Bubble-boy Stephen Harper chickens out of his own debate challenge

If you thought that Stephen Harper's move Wednesday to challenge Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to debate mano-a-mano was an odd play by the Conservatives, it will soon make a little more sense. After the news that the shadowy "broadcast consortium" has ruled-out a head to head bout which I mentioned earlier, now the truth seems to be coming out: it was all a Conservative fake, and Harper is too chicken to really take on Ignatieff solo.

Paul Wells has the scoop, via Twitter (and Wherry):

Liberals wanted SH-MI debate in addition to 4-leader. Conservatives proposed replacing 4-leader with 2-leader debate. Libs declined.

CTV's Robert Fife also tweets the Conservative backd0wn:

Robert Fife
Tory campaign insiders say Harper won't take up Ignatieff challenge of separate one on one TV debate. #elxn41 #cdnpoli

The Conservative strategy is now abundantly clear: they never wanted Ignatieff to accept the challenge and were determined to put blocks in place to make sure he didn't. Realistically, any debate had to be in addition to the full leader's debate; not in replacement of it. It makes no sense and it's fundamentally undemocratic to exclude the other parties from having any debates. 

There's no way the Conservatives ever seriously expected the Liberals to agree to jettison the major parties debate; their offer simply wasn't genuine. Harper doesn't really want to get into a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff; it's just too much risk for someone running a bubble-boy campaign. If we had three debates, one in each language for the major parties and a bilingual Harper/Ignatieff tilt, it's too much risk for the bubble campaign. Angry Steve may make an untimely appearance.

Here's a statement from Ignatieff on the issue:

“I look forward to debating the federal party leaders on April 12 and 14. I am disappointed, however, by the broadcasters’ consortium’s decision to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the debate. The Liberal Party of Canada advocated for her inclusion in negotiations with the consortium.

“Now that the broadcasters’ consortium has chosen their dates for the multi-party debate, I reiterate my challenge to Mr. Harper: I am ready and willing to debate him one-on-one – any time, any place.

“Mr. Harper expressed his desire to debate me as the leader of the only party that can replace him in government. All that remains is to agree upon a time and place – and many respected potential hosts have offered to assist.

“A one-on-one debate with Mr. Harper should not replace multi-party leaders’ debates. A real debate is needed, however, on the different visions of leadership between the only two people with a real opportunity to become prime minister of this country at the end of this election.”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who cares what the "broadcast consortium" says?

Following up on my post Wednesday about Stephen Harper challenging Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate, and Ignatieff telling him he'll debate Harper "any time, any place" the secret cabal of media executives known as the shadowy "media consortium" met and decided no no, that just won't do:

Canada’s broadcasters have ruled out a face-off between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff and will exclude the Green Party from the upcoming official election debates.

The decision to carry debates involving only the leaders of the four main parties in Parliament follows a public battle between the Conservative and Liberal leaders, but also controversial backroom dealings between the country’s major television stations and four biggest political parties. After hours of private and public discussions on Wednesday, the consortium of broadcasters announced a late-night agreement by issuing an ultimatum to the representatives of the four parties, a source involved in the discussions said.

Yeah, I'm sorry but frankly, I could give a flying crap what the "broadcast consortium" has to say about it, and I know where they can stick their supposed "veto." A bunch of backroom media execs don't get to decide this. There are only two parties in this election with a chance of forming a government, and only two leaders that could become Prime Minister. Canadians deserve the chance to see Ignatieff and Harper go one on one and decide who has the best vision and the best plan for Canada.

Book a studio, put up two podiums and plug-in a sound board. I guarantee it will end up on TV, no matter what the "consortium" has to say about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More Liberal videos

A dew more Liberal videos in recent days. Quick thoughts: I like the negative one, and I really like the family care one. I agree with what Michael is saying in the proud Canada one, but I think it feels a bit whiny: do people care that the Conservatives are mean to Ignatieff? I'm not sure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Compelling video: APTN ambushes Bruce Carson

While other media have been digging into the story of Bruce Carson, the former senior advisor to Stephen Harper whose conduct regarding the promotion of water filtration systems to First Nations reserves has been referred to the RCMP for possible investigation, it was APTN that first broke the story.

They recently ran a one-hour special (h/t Red Tory) going in-depth recapping their investigation into Carson, which includes the revelation Carson's 22-year-old fiancée Michele McPherson, a former Ottawa-area escort known as Leanna VIP whom he bought an expensive home outside Ottawa with, had a contract with a company selling water filtration units earning her a percentage of gross sales of water units to First Nations reserves across Canada that would have potentially been worth as much as $80 million to McPherson. In question is whether Carson tried to open doors for his girlfriend's business with his connections to the Harper government, as the company was hoping to see Indian and Northern Affairs put up millions to fund the program.

You can see where the wheels come off in Carson's interview with APTN, when they begin to ask about his fiancée and begin to hint at knowledge of her past profession.

It further deteriorates when they hit him with an e-mail that shows he claimed to have spoken with the Prime Minister and gotten advance notice of Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan's appointment as Indian Affairs minister, promising Duncan's appointment to cabinet wouldn't impact their hopes of funding for the program and that him and Duncan are good friends.

It probably hits rock bottom when they talk about a source who told them McPherson has a boyfriend who stays at their house when Carson is away, drives his cards, and that McPherson and the boyfriend were planning to cut-out the 66-year-old Carson out of the deal and her life once the contracts were signed. "My kids are going to see this for f*ck's sake" he says at one point.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We've got videos

It's been a very disconnected day for me, so watching tv yet and no time to follow twitter. Caught tweet coverage of the Harper launch and Ignatieff's no-coalition statement when I got up this morning, and that's it. I'm sure I'd have gotten an e-mail or something if someone's bus had run into a river, so I trust things are alright on the national campaign trail.

In Vancouver Island North we were busy today staring to get the campaign office set up, and doing a campaign college for our campaign team and core volunteers. We had a lot of people out, a lot of good questions asked and information exchanged. Right now the stress is getting the office up and running (be a few days for phone, web and tv); once that's done I'll feel better. The team is coming together though and we're keeping Mike Holland busy with canvassing.

Off to go build signs in a bit; just taking a dinner break. But I see the Liberals have put out a few videos today. The first is in English, and in the style of the earlier economy ad it's Michael on a simple white background talking directly to Canadians. It's called Your Family, Your Liberals and is mainly positive, through with a values contrast/shot at Harper. I like the "this election s about you" messaging. The family focus reminds me of Christy Clark's families first leadership campaign. I'm still processing the ad (I like to let them percolate a night); I like the focus but I'm not keen on the line about personal attacks. It feels whiny; people don't care if Harper is mean to you. Otherwise, I like the message. And I think this ad is also about putting Michael in front of Canadians in a positive context; he comes off well.

This next ad is in Punjabi, and I'm afraid my Punjabi is a little rusty so all I can tell you is that it's called "Harper: out of touch" and it's pretty clearly an attack ad. What did strike me is the maleness of the testimonials. The script is interesting. Recession, waste, but the comment o immigration and family reunification was interesting.

"The recession that we have been facing these days, Stephen Harper has failed to handle it ... It's getting worse these days. Stephen Harper 's government, they are just wasting tax payers money. Stephen Harper is changing the immigration rules, making it almost impossible for my family to reunite here in Canada. Stephen Harper is cutting millions from the services new Canadians rely on.

Stephen Harper is not in touch with the common man."

The next ad is in Portuguese, and is called "you have a choice." Unlike the Punjabi ad, both genders are represented so that's good. Again, the script takes shots at the Conservatives on several common Liberal attack themes, but adds an attack on Conservative cuts to immigrant settlement services.

"Canadians have a lot to say about Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper is cutting taxes for big banks and big corporations and giving us nothing. Stephen Harper's government wasted a billion dollars on the G20 and fake lake. Stephen Harper is cutting millions from immigrant settlement services. You do have a choice. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals will invest in things that matter to Canadian families. I like Michael Ignatieff. He's intelligent and listens to us. This election, vote Liberal!"

Finally, we have an ad in a language in which I can at least get one out of three words: French. It's called "J'aime le Québec." Don't really even need the translation for this one: Michael Ignatieff thinks Quebec is super cool, and what not. But he also lays claim to being an early advocate of the Quebec/nation thing. Which is giving me unpleasant flashbacks to 06 leadership drama, so I'm moving on. Mainly boilerplate feel-good federalism though.

"I love Québec. I love its people, and I love its land. I know that the majority of Quebecers consider Québec as their nation and Canada as their country. I was the first to acknowledge this fact. I believe that it is possible for one to be Quebecer and Canadian in the order of one's choice.

And I know that we need the commitment and the creativity of Quebecers in order to create an even stronger Canada."

This isn't confirmed, but I'm told to look forward to future Liberal ads such as"Ontario? Oh Yeah!", "Newfound is Nifty" and "British Columbia is my favourite, but don't tell PEI I said that baby."

Anyway, off to haul lumber and build signs. Oh corplast, why do you cut me so?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Moving past the coalition on day one

It's only day one of this election campaign but we're well into year five of the permanent campaign, which perhaps is why while Michael Ignatieff's Liberals released a statement ruling-out a coalition after the next election before Stephen Harper even made it to Rideau Hall this morning to pull the plug on this Parliament and officially begin the 41st general election in Canada's history, it still felt like an overdue move.

Still, getting it out of the way on day one had to be done. It had become a media pre-occupation the last few day. Here's a snippet of the statement, which I think is about a clear as we could hope for under the circumstances:

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

(snip)

We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

Seems pretty dammed clear to me. No to a coalition. The party gets that gets the most seats gets to form the government. If the Liberals are called on to form a minority government, they'll govern just like past Liberal governments have done, and just like the last Conservative government has done (but slightly less arrogantly, I trust): seeking support from the other parties in the house on a case-by-case basis.

Let's pause briefly on policy and democracy. It's a shame Ignatieff has to explicitly rule out a coalition. They are a perfectly legitimate constitutional option, and I'm glad the statement makes that point. The Conservatives have deliberately confused and misled to such a point that the well is poisoned and it's a shame, because our democracy suffers as a result of the ignorance they stoke for their narrow political ends. They erode trust in our democratic institutions, and we all suffer for that.

And really, what could be more symbolic for the attitude of this Harper Government? A coalition is about cooperation, about different groups working together for a common goal. And the Conservatives have made cooperation a dirty word. Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

As for the politics, I think this settles the issue for most people, at least those who would be open to considering us in the first place. The media interest will fade out and the pack will move on. I hear they actually gave Harper a rough time on this at his five-question presser this morning.

The Conservatives, of course, will still keep harping (sorry) on this theme. Even if the media won't amplify it, their speeches and ad buys and their surrogates will keep spreading the secret evil voodoo coalition boogedy-boo. But I'm doubtful how effective running around calling Ignatieff a liar will be.

There is a certain irony though. A few elections back Harper knew the abortion question would be a big barrier to him breaking-through. The Liberals warned of a hidden agenda. On day one of the campaign, Harper came out and addressed it: I will do nothing on (edited: same sex marriage) . It settled the question, and let him move on to other issues. Now, Ignatieff has ruled-out a coalition on day one, and it's Harper warning people of a Liberal hidden agenda.

If Harper wants to keep reversing roles, I hear Stornaway is pretty nice... :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'm heading West

With another election upon us, I've secured a leave from my day job and I'll soon be heading to British Columbia, to fight for Canada in a slightly less wintry climate, and one with both oceans and mountains.

In 2008 I joined the communications war room for the Liberal Party's regional campaign for B.C., based in Vancouver. It was a great time working with some talented and dedicated people; great learning experience. We had a lot of fun and put out a lot of great material.

This time, I'll be doing something a little different. I'm off to my hometown of Courtenay, B.C. to be campaign manager for our Liberal candidate in Vancouver Island North, Mike Holland. Mike's a former Courtenay city councilor who those that follow B.C. politics may remember from his fight for long-term care beds.

The incumbent is usually low profile Conservative John Duncan, recently elevated to cabinet as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, who has been in the news a lot lately over the Bruce Carson scandal (Duncan still has a lot of explaining to do about his role). With former MP Catherine Bell not running again, the NDP candidate is another former Courtenay councilor, Rona-Rae Leonard.

There used to be a good Liberal base in the riding, but it has been fading in recent years as Bell and Duncan battled it out and polarized the vote. The Liberals ran fairly weak campaigns locally in 2005/06 and 2008, cementing the vote collapse. This time though we've pulled together a great team and a very strong candidate. With a new NDP candidate and Duncan hit by scandal (he's also offside with the riding on several key local issues) this is going to be a whole new race, and I think the Liberals are going to surprise some people in this riding.

Managing a campaign will be a much broader challenge than I've had in the past, but I'm looking forward to the experience. And it will be great to be back with family and friends for five weeks in one of the nicest parts of the country.

So I'm off to the airport this afternoon to catch a flight west. I'll be in a taxi heading to Pearson as the confidence vote happens; if someone gets cold feet my cab will be the one pulling a violent u-turn on the 401. Otherwise, I'll be on a WestJet flight following all the drama on seatback tv before getting into Comox tonight.

While I'll no doubt be busy, with this role I'll be freer to blog than I was during the 2008 campaign. So while, as always, these blogs are my views and mine only, I'll be blogging away all campaign with, as always, a little B.C perspective.

Let the fun begin! And if you're in the neighbourhood, stop by and say hello.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

John Baird, perennial F student?

You'd think a guy who has dabbled in politics since he was 15, and has been an elected parliamentarian of one sort or another since 1995, John Baird would have picked up some sort of working knowledge of how our parliamentary democracy works.

You'd think wrong though. Either he's playing dumb, or our school system is in worse shape than I thought. Here's Baird yesterday during question period:

Mr. Speaker, it is the leader of the Liberal Party who is showing contempt for Canadian voters. He does not accept the fundamental democratic principle that the person with the most votes wins elections. He wanted to establish a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP and now the coalition is back again. That shows utter contempt for Canadians.

Actually, Baird is again showing his contempt for Canadians by trying to exploit and promote the ignorance of many in the "fundamental democratic principles" that run our system of government.

Yes John, the "person with the most votes win elections."Operative word being "person." We don't vote for a "Harper Government" or for the Prime Minister. We vote for a member of parliament, and elect 308 of them to go off to Ottawa. The Conservatives want you to think you're voting for President Stephen Harper, but this isn't the United States. The governor general generally gives the party with the most seats first crack at forming government, but to keep it they have to command the confidence of a majority of MPs. And if they can't, another party can be asked to give it a shot. Because Canadians don't elect governments. They elect members of parliament.

That's how our system works. If there's anyone showing "utter contempt" for Canadians, it's John Baird by trying to confuse them about the fundamental tenets of their democracy. Of course, this isn't new for Baird. His Conservatives have long been betting on the ignorance and the apathy of Canadians.

But then again, I'll take any chance to run this video again of Don Newman giving Baird a spanking live on national TV in 2008. Never gets old...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Budget 2011: The policy and the politics

While some opposition leaders mused about it, I did decide to take the night to think about the budget before pronouncing judgement. Can't say it looked any more exciting or impressive in the morning, but it was worth a try.

I'll get to the politics, but for a change let's take a look at the policy. Like many past budgets from Jim Flaherty, I found this one bland and lacking in imagination and vision. Which as I've also said before isn't really surprising; conservatives don't believe in the vision thing.

What we got in Budget 2011 was a smattering of initiatives here and there that nibble around the edges, but don't really go hard after any major issues. You do, however, get a sense of where their priorities lay. And, to delve into politics for a just a minute, you can see the same strategy the Conservatives ran on in 2008 at play: selected low-cost items designed to appeal to specific niche groups.

There's a small bump to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, a tax credit for kids in arts programs, a caregiver tax credit, a volunteer firefighters tax credit, lots of little things that. They love tax credits, even if they complicate the tax code. None of them amount to much, but it allows them to say they're helping all these different groups. Most people don't dig past the headline to see it's peanuts.

While the budget nibbles around the edges in a lot of areas, it fails to take action on any of the major issues looming over the country and concerning Canadians. Health care funding is a ticking time bomb and the top concern of Canadians; we get a promise to not cut transfers. Pensions are another ticking demographic time bomb, but the word "pension" doesn't appear in the Budget in Brief. They're ending mandatory retirement, but that alone isn't a solution. And the support for seniors is a pittance.

While there doesn't seem to be anything offensive in the budget at first glance (the devil is often in the details of the enabling legislation) it's also a budget that, from a policy perspective, fails to address the needs of the nation. It's yet another opportunity to lead missed by a government too focused on today to think about tomorrow.

The politics

Looking at the budget, I think it's fair to say that while they may not have been salivating for an election, the Conservatives weren't going to go out of their way to avoid one either. They went in needing one opposition party to come to their side. The Liberal ask (a reversal on corporate taxes) was a non-starter, and the BQ's list too long and unrealistic. That left the NDP, with a very modest list of requests that gave the government an easy out, if they wanted it.

There are no poison pills that would make it impossible on the face for any party to support it. But while the Conservatives met a few NDP asks, it did it so modestly it's clear that, while they'd be fine with continuing to govern if the NDP somehow swallowed it, they didn't really expect them to and were fine with going to an election. The fact is, if Harper really wanted to do a deal with the NDP, he could (and would) have done so, and cheaply.

That he didn't betrays his true intent: he wants to take his chances in an election. What's going on now is just a kabuki play for the cameras, to try to frame the narrative going into the campaign: whose fault is it we're going to the polls.

For the opposition parties, it's not really about the budget. To outweigh the ethical and legal sleaze surrounding this government, it would have to be a pretty extraordinary budget. It's not. It's a failure of leadership, and when compounded with this government's other failures, there's no way it could be supported.

Interesting that while the opposition will trigger this election, it's hard to call it opportunistic for any of them. Anything can happen, of course. As I've stressed, campaigns matter. But it's hardly the ideal situation for the opposition parties to go on. There are times, though, when a government can no longer be supported, and this is one of them. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now all that's left is to play out the string in Ottawa. We'll be on the hustings, it would seem, as soon as the weekend. I have no time for those who say elections don't matter, or are an inconvenience. This is democracy, and it shouldn't be taken for granted. We have few civic duties, but this is one of them. Take the time to find someone who shares your values and get involved.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A useful explainer on usage-based billing: The UBB Deception

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More budget developments to suit whatever narrative you want

As we reach mid-day on budget day, three hours before the press corps is released from lock-up to crash twitter with budget details and the finance minister rises in the house to speechify, there have been a number of developments that add little in the way of clarity to the likely outcome this week but, as always, can be woven to support whatever narrative tapestry you fancy.

When last I left you last night, the widely held "everybody knows" consensus was an NDP cave, but there have been plenty of nuggets since to allow you to either support that thesis, or argue the opposite.

*Last night CTV's Bob Fife reported Jack Layton told him he "wasn't blown away" by NDP-friendly budget leaks, called them "half-measures" and said Layton needed real action on pensions, which Fife said Conservatives said was a no-go. Chalk up a point for the NDP will vote no, will be spring election camp.

*Then there's the, frankly bizarre, conspiracy theory that began floating on twitter that posits a pre-planned NDP/Conservative deal to avoid an election, so Jack Layton "within weeks" for health reasons. A leadership race would follow, Tom Mulcair (in his mind, anyway) wings to victory, and then maybe an election at some future point. That sounds like mischief-making from someone's camp to me, frankly.

*But what's this, the Conservatives are separating the opposition parties in the lock-up for the first time, so the BQ and LPC can't pressure the NDP? Point for budget deal predictors.

*Oh, but Pat Martin is quoted as saying he thinks an election is probably unavoidable? Well, if Pat Martin says so...still, point for election predictors.

*But wait a minute, Jack says he's not only going to read the budget before deciding, he's going to sleep on it a night? That's such new behavior it's hard to classify it...

*What's this you say, though, a special meeting asked for with the NDP by Conservative MP Ten Menzies, minister of state for finance, and no other parties? They must be negotiating a deal, two points for no election!

*But wait, what are they going to negotiate exactly, the budget is written. Subtract a point!

*And what what, Menzies is meeting with the other parties too? That means no special deal with NDP, point for election predictors! Or he's just having those other meets as cover for the real NDP meet, point for no election restored!

*New poll from Harris-Decima shows race tightening. Clearly the opposition will want to go now, point for election! Clearly the opposition will want to wait for the numbers to keep moving, point for no election!

*The Conservative offers to negotiate clearly show they're weary of an election! No, it's all a ploy to make us think that, they're playing chess you fools!

*NDP willingness to play ball shows they really want to avoid an election! No, it's all a clever ruse so Jack can dominate the media cycle!

And I'm sure I missed 30 other contradictory pieces of information.

Wake me when it's over...

And just for fun...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Choose your own confidence week adventure

As a follower of Canadian politics, I've ceased being surprised by the regular swings in the supposed consensus opinion in Canadian politics. Every pundit and politico will know something to be the case one day (election for sure) and then the next day they'll all know the opposite (election, no way). I've ceased being surprised by the regular 180s in consensus opinion, but I am still amused by how fervently they all claim to know it. Sure, we believed the opposite yesterday, and may flip back tomorrow, but today we're certain, dagnabbit!

I don't have the energy to research it, but it would be amusing to chart the swings in election consensus over just, say, the last three months. It would look like the rocky mountains, no doubt, or a heart monitor. As I write this Tuesday evening it's election no-way, but by breakfast on budget Tuesday it may have changed, so stay by the news ticker for updates. But apparently the current consensus began forming when politicians didn't act like total a-holes in question period this afternoon, and solidified with evening budget leaks on NDP-friendly items.

The fact is, no one knows for sure what is going to happen and any supposed expert that claims otherwise is lying, but there's certainly enough pieces of information out there to allow you to cherrypick ones to fit your desired conclusion and south authoritative.

Let's take it by party, shall we?

Conservatives:

Big lead in the polls, they want to go now.

Mounting scandals, no way do they want to go.

Mounting scandals, they want to go before they can solidify and things get worse.

NDP-friendly budget leaks sign CPC wants to deal.

NDP-friendly budget leaks clever ruse to set the cat among the NDP canaries on budget eve, actual budget won't be palatable.

Liberals:

Well behind in the polls, why would they want to go now? It's a bluff.

Can't get ahead in polls pre-writ, may as well go now, it's not a bluff.

Mounting scandals make this the window, go now on ethics.

Mounting scandals will heighten if explored in committee, wait and drive down numbers.

NDP

Reasonable-sounding budget demands show they want to make parliament work, don't want election.

They don't expect demands to be met, just want to appear reasonable, they want an election.

They feel if they can get concessions their base will support them propping up government, they'll take what they get and call it victory.

They know their base won't accept them supporting the government, no way they will.

Listen to Jack Layton, no election.

Listen to Thomas Mulcair, election.

BQ

They're doing well in the polls, they want to go now.

They're doing well in the polls, they're cool with waiting until whenever.

No way would Harper ever buy off the separatists.

Meh, if it's good for Quebec...

For what it's worth, here's my uninformed two cents.

I think the Conservatives aren't as eager for an election as they may have been a few weeks ago, but they won't go out of their way to avoid one either. They'll toss a few goodies to the NDP, but they won't be major and won't meet all their demands. If the NDP bites, fine, and if they don't they're fine with going to the polls, they like their chances and the ethics things could get worse with time.

I think the Liberals have decided they have to get out of the cycle of propping these guys up and if that means an election, so be it. But they can't pretend to be an opposition anymore while regularly voting confidence. So they'll vote no (their budget demand of reversing corporate tax hikes will never be met) and take their chances. If the NDP props up the Cons, fine, they'll have as much fun with that as the NDP did when we were doing it, and keep hammering on ethics. And if it means an election, we'll finally be on an equal footing for the media cycle and ad spend and, as the saying goes, campaigns matter so anything can happen.

The BQ presented such a long and ridiculous list of budget demands it's hard to take seriously the prospect of them supporting the government on confidence. A deal on HST harmonization might give them pause, but if I were the Conservatives I'd rather have that as a promise to campaign on, rather than wait potentially a year and remind them of that billion-dollar payday. it's a big ticket item to give away when other suitors are cheaper dates. The BQ are in great position in the polls, with the potential for pick-ups, particularly in the Quebec City area. I think they vote no, but if HST money is actually in the budget (word tonight is that it's not) they may waver.

I think the NDP is more of a wildcard, because I don't think they know what they're going to do yet at this point. I think internally the party is torn. Look at polling and an election doesn't make much sense for them (nor does it for anyone, really) but certain incumbents are vulnerable. And Jack Layton is recovering from serious health issues; he's a gamer so he'll answer the bell but it's not ideal at all. I think there's a camp that wants to take what the Conservatives give and call it a making parliament work victory, whether it actually is or not (the Liberals demand and got billions in stimulus, didn't work out well for them and the NDP weren't impressed). Call them the pragmatists. And then there's the idealists, who couldn't stomach truck or trade with a Harper government they fundamentally and deeply dislike and disagree with on every level, and are adamantly opposed to supporting Harper no matter what the give.

I think at this point it's on the NDP, and I think at this point the jury is out. If I was forced to put money on it, I'd say they don't support the government, and we'll have an election. I've been surprised before, though. But to decide to prop them up, in the wake of the mounting ethical dramas, would be a bitter pill for their supporters to swallow. It would invalidate their years of messaging (they baked a cake to celebrate the Liberals propping up the Cons). And it wouldn't be a one-time thing. They'd either have to abstain or vote against the contempt findings, or explain why they're supporting a government they believe to be in contempt. Their attacks on any number of issues would ring hollow. It would mean eating a lot of crap sandwiches, for monts and months of budget implementation bills and who knows what other curve balls the Cons may throw. As a Liberal who has been there trust me, it really, really sucks. And I can't imagine doing it when, for the first time in Canadian history, not just one but two contempt findings are before the house. "Well sure, they're in contempt of the house and basic democratic principles, but we got some money for making homes more efficient, so..."

So, tonight I still believe we go this week, but not as strongly as I did yesterday. And I reserve the right to change my mind again tomorrow and believe the exact opposite. And with authority.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The inter-operable allied air coalition in Libya

The Canadian Armed Forces are taking part in the UN-sponsored international coalition (the good kind) air mission to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and support the rebels under attack by Gaddafi. It's an important mission, and I wish them all good luck and a safe, speedy return home.

The Globe published a list of coalition air assets taking part in the mission, and it's quite the diverse list of many different aircraft types. Yet, somehow, they're all "interoperating" together efficiently...

The list includes:

U.S.: Navy EA-18G Growlers and Marine AV-8B Harriers.
France: Eight Rafale and four Mirage jets, six C-135 refuelling tankers, one AWACS surveillance plane.
U.K.: Tornado GR4 jets, VC-10, RAF E3D and Sentinel surveillance aircraft.
Canada: Six CF-18s.
Denmark: Six F-16s.
Italy: Four Tornados and four fighter jets (type unspecified, but possibly Eurofighters).
Spain: Four F-18s and a Boeing 707 refuelling plane.
Norway: Six F-16s.
Belgium: Eight Belgian F-16s.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives attack Michael Ignatieff’s late father and grandfather

At this point we’ve nearly become immune to the personal attacks that regularly spew forth from the teenaged frat boys running the Conservative war room and the prime minister’s office. Perhaps that’s why they felt compelled to lower their attacks to a disgusting new level recently by attacking the dead relatives of their opponents.

It started on Friday afternoon, when the Liberals released a positive web video where Ignatieff talks about his family, and specifically his father, and how their immigrant experience shaped his outlook and political philosophy.

Pretty boilerplate stuff, but good to do: people want to get a sense of who their leaders are, where they come from and what they’re about. It goes to building trust in their ability to make decisions and lead based on their values and background.

For the Conservatives, though, this was an opportunity to attack not just Ignatieff, but his late father and grandfather. Just hours after the release of the video the teenagers at CPC HQ had an attack up on their web site and distributed to the press, and it was a bizarre one.

Basically, they seem to believe there are different categories of immigrants, and that Ignatieff’s family don’t count as real immigrants or something. Yes, the government that has made reaching out to new Canadians a cornerstone of their political strategy now believes apparently that some classes of immigrants are “more Canadian” than others. How else to take their "child of immigrants?" banner than to conclude they're saying he's not really the child of immigrants, or at least not ones that count?

Their poorly researched attack basically boils down to this: they believe Ignatieff lied or exaggerated about the finances of his family when they immigrated to Canada, claiming a false poverty to make his story more sympathetic. The Conservatives then go on at length to try to paint the immigrating Ignatieffs as some kind of elitist Richie riches weren’t “typical immigrants” and go on to attack his family history at length.

First of all, their supporting evidence for exaggeration is dubious at best and more likely outright distortion. Fleeing the Russian revolution, Ignatieff’s ancestors first landed in England. They did bring some wealth with them to England, and all the examples in the Conservative hit piece actually refer to this. They apparently lost most or all in England, and when Ignatieff’s father immigrated to Canada has a teenager, he was indeed of little to no means, as Ignatieff said. The Conservatives are trying to obfuscate and distort the record. As Ed Broadbent rightly said, they lie.

But moreover, this is a completely asinine attack for the Conservatives to make, going after someone’s family, their deceased ancestors, I mean, is this is what politics has come to, doing opposition research on the families, living and dead, of your political opponents? What's next, a time machine to gather dirt on someone's unborn great-great grandchildren? Bob Rae's descendants side with Alpha Centuri in the great space wars of 2245!

Sadly, this is part of a pattern for the Conservatives and their supporters. They’ve launched hit pieces on Ignatieff’s grandfather. Cabinet ministers (the guy responsible for ethnic outreach, ironically) openly mock his wife’s name as funny-sounding. They mocked Stephane Dion because his wife didn’t take his name. And their blog trolls regularly spread innuendo about Ignatieff’s family life.

I really wonder how they’re able to morally justify such behaviour. How do they go home for dinner with their family, and explain to their kids how they spent their day? I mean, we’re all people. Yes, we disagree on a menu of policy issues, and I relish frank and fulsome debate on those issues. But I don’t hate those that disagree with me. From many Conservatives, though, it seems to be different. They don’t just disagree with their opponents, they hate them, and once you pass that point you can justify any revulsion in service of some supposed greater good.

Oh, they try to lamely justify it. He made his family fair game by talking about them in the video, they say. Oh really? Well, Stephen Harper has used his wife and children in Conservative advertising regularly. And while Conservative logic would allow it, I’m sorry but that does not mean opposition parties are free to start digging into his children’s lives. Some things are off limits, period, and that really shouldn’t have to be explained.

Even on purely political grounds, this seems like a pretty stupid move for the Harperites. The #cdnpoli stream exploded Friday night in revulsion at the Con attack; Canadians know when the line is crossed, and they don’t support this style of politics. And implicit in the Con attack is the message that some immigrants count more than others. How do they now go to campaign in immigrant communities having sent such a message? How do people who came to Canada under the immigrant investor class, a category the government is promoting which requires a set wealth level, respond to the Conservatives telling them they’re not real immigrants, that they don’t count? Yes, bring your money to Canada and invest, but we think you're elitist jerks, is that the message we're sending?

Lastly, let’s remember just who the Conservatives are attacking here as not a real immigrant. In fact, George Ignatieff’s biography reads like the kind of success story every immigrant would aspire to. At least Heritage Canada seems to think so, even if the Haperites disagree.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Videos: More about Michael

I'm hearing positive reviews from non-partisans who have seen the new Liberal ads in the field, particularly the one where Michael Ignatieff talks about the economy.

These two videos won't be on TV, but they do put Ignatieff out there talking about himself and his vision for Canada. This is the kind of thing we need to keep doing if Ignatieff is going to have a chance of finally connected with Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New Liberal ads released: Your Canada, or Harper's?

Two new television ads dropped from the Liberals this afternoon. I'm told the ad buy will be "substantial" but what that means, I don't know. It will be a relative term, no doubt; I don't think they could match the massive Conservative buy that has been going on for months. Hopefully they'll get some play, though.

There are two ads. Both are attack ads, although one is softer and also strikes a more positive tone. Talking about the economy, and how Harper's priorities differ from those of Canadians, it also puts Michael Ignatieff up front. Conservative commenters speculated the Liberals were hiding Ignatieff in the first round of ads; not anymore:

The second ad is more of a traditional attack ad, using undistorted facts to highlight Harper's abuse of power, from refusing to fire Bev Oda for misleading parliament and playing shenanigans with documents to proroguing parliament, laughing-off election law charges against his senior campaign staff and having the ego to demand the Government of Canada be re-branded "The Harper Government."

I think I like the second one, abuse of power, a bit better.

I do think though that putting Ignatieff out there more is important for two reasons. One, it shows we don't think we need to hide him. Two, with the negative perception of Ignatieff the Conservative ad buys have implanted, the only choice is to either accept the characterization or fight it. Give people a chance to see another Ignatieff.

The tagline seems to be "Is this your Canada, or Harper's?" A note on strategy here for a moment, because I think this is interesting. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are putting Harper up front, but for very different reasons. The Conservatives see him as a strength to lead with, and the leadership polling numbers bare this out. The Liberals, and the other opposition parties, feel differently: they lead many of their attacks on the government with Harper, viewing him as a weakness for a number of reasons. It's an interesting dichotomy. Frankly, both strategies make sense. Harper does outpace his party in popularity at the moment, and with his leadership advantage they should lead with him. And for the opposition, while I don't think the public dislikes Harper near as much as we do, we need to turn them on him to be successful, and his one-man band governing style does leave him potentially vulnerable. And if the battle is between the LPC and NDP for swing voters, an attack Harper strategy definitely has merit.

We'll see if these ads get major play, or if it's mere symbolism. I think it's a clear message though going into next week's budget: we're not backing down; we'll take the fight to Canadians.

And the way to ensure these ads get more airplay, or course, is to make a donation. Apparently if you donate $50 or more you'll receive a "Harper is NOT here for Canada" t-shirt. Could be the must-have fashion on the campaign trail this spring.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Things can change, and campaigns matter

I've made the point a few time recently that, while the polls aren't favourable for the Liberals at the moment, things can change. That's not to say that things will change. No one can predict the future with any accuracy. But a poll today is a snapshot, and isn't necessarily indicative of what an election six or seven weeks from now could show.

For example, take a look at this chart. It shows the Liberals with a 15 point lead over the Conservatives, 41-26. That's a healthy lead, and potential majority territory.

When was this Nanos/SES poll taken, you ask? December 9, 2005, near the beginning of the 2005/06 election that would see the Conservatives end up forming a minority government. The popular vote would end up Conservatives 36, Liberals 30.

Dive into the leadership numbers and you'll see that, while Stephen Harper wasn't as far back as Michael Ignatieff is today, Paul Martin still had a healthy lead despite the swirling sponsorship drama. Canadians weren't sold yet on Stephen Harper.

So what's the point? The point is, as we see, things can change, and campaigns matter. Things happened on the campaign trail in 2005/06 that couldn't have been predicted going in. The leaders campaigned, things happened, and opinions were formed. The same will happen during the next election.

And while there are differences between 05/06 and today, there are interesting parallels. An opposition leader who has struggled, and not connected with Canadians. A government with an accumulation of scandal that hasn't hurt it too badly -- yet. And an electorate that has largely yet to tune in to the political debate.

So while we shouldn't dismiss polls, we shouldn't live and die by them either. A poll today can't tell us how people will feel in May. Campaigns matter, and the next one will be worth watching. There's a reason we play the full nine innings. No one knows today what the future will bring.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper links Japanese earthquake and tsunami to election timing

Stephen Harper spoke to the press in Vancouver today, and they were allowed to ask questions. Here's one of his answers (emphasis mine):

CONTINUE WITH EMILY CHIN FROM FAIRCHILD.

Question: PRIME MINISTER, REGARDING THE EARTHQUAKE HAPPENING IN JAPAN, AS WE KNOW, JAPAN IS ONE OF OUR MAJOR TRADE PARTNERS. I'M JUST WONDERING YOUR CONCERN ABOUT ANY IMPACTS ON OUR ECONOMY.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: WELL, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT ALL THOSE THINGS VERY CAREFULLY. OUR FIRST CONCERN, IN FAIRNESS, IS WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THEIR FAMILIES AND LITERALLY AT THIS POINT TENS OF THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS. SO OUR FIRST CONCERN AS A GOVERNMENT IS ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP JAPANESE AUTHORITIES COPE WITH THIS CRISIS. NOW, JAPAN IS A WEALTHY COUNTRY. JAPAN IS A WELL ORGANIZED COUNTRY WITH LOTS OF ITS OWN RESOURCES TO RESPOND TO THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS, BUT, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THERE'S A RANGE OF VARIOUS SERVICES OR SUPPLIES THAT WE COULD OFFER IF SO DESIRED, AND I GATHER THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THEY WILL CALL UPON US TO ASSIST THEM WITH. THAT IS OUR PRIMARY FOCUS. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL WATCHING THE NUCLEAR SITUATION, YOU KNOW, WITH I THINK QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE OF JAPAN. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL IN THAT REGARD. I DON'T THINK THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON US. OBVIOUSLY, THOUGH, YOU SEE THE DROPS IN THE STOCK MARKET. ALL OF THESE THINGS SHOULD REMIND EVERYBODY -- SHOULD REMIND EVERYBODY IN CANADA AND SHOULD REMIND ALL THE PARTIES IN PARLIAMENT THAT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY REMAINS EXTREMELY FRAGILE. IT DOES NOT TAKE VERY MUCH TO MAKE US ALL, AND NOT JUST IN CANADA, THE UNITED STATES, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, TO MAKE EVERYBODY VERY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S COMING NEXT IN THE ECONOMY. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A DIFFICULT TIME. IT'S GETTING BETTER, BUT IT'S STILL QUITE FRAGILE. SO I DON'T WANT TO PREDICT HOW THAT'S GOING TO UNFOLD. I THINK THE JAPANESE WILL FIND THEIR WAY OF COPING, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS SHOULD BE A WAKEUP THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE OUR FOCUS OFF THE ECONOMY AND GET IN TO A BUNCH OF UNNECESSARY POLITICAL GAMES OR, AS I SAID, AN OPPORTUNISTIC AND UNNECESSARY ELECTION THAT NOBODY IS ASKING FOR.

Yes, why not use a question about the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that has killed thousands, and triggered a still ongoing nuclear crisis, to score domestic political points against your opponents? And just what is he claiming? That an election could cause an earthquake? Take our eyes off the economy for one minute and the earth could shake? And as for all this focus on the economy, let's remember that Harper called the 2008 election just as the economic downturn was beginning to become clear. Of course, the great economist assured us then that if we were going to have a downturn at that point, we'd have had one already. So what does he know?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conrad Black smacks the Conservatives around some more on crime

Following-up on a previous column where he called the Conservatives dumb on crime and opposed mandatory minimums for marijuana proposed by the Harper Government, Conrad Black is again laying the smack down on Conservative crime policy, putting paid to the "liberal judges" taking-point:

The underlying suspicion of Stephen Harper's government -which is that the bench is infested with softies and that it is right to punish crimes more severely than they have been in the past -is a reactionary and brutish reflex that is presumably aimed at a political constituency unlikely to stray into the arms of this government's opponents anyway. Hand-cuffing the judges merely makes justice more unlikely. And simply raising the sentences for everyone, which is essentially what is recommended, is not justified by the recidivism rates in many categories of offence. It also would legitimize the repugnant concept that criminal penalties should exceed that which is necessary to expiate the past and discourage a return to crime.

Interesting the perspective some time inside the criminal justice system can give someone.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You get an arena! You get an arena! Everybody gets an arena!

Baffling. Simply baffling:

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered guarded support for the idea of using federal funds to build a new NHL arena in Quebec City, giving the Harper government more political cover should it decide to bankroll the project.

Ignatieff suggested Wednesday his party would support federal funding for the proposed 18,000-seat arena, provided the city comes up with a “well-put-together” business plan that demonstrates the facility will have a “cultural use” and serve as a “real regional economic driver.”

“If that’s the proposition, and it’s really put together well, and we’ve got private participation and public participation from the other two levels of government, a federal government is going to be involved,” Ignatieff told reporters after the Liberals wrapped up their winter caucus meetings.

“But then you don’t do this one off; you then have to be sure that you’ve got fairness and equity across the country, because there are other regions . . . that have a good enough claim on that.”

Ignatieff added that he would like to see more details about the project. “You’ve got to be able to persuade Canadians that this is good value for money,” he said.

As I've written before, Governments should not fund professional sports stadiums. Period. If we're talking as part of hosting a national or international event with significant economic spin-offs then we can talk about limited public participation. But outright subsidization of a professional sports arena for billionaire owners to watch millionaire players from luxury boxes? Not a chance. If there is a business case, the private sector will finance it. And if there's not a business case, why should the government subsidize it?

Is there some marginal economic benefit/infrastructure benefit argument to be made? Sure. But again, if its viable the public sector shouldn't be needed. And with a structural deficit to contend with, I have education, health care and pensions at the top of my list for limited investment, not professional sports stadiums.

While they sent all kinds of conflicting signals, the Conservatives seem to have firmly settled, at least for now, on the no funding side. And it may hurt them in the Quebec City area. Maybe the Liberals are trying to set-up a contrast play, but besides being really bad policy (and lining-up on the wrong side of the contrast) if this is about politics, I'm not seeing the upside.

The Quebec City arena is primarily an issue in that city; the Liberals aren't going to start winning seats in that area. If Cons drop seats on this, it will be to the BQ. There are also arena rumblings in Alberta and Saskatchewan, neither of which are likely about to see red waves. Maybe it's a gainer in Winnipeg and Hamilton, although I think the latter's stadium plans are already set (with support thanks to hosting the Pan Am Games).

The one thing I agree with in the apparent Liberal position is that if you fund Quebec, you need to find everyone. I thought that was an argument against it, because dropping billions to litter the country with professional sports stadiums is a throughly stupid proposition.

Apparently, I thought wrong.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rodger Cuzner's Bev Oda rap - auto-tuned

This is approaching critical levels of awesomeness. From Operation Maple:

Background:Liberals use green eggs to relish Bev Oda’s 'jam'

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives positioning budget defeat as wedge issue in Jewish community

With all the attention lately around Jason Kenney's campaign to target the ethnic community making use of taxpayer resources, and Kenney's crowning as the "King of Multiculturalism" it's no surprise the Conservatives are positioning a possible defeat on the budget later this month (and the election that would result) as a wedge in the Jewish community.

The following e-mail from Georganne Burke has been circulating recently in the Jewish community. Burke, a long-time senior Conservative campaign official and former senior special assistant to Tony Clement, is now tour manager for Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak.

You may remember Burke from December 2008 when, while working for Clement, she tried to block Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff from attending a menorah lighting ceremony at Toronto's Zareinu Educational Centre, insinuating Ignatieff's presence could endanger the school's federal funding.

Anyway, as the e-mail shows, Burke and the Conservatives are trying to turn a possible spring election into a wedge issue with Jewish voters:

Subject: An Election Issue for all Jewish Voters

There is a very strong likelihood that an election will be called in the next couple of weeks.

If this is the case there is a serious problem for all Jewish voters. The advanced polls, and several days on which people can vote fall on Passover.

As we all know, it is not just the holiday itself that is an issue, but the days leading up to it are extremely busy. In addition, many people cannot vote during Chol Ha'Moed Pesach.

I would ask that all of you contact the leaders of the opposition parties and ask them to consider the Jewish community when they force this election.

Jack Layton - Layton.J@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.caMichael Ignatieff - Ignatieff.M@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.caGilles Duceppe - Duceppe.G@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.ca

The dates of the holiday are as follows:

Monday, Apr 18, Erev Pesach
Tues and Wed, Apr 19-20, Yom Tov
Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun, Apr 21-24, Chol Ha'Moed
Sat, Apr 23, Shabbat
Sun Apr 24, Yom Tov begins at sundown
Mon and Tues, Apr 25-26, Yom Tov

The days for advanced polls would be April 22, 23, 25.

In addition, the Yom Tov days would be inaccessible to most of us to vote.

Please contact the Opposition Leaders as soon as possible.

Now, should Jewish holidays be considered when considering election timing? Absolutely. While the nature of a minority government means the government could lose the confidence of the house at any time, if an election is triggered as much consideration as feasible should be given to accommodating religious and ethnic holidays.

Notice though that there's no call to contact Stephen Harper to urge him to work with opposition parties to avoid an election, making her agenda clear: it's really about pressuring the opposition parties into accepting whatever it is the Conservatives propose in their budget, and overlook the accumulating ethical and moral lapses of this government.

Here's what's really rich about Burke's e-mail, though. While Burke is trying to rally the community against the opposition parties on election timing, the fact is the Harper Conservatives called a 2008 election that fell on the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

Yes, while a spring 2011 election on the dates outlined would be the result of a loss of confidence in the government on a matter of confidence (and Harper maintains some flexibility on election scheduling after a defeat), in 2008 Harper went to the government at timing of his own choosing not because of a lose of confidence, but because he saw an opportunity to increase his seat-count. He controlled the timing and he picked an election date that fell on a Jewish holiday. And by and large, the Jewish community gave him a pass.

Now Burke and the Conservatives are trying to make election timing a religious wedge, despite not considering it important enough to change their partisan calculations in the past. Just goes to show that in their ethnic outreach campaign, there's no low card the Conservatives won't play.

It's also worth nothing Easter Sunday is April 24th, and the 2008 election was over Thanksgiving.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Being a Harper photo-op backdrop can be hazardous to your health

There seems to be a rather unfortunate pattern developing here. Maybe the charisma is just too much for some...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservatives are betting on the apathy of Canadians

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, as Santanya’s oft-repeated quote goes. We remember the quote, but we always seem to forget the message. How else to explain the Conservative supporters who this week insisted Canadians don’t care about ethical transgressions, when in fact their party came to power a little over five years ago riding a wave of public anger over a Liberal government long in power guilty of a range of ethical violations.

I doubt they’ve really forgotten such recent and pivotal history though; the “no one cares” line is more likely a combination of weak spin and wishful thinking. When they say Canadians don’t care, what they’re really betting on is the apathy of Canadians. They’re betting Canadians can’t be bothered to lift their heads out of their day-to-day long enough to muster up the energy to care about the arrogance of a party that rebrands the people’s government as The Harper Government, that deliberately misleads parliament, that withholds important information from the public, deliberately flouts campaign finance laws, and punts watchdogs and opponents with impunity. They’re betting that as long as people are worried about their jobs, and they’re seen as capable managers of the economy, Canadians will only care about themselves.

It’s a very cynical bet for the Conservatives to make; but this is a government not unaccustomed to cynical bets. And like often happens to a party in government, although it usually takes longer, they’ve come to believe in their own infallibility, and that what is today shall always be. That’s a dangerous trap to fall into, but it’s a risk of life inside the bubble. Be chauffeured around town with a team of staff kissing your ass long enough and you start to believe it’s your due.

It’s not that they haven’t had reason to be a little overly confident. Sure, there have been speed bumps: the public anger over prorogation surprised them, although it later passed. They nearly lost power to the coalition. But by and large, they’ve been able to skate through a long list of foul-ups and ethical and moral lapses. They’ve made it through, though, thanks primarily to a weak opposition unable to present a viable alternative government. People can be upset but if they dislike their other choices even more, they’re less likely to jump.

We also learn from history that, while Canadians care about ethical violations, ethics alone aren’t enough to defeat a government. While sponsorship helped propel the Conservatives into power, sponsorship alone didn't do it. Remember, it didn’t suddenly appear as an issue out of the blue. It percolated for years. It was well known in 2004 when, although reduced to a minority, Canadians still elected a Liberal government under Paul Martin.

The ethics issue would continue to percolate, but Canadians still weren’t sold on Stephen Harper. As Joe Clark remarked, better the (Liberal) devil you know. In 2005/06, the Conservatives surprised observers by running the first half of their campaign not on sponsorship and ethics, but on policy and putting a friendlier face on Harper. Later in the campaign they’d add the ethics broadside, coupled with the accountability package. And still, the Liberals led in the polls until the RCMP income trusts intervention helped tip the balance. With Harper having positioned himself as a credible enough alternative with enough voters, they were able to capitalize and win a minority.

So, do Canadians care about ethical issues? They absolutely do. But they’re also pragmatic. They’re willing to punish arrogance and ethical violations, but they need to have a comfortable alternative if they’re going to do so. Otherwise, it’s better the devil you know.

And that goes back to the real nucleus of the Conservative strategy: the millions of dollars in scorched-earth advertising to negatively define successive Liberal leaders. If they can poison the alternatives in the minds of Canadians, they’re less likely to be punished for their ethical sins. With no alternative, they bet apathy and pragmatism will win out again.

So for me, the question in the next campaign isn't do Canadians care about ethics violations or not. It’s will the opposition parties be able to give Canadians the chance to prove they care or not. Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party need to provide Canadians with a vision for the country, and a plan for governing that speaks to the every-day concerns of the average person who just wants to make a good living, live a healthy life, and give their kids a good start.

If we can provide that compelling alternative, then we’ll see just how much Canadians care about ethics. Unlike the Conservatives I’m going to bet that Canadians do care. But we need to give them the chance to prove it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Breaking the pattern. Or not.

Another poll out there showing an unfavourable situation for the Liberal Party, and for Michael Ignatieff, generating the usual reaction on all sides. Other recent polls have been equally unfavourable, others slightly less so. Still, some undeniable patterns have emerged, and they’re worth considering briefly.

What the polls, particularly the leadership figures, show largely is the power of multi-million dollar ad buys. Advertising can work, particularly when the buy is massive and you’re the only ones doing the talking. Thanks to their massive fundraising advantage over the other parties, but particularly the Liberals who, years later, still haven’t adjusted to the no longer new fundraising regime, the Conservatives enjoy the ability to negatively define their opponents with an advertising blitz, knowing their opponents don’t have the ability to effectively counter-punch.

Leadership numbers can be over-hyped, but they shouldn’t be dismissed. They’re not everything – the NDP likes to trumpet Jack Layton’s high leadership numbers, but they’re not giving much air to NDP support numbers: Jack raises the brand, but only so far. Leadership numbers can be a drag on party support numbers though, and we’re definitely seeing that. We may elect 308 MPs but in Canadian politics, leaders matter.

Now, we can bemoan the situation. We can call for intra-election spending caps. Campaign finance reform. We can release attack ads attacking attack ads. It does nothing to change the reality: the ad advantage this fundraising gap enables allows the Conservatives to go into any election campaign with a built-in advantage, and forces their opponents to always have to play from behind. And whining ain’t gonna change anything. People are tuned-out from politics, they are influenced by ads, and that’s that. (Though we should really figure out how to raise money one of these days)

We saw the pattern before with Stephane Dion, and we’re seeing it again with Michael Ignatieff. Going into an election handicapped is a burden, but it’s not an insurmountable one. Between elections, the Conservative money advantage is formidable. But the spending caps of the campaign period are a leveler and more people tune in to see what’s what, if only briefly.

So while they tune in with a pre-conceived negative notion of the opposition leader that needs to be overcome, one of two things will happen. Either what they see from the leader will reinforce the negative preconceptions forged by advertising, or it will shatter their preconceptions and lead to a re-evaluation by voters.

It can go either way. With Dion, while he improved as the campaign went on, his poor skills as a retail politician on the trail played into the negative narrative the Conservatives had planted with their pre-writ ads, and the perception was cemented in the minds of Canadians. When the next campaign begins, it will be up to Michael Ignatieff what story is written. Lowered expectations are great, and the public’s expectations of him couldn’t be much lower, but they’re only great if you can beat them.

It can go either way. But it’s important to emphasize it CAN go either way. So I don’t worry that much about every poll, although of course I am disappointed we’re not doing better. But I think we’re doing the right things on the opposition front, we’re making the right moves on the policy front, and we’re doing the right things on the organizational front. And I believe Michael Igntieff will prove to be a formidable campaigner, and he’ll surprise some people.

Once we’re into a campaign, we’ll either break the pattern, or we won’t. Until then, talk is cheap.

Well, for the governing party, at least.

(Photo source)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Balancing the budget with the Harper Government panty auction

With a rather large deficit to tackle in a March 22nd budget that will be critical to the future of the Conservative government, people have been wondering just how Jim Flaherty intends to rein-in the bottom line while still finding billions for prisons, stealth fighters and corporate tax cuts.

Well, deep within the recesses of the Public Works department, the key to the secret Conservative deficit reduction plan has been revealed: they're auctioning off surplus panties.

Yes, that's right. With bidding starting at just $30, you could own 17 pairs of surplus government panties. They're all size medium and they're being sold as is. All sales are final. And, most disturbingly, they're described as "like new."

And as you can see from the pictures here, we're not talking government granny panties. No ma'am. These are sexy surplus government panties. One of them even says sexy, so there you go.

If you'd like to get your hands on the goods before bidding, they're available for inspection on Wednesday afternoons at the government panty warehouse in Ottawa.

So do your bit for the nation, and help Jim Flaherty get this deficit under control by buying these Government of Canada -- no, I'm sorry, by buying these Harper Government panties.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

When a government has to decide to be accountable...

Someone is using Stephen Harper's own words against him. I like it...

And it's timely too...

Speaker Peter Milliken has found the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament, handing powerful ammunition to opposition claims the Harper government’s autocratic behaviour represents an abuse of power.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What does it matter how a government falls? When the fall is all that’s left, it matters a great deal…

…at least until day four of the election campaign, by which time it’s forgotten. But we’re not there yet, so let the obsession over how the government may fall, or not, continue.

The conventional thinking has been that the likely trigger will be the budget due to be tabled March 22nd, with confidence votes in the days to following. With the Liberals making clear they won’t support a budget that doesn’t reverse corporate tax cuts and the BQ holding out for HST money, ice storm relief and a pony, all eyes have been on the NDP and whether or not the Conservatives will do enough in the budget to meet their ever-shifting demands.

An interesting spanner has been thrown into the works though, with reports the Liberals may be considering a confidence motion that could defeat the government on an issue other than a budget that could be loaded with vote-buying goodies.

Liberal MP Scott Brison acknowledged Monday the Liberal Party has been discussing the possibility of using an unusual confidence motion to bring down Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government, but played down the internal talks.

The manoeuvre would centre on a ruling Speaker Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Ont.) is expected to make either this week or in late March after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.) tables the federal budget, and could result in an election being forced over a series of scandals and events the opposition says show Mr. Harper (Calgary-Southwest, Alta.) has broken past election campaign promises of accountability and trust.

I’m skeptical about how serious any strategy is that I read about in the media. I have no idea how serious the Liberals are about potentially going this road. This could purely be a communications exercise. Putting this story out there signals that despite some rough polling, the Liberals are serious about holding this government to account. I like it in that sense: it’s a signal of continued (hopefully) Liberal backbone, and signals to the NDP that we’re not letting them off the hook.

Still, academically such a motion would be an interesting strategy. Letting the budget be the trigger, if it goes that way, lets the Conservatives frame the trigger, and use the budget pomp and circumstance as a taxpayer-funded commercial to set their ballot question. A specific confidence motion written by the Liberals lets them attempt to frame the beginning of the narrative. It would also leave less cover for the NDP, who would need to justify voting against a confidence motion that condemns the government while justifying to its supports that it’s worth it because of budget concessions. As a Liberal I’ve been there and, trust me, it’s a hard sell.

So we’ll see what happens in the weeks ahead and if this was just a trial balloon, communications strategy, or an option to pull the trigger they’ll, well, pull the trigger on. Nice to see a little aggressiveness from the Liberals though. I just hope they keep it up.

UPDATE: Dan the man makes a good point in the comments:

The 4 Con cons have a court date coming up on March 18th. If the writ is dropped before that date, that news cycle will be dominated by the scandal, throwing the Cons off message for that day, and maybe all weekend.

Recall in 2006 that Libs were leading right up until trumped up allegations against Mr Goodale. After that, the polls reversed themselves and have been that way ever since. It was a key turning point in Canadian history, and March 18th could be also, if 2 Senators have to make a court appearance for election fraud on Day 4 of the campaign.

If there is no writ, and the budget comes down on March 22, then the court appearance is forgotten, and the whole thing was just another in a long list of scandals, and the budget will be the focus of the campaign.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In defence of the attack ad

My friends the Green Party of Canada released an “attack ad” today that is generating a lot of buzz in political nerdom. It’s an attack ad on attack ads. Have a gander:

It’s a well-executed spot, and it’s an interesting strategy: speak to those turned off by the tone of politics as usual practiced by the usual suspects. I think it’s effective in speaking to those people, but I’m skeptical this is a burning (and vote-moving) issue for many people. People are more concerned about issues that impact them directly, like jobs and the economy, health care and education. There’s a “pox on all their houses” attitude on the level of debate and, while the Greens may hope to tap that (and such voters are certainly in their wheel-house), their positions on those other issues will be what moves people, or not.

It will get the Greens a little attention though as we move into a possible election and remind the chattering classes, at least, that they’re still around. I am amused, though, by the dichotomy of an attack ad that attacks attack ads. It reminded me of the 2006 Conservative ad, "They'll go negative", that warned the Liberals would (in the future) go negative but was, in fact, itself a negative ad. As well, people like to decry attack ads, but the fact remains they can also be pretty effective. So will an attack ad attacking attack ads be an effective attack ad? I don’t know know, but I love the Inception-like feeling of it all.

I would like, though, to raise my voice in lonely defence of the humble attack ad. Not all attack ads are created equal, and not all attack ads are bad. They do play a role in our political discourse, and a rote blanket condemnation of the medium is easy, but short-sighted.

Personal attack ads are definitely out of bounds in my view. We can all think of examples of personal attacks that crossed the line and were rightly condemned. However, issue-based attacks are completely within bounds, and play an important role in any healthy and vibrant democratic debate.

Our political system is built on government and opposition, on groups with opposing views arguing those differences and presenting choices to the people. Issue-based attack ads serve to highlight contrasts and distinctions between the positions and platforms of political parties. They help people understand their choices, and cast a ballot that reflects their views and beliefs.

In a busy world where people don’t pay as much attention to politics and policy as they should, attack ads are (unfortunately) one of the few ways people get their political information. Decry dishonest ads, decry personal attacks, decry short attention spans. But not all attack ads are created equal. And when it comes to highlighting differences on important issues, they’re an important and needed tool.

Maybe we need an attack ad attacking attack ads on attack ads? How would that be for meta mind-blowing…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The hand that changed the yes to no, was on the arm of the PMO

Sometimes, it takes humour to highlight the absurdity...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Welcoming the Wellington Street Post

It's exciting times in the world of political news in Canada. A little while ago we saw the launch of iPolitics.ca, an online news organization ran by journalists dedicated solely to Canadian political news. And today we saw a shake-up of the political blogging world with the launch of the Wellington Street Post.

Unlike iPolitics.ca, or news aggregates like National Newswatch, the Wellington Street Post is about blogging. You don't see many, if any, blog links on NNW or Bourque. The WSP is an aggregate focused just on political blogging in Canada.

While the WSP is an evolution of Liblogs, it's more than just a Liberal blog aggregate. That's still there -- clicking Liberal Edition will give you the best in Liberal political blog posts. But there are also Conservative, NDP, and Green editions, as well as the best blogging from journanlists, lobbyists, politicians and diplomats.

For the first time all the best of Canadian po

litical blogging is aggregated in one place; no more having to hop from aggregate to aggregate to get a sense of what's happening across the political blogsphere. Frankly, I think breaking down those silos and making it easier to get that broader view is a good thing, and will also expose our blogs to a wider and more diverse audience.

The innovation I'm most excited about, which is set to launch soon, is the morning e-newsletter. Lots of people don't want to check an aggregate page regularly. The option to get the clips by e-mail is something that will bring new readers and more traffic to political blog.

I think the WSP page could do with some design tweaks, it's a bit jumbly as you move down the page, but overall I think it's a great innovation. Particularly interesting is the logic behind it which positions posts on the page based on clicks and other metrics, so the most popular pieces rise to the top.

We'll see how WSP is welcomed by the blog community, but if it leads to more innovation, more activity and more competition throughout the community, I think it's going to be a good thing.

P.S.: Here's a news release on the WSP launch.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers