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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Kenney: The election speculation ate my homework

Expect this to become a common, oft-repeated refrain from the Harper Conservatives, however longer the NDP decides to keep their government alive: we'd do great things, but the election speculation ate our homework:

Important reforms to Canada's immigration system ranging from changes to refugee asylum to better regulation of immigration consultants are on hold because of the threat of an election, says Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Kenney made the comment to reporters as he announced the government will fast track immigration and visa applications for citizens of the Philippines impacted by this week's typhoon.

"I have been working on a number of important files, including better regulation of immigration consultants, improvements to the nanny program, the live-in caretaker program and ... reform of the asylum system," he said. "All of those things have been put on hold, indefinite hold, because of the constant election threats."

Umm, why Jason? The Conservatives have been governing with a minority for nearly four years now. Minorities mean the constant threat of elections. But that doesn't mean you stop governing, and it doesn't mean you can't get things done. And it hasn't stopped the Harper Conservatives from doing plenty of other things.

So it's pretty silly for Kenney to be blaming election speculation for putting any plans for immigration reform on hold. It tends to give more credence to my earlier speculation about his desire to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. If he trying to worsen the situation to build a case for unpopular reforms?

No doubt this will be fed into their next "parliament isn't working so we need a majority to do stuff" narrative, notwithstanding the fact that on this issue they haven't really tried to do it yet anyways.

Fact is, I agree reforms are needed, although I'm sure Jason and I will disagree on the details. But rather than blaming election speculation, rather than playing political games, Kenney should just put his proposals on the table and have a debate with parliament and with Canadians on the best-way forward.

A real debate on important issues? Probably too much to hope for.

P.S. Still waiting for Kenney's thoughts on his colleagues bashing the idea of pension support for senior citizen immigrants.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative MP attacks his party's attack ads, predicts early election

We all know what happened to the last Conservative candidate that dared to speak his mind and tell the truth: Gordon Landon was shown the door when he dared speak the truth about shovel-gate scandal. That makes the on the record comments of Brian Jean, the Conservative MP for Fort McMurray-Athabasca, all the more interesting.

In an interview with his local newspaper, the High Prairie South Peace News (not yet online it seems), not only does Jean predict an early election and describe the current Conservative/NDP coalition as unsustainable, he also distances himself from his own party's negative and misleading attack ads against Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, saying while they seem to work, he doesn't like them. He says he'd rather focus on issues, and so would his constituents.

Someone is going to be getting a call from Senator Finley, methinks. Wonder how long before Jean "gets retired" as well...

MP predicts election; Jean says vote will take place "sooner than later"

High Prairie South Peace News
Wed Sep 30 2009
By Joe McWilliams

Fort McMurray-Athabasca MP Brian Jean says a federal election is likely sooner, rather than later.

"I don't think it will be that long," says Jean. "I don't think (Liberal Party leader) Michael Ignatieff can back down, and I don't think the NDP can support us for long."

Igantieff recently announced his party plans to force a vote of non-confidence in the House in October. NDP leader Jack Layton followed by saying the Conservatives could count on his party's support - for a price.

"It's an uncomfortable situation," says Jean, adding the considerable ideological gap between the Conservatives and NDP and predicting any alliance between the two would be short-lived.

Jean admits he doesn't like the current attack ads his party is running on TV which call Igantieff's character and motivations into question.

"But they seem to work," he says. "I don't like them, but that's not my job."

Jean adds he's been hearing from constituents who don't like those sort of tactics either - but the number of complaints is probably not above 10.

Jean says he'd rather focus on issues, such as the work his government is trying to do to benefit the economy. Those include the Green Infrastructure Fund, which offers to support non-polluting energy alternatives such as the Mayo B hydro-electric project in The Yukon which the feds recently spent $71 million on. It will reduce The Yukon's dependence on diesel for power generations.

Another big federally-supported green project is in the works, says Jean, with details to be released later.

Jean says there's a direct benefit to Alberta's oilsands industry by reducing greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. He noted the Greenpeace action at Shell's Albion Sands project that had developed earlier the day he was interviewed.

"If we don't do something, people won't buy our oil."

The Green Infrastructure Fund is evidently one way the federal government hopes to take the heat of environmental protest off the oilsands.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Taking the fall to avoid a fall vote

I’ve fallen behind on my blogging so writing the lengthily post I’d planned on the avoidance of a fall election with the NDP’s decision to prop-up the Harper Conservatives until their EI reforms are passed now seems dated. I will make a few observations though.

I was surprised by the NDP decision, and I wasn’t. I was surprised because their rhetoric for months about how Harper’s defeat was a moral imperative and how the Liberal decision to support the government to avoid an election and get stimulus flowing was a betrayal of all that is holy and good would make for an embarrassing climb-down I didn’t think the NDP could stomach. And I wasn’t surprised because, really, finding some way to support the government was the only move that made strategic sense for the NDP. They don’t have money, and with their standing in the polls they stand to say good-bye to a chunk of their caucus.

So, they made the tough call to avoid an election, everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and we’re probably clear until the spring. While I was ready and willing to fight a campaign this fall, I’m happy to have more time to organize. And I’m happy to have broken the cycle of bluster and back-down.

While my Liberal friends and I will have much fun needling the NDP over their propping-up of Harper, much as they did the same when the shoe was on the other foot, in the wider picture it doesn’t really matter. While the NDP liked to trumped the “59 straight votes” they cast against the Harper government (and the Liberals for) the reality is, most Canadians don’t care. The Liberals neither took a hit for supporting the government, nor did they get a bump for helping avoid an election. The same will hold true for the NDP. Canadians will say no election, good, and go on with their lives.

Where it will rankle, though, is among the partisans. The constant justifications, the trying to convince yourself the concessions were meaningful, the decision to prop-up a government you fundamentally disagree with, it grated on Liberals. This fall it’s like a weight has been lifted from our shoulders. And shifted onto our NDP friends.

They’re trying vainly to justify the reversal in supposed long-held principles, to claim they’ve extracted great concessions, but their arguments largely ring hollow. First, they didn’t negotiate any concessions Harper proposed some EI changes he’d been talking about for some time, changes that don’t address the major concerns expressed by all three opposition parties, and the NDP jumped on them without even trying to get Harper to sweeten the pot. I think Harper was surprised as anyone they acquiesced so quickly.

The supposed concession aside, while the NDP made the right strategic decision, it’s how they get from A (Harper evil his defeat is a moral imperative he can’t be trusted) to B (Canadians don’t want an election we’re going to work with Harper on EI reform) that they haven’t explained well, and leaves them with a credibility gap.

Now, the Liberals have done a similar complete reversal, from “We’re trying to make parliament work to avoid an election” to “We can’t work with Harper anymore he can’t be trusted so we’ve lost confidence.” It’s also a reversal of position, but you can chart an evolution in thinking for getting from A to B. After trying and trying to work with Harper and getting no-where, always playing the Charlie Brown to Harper’s Lucy, we just can’t trust him anymore. You can disagree with the decision, but it’s a logical progression in thinking.

There’s no similar logical progression I’ve heard articulated for the NDP’s reversal, however. Harper’s defeat was a moral imperative before, but it’s not now? Harper couldn’t be trusted before, but he can now? You’ll vote no-confidence 59 times, but now an election is unavoidable? Many billions in stimulus funding, EI changes and more in the last budget isn’t worth grudging support, but a paltry $1 billion in minor EI reform that will benefit a small percentage of the unemployed is?

It begs the question, what has changed to explain the complete reversal in position? The only thing that changed is the NDP can no longer hide behind the Liberals. So, while the NDP made the only choice they could, it exposes their earlier moral piety as nothing but empty posturing that disappears when the chips are down, and their votes could actually trigger the election they never wanted all along.

And now we hear the NDP will be abstaining from Thursday’s confidence vote, as if that will make them feel better about keeping the Harper Conservatives in power. I know it didn’t when it was the Liberals in that position.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

CP: NDP to prop up Harper government

NDP to prop up Harper government
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire
Sep 16, 2009 13:01

OTTAWA - The NDP says it will support the Conservatives on a crucial budget motion Friday - and keep propping up the government long enough to pass EI legislation to help unemployed workers.

The news appears to rule out a fall election - as long as EI legislation is still in play.

It comes a day after the Bloc Quebecois announced that it will vote for the minority government's ways-and-means motion, averting an immediate election.

The motion is considered a matter of confidence, meaning the government needs the support of one of the opposition parties to survive.

New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair says his party will support the Tories until they pass legislation that would extend EI benefits to long-tenured workers.

That means a Liberal non-confidence motion expected the first week of October is likely to fail.

(The Canadian Press)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Talking to Canadians -- They think we’re all idiots

We political nerds tend to get bogged-down in the minutiae of political drama and forget how the drama tends to play with Canadians that don't share our love of all things political...

As the latest round of political drama has been swirling about in the nation's capital, I've been speaking regularly with my non-political friends and colleagues and trying to explain to them the events that have been transpiring and why they might lead to an election this fall. Or not.

Generally, the conservations seem to end with my rather perplexed non-political friends throwing up their arms and expressing the stupidity of it all. And I can't say I disagree. I mean, take a step back for a few minutes and really think about it.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Coalition? No, it's an, umm, confederacy!

My own personal fall election likelihood prediction (today I have it at 70%, down 15 points from yesterday) has bounced up and down like a rubber ball from day to day.

So who's to say if the apparent thawing of relations between the NDP and the Conservatives over EI (more like the NDP trying desperately to avoid an election and the Conservatives looking on rather disdainfully) will come to anything. Personally, I think Harper wants an election but doesn't want to be seen wanting an election, so no matter how badly Layton wants to deal, Harper will try to find a way to shake him off.

One thing I do know is that both parties will be incredibly adverse to the use of the c word, coalition, to describe their potential relationship. Accordingly, as a public service, allow me to suggest some alternatives:

affiliation, alliance, amalgam, amalgamation, anschluss, bloc, coadunation, combination, combine, compact, confederacy, confederation, conjunction, consolidation, conspiracy, faction, federation, fusion, integration, league, melding, mergence, merger, merging, party, ring, unification, union

Off hand I'd avoid anschluss for historical reasons (see Austria, Nazi occupation of), bloc (see Quebecois) and union (see labour). I rather like confederacy though, although as a Liberal, conspiracy has a certain ring to it.

But no. The Conservative-NDP Confederacy. Has a certain je ne sais quoi, non?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Videos) Ignatieff's coalition scrum and Power Play appearance

Here's a few video highlights from Michael Ignatieff's media scrum on Friday where he put the coalition bogeyman to rest:



And here's Ignatieff's appearance on CTV's Power Play with Tom Clark on Monday:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative EI proposals don't address eligibility and access

From the early reports I'm reading of the Conservative Party's rushed announcement on proposed employment insurance reforms (after a summer of offering nothing but hot air) I can't say I'm overly impressed:

The Tory government is proposing legislation to extend employment insurance by up to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley announced Monday.

Finley said the proposed measures, which would cost $935 million, would provide from five to 20 weeks of additional benefits depending on how long an eligible individual has been working and paying into EI.

Finley said the proposed legislation is a temporary measure that will be phased out gradually as the economy improves.

That's all fine and dandy, extended benefits are good. But it will do nothing for the many thousands of unemployed Canadians that don't even qualify for the program. It does nothing about the regional inequality of a system with a patchwork of national standards; there's nothing on national or even fewer regional standards or on a lower eligibility requirement.

These changes are fine, but there are months late and many dollars short. If the Conservatives were serious about EI reform, they would have brought these proposals to the joint Conservative-Liberal panel on EI reform during the summer.

Finley's presser today is an obvious attempt to make it appear the Conservatives are doing something on EI, without really doing much, going into an election. I would hardly call this a serious attempt at appeasing the NDP to avoid an election, as the Conservatives have done nothing to address the core concerns the NDP has around EI. Remember, the Liberals only wanted a temporary 360 hour national standard. The NDP wanted 360 hours permanently, and they chastised the Liberals for indicating "flexibility" on the number of hours.

Now, if the NDP does attempt to seize on this half-baked and inadequate Conservative proposal and call it a victory that lets them prop Harper up, they will be proven more desperate to avoid an election than I thought they were. And while I live to be surprised, I'd deem it unlikely.

No, there's nothing here that indicates Stephen Harper doesn't want an election this fall. And there's no fig-leaf for the NDP here either.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

My Election 41 pool pics

Some weeks back some local Liberals got together, we each chipped-in $20, and we did a draft of all 308 electoral districts in Canada. It's like a hockey pool, but for political nerds. After the next election, the person that drafted the most Liberal ridings wins.

For those interested, here are my picks. I expect the Liberals in these ridings to not disappoint me, and work very hard. There's big (not really) bucks on the line here!

St Laurent-Cartierville, York West, Cardigan, Bourassa, Scarborough Centre, Mississauga East—Cooksville, Don Valley East’ Madawaska—Restigouche’ Mississauga—Streetsville, Mississauga South, Vancouver South, Oakville, Burlington, Thornhill, Brant, Miramichi, Richmond, Ottawa Centre, West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky Country, Algoma--Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Cambridge, Victoria, Tobique—Mactaquac, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Windsor—Tecumseh, Lambton--Kent—Middlesex, Niagara West—Glanbrook, Delta--Richmond East, Carleton--Mississippi Mills, New Brunswick Southwest, South Surrey--White Rock—Cloverdale, Calgary West, Wellington--Halton Hills, Charleswood--St. James—Assiniboia, Renfrew--Nipissing—Pembroke, Terrebonne—Blainville, Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam, Verchères--Les Patriotes, Skeena--Bulkley Valley, Okanagan—Coquihalla, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Lethbridge, Prince George--Peace River, Vegreville--Wainwright

Obviously this is in the order drafted, and I won't hold high hopes for a Liberal sweep of rural Alberta. And with seven of us drafting, the solid Liberal ridings went quick. I was happy to get my sentimental first pick though, and I'm interested to see if my drafting strategy will pay dividends or not.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Playing the election blame game

My original headline on this column for the Post was "Playing the election blame game" but I imagine "Don't blame Ignatieff" will be how most Conservatives, particularly their commenters, will take it. I'd like to think my point was a little more nuanced than that, however.

My thesis, in essence, was that there's plenty of election responsibility to go around, and while, in the end I think the blame game is a media creation that goes away by writ day three, if the Conservative government does go down this fall, Stephen Harper has some explaining to do too.

As a Liberal, I can confidently say we made every effort to make this parliament work. Alas, I can't say the same for Steve.

Invariably, before any election all the parties try mightily to pin the blame for the trip to the polls on one of their opponents, on the tides, on anyone or anything but themselves. They seem to fear being blamed for the election very strongly, yet invariably as an issue it seems to die within days of the writ drop. It's one of those media truisms that never seems to hold true.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's Groundhog Day for Jack Layton

This afternoon, it’s expected that Jack Layton will hold a press conference. He hasn’t been seen in days, and with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff withdrawing his support for the Conservatives on Tuesday, all eyes are on the suddenly reclusive NDP leader: when he emerges will he declare that the Conservative winter is over for Canada, or will Jack see his shadow, and doom us to (at least) six more weeks of Harper government?

I wrote the other day about how Ignatieff has changed the dynamic going into the fall session of parliament. Is there any greater evidence of that than the fact Jack Layton, a man who never met a camera he didn’t like, hasn’t been available to the media some 48 hours after Ignatieff’s announcement, when the question on everyone’s mind has been: what will the NDP do?

While Layton’s reclusiveness is out of character, it’s perfectly understandable. Whereas before, he knew he could just reflectively declare he’s voting no and leave the Liberals to hold the bag, now he has a decision to make, and it’s a decision with consequences. So taking some time to consider his next step is prudent and advisable.

He has a few options. First, he could say Harper has to go and he will vote no to defeat the Conservatives at the earliest opportunity. This is possible, but not likely. He’s going to want to show that he at least made an effort at getting something from Harper, whether he’s optimistic of success or not. So, he can either enter into negotiations with the goal of extracting meaningful concessions to keep the government alive, or he can enter into negotiations with no real intention of making a deal, but just for cover to paint Harper as unreasonable.

There is a final possibility, of course: Layton could decide the Liberals are bluffing, and bet that Ignatieff will back down in the end, and prop up the government. Frankly, those are pretty long odds. If he won that bet, the payoff for the NDP would be huge: having left themselves no credible outs from Tuesday’s statements, Liberal credibility could be fatally wounded. But that’s why it’s unlikely to be a bluff. Ignatieff can’t back down from this, so if Layton made that bet it would be risky indeed.

I wrote previously about why a deal could make sense for both Harper and Layton, and why it could prevent challenges for the NDP as well, so I won’t rehash those argument in length. I will, however, offer this: when Layton was promising to vote against throne speeches and budgets he hadn’t read, he made clear there was a reason for that: it didn’t matter what Harper says at this point, the Conservatives just can’t be trusted.

We Liberals have tried to work with this guy and, sadly, we’ve come to the conclusion that Layton was right: the Harper Conservatives cannot be trusted. We gave him chance after chance, and we learned that the hard way. The EI panel shenanigans were just one of the final straws that made that abundantly clear.

So, if Layton does indicate today that he’s willing to deal with Harper, I think the question I’d want to ask him is “what makes you think you can trust Stephen Harper? What has changed?”

He fooled us once, Jack, so shame on me. But fool us twice? We shouldn’t get fooled again.

“If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want to replace him, I urge you to support the New Democrats -- now and in the next election.”
(Jack Layton’s response to Liberal’s decision to support the 2009 budget, January 28, 2009)

“If they're taking the wrong direction for the country, then I think a political party has to stand up against a government like Stephen Harper that leaves so many people behind and I think people expect you to stand on your principles.”
(Jack Layton, CBC-The House, August 15, 2009)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers