Byelections 2010: No trends, just some stuff that happened

After every by-election, it’s always fun to watch the punditry and chattering classes flail about trying to read the entrails in search of trends to derive from the results. Politicos will look for trends to favour their party, while pundits will look for trends they can shoe-horn into whatever narrative they’ve been pushing, thereby affirming their awesome powers of punditness.

While every now and again you can find national trends in by-election results (there is an exception to every rule, after all) by and large there are usually no wider trends to derive from a series of randomly occurring by-elections scattered around the country. Usually, they’re just some stuff that happened, driven by unique circumstances in each riding.

Thomas Mulcair’s byelection win in Outremont didn’t presage an NDP wave sweeping Quebec. Elizabeth May’s strong second-place showing in London North Centre didn’t presage a Green wave, or get May any closer to the House of Commons.

The same is true for last night’s three races. Local factors are behind each result, and those trying to read too much into them are only fooling themselves. Or trying to fool us, because I’m sure most of them probably don’t believe the malarkey they’re peddling anyways.

The Races

Let’s start with the easiest one: Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette. It’s a strong Conservative riding in the rural West that stayed a strong Conservative riding last night. No change, no trend, status quo.

Further south was Winnipeg North. In a tight two-way race in a traditionally NDP seat (although Ray Pagtakhan snuck in there for a bit for the Liberals), Liberal Kevin Lamourex narrowly defeated NDP candidate Kevin Chief.

Is this a sign of a red wave set to sweet the prairie West? Is the NDP vote about to collapse? Not hardly. This was a case of a strong and respected but new to politics candidate in Chief facing off against a veteran of provincial politics in Lamoureux. Both sides poured-in resources and volunteers and fought hard on the ground, but in the end Lamoureux’s name-recognition was likely the difference. Hard to find any trends there.

And then there’s Vaughan. A Liberal seat for some years, by narrow margins at first and then with increasing pluralities. Often Conservative provincially, and in a belt of 905 seats that tend to tip bluish.

Expected to be a landslide for high-profile star Conservative candidate Julian Fantino over last-minute Liberal candidate Tony Genco, it ended up being a very narrow Conservative victory.

As the marquee match-up in the eyes of the media punditry, everyone is quick to ascribe trends to this result. Some say it’s a sign of a coming Conservative breakthrough in the GTA. Of course, that requires overlooking that the Conservatives already hold the ridings to the North (Oak Ridges-Markham), West (Dufferin-Caldeon) and South-East (Thornhill). Others say it was a referendum on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, and he failed (no races being referendums on anyone else, of course).

In actuality, the result in Vaughan can entirely be attributed to local factors, national trends be dammed.

It was a seat with favourable demographics for a Conservative candidate, held in recent years in part by the personal popularity of the Liberal incumbent, recently elected to the mayoralty in a landslide. A Conservative star candidate with extremely high name recognition (and a nearly guaranteed cabinet post) faced off against a Liberal neophyte, and was expected to win handily. Instead, he eked-out a narrow victory. It’s hardly a surprising result, and it’s not indicative of any wider trend. The race was tight, both sides poured-in volunteers and resources and, like in Winnipeg-North, name recognition was the likely difference-maker for Fantino, not any alleged Conservative wave.

As for Fantino's peak-a-boo campaign, did it help or hinder? Again, hard to draw a lesson, because it could go either way. Would the Conservative margin have been bigger if they hadn't hid their rock-star candidate? Or would greater exposure have led to a gaffe that could have cost him the narrow race? Who can say.

What about the wither the NDP trend being pushed by some, with their defeat in Winnipeg-North and poor showing in Vaughan? Does it really show a two-way national race? Sorry, I'm not buying. I think in races where it's clearly a LPC/CPC race, the NDP vote will bleed LPC to stop the CPC. But in race where its clearly a NDP/CPC race, expect the LPC vote to bleed to the NDP somewhat as well. Again, local factors will be the determinant in most cases.

The Lessons

Perhaps we can't legitimately pull any trends from last night’s by-elections, but can we pull some lessons?

Definitely.

Lesson one: It’s all about the ground war. The pundits like to punditize, and we bloggers and twitterers like to trade barbs and post videos and revelations. It’s fun and entertaining, but its impact in the grand scheme of things is negligible. We saw two tight races in Winnipeg-North and Vaughan, and they were fought and won not by any ad, attack press release, soundbite or blog revelation. They were won by old-fashioned, on the ground campaigning. Knocking on doors, making phone-calls, identifying the vote and getting it out on e-day. Particularly in a by-election, voters aren’t paying attention to the air war – it’s a phony war. Boots on the ground win elections, and that’s where these races were really fought.

Lesson two: It’s hard to sense the local mood from Ottawa. It was really amusing, and saddening, to watch the national media and punditry seriously try to handicap these races without ever leaving the friendly confines of their offices near Parliament Hill, relying instead on the spin they’re fed by each of the parties. No wonder they thought Vaughan would be a Conservative landslide, that the Liberals were having trouble pulling volunteers, and never even saw Winnipeg-North coming. I’m not that old, but I do remember a time when reporting meant first-hand observation. If they’d visited Vaughan or Winnipeg-North to talk to residents, meet the candidates and stop by the campaign offices, they’d have gotten a much better picture of the races.

Lesson three: No one will remember these by-elections in a week. What was today’s biggest story and the big thing that will change everything will quickly be forgotten. That’s how it has always been. And particularly when the results can’t be made to fit the narrative that’s being pushed. So just relax, because life does always go on.

Finally, if you’ll permit me, a few partisan observations. Tony Genco and team ran a very impressive campaign in Vaughan, and he probably deserves a shot in the general election. With the glare of the byelection off and the PMO off running the national campaign, he just might win. Particularly since Harper won’t be able to keep Fantino muzzled forever.

And a big congrats to Kevin Lamoureux and team in Winnipeg-North, for a very impressive win against a political newcomer, but highly-respected and capable candidate in Kevin Chief.

For those looking for signs of Liberal disunity, it’s hard to find any here. From what I hear, Genco in Vaughan had more volunteers than he knew what to do with, which is a great sign of how committed and energized Liberals on the ground are, and bodes well for the next election. Same in Winnipeg. A major inhibitor for the Liberals in the last few election as been their inability to identify and marshal the Liberal vote, and find the volunteers to run an effective GOTV operation. These results bode well for the next race.

Finally, it was nice to see the Liberals finally get it right on expectations management, and even beat the Conservatives on that font. They under-promised -- sending-out signals of a huge defeat in Vaughan and little chance in Winnipeg-North – and then over-delivered with a tight defeat and a narrow victory. A nice change from the recent trend of over-promise, under-deliver.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals launch Italian-language attack ad in Vaughan

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No-Show Fantino slammed by Vaughan debate organizers

The Conservative candidate-in-hiding in Vaughan, Julian Fantino, skipped another all-candidates meeting last night, and the debate organizers were none too pleased:

Meanwhile, Liberal candidate Tony Genco gave up a night with his daughter and Justin Bieber to take part in this exercise in democracy.

Genco pointed out that he had tickets to go with his daughter to the Justin Bieber concert for her birthday, but she gave him permission not to attend.

“I made my choice, other candidates have made theirs,” he said, as the auditorium erupted in applause.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Lamoureux and Ignatieff chat with 2100 Winnipegers

The tele-townhall last night with Winnipeg-North Liberal candidate Kevin Lamoureux and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was for the residents of Winnipeg-North, but I got a chance to listen-in on the questions and answers. And as I’ve said before, it’s always informative to see the questions regular Canadians ask when they have the opportunity to question politicians without the media filter.

And this tele-townhall format is pretty cool. It’s been all the rage lately. They were a big part of the successful Rob Ford mayoral campaign in Toronto, and other municipal campaigns used them too. The Liberal candidate for Vaughan, Tony Genco, had one recently with over 8700 participants. How it works is an automated call goes to residents in the geographic area, and they’re invited to participate. If they accept, they’re put into the live townhall, and get the opportunity to ask a question and listen to the questions and answers of others.

Lamoureux’s tele-townhall Wednesday with Ignatieff for Winnipeg-North residents was a definite success, with many diverse questions during the one-hour session and more people waiting on the line that there wasn’t time to get to. Over 2100 people listened-in on the townhall, and I counted at least 16 questions asked and answered.

(I might add that while Lamoureux and Genco are reaching-out to thousands of Canadians, their respective Conservative opponents are in hiding and skipping all candidates meetings.)

The topics were diverse. Crime was probably the top issue, but there were also a couple of questions on education, the economy and deficit reduction. Some questions were pointed and some of the answers weren’t always what the questioners wanted to hear, but it was a very civil and social exchange. This kind of tool is going to be big in the next election.

Crime

Questioners wanted to know about specific measures to combat crime.

Lamoureux said crime is definitely the number one issue at the door. People have the right to feel safe in their homes but sadly we have too much crime and measure must be taken. He noted he was the only local politician who petitioned against the closure of the local community police office when it was closed, and he said we need to get more people and police involved at the community level. He was disappointed Stephen Harper’s promise to put more police officers on the street doesn’t seem to have included Winnipeg, and said we can’t just talk tough on crime, we need to get tough on the causes of crime.

Another questioner asked about tougher punishment for crime.

Ignatieff said we need to be tough on crime, and he has never hesitated to support tougher sentencing, recognizing the terrible shootings and other incidents Winnipeg-North has had to go through. We need to be tough on gun crime, but also tough on defending the gun registry which the Conservatives want to gut but the police say is needed to fight crime. We also need to make sure youth feel safe, finish school, and get more training and education after high school and stay on the right path so we don’t lose our youth to gangs and drugs. We need more police resources, the gun registry and tough sentances, but we also need to commit as a community to keeping those kids on track and if we can do that, we can crack this crime problem.

A questioner was very much opposed to the gun registry and the money spent on it, feeling it should be scrapped and the money utilized elsewhere.

Ignatieff agreed the registry cost too much to set up and money was wasted, but added now it is very inexpensive to maintain and every police chief he has talked to across the country says they need it to keep communities safe. He’s with the cops on this one, not the Conservatives. He agrees on the point about consequences and sentencing, but said we also need to build a community where we stand up for and help each other.

Lamoureux added the registry’s implementation was a disaster and a case study in what not to do, but what he is telling people at the door is that police forces across the country, including Winnipeg’s, are accessing it thousands of times daily, it’s inexpensive to maintain, and police say it’s an important tool they want to keep.

A questioner asked about working with church groups in fighting crime.

Lamoureux said he’s been a part of the kids club at his local church for many years, and it’s a wonderful way to get young people doing positive things. He encourages faith-based and other groups to get involved, because the more groups we can get involved taking responsibility for our communities, the better off we’ll be.

On another question about crime coming in from other neighbourhoods, Lamoureux said he’s a big advocate of community policing. We need to identify where the high-risk offenders, particularly youth, are and build a relationship between them and the police. It’s a small percentage of people committing a large percentage of the crimes, and we need to get targeted. He also mentioned championing ankle bracelets as an MLA.

Education

The first question of the evening was actually on making post-secondary education more affordable.

Lamoureux said we have to make sure post secondary education is affordable. If we as a society believe in the benefits of education we need to be prepared to put resources into it. We want to make it affordable so if you have the ability you can get the education.

Ignatieff added the next Liberal platform will have a specific, costed commitment to enhanced assistance for post secondary. You get the grades, you get to go. We need to take any barriers off the table, particularly for aboriginal Canadians. The platform proposal won’t get all the way, but it will be a “heckuva big jolt” to make it more affordable.

Economy

The economy was the topic of several questions. On reducing the deficit while revitalizing Winnipeg, Ignatieff said the Liberals set a target to reduce the deficit in the 1990s and achieved it, and it will do it again. He’ll start by cancelling the corporate tax giveaway to large businesses because we’re not talking small businesses we’re talking about big businesses that don’t need another tax cut. He also wants to revisit the $16 billion untendered stealth fighter purchase, saying by putting it to competitive tender we can get a better deal and save money. What we don’t want to do, he said, is cut spending that benefits Winnipeg North residents. He want to safeguard education and community services and work with the provinces to protect public health care. He’s worried the Conservatives will reduce the deficit on the backs of the average people of Winnipeg, and said the Liberals have a better plan.

Asked what a Liberal government would do differently to stimulate the economy, Ignatieff said the government’s focus on physical infrastructure was good but it politicized the program by diverting funding to Conservative ridings, which was wrong. He came back to education again, calling it a key way of stimulating the economy both short and long term. He doesn’t have 27 priorities, just a couple, and one of them is education. We can’t create the jobs of tomorrow unless we ensure Aboriginal Canadians get more education, that new Canadians get language training, and that we train people for the jobs of tomorrow. We also need tax incentives so companies can invest in new plant and manchinery to become more productive, and to get the economy more green we need a green retrofit tax credit for families.

A student of social work asked about helping the poor. Lamoureux said this is a very real issue and there’s no single way to tackle it. One is making access to food a basic right. Also crucial is affordable housing. There’s a huge demand for affordable housing and we need to be more creative coming up with ideas that will work and enable people to participating in housing projects. He mentioned he used to see a lot more co-op activity, something that could be revisited.

Fighter Jets

A questioner asked why the Liberals aren’t supporting the F-35 purchase. Ignatieff said his problem is there was no competitive bid, and no national discussion on what we need to replace the CF-18. We need to replace them to protect our sovereignty, and we also need to make sure we guarantee jobs for our aerospace industry. The way to do that is have a competitive tender, which will get better value for money, and allow us to demand a better deal for our aerospace industry. With the Conservative mishandling of the F-35 we’re missing out on the opportunity to get value for money and protect jobs.

Lamoueux added the aerospace industry is an important industry in Winnipeg, and we need to make sure it’s protected for the long-term. The way to do that is a competitive bid.

Seniors and pensions

A questioner asked about improving retirement security for pensioners. Ignatieff noted a Liberal government oversaw the re-financing of the CPP in the 1990s, but 75 per cent of Canadians in the private sector have nothing but the CPP, and it won’t provide them with the income security they need. The Liberals want to set up a supplementary CPP that someone in the private sector could put money into. It would be managed by the CPP, who have a solid track record and low management costs. If we don’t encourage people to save more, he said we’ll have a real problem. The Conservatives have done absolutely nothing about improving retirement security for Canadians.

Lamoureux added seniors have a right to enjoy their retirement yeas. Too often he talks to seniors who can’t afford a meal out once a month with their grandchildren. We need to get more money into senior’s pockets, because they deserve better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politics mar Afghan training debate

What strikes me most about the commentary and debate on whether or not Canada should deploy 950 soldiers to Afghanistan after 2011 in a training capacity is that, instead of getting to the core issue of whether or not such a mission would be appropriate and should be supported or not, we seem to be restricted to complaints about process and evaluations of alleged gamesmanship and horserace implications.

So before we get bogged down in the political muck, let’s at least consider the policy first, shall we?

While like many Canadians I feel we’ve done our share in Afghanistan on the combat side and want to being our troops home, or at least out of harm’s way, I’d support a training mission post-2011. I do have several caveats to my support though

*It should be inside the wire with a “relatively” low risk level (ie. no active combat).

* We should be assured the Army has the capacity (personnel and materials) to take on this mission in what was expected to be a down-cycle of refresh ad resupply for them after the prolonged combat mission.

If I could be assured of those concerns then I'd support deployment of a training contingent post 2011. Why? Because I think training Afghan army and police is an important mission that is key to ensuring that when international forces do finally leave Afghanistan, they'll be leaving behind a relatively stable country with the capacity to defend itself, and grow and prosper.

I would like us to be putting more emphasis on humanitarian aid and development as well. I don't see a training mission as excluding that; we should be doing both. We are doing both. And as Andrew Coyne pointed-out on Twitter, if the country is safe enough for some to support civilians doing humanitarian development, isn't it safe enough for them to support soldiers doing inside the wire training of soldiers and police?

I think a big part of the problem has been the government ignoring what was one of the key recommendations of the Manley Commission: communicate better. Their about-face on a training mission came out of no-where, and details have been slow to trickle out. They need to build public support for this, and they're not doing a very good job yet. Part of the problem is that many are seeing this, either deliberately or in honest error, as an extension of the combat mission. That's not the case. Training and combat are two very different missions. This would not be an extension of the combat mission, that will end in 2011. This would be a new training deployment, much smaller with much less risk and no combat.

That's an important distinction to make, and with opponents deliberately trying to blur that line to inflame public opinion, the government and supporters of a training mission need to do a better job of making that distinction and providing more details to Canadians.

Now, on to the politics. I must say, I've found the politicking and the media coverage on this issue to be very disappointing. I'm particularly bemused that the same media who routinely berate politicians for uberpartisanship and not working cooperatively are viewing the issue only through a horse-race lens, and are attacking the Liberals for not politicizing the issue for partisan gain. But then I've never expected consistency from the media pundit class.

The Liberals have actually been calling for a continued training presence for several months now, so their position should come as no surprise. And it would seem to have been taken in the belief a training mission is appropriate and needed, as I don't see any partisan advantage in being out that far ahead of the issue. The Conservatives reversed themselves suddenly to come around to the Liberal position (the devil will be in the details of their actual plan, though) and the NDP has been fairly consistent in their no military presence of any kind at any time position.

Certainly there is room for a difference of opinion within any party on supporting a training mission or not, and within the Liberal Party there certainly is. That's welcome and healthy, and I welcome a debate on the merits. What I don't have time for though are self-important strategists that view this only as a political issue, that dismiss the merits of a training mission to make a purely political calculus: sure, maybe training is right, but we need to hold the NDP on the left and we can squeeze the CPC on the right if we oppose it, and the polls show... I find such purely political calculations nauseating and repugnant.

Rightly or wrongly, you should be willing to stand for something and defend it, not let focus grouping govern your belief system.

Finally, the debate on procedure. As I said, I think the government needs to make all the relevant details available to the public on what the training mission will involve. I'd welcome a debate in Parliament on Canada's role in Afghanistan post-2011, both training and humanitarian development. I do not, however, believe a vote by Parliament is necessary for a training mission to go forward. It's not a combat mission; deploying soldiers for training, development assistance, disaster relief, what have you, is the prerogative of the government of the day.

It would be perfectly acceptable for an opposition party to use an opposition day to move a debate and motion on the issue, but it wouldn't be binding. As long as the government has the confidence of the house, they're free to make such decisions.

UPDATE: It's not too often I get to say this, but Bob Rae is bang-on here. Actually, almost bang-on. I'd have avoided the Neville Chamberlain reference. Call it Jeff's first-rule of political discourse.

Our political culture is now all about trench warfare. Everything is supposed to seen through a partisan lens, and everything played to short term advantage. Anyone who asks “what’s best for Afghanistan ?”, or “what’s best for Canada, our role as a reliable member of NATO and the UN ?” is portrayed as some kind of poor sap who doesn’t “get” politics.

It’s called doing what you think is right, talking to the public about it, and worrying less about who gets credit. There’s something almost pathological about the state of our politics, to say nothing of political commentary, if we can’t have that kind of conversation.

There should continue to be a debate about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and how to deal with the range of failed and fragile states that are emerging across the world. But enough with the nonsense about who played the partisan game better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why is Julian Fantino in the Conservative Candidate Protection Program?

Anyone who knows anything about Julian Fantino knows that he’s no shrinking violet. Quite the opposite, actually. Which makes his peak-a-boo campaign in the Vaughan by-election all the more surprising.

There were signs early on that the Ottawa boys in the Prime Minister’s Office wanted to clamp a muzzle on their “star candidate” when, at his campaign launch event, the PMO tried to stop Fantino from talking to the media.

“I think this is the place that best fits my desires to make, hopefully, a significant difference on the things that threaten Canada, of which Vaughan is very much a part,” he told reporters after a Harper handler initially barred the media from speaking to him.

While Fantino was able to temporarily shake off the muzzle, it appears the boys in Ottawa have their wayward candidate back under their thumb. We’re a few weeks into the campaign and Fantino is still refusing to participate in an all candidates meeting with his opponents to debate the issues facing the residents of Vaughan. It’s been a week since Liberal candidate Tony Genco challenged Fantino to an open debate and, still, its crickets from Fantino.

“Voters will decide this election in just two weeks and Julian Fantino still won’t commit to debating healthcare, retirement security, and jobs in Vaughan” said Mr. Genco. “Vaughan residents should be given the opportunity to see for themselves that a vote for Julian Fantino is a vote for Stephen Harper’s wasteful spending and misplaced priorities.”

Fantino’s capture by the Harper straight-jacket is not going un-noticed. People are starting to ask just when Fantino is going to come out of hiding and start coming clean with the people of Vaughan on the issues.

Retired OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino is in political protective custody, his critics say.

The usually blunt speaking Fantino, the Conservative’s candidate in the Nov. 29 Vaughan federal by-election appears to be running a textbook peek-a-boo campaign.

He’s become a kind of virtual candidate. Voters can follow him on Twitter and listen to his messages on the campaign website but have yet to see him debate his opponents.

The Toronto Star had no luck reaching Fantino or even his office despite several calls and an email.

Just what is the Harper PMO hiding Fantino from? Why don’t they want Fantino to speak his mind freely? What are they afraid of?

• Is it Fantino’s opposition to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as benefiting criminals and The Hells Angels the most? (Reminds me of Scott Newark)

• Is it Fantino’s support for the death penalty and capital punishment?

• Or is it that Fantino was an ardent supporter of the gun registry before he somehow, for some reason, completely reversed his position?

My guess is that the PMO doesn’t want Fantino trying to defend an indefensible Harper record that is out of touch with the priorities of the people of Vaughan. Like dropping $16 billion on stealth fighters without competion, instead of investing in priorities that Vaughan shares such as health and home care, pension reform and education. Or maybe they don’t want to defend their attempt to kill a gun registry that Vaughan residents support as an important public safety tool.

Of course, it could be that Fantino seems to be having trouble even getting Conservatives onside.

Former provincial police commissioner Julian Fantino can expect a heated campaign as the Conservative candidate in an upcoming Ontario byelection — and not just from his political opponents.

A group calling itself Conservatives Against Fantino says it will hold protests outside Fantino's campaign office over five days leading up to the Nov. 29 byelection in Vaughan, north of Toronto.

Actually, it’s no wonder the Harper PMO wants to keep Fantino in a box and away from the public. He has a lot to answer for. And it’s not like it’s a new strategy for the Conservatives. The Harper muzzle was out in full force in the last election, and in by-elections past.

And, of course, it’s not likely the muzzle gets loosened once a candidate is elected. No Conservative MP says boo without an OK from the un-elected young turks in the PMO. Just look how vocal the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus was (or wasn't) on the potash issue. The entire province was consumed with the issue, and the Conservative MPs were MIA.

It seems the question for Vaughan voters is this: do they really want to send another neutered Harper lackey to Ottawa? Or do they want an MP like Tony Genco, who last week reached over 8700 Vaughan residents in a telephone townhall?

It's hard to be in touch with the priorities of Vaughan when you've been ordered to avoid the people of Vaughan, Mr. Fantino.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who's more emasculated, the media or parliamentarians?

I follow lots of parliamentarians, policios and political media on twitter, and it's amusing sometimes to watch some of the discussions and debate that goes back and forth. Take last night. I was treated to a bevy of snarky tweets back and forth, and the topic can be summed up thusly: whose is smaller?

On the one side, you had the media types snickering at the politicos for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for not standing up for the righteous principle of parliamentary supremacy, for letting the PMO (multiple historical PMOs, they say) neuter MPs and render them virtual nobodies, even on Parliament Hill.

And on the other side, you had the political types snickering at the media types for allowing themselves to be emasculated by the government/PMO, for submitting to question lists controlled by the PMO at their infrequent news conferences, for attending every photo-op and statement-only event where they can't ask questions but just duly transcribe the talking points, for standing meekly by while the government restricts access to ministers and civil servants, and using their rare opportunities to question the PM for lame softballs.

It was rather amusing to watch. Who is more emasculated? You are! No, you are! Nuh uhh, you are!

A few points.

One: You're all emasculated and slightly pathetic, so maybe work on that before you call out others for faults you share. You all doth protest too muchly.

Two: You wonder why Canadians are generally tuned-out of the political debate? Because you've rendered yourselves irrelevant with dumb-ass debates like this instead of doing your respective jobs.

Both sides in this debate are right. And both sides are lame.

UPDATED TO ADD: While both sides are right in that the other side is emasculated and lame, they should also each acknowledge that it's not as easy as they'd like to us to think it is for the other side. On the politico side, there's the risk of triggering an election to factor in. And the party whip. On the media side, the risk is loss of access and being "beaten" by competition that don't take a moral stand. Not that these are excuses we should accept. It's just not as black and white as each likes to think it is for the other side.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Campbell’s departure could dash NDP dreams

I've lived in Ontario for five years now but I’ve never really gotten involved in provincial politics here. I think it’s because, having come from the always entertaining and wacky world of BC politics, Ontario seems pretty dull by comparison. Certainly watching the HST drama from afar has been far more interesting than some supposed drama about Dalton McGuinty and hydro rates or something.

It’s hard to know where to start. Arguably the most electorally successful premier in BC history in Gordon Campbell, who survived a drunk-driving charge while in office, only to be felled by a caucus and taxpayer revolt. A taxpayer revolt led by Bill Vander Zalm, a former premier who presided over the destruction of the once-mighty Social Credit brand and left office in disgrace and mockery. And an opposition party in the BC NDP that, with the government at historic lows in the polls, seemed more interested in knifing its own leader, Carole James.

The latest development, Campbell’s resignation as Premier, was both inevitable and surprising. He tried to save himself with a televised infomercial a few weeks ago, offering large personal tax cuts, but the damage was done. With a caucus revolt brewing, Campbell recognized the writing was on the wall and decided to go as gracefully as possible.

Campbell’s departure triggers what should be a pretty interesting leadership race to replace him with all kinds of names being thrown out, from current minister like Kevin Falcon to past ministers like Christy Clark, as well as popular mayors and even federal Conservative cabinet ministers like James Moore.

Surprisingly, polling shows that, unlike when Rita Johnston beat-out Grace McCarthy for the Socred leadership after Vander Zalm ran the party into the ground, the BC Liberal leadership may still be a prize worth winning.

If Campbell had stubbornly decided to stay on the BC Liberal brand seemed destined to join Social Credit in the political graveyard, its support splitting between the BC Conservatives, the BC NDP and possibly a new centrist alternative. That erosion could still happen at a slower pace, but by falling on his sword Campbell has given his party a chance to live on.

New polling from Angus Reid taken after his televised infomercial but before his resignation indicates Campbell’s last-ditch hail-mary didn’t land, but he stands a good chance taking a lot of the voter animosity with him when he leaves the legislature.

The NDP still has a strong lead in the horserace, 47 per cent to 26 per cent over the BC Liberals, with the Greens and Conservatives tied at 10 per cent. And if the HST referendum goes ahead, 66 per cent will vote to abolish, 21 per cent would keep and 13 per cent are undecided.

The poll shows while they liked the policy promises in Campbell’s infomercial they’ve completely lost faith that he’ll keep his word on anything, with 66 per cent calling him unconvincing.

There is, however, a lot of underlying weakness evident in the NDP numbers. While Campbell scores an anemic 12 per cent leadership approval rating, James isn’t a whole lot better at 25 per cent.

And here’s an interesting set of numbers. While only six per cent said they’d like to see the next election return a BC Liberal government led by Campbell, remove Campbell from the equation and the NDP lead is only preferred 32 per cent to 28 per cent.

While the level of remaining resilience in the BC Liberal brand is surprising, the NDP weakness isn’t. Their numbers are very soft. For many years BC has been a two-party system, swinging back and forth between two defaults. People are pissed off with Campbell’s Liberals and James and the NDP are the default choice, but she’s still the leader and the party the electorate soundly rejected in the last election.

With a new leader at the helm of the BC Liberals and a few years to govern before the next election, that 47 to 22 NDP lead will shrink and this could be a very tight race once more. It will depend, of course, on who the new leader is and, more importantly, what they do with the HST. While the HST is the right policy, the people seem to have spoken pretty clearly and the referendum seems a formality at this point. If a new leader reverses the HST it's a new ball-game. If they try to sell it in a referendum battle, it will be closer but I don’t see them pulling it out.

Finally, even if a new leader can bring the BC Liberals off of life support, it remains clear that British Columbians remain utterly unsatisfied with their status quo options. While 32 per cent want the NDP to former the next government and 28 per cent the Campbell-less Liberals, the leader, with 34 per cent, as not sure/none of these.

Campbell’s departure may slow the process, but another dramatic shake-up of the BC political landscape remains inevitable. And it’s still very much needed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're the Rob Ford campaign team and we're super-awesome geniuses

A number of rather interesting stories have been percolating out of the Rob Ford campaign team since they successfully steamrolled their man into the Toronto Mayor's office a few weeks ago. They're to do with the strategies and tactics that helped turn a right-wing councilor who few gave a chance to win in Canada's most liberal city into a political end the gravy train movement.

I'm certainly very interested in their strategy around messaging and communications. Their message discipline and definition of narrative was admirable, and as a political communications junkie I think there are lessons to be learned from the Ford campaign.

But some of the revelations and tactics that his campaign team are putting out there and freely discussing? Well, they'd be better left undisclosed.

We've already had lots of coverage of the fake Smitherman-supporter Twitter account that the Ford campaign created to (successfully) obtain an audio recording that was potentially damaging to Ford, as well as try to subtly influence the online discussion:

Rob Ford's campaign team created a fake Twitter account and wrote more than 150 messages under the guise of being a George Smitherman supporter during the Toronto mayoral campaign.

The news came to light this week in and extensive profile by The Globe and Mail that a deputy communications director set up the fake account to flush out a potentially damaging audio tape.

Fraser Macdonald, 24, created a fake profile for a fictional woman named Karen Philby.

Through the account, the user appealed to a man who had an audio tape of Rob Ford seemingly promising to buy him OxyContin off the street, in order to do damage control.

But Philby's profile remained active, smearing mayoral candidates throughout the campaign, including Smitherman and Ford, all while posing as a Smitherman supporter.

For the full details on the Twitter initiative, read the features from the Globe and from Macleans, and Torontoist has the full stream.

And today we have another revelation from the Ford dirty tricks team:

The Rob Ford campaign had one of its members anonymously call John Tory’s radio show and berate him about his integrity as part of a successful strategy to keep Tory out of Toronto’s mayoral race.

Nick Kouvalis, Ford’s deputy campaign manager and now the mayor-elect’s chief of staff, told a forum Friday morning that his success in preventing Tory from reconsidering his decision not to run “was a huge victory for Rob, so he took John out and Rob won because of it.”

Now, I'm not going to pretend for a moment that these were unique situations. Sneaky, underhanded, even morally unquestionable tactics are hardly unheard of in the annals of political campaigning. So these revelations aren't unique in that regard.

No, what's unique is that they're talking about them. Nay, boasting about them. These stories aren't being leaked, or unearthed by investigative journalists. Senior members of the Ford campaign team members are openly boasting of their dirty tricks successes.

Such stories aren't unique. But boasting about them certainly is. It's rather astounding, frankly, to see these backroom boys out there boasting about their awesomeness. I'm sure it feels great for them to feed their egos and see stories about their awesomeness, but that's just not how this business is supposed to work. They call it the backroom for a reason.

And they're doing their candidate, the soon to be mayor, a disservice. Ford's job now, and it's going to be a big one, is to try to bring the city and a divided council together to get support to pass his agenda, and address the not insignificant issues facing the City of Toronto. He needs to grow the tent. These sorts of stories don't help. John Tory is reportedly interested in taking a role at city hall to help Ford. I wonder how he'll react to these revelations?

These guys have forgotten that it's not about the staffers. It's about the candidate. People don't want to see how the sausage is made. And, frankly, no one cares about process stories anyway. There's only downside here.

The truly awesome don't need to brag about their awesomeness. They let the results speak for themselves.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Seeing the forest for the corporate tax cuts

It seems the business lobby and the Conservative government are gearing-up for a vocal and prominent campaign against the Liberal promise to reverse the planned billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts by the Conservatives, promising instead to invest the money in key priorities such as health, education and home care, saying we just can't afford corporate tax cuts right now.

The business lobby is planning an ad campaign to attack any reversal of the tax cuts, brandishing the usual fear-mongery cudgel of competitiveness and job loses, messaging echoed by the Conservatives. And with the need for simple messaging in mind, the Liberals are presenting it as a simple choice: tax cuts for businesses or investment in home care, education and pensions?

Really, though, while I don’t expect the Conservatives to change course, it’s somewhat more disconcerting (but not surprising) that the business community can’t see the forest for the trees, here. Sure, what business wouldn’t like to pay less taxes? What individual wouldn't? But the fact is businesses would also benefit from the investments the Liberals are promising to make with these limited resources.

It’s worth noting first that, in fact, Canada’s corporate taxes are already incredibly competitive with our primary competitors and nearest neighbours: The United States. There’s no driving need bring them down further right away to correct some paralyzing imbalance. Sure, it’d be great if everyone could pay less taxes. But taxes pay for things, we have a significant deficit, and this is money that, right now, could be better utilized elsewhere.

And what the business lobby doesn’t like to tell us, because it doesn’t support their natural goal of getting more and more for their members, is that making an apples to apples comparison on tax rates between jurisdictions such as Canada and the U.S. doesn’t make sense.

There are a lot of other factors that make it cheaper and more competitive to do business in Canada, the biggest one being our public health care system. Companies in the U.S. need to spend a lot of money subsidizing health care for their employees to attract top talent. In Canada, they don’t. Health care is a huge cost of business for American businesses. I visited one large technology company in the U.S. that even built a medical clinic on its sprawling campus for its employees.

It’s short-sighted to focus just on tax rates. The fact is, our taxes pay for services that contribute to a happier, healthier, more well-educated and, therefore, more productive workforce, all of which benefits the corporate bottom line.

And if you look at where the Liberals want to spend that money the Conservatives just want to shove out the door as tax breaks for business in a time of deficit, the fact is businesses, as well as Canadians as a whole, stand to benefit more from the Liberal plan.

Take the planned Liberal investments to expand paid home care. Currently, people need to burn through their vacation time to care for a loved one, and then either take unpaid leave (if their company will let them) or come back to work stressed, frustrated and unproductive. Some companies offer paid compassionate leave for employees. This program would remove that necessity, and supports employees through a difficult period until they can return to work sad about their loss, but secure in their job.

The other two Liberal priorities? Strengthening and protecting the pension system will make employees feel more confident and secure about their retirement plans and lessen the pressure for employers to step-in with expensive employer-funded plans they can no longer afford to support.

And the benefit for businesses from investments in early-learning and childcare and post-secondary education is obvious. No business can be successful without a large pool of well-educated, talented workers. Tax rates are important too, but a business isn’t going to invest in a jurisdiction if there isn’t a large pool of people with the education and skills they need. Learning is critical, from childhood right through post-secondary.

On a simple messaging question – a choice between corporate tax cuts or home care, pensions and education – I think I know on which side most Canadians will come down. And I also think that, despite what the business lobby might say, many businesses (and let’s remember, most Canadian businesses are actually small businesses) will come down on that same side too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Welcome to Canada! Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Or the Cub Scouts?

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has issued a new visa questionnaire with some pretty intrusive questions that will likely be generating controversy soon, and could lead to more visa fights and retaliatory measures against Canada, such as with its ongoing dispute with Mexico.

On Saturday, John Ibbitson high-lighted the issue in the Globe, reporting on the questions related to military service and the objections raised by the Russian government:

But it’s the military questions that bother the Russians most. The new forms require any visa applicant who has served in the military, police or civil defence services to disclose when they served, what unit they served in, where that unit was located and what were their responsibilities.

In Russia, which enforces mandatory military service, providing such information to a foreign government is punishable by up to four years in prison.

Russian and Canadian officials are to discuss the new visa requirements next month. But Mr. Petrov warned that if there is no progress, Russia may retaliate by imposing equally restrictive requirements on Canadians applying for a Russian visa.

“We would be happy not to have that,” he maintained. “But our primary responsibility is to preserve the rights of our own citizens.”

While Ibbitson's story focused on the military questions, I was more interested in something he only mentioned in passing: the question on political membership.

You can download the form as a PDF here. This is the question on political involvement:

4. Were you ever a member of a political party or other group or organization?
Give details of organizations you have supported, been a member of or been associated with. Include any political, social, youth or student organization, trade unions, professional associations. Do not use abbreviations.

So in addition to mentioning my Liberal Party of Canada membership, I guess I'd also have to mention the year in high school I worked at Superstore and was in the United Food and Commercial Workers union. And possibly also my two years in Beavers. I did one night of Cubs, but decided to quit.

The questions on military service are even more extensive.

2. A) Did you serve in any military, militia, or civil defence unit or in an intelligence organization or police force (including obligatory national service, reserve or volunteer units)?

B) Did you receive special training?

C) Did you participate in any form of combat?

I guess I'd have to mention my teenage years in the Air Cadets. No combat, unless you include dodge ball during monthly sports nights.

Some inquiry regarding military service is probably appropriate. But remember, we're not talking about immigration here. We're talking about visas for tourists, business travelers and other temporary visitors. Where is the relevance of asking about someone's history of political involvement, unless it directly relates to the purpose of their visit?

Of course, if someone doesn't want to ask these questions, they're free to not come visit Canada. And their country is free to make us answer questions just as obtrusive. Ask the tourism industry how the little tit for tat with Mexico has worked out.

So is asking unnecessarily obtrusive questions really worth the cost in lost business and travel opportunities from visitors bypassing Canada, and increased hassle and inconvenience for Canadians that will face retaliatory measures?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Startling fighter jet interoperability

Shocking news last week on the air defence front:

Two Canadian fighter jets intercepted an Emirates Air flight as part of an international response to a terrorist threat against the United States from cargo planes.

No, no, not that part. This part:

“Two CF-18s were in the air already, they were diverted and escorted a commercial civilian airliner through Canadian airspace,” said NORAD spokesman John Cornelio.

“Once they reached American airspace, the Canadians handed over to two U.S. F-15s and they escorted the airliner to JFK (International Airport in New York).”

But hang on a sec. CF-18s and F-15s? I'm pretty sure those are completely different aircraft.

Let's see. Here's an CF-18:

And here's an F-15:

Yep, look like different planes to me. But I'm confused. The Conservative government and their chorus of defence industry "experts" insist a key reason why we need to drop $16 billion on the F-35s without competition or tender is because it's the plane all our friends are buying, and if we don't have the same plane we won't be able to "inter-operate" or join in any reindeer games.

It's a wonder, then, that our CF-18s were able to inter-operate with USAF F-15s last week without flying into each other or anything, and were able to intercept and handle this middling threat to our national security despite not being the same kind of aircraft or having super-cool stealth capability.

It's miracuolus, even. But then again, I'm not a defence "expert."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers