

The V.P. Organization should be helping to define those roles through written job descriptions and more importantly, through instruction manuals, that guide our volunteers through the operations of their positions. But we cannot stop there. We cannot simply give a volunteer a manual and wish them good luck. We have to continue to support them in their efforts by offering them professional development through training, workshops and seminars, bring our best practices to them, sharing our best ideas with them.

If we can accomplish this then all of our associations will be stronger and better equipped to fight and win. That’s why I want to be the V.P. Organization. I want to help the Liberal party win the next election, from the ground up!

What experience and background do you bring to this position, both inside and outside the party?

I have been a Liberal my whole life. I was born into a Liberal family and have embraced our values and our culture from an early age. The Liberal family is, in many ways, my extended family. So when I say I have a lifetime of grassroots, on the ground, experience, I’m not kidding!

I’ve worked in municipal, provincial and federal politics. I’ve also had the great fortune to have very different political experiences, having worked on political campaigns in Thunder Bay, Windsor, Toronto and Lennoxville, Quebec. I’ve worked in rural and urban settings, small and large communities. These experiences help me to appreciate not only how our communities across the province differ, but also what binds us together, as Liberals and as Ontarians.

As for my political experience, I was an active member of Allan Rock’s campaigns in 1993, 1997 and 2000. I served as Co-Chair for Hon. Jean Augustine’s campaign in 2004 and then was Co-Chair for Michael Ignatieff’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

I’ve worked closely with Hon. Laurel Broten, M.P.P., serving as her riding association president for the provincial association of Etobicoke Lakeshore. I am currently (and have been since 2006) the Etobicoke Lakeshore Federal Liberal Association President.

Professionally, I’m a lawyer, and have been since 1994, but please don’t hold that against me! Just thought it best to let you know that. I’m a partner at the Toronto firm Hughes, Amys. In my capacity as a lawyer I’ve had the opportunity to teach. I was given the opportunity in the late 1990s to teach a course in New Media Law at Centennial College, which I enjoyed very much.

I’m not only not new to the world of volunteerism, I have been volunteering for many years with organizations outside of our Liberal family as well. I believe that if one is able to do so, it’s important to participate in volunteerism in our expanded communities as well. I’ve been a member of Leadership Sinai, a volunteer wing of Mount Sinai Hospital, and I’ve worked with the Ontario Brain Injury Association. I’ve also served two terms as the president of The Lawyers Club, and was a board member of the Ontario Public Accountants’ Council. All of these experiences have helped me develop my organizational skills.

What is the biggest challenge facing the Liberal Party of Canada in Ontario today?

Certainly every political party faces challenges, and some of them even overlap between the parties. We want to increase voter participation, we want to ensure we are relevant to the public, and we want the public to care more about the politics of their country.

For me, all of this spells outreach. There is outreach (external outreach) into our communities, and then there is internal outreach, where we connect better with our own membership.
We have to reach out into our broader communities and find ways to relate to the public, whether they are seniors or youth, new Canadians or established communities. We have to understand what issues are most important to people, and we have to find ways to bridge the gaps.

Internally, we have to reach out to our own membership base. Outreach begins at home, with membership retention. We must ensure that our membership base in one of our top priorities. Membership in the Liberal party must be meaningful, and that means actively engaging our members through internal initiatives.

The V.P. Organization can assist in bridging those gaps by supporting the work of our volunteers, at the association level. Again, this is another example of working from the ground up, within our communities.

What is your view of a 308-riding strategy?

I share many of the views of the authors of the 308-riding strategy document, however, it is important for your readers to know that the 308-riding strategy is meant as a national strategic document. It deals with issues that can only be dealt with at the national level, for example: Services from the national head office to the PTAs, the role of Commissions within our party, and the federated structure of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Can we talk, instead, about a 106-riding strategy? We have 106 ridings in Ontario, so let’s bring this strategy closer to home.

Again, I want to talk about support. The V.P. Organization helps to support the initiatives of our riding associations. Those initiatives, like outreach, membership retention and fundraising (as a few examples) are what’s needed if we’re going to have strong, healthy associations able to wage successful campaigns.

The job descriptions, operations manuals and training are all key elements in supporting each association, but it’s also important to recognize that a 106-riding strategy has to be tailored to each of our associations. There are many differences between our associations. There’s the obvious difference between rural and urban ridings, but there are also ethnic, geographic and language differences. These differences have to be addressed to ensure we are meeting the needs of every association.

How will you ensure organization is a party priority in unheld and so-called “no-hope ridings” both during and before an election campaign?

First, I want to clearly state that I do not believe we have any “no hope ridings”. I want everyone to remember that at one point in Ontario’s history we have held every single seat. Every riding is winnable! Yes, it may be more difficult today than it’s been in the past, but that doesn’t mean that there is even one riding out there that isn’t winnable.

While I’m currently the president of a federal Liberal association, I was also once the president of the provincial Etobicoke Lakeshore association, and this was an unheld seat. I understand and remember very clearly how this feels, and I also believe it was the hard work of our members, all actively working very hard in their respective positions, that propelled us toward success.
Prepare. Prepare. Prepare. That’s the primary role of the V.P. Organization, and the V.P. Organization doesn’t do this alone. Luckily there is an entire Management Committee for LPC(O) that has been hard at work helping to prepare our ridings. And they are assisted by a very capable Executive Director and party staff workers. We are a team. This is the first most important thing to remember: Everyone is working hard, and working together, to ensure our overall success.

No executive member is going to be successful working alone, and they don’t work alone. We have a terrific team and I want to be a part of that team, adding my strengths to the effort.

As VP Organization I can assist this effort by ensuring everyone knows what their roles are. Definitions of roles, job descriptions, are important, but they are only the beginning. Manuals, or operations guides, must be provided. But even that is not enough. Yes, it is vitally important that people understand the positions and roles they assume. They must be clearly spelled out, and we must give them operations manuals, instructions, guides to follow. But there is still much more we can provide.

Training, which I like to think of a professional development, is one of the keys to success.
When we think of dentists and doctors, lawyers and accountants, we assume they know how to do their jobs. They are trained through education programs, and they have on the job experience, but they are also always participating in professional development.

The Liberal party must do the same thing.

I view training as a constant opportunity to be learning something new, hearing the ideas of others, and learning what has worked for other EDAs. Training elevates us all. Sharing our best practices makes us all stronger.

Training, and the development of our skills, is the way we build toward the future. A riding may currently be unheld, and we may not win that seat back in the next election, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t winnable. We have to build our base of support, and we do this on the strength of our associations and their members. Their hard work today will mean our success tomorrow.

We need the kinds of training courses and workshops that gives us all the specific tools and techniques we need to win the next election, and the election after that. Taking a step back, that means we need to develop the skills, at the riding association level, that support all of our most basic goals:

• Fundraising (For large and small events, for grassroots and big ticket events, for direct mail campaigns.)

• Outreach (To our communities: Multicultural, seniors, women, youth, veterans, disabled persons, religious communities, etc.)

• Membership Recruitment (Reaching all members of our community.)

• Volunteer Retention (Once we have new members we need to know how to engage them and develop their skills.)

• Policy (Policy can be used as a tool to engage the community, give people a voice, and recruit them to the Liberal party.)

• Communications (Internal – communicating with your association and volunteer base. External – communicating with your broader community.)

• EDA Management (Many riding presidents and their executive members are new to the party, or to their positions. Guidance and support would be appreciated by them.)

• Election Readiness (This should now be seen as part of our ongoing training.)

The training materials that work for one EDA may not apply to another. What works in a small community may not work in a large community; what works for an urban riding will not translate to a rural community. And even within large urban centres, there are differences from riding to riding.

Standard training materials need to be developed that can be applied to all our EDAs, and then tweaked to meet the specific needs of our communities. The training materials must be developed from “on the ground” expertise, and offer practical solutions that will strengthen our associations.

What are your top three priorities if elected?

1. Riding Association Management

We are very fortunate, in the Liberal party, to have many enthusiastic members who step forward to volunteer themselves for executive positions at the association level. Unfortunately, we haven’t always done the best job of educating these volunteers, and explaining to them what their specific positions entail, and how they can work at accomplishing the goals of their position.
Providing job descriptions and operations manuals for all key positions within the riding association will help to solve this challenge.

Looking at the bigger picture, it’s also important that we give our association members a sense of the bigger picture, organizationally speaking, within the Liberal party. We have some wonderful mechanisms within the party that many of our members are unfamiliar with, such as the Laurier Club, The Victory Fund and the Judy LaMarsh Fund. We also have a federated structure (national party, provincial wings, regional areas) within the party that can be better explained and understood. It’s important that our membership both understand and feel connected to all the elements of our party.

2. Training/Professional Development

Courses, workshops and seminars which will ensure all our volunteers are sharing best practices, have the most up-to-date skills and latest techniques, must be employed. I’ve written about this extensively as an answer to one of your other questions. I strongly believe that we must offer this support to all of our associations and members. We must ensure that they have the tools needed to succeed.

3. Membership Recruitment and Retention

At first glance this may seem similar to the training and professional development priority, so please allow me to explain the difference.

This is one of the areas where we need to offer training and professional development. I am singling this out as a priority because I believe it is one of the keys to our success.

It’s important that we have a strong and engaged membership base. The more members we have, the more successful we will be at all our other initiatives, such as outreach and fundraising. When we have members, we have the ability to go out into our communities and connect with the public. When we have members, we have the means to raise funds. And when we have members we have a strong volunteer base which can then be mobilized to work on an election campaign.

Members are the key to our success.

Recruiting members is only the first step. Once a member is recruited we cannot assume that they will simply remain a member. What keeps them with us? If they are not actively participating then will they remain interested in the Liberal party?

It is incumbent upon us, at the association level, to engage our members. Everyone has something to offer. It’s our responsibility to learn what their strengths are, find roles for them, and help them to become active members of our association teams. People who are engaged and contributing to our associations will become part of that association’s fabric.

How will you work to build a team and get new people involved that perhaps haven’t been involved in the party or in organizational roles in the past?

The first thing I must do (and I think any newly elected person ought to do) is assess what’s happened to date. Where are we in terms of job descriptions, operations manuals and guides, training and professional development? Where are we in terms of volunteers who have experience running meetings? Is there an organization committee? Do we have skilled party members who can assist with training in our various regions?

All of these issues must be assessed, and then prioritized, to ensure that we are addressing our greatest needs first. Ensuring our level of preparation is as high as possible, in the event an election is called, must be our first priority.

So assessment and prioritization are the first orders of business.

The next step is to recognize that nothing will be accomplished if I work alone. I will need assistance, from many people, and from across the province, in all of our six regions. The call will go out through the regions asking interested volunteers to come forward. Committees will be created which will address all of our priorities and help to administer the various tasks that must be accomplished.

As V.P. Organization I would be Chairing these committees, but I will want and need both help and input from many people. The more people who come forward to assist me, and our party, accomplish these goals, the stronger and better we will be.

At the association level, I’d like to see all riding associations meeting on a regular basis. Monthly meetings would be ideal. Again, this speaks to membership retention. When we’re in the middle of an election it’s easy to engage our volunteers. It’s when we’re between elections that we have to remember that engagement is necessary for membership retention. Monthly meetings and get-togethers bring our people together, encourage work on our initiatives, allows us to regularly discuss issues and collectively build our skills. Regular meetings will help to reinforce membership engagement and thus retention.

Anything else you’d like to add?

I think your questions have been very thorough and I’ve done my best to give you equally thorough answers.

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to express my views and intents, and I hope your readers like my approach to the position of V.P. Organization. If anyone would like to reach me to discuss any of this further, I encourage them to send me an e-mail at jamie4org@gmail.com.

And, I’d like to ask that if your readers are delegates at the upcoming LPC(O) AGM in Windsor that they vote for me! I am most sincere in my desire to make a difference, to strengthen our party from the ground up, and to work with all our associations, the Management Committee and the party office, to ensure this goal is accomplished.

But I can’t do this unless elected. Please vote for me: Jamie Maloney for V.P. Organization.

Again, many thanks to you for this opportunity, and to your blog’s followers for taking the time to read through my answers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Surprisingly, there's still room to define Ignatieff

Perhaps wanting to make nice with the Conservatives after releasing horse-race numbers that aren’t overly positive for the ruling party, Harris-Decima released party leader impression numbers yesterday and, while they show sharp declines in popularity for Stephen Harper, Allan Gregg’s lede is that Michael Ignatieff isn’t capitalizing and is still the most unpopular of the Big Three.

First, the numbers. Stephen Harper scored a 44% favourable (down 7 from November) and a 48% unfavourable (up 7). Michael Ignatieff’s numbers were little changed from November, with 30% favourable and 48% unfavourable. No change numbers were provided for the other leaders, but Jack Layton had the best net score with 47% favourable vs 37% unfavourable. Elizabeth May scored 32% positive vs 28% negative.

They broke down the numbers for the big two by a number of demographics, as well as party supporters, which provided some interesting numbers, although not super surprising. For example, Harper’s base would appear secure with a 86% favourability from Conservative supporters. Ignatieff managed 56% favourable from Liberal supporters.

Interestingly, for a guy who is painted by his opponents as a fairly conservative fellow, Ignatieff’s best approval from other party supporters came from NDP supporters, who gave him a 32% favourable (vs 49% unfavourable). Greens really don’t like him, but there does seem to be more openness to him on the left than on the right, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to the narrative.

Anyway, you can dig through the PDF for more tidbits and data. Certainty, while I find Gregg’s choice of emphasis a little amusing I don’t disagree that Ignatieff hasn’t (yet) capitalized personally on prorogation, nor have the Liberals. These numbers aren’t surprising though; it’s too early for any of the work happening since Ignatieff’s prorogation presser to have paid the sorts of dividends that would show in such a poll. And nothing else has happened since November to move his numbers.

Growth Potential

The point I did want to make though is about growth potential, or more accurately the room still left to define and set impressions of the leaders, namely Ignatieff. Add up the numbers and you find 92% of Canadians have some sort of impression, good or bad, of Harper. He’s a known quantity. But just 78% of Canadians have an impression of Ignatieff. That means 22% have no impression of him at all.

We need to move that 48% unfavourable number, and I think we can if we do what we need to do (and there are signs we’re starting to, fingers crossed). But the fact that 22% is still greenfield also says there is still an opportunity to define Ignatieff with a good chunk of the population that hasn’t formed an opinion one way or another, despite the massive and expensive Conservative negative ad onslaught.

And that’s an opportunity.

(Photo: Radey Barrack)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The drip drip of negative perception

An examination of the rise and fall of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1993 to 2006 would show that, despite what the polling numbers may have shown, it wasn’t as if the party suddenly and surprisingly dropped off a cliff in 2004 when the tsunami that was the sponsorship scandal shook the party. While adscam was certainly the straw that broke the back of the party, it wouldn’t have done it alone.

It was a steady drip drip that had built up in the public consciousness over the entirety of the Liberal tenure in government that led to the public beginning to move away from the party in 2004, and finally backing away entirely in 2005/06. There were many unpopular decisions and scandals, both real and imagined, that hit the Liberals over those 13 or so years. I won’t go through and catalog the list. And while each one was seemingly weathered with little to no lasting hit in popular support, each did register in the public consciousness, a festering concern or disappointment that, while not enough to change voter support, did shape their view of the party, building with each additional incident.

Despite growing displeasure over various Liberal decisions and actions, support held for some time for a number of reasons: each incident in isolation wasn’t enough to change minds, the government was doing many other good things people liked, and there was no compelling alternative to move support to if people were so inclined, whether it was the divided right or a weak Stockwell Day in 2000.

For many, sponsorship was the proverbial last straw that served to put all those other more minor scandals and other problems they’d had with the Liberals over the years into a linking narrative, triggering a change in voter support. But even with a united right, it wasn’t enough in 2004 to move government to the Conservatives. It wasn’t until 2005/06 when that increasing displeasure with the Liberals, sealed as mentioned by sponsorship, was combined with a Conservative platform that gave people a place to feel comfortable parking their votes – tax relief, a relatively moderate policy platform – that the public finally fully left the Liberals and elected a new government.

The lessons to be learned? It’s not any one single incident, but a drip dip of actions and events that shape a perception and a narrative, that will move public opinion. And they won’t move en masse until they have somewhere compelling to move to.

Why the history lesson?

I took this extended trip down memory lane because I see many interesting parallels to today’s political situation.

Looking at the past four to five years, there have been a myriad of hits the Conservatives have taken, from listeriosis to isoptopes and cancer is sexy all the way through to detainee torture and prorogation, with many more of varying sizes and import. By and large, up to the current backlash over prorogation, each past incident hasn’t generally caused a lasting decline in Conservative support.

That’s because each incident, on its own, wasn’t enough to trigger a meaningful change in voter intention, given the other things the government was doing that people agreed with, and given the alternatives on the market. But each incident did serve to help move and shape public perception of the Conservative Party in the public consciousness. It builds a narrative.

Looking at prorogation initially, in isolation, I didn’t see it as a major game-changer. However, a spate of recent polls, including most recently from Ekos, The Strategic Counsel and Angus Reid, would seem to be proving me wrong, all showing sharp declines in Conservative support.

It appears that, for many Canadians, the prorogation affair may be that proverbial straw that causes their scales to turn against the Conservatives. It’s not just prorogation itself, but prorogation builds on top of the narrative caused by all those other little incidents and scandals over the last few years that Harper largely got away with at the time. Prorogation serves to solidify the negative impression that all those other incidents had created in the minds of many Canadians and has led many of them to the point where they are ready to change their votes. The government’s negatives begin to outweigh the positives.

Of course, that galvanizing event that finally moves public opinion is only half the equation. As we’ve seen, if they’re going to move to somewhere en masse, they need to have somewhere to go to. That’s borne out by those same polling numbers. Yes, the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals has closed substantially, from as much as 10 to 15 points to, in two cases, a statistical tie. But the gap was largely closed by a collapse of the Conservative vote. Liberal support has gotten a small uptick, but not much of one, still languishing around the 30 per cent level which, until last fall’s freefall, was the historical bottom of Liberal support for the last five or so years.

It brings me back to my steady message of these last few weeks: if the Liberals are to capitalize on this opportunity that prorogation has given them, public anger with the Conservatives will only take them so far. The public didn’t finally turn on the Liberals in 2005/06 until the Conservatives gave them a strong alternative leader with a compelling, measured moderate policy agenda that they could relate to. They’re not going to leave the Conservatives in lasting and meaningful numbers until we do the same.

Lest I sound too pessimistic, I do have optimism on that front. Michael Ignatieff’s campus tour is going very well, and getting good reviews. I think the “back to work” strategy on January 25th of public policy forums is a good one with the potential to put meat on the bones, but they must include real ideas and proposals, not just platitudes, and make it accessible to those outside the capital, even if only by Web cast. I’ll be watching for that. And, of course, the Thinker’s Conference in March. I’m also hearing that the party is undertaking a process that will lead to the generation of real ideas for democratic reform. It may not come as soon as many would like, but it does appear to be on the radar.

In the end, it will be a major challenge to both sustain the displeasure that prorogation has generated in the Conservatives, as well as convert that displeasure into positive support. Things can change quickly in politics; I think the last three weeks are clear evidence of that. Whether this will be 2004 or 2005/06 will only be known with time.

Either way though, it’s safe to say the drip-drip of scandal has worn heavily on the once formidable Conservative brand, with prorogation causing a heavy hit. For maybe the first time in four years, people are at least ready to consider change.

The only question is, are we ready to give it to them?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper is on guard for thee, but the instability contagion is spreading!

Be on watch, patriotic Canadians! There is a sinister danger lurking in our gentle land, an evil scourge that threatens our economy, our jobs, our economic recovery, even our families and our very way of life. What is this evil plague, you ask? Is it gingivitis? Well, that’s bad too, but no, I’m talking about: Instability!!

Yes, I know, it’s frightening, but it’s true. Instability has taken root in our land and is spreading. No one is safe. You, or your little dog Toto, could be next. Thankfully, we’re lucky enough to have a glorious leader in Stephen Harper with the foresight and bold vision to recognize this growing threat. And he is waging the battle against instability for you, Joe and Jane Canadian!

He recognized the growing threat of instability as far back as this summer, when the possibility of an election that would send Canadians to the polls to vote for their elected representatives threatened to give instability a beachhead into our democratic system:

"We do not need another round of political instability and another round of elections — we need parliament to focus on the economy," Harper said in Adstock, Que., as he announced a $225-million project to expand high-speed internet to rural areas across Canada.

Yes, our leader Stephen Harper had the foresight to know an election would give oxygen to the embers of instability and allow its flickering flames to burn our nascent recovery in the fiery fires of even more instability, but a kind that burned people and stuff.

NO! He declared, you stay away from Parliament, you dreaded instability! We need Parliament working, passing legislation, focusing on the economy, we need Parliament doing its work and not getting all unstable, and what not!

In September, seeing the instability still advancing, the Prime Minister launched another counterattack: get back, instability, we need Parliament on the job!

“The fact of the matter is that Canadians do not want an election, Canada does not need an election and an election is not in this country's best interest. We have important economic measures before Parliament. All the parties in Parliament should be focused on those measures and on the economy. The Leader of the Opposition should focus on our country's best interests.”
– Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, September 14, 2009.

Despite his valiant efforts though, instability proved to be a tenacious adversary. Despite Harper’s defences, and the ordering of plenty of instability vaccine, even if it arrived rather late, the instability was insidious and, rather than triggering an election, the instability mutated, and began to infect Parliament itself.

Instability, in our Parliament! We did not make this up! We’re not allowed to make this up.

Faced with this threat of instability in the very cradle of our democracy, with the infection beginning in the toe and spreading slowly up the leg, like a surgeon Stephen Harper had no choice but to do what he had to do to stop the spread of instability before it became life-threatening: cut off the foot.

"As soon as Parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy."

You see, he had no choice but amputation, er, prorogation! Yes, it was vitally important that we had Parliament on the job back in July to focus on the economy, that’s true. But that was before the instability infection had spread to Parliament. Now it had to be prorogued, for the good of the economy and Tim Horton’s and Hockey Night in Canada, before the instability spread further.

Let’s just hope that Harper finally has this nasty bout of instability beat, and that prorogation will do the trick. If the instability spreads to his cabinet, if the incompetent performances of his ministers begins to put the recovery at risk, he may have to resort to a cabinet shuffle.

Because if that doesn’t work, the instability could even infect the Prime Minister’s Office itself, and Stephen Harper could be out of a job.

And that would be pretty unstable indeed.

Well, for Mr. Harper, at least.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper opens mouth, inserts prorogue

I wrote the other day that one of the challenges for the Liberals and for the opponents of prorogation will be to keep the issue alive and in the public and media consciousness in the days and weeks ahead. The radio and print ads launched on the weekend are part of that. Thankfully, they’re getting some help keeping the issue alive and it comes from an unlikely source: Stephen Harper.

For a guy who doesn’t like the media, and only granted two year-end interviews for 2009 (one English, one French) our Prime Minister has been quite busy granting media one-on-ones since he padlocked the doors of Parliament for two months. Last week he sat down with the CBC and with Canwest. Yesterday it was CFRB and the Business News Network’s turn. It’s been an uncharacteristic period of media accesibility for Harper, and I’m sure it has nothing to do with the growing anger over prorogation that he insists, repeatedly and to more and more media outlets every day, that no one cares about.

Anyway, on BNN yesterday Harper graced us with his latest justification for prorogation, which is sure to extend the story even further:

As soon as Parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation, the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about, but, you know, the government will be well prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy, so that's what we're going to be doing.

Let's set aside, for a moment, that it's Stephen Harper that opts to make everything a confidence vote and fosters a spirit of bluster and instability in order to play one opposition party off the other for political advantage.

I can see what Harper is trying to do here. He’s trying to bring back the framing that he used to pull the trigger on the last election, and that he was probably hoping to use to pull the trigger after the budget in March until he underestimated the mood of Canadians (I’m hearing new polling numbers out shortly will underline this anger even further): I need a majority to fix the economy and see Canada through this period of economic uncertainty.

Perhaps that approach would have played a few months ago. But the framing of the issue has changed, apparently without Harper having noticed. In the context of Harper proroguing Parliament for the second time in one year, in the context of growing public dissatisfaction with the decision, in the context of a concerted opposition campaign to highlight this as Harper avoiding democratic accountability, in the context of even former senior Harper campaign adviser Tom Flannagan admitting prorogation is clearly about the Afghan detainee issue, Harper’s latest attempt at spin rings hollow.

(It's also worth nothing Harper's line here is also an apparent admission that he's too incompetent to both govern and manage Parliament at the same time. I know it's not easy to make priorities, Stephen, but it is part of the job. If you're not up to it, phone the GG and tell her you quit.)

Indeed, in the context of the growing narrative that Harper’s prorogation is the latest in a string of moves by this government to thumb its nose at democratic accountability, Harper’s comments actually serve to underline and reinforce that developing negative narrative: he’s implicitly saying I prorogued because those pesky MPs elected by the people in Canada are getting in my way. He’s making the opposition’s case for them. In asking them to choose, does he expect people to say "Yeah, let's just get rid of Parliament and give Harper free-reign?"

Once again, Harper’s reputation for strategic genius proves greatly over-rated. He should be talking about anything but prorogation. Were I him, I’d just get out there and be Prime Ministerial. That’s the greatest advantage he has: he has the job. Get out there and cut ribbons and meet with people and announce things.

But if he wants to keep offering lame justifications for sending his MPs on a two-month vacation and explaining why the people’s representatives are such an impediment to him doing whatever he wants to do, I’m cool with that too.

I'm sure it's also cool with the 167,200 (and counting) members of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper gang: MacKay went rogue attacking Colvin

If there's one thing Stephen Harper won't do it's admit defeat or that he's wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary, but the spin being put out by his people on the Afghan torture issue is telling:

However, it is understood that two Conservatives who have been the subject of much shuffle speculation will not be moving. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, will keep his job, despite being heavily criticized for his role in the Afghan detainee issue.

Senior Conservatives said Mr. MacKay was guilty of "freelancing" when he attacked the credibility of public servant Richard Colvin over his testimony on the detainee issue before a parliamentary committee last fall. Still, moving the Defence Minister would be an admission of defeat by a government that maintains it has done nothing wrong on the file.

Yes, MacKay came up with his attack line on Colvin all on his own. And every Conservative spokesthingy and pundit that took to the airwaves parroting his attack-line on Colvin, that was purely coincidental, and the PMO knew nothing at all about that because the Harper team tends to be rather hands-off when it comes to communicating the message, and usually just lets its ministers and surogates go out there and say whatever.

Riiiight.

Don't worry Peter, you'll keep your job for now because it would embarrass the boss to punt you now. But I'd be updating the CV, because once the heat dies down...

The same insider suggested more likely candidates to be shuffled include Lisa Raitt, the Natural Resources Minister, who has been at the centre of a series of controversies after leaving a secret document in a TV newsroom and being caught on tape calling the isotope shortage "sexy."

I give you until the fall, at best.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Liberal ads: Keeping the momentum going

On Sunday, the Liberal Party released three radio ads (two English, one French) and a print ad focusing on the Stephen Harper Conservatives’ decision to shut down parliament for two months. These ads are noteable for a number of reasons, and would appear to signal a shift in strategy and thinking by the DonOLO.

Cover-up (English, radio)


Present (English, radio)


Fermeture (French, radio)


First, the ads themselves. They’re simple, on message and to the point: Harper prorogued parliament to avoid accountability and debate on important issues, what does he have to hide. They’re negative, yes, but they’re issue-based negative, not personally negative.

I’d argue the purpose of the ads is to keep the prorogation issue alive and in the public consciousness a little longer, with the hope of continuing to stoke that anger and, hopefully, begin to convert some of that anger into Liberal support.

Of course, the ads won’t do all that. They’re merely designed to keep the issue and the anger alive. Harper and the Conservatives are banking on this whole issue just fizzling-out and the public losing interest, returning the political landscape to the status-quo. The challenge for the opposition in the coming weeks will be to keep the momentum going, and keep both the public and the media interested and engaged.

Of course, as I’ve been writing, it’s not just enough to keep the momentum going. You need to do something with it. That’s what the Liberal back to work January 25th and the policy forums are about, as well as Ignatieff’s tour. Converting that momentum into support will be the challenge, but the minimal investment in these radio and print ads (buttressed by a healthy dose of free media) are a worthwhile investment to give that phase two conversion an opportunity to succeed.

More broadly and inside basebally (baseballish?), these ads do signal an interesting shift in strategy by the DonOLO. These ads are the first negative (although issue-based) ads the party has ran in English Canada outside a writ period in recent memory, although the French TV ads in the last round of ads did have more of an edge than the English Iggy in the forest spots.

I know many of my partisan friends were very disappointed the LPC didn’t take more of a hard-edged tone in those ads, opting instead for a feel-good Ignatieff intro approach. So they’ll be happy with the more negative, attack tone of these spots. Myself, I thought the instinct to introduce Ignatieff in a positive way was correct, I just didn’t think those ads did that effectively.

I heard though that, at the time, it was felt to go hard after Harper would backfire in English Canada, but Quebec was more open to it, hence the differing strategies. It would appear with these ads that perhaps it’s felt Harper’s perception numbers have shifted, and a harder edge will now be accepted and could bear fruit. So that’s interesting.

So is the fact that there’s now a willingness that seems to have been lacking for some time now to take the gloves off a little, that’s a positive development. Couple that with issue and policy development and it could prove interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The demographics around the anti-prorogation anger

In an interview with Kathleen Petty yesterday on CBC Radio's The House, pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research made some interesting points about what his research is showing him about the growing discontent with the Stephen Harper Conservatives around the decision to shutter parliament for two months. The short of it: it's not just the usual suspects that are annoyed, and it goes deeper that the prorogation.

Here's a transcript. Emphasis is mine:

KATHLEEN PETTY (HOST):
Well apparently, Michael Ignatieff is not alone; In a national poll released by the firm EKOS, two thirds of respondents didn't think the move was crazy, necessarily, but they did know the Prime Minister shut down Parliament, and of those, nearly 60 percent were opposed to the prorogation. Frank Graves is the president of EKOS; he joins me in the studio. Good morning, welcome to "The House."

FRANK GRAVES (PRESIDENT, EKOS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES):
Good to be here.

PETTY:
So, is it the number or is it the demographic behind that number that really tells the story, here?

GRAVES:
Well, I think they're both interesting, but perhaps a more interesting thing, which hasn't really been discussed at this point, is the demographic. There's another very interesting feature to the demographic, but I think the most striking one is the... how much this issue has caught the attention of the most educated portions of the electorate and the "baby boom" cohort, which as we know, has been an extremely influential and large portion of the electorate, ones that all show up to vote, ones who have an inordinate level of influence. You could argue that this particular group has exerted almost a stranglehold over the political system for a long time. This group has been pretty solidly onside with Mr. Harper for some time, now. They came onside in the last election and were one of the keys to this success which almost propelled him to a majority victory. So, the fact that they're now having second thoughts about this particular issue... I think this particular issue has become a bit of lightning rod which is capturing a broader sense of disaffection on a number of other issues which have occurred previous to it, but it is something that probably signals greater importance as time goes on, or it could potentially do that.

PETTY:
It also speaks to whether it can be sustained, it seems to me. Because if you're talking about people who are influential and who are opinion leaders, then the ability to sustain a dissatisfaction or unhappiness with prorogation... it seems to me that the likelihood is higher in that case.

GRAVES:
Absolutely, and I think just to add further credibility to that thesis, it's my sense that we've seen a bit of a turnaround in some of the elite intelligentsia coverage of Mr. Harper, which has moved from this very fawning applause that we saw concurrent with the NAC performance - which also, coincidentally, coincided with him moving into majority territory, he was around 42 points, then. Today, he's around 33 points, but it does seem that there's now... We have front page editorials from the Globe and Mail, we have him pilloried by The Economist -

PETTY:
And we've got a trend, and that's the other interesting part. You talk about the NAC performance, but as you take a look at your polling over a period of time, the gap between the Tories and the Liberals used to be wide.

GRAVES:
Almost insurmountable; You had a daunting 15-point lead which was understating the Conservative edge, because the Conservatives have a much more committed voter base, so in fact, when they were running 41-42 points, our calculations are that they would have produced a very decisive majority in the neighbourhood of 180 seats at that point. Today, these numbers would suggest that they're at least as close, probably... no they are closer to actually sitting on the wrong side of the House than they are to that goal of forming a majority.

PETTY:
But these numbers aren't just because of prorogation; it's a cumulative effect to which prorogation has sort of added an extra push, in your view.

GRAVES:
Yeah, but it seems to me that now, this latest issue shouldn't be judged just in terms of, "are people really that upset about prorogation?", or has it become something which captures a broader critical mass of concerns about -

PETTY:
Emblematic.

GRAVES:
Yes, and you're quite right. The decline that we'd seen in sort of... "propeller head" terminology was a monotonic progressive straight-line decline. It was up here or... it wasn't oscillating up and down, it was on a very well- behaved statistical pattern. It seemed to have stopped when Parliament recessed, and this newest episode... remember, over the Christmas period, there's really. .. nothing else happened that would explain why we saw a further three-point drop, which in our samples, which are very large, was highly statistically and substantially significant. So, the only thing that plausibly explains it, and when you link it back as well to concerns about this and look where the attrition occurred, it was this same group that we were talking about before, the "boomers", the educated, and so forth, who seemed to have had some serious second thoughts. That may not be permanent, but it's something which is perhaps more important than the usual sort of three-point fluctuations that you might see on a day-to-day basis.

PETTY:
Okay, well you've given us stuff to watch for, and we will watch for it. Frank, thanks very much.

GRAVES:
Okay, my pleasure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers