Video: Scrum shopping on Parliament Hill

Every day that the House of Commons is sitting, just before the end of question period members of the press gallery begin to gather in the foyer outside the chamber for the scrums. It's usually the best opportunity to grab an MP and get a few quick questions answered or some comments on the story of the day without having to phone communications staffers who have to fill out message event proposals.

There are three pool cameras and microphones set up in the foyer, one each on the government and opposition sides and one in the centre ostensibly reserved for the Prime Minister, although he rarely scrums and anyone can and does use it. Impromptu scrums will also often break-out throughout the foyer when an MP stops and is surrounded more informally by questioning reporters.

Reporters typically stake-out the government and opposition doors waiting to see if someone comes out they want to speak with. If someone is trying to dodge the media (say, Dean Del Mastro this past week) they can go out a back door out of sight. Government ministers also like to escape up the stairs (like Peter MacKay) as protocol dictates media don't follow up the stairs. Rarely will anyone want to speak with government backbencers, they can just walk through ignored by the media. Ministers are least likely to want to talk, while opposition members will often wonder around in the hopes a reporter will want to interview them.

One fun part of the scrum culture is that you're always looking for someone better. While you have your microphone in one scrum, you're often continuing to scan the foyer, in case someone you'd much rather speak to decided to come out and scrum. It's not uncommon for an opposition member to suddenly be abandoned when a government minister suddenly pops their head into the foyer. Some call it scrum shopping.

I've tried to capture some of the scrum shopping experience in this video, which I shot after question period on Monday. Look for cameos from Charlie Angus, Bob Rae, Tony Clement, Elizabeth May, James Moore and Peggy Nash. Watch for Rae and May at the PM's microphone (he was out of town).

 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Busy weekend for Michael Ignatieff

Looks like a busy weekend planned for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, which is always good to see.

Satuday

HANNON, Ont. _ Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff tours electrical workers' training centre and speaks to workers, union reps. Media availability to follow. (12 p.m. at International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Training Centre, 685 Nebo Rd.)

WATERLOO, Ont. _ Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff attends Liberal youth rally on university campus. Media availability to follow. (3:30 p.m. at Wilf's Pub, Fred Nichols Campus Centre, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave. W.)

Sunday

TORONTO _ Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff delivers greetings on behalf of Liberal party to Muslims celebrating Eid. (10 a.m. at Direct Energy Centre, Exhibition Place, Halls C&D, 100 Princes Blvd.)

Monday

TORONTO _ Michael Ignatieff speaks to the Toronto Board of Trade. (11:45 a.m. at 1 First Canadian Place)

This event later today could also prove interesting:

SIDNEY, B.C. _ Green party nomination vote for the riding of Saanich-Gulf Island. Leader Elizabeth May is in a contested race for the nomination. (2 p.m. at Mary Winspear Centre, Room 2A, 2243 Beacon Ave.)

I suspect that even with the inevitable nomination win by May, her challenger won't go gently into that sweet goodnight.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some advice for Elizabeth May

Regular readers may have been able to suss-out over time that I’m a Liberal supporter, but I like Green Party leader Elizabeth May – she’s good people – so with the news that she has apparently settled on Saanich-Gulf Islands as her riding of choice in the next election, I’m going to set aside my partisanship for a few minutes and offer her some advice.

First, she should pick a riding and stick with it. This hopping from riding to riding is madness. That was supposed to be the idea with Central Nova, but apparently she has concluded that’s a long(er) shot, so she’s trying another.

Frankly, I don’t think SGI is winnable for her either. If Conservative minister Gary Lunn wasn’t unseated last time, I think he’s pretty darned secure, barring calamity or major scandal. Look at the perfect storm the Liberals had in the riding last time – an unpopular minister, a popular Liberal candidate with strong green credentials in a very green-friendly riding (Briony Penn won't run again but is supporting Liberal nomination candidate Renee Hetherington), and no NDPer on the ballot after their candidate was forced to resign due to scandal. And still, despite lots of alleged shenanigans (phantom demon calling, questionable third-party advertising) Lunn got back in with a four per cent cushion, and 43 per cent of the vote.

None of the other parties are going to give an inch to May (I know the Liberals will be running hard), so she’s going to have a helluva road to climb to build on the 10.45 per cent the Greens got in the riding. More likely, she’ll contribute to vote-splitting, ensuring Lunn’s re-election by a more comfortable margin.

Still, May has to run somewhere. And SGI is probably as good a riding as any for her as any, being traditionally one of the strongest Green ridings in the country. It’s all relative, of course, but you need to start somewhere.

And, frankly, the last thing she should care about is vote-splitting. It really shouldn't give her pause. This brings me to my next, and most important piece of advice: May needs to decide is she wants to lead a serious political party or not.

If her goal is just to advance green issues whatever way she can and to get the Conservatives out of power, she should just join the Liberals. I hear Liberal Party president Alf Apps invited her to do just that, and she declined. That’s fine, she’s made her choice: now she needs to own it.

That means making clear that her mission is to elect Green Party of Canada candidates in all 308 ridings across the country, period. While she turned down Apps, she also reportedly said she’d like to be environment minister in a Liberal government. No, Ms. May. If that’s her goal, she should have run for the Liberals. These kind of mixed signals are demoralizing to her activists across the country, and don’t contribute to the Greens being seen as a serious party.

She needs to completely divorce herself from the idea of strategic voting. If she's running candidates everywhere she needs to support all of them, period. To do otherwise is unfair to them. In the last election, her mixed signals on this weren’t helpful. And the fact is, there is absolutely no scenario in which you can make a coherent strategic voting argument that ends with someone voting Green. The math just doesn’t work. So why go there? It doesn’t make sense.

So, my advice in a nutshell: pick a riding to put down roots in, avoid talk of strategic voting, who she’d like to be PM (unless its her) and what cabinet posts she’d like (except PM), and make clear she stands behind every Green candidate on the ballot and wants them all elected. If she's serious about building the Green Party, it’s the only way to go.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Election Post-Mortem, Part One: The Greens and the BQ

The Green Party


It's hard not to call this a successful campaign for the Green Party, at least on the surface. Granted, they didn't elect an MP, and they lost their kinda-sorta MP in Blair Wilson. But there were a lot of other victories for the Greens in this election.

They earned 6.8 per cent of the vote, up 2.3 per cent. They'll get a larger taxpayer subsidy. Elizabeth May participated in the televised leaders debates. They ran their first television ads. The Greens have arrived on the national political scene as a serious player, a fringe party no longer.

On the downside, they failed to elect an MP, despite their best-funded campaign ever, despite May's profile and performance in the debates, despite the Liberal non-aggression pact.

Moreover, I think the Greens have some soul-searching to do. The strategic voting yes, strategic voting no tap dance of May down the stretch was comical. And it seemed to speak to serious schisms within the party, with some candidates saying knock it off we want to win, and two candidates actually dropping-out to support Liberals.

The Greens need to ask themselves what want to be: are they a serious political party that stands for a range of policy options and wants to elect MPs to advance them, or do they want to merely fight the good fight, speak to those issues, and then allow or encourage their vote to melt away to more mainstream contenders?

Because I don't see how you can do both. And if the Greens are going to consolidate their gains and continue their growth, at some point they'll need to start acting like an actual political party that actually wants to elect people. For the Greens, strategic voting doesn't make sense. There's no riding where you can make the strategic argument to vote Green, and there never will be if they keep sending those mixed signals.

If your primary consideration is stopping Conservatives, join the party with the best chance of doing so. If you're concerned about vote-splitting on the left, then enter talks with the other parties about cooperation, or electoral reform. But if you're going to run candidates, you need to support all of them, not just some.

Leadership issues: I think Elizabeth May is offside with much of her party on these issues. Many of those that shared her views took the logical step of joining other parties and advancing the Green cause from within them. Many of those left stayed Green for a reason. If she's to stay as leader, they need to work these things out.

The Bloc Quebecois


This party has been written off more times than I can count. They were supposed to fade away after Dion and Chretien’s post-referendum initiatives and a Jean Charest provincial government contributed to a waning of support for sovereignty, but them sponsorship gave them a reprieve.

This election a surging Conservative Party was poised to decimate them, having spent two years and billions of dollars wooing Quebec nationalists, but two small missteps on culture and youth crime and a misread of the Quebecois gave the BQ new life. They also seemed to benefit more from the NDP's aggressive Quebec attack ads than the NDP did.

Much was made of a surging BQ in this election that would decimate the Conservatives in Quebec. That didn't materialize. The Quebec picture ended-up much the same as it was before the election, and actually down one seat from their 2006 result. However, the recovery of BQ support was enough to deny the Conservatives the majority the rest of the country voted them.

So once again a new lease on life for the BQ, but they still face questions about their continued reason for existence, and unless they can define themselves one wonders if Harper won't get it right in Quebec next time, and finally wipe them out. And praying for divine intervention once again doesn't seem like much of a strategy.

Since the BQ doesn't talk about sovereignty much anymore anyway, perhaps there is room for a Quebec-only nationalist party on the political scene. Reform was successful as a Western party, it was their desire to expand into Ontario (and challenge for government) that led to their struggles. How the BQ carry themselves in this parliament will be a test for them.

It seems to me though they're fighting over one (large) piece of the Quebec vote with the Conservatives and now the NDP, who both court that nationalist vote. The Conservatives can deliver things the BQ never will be able to. Unless they carve out a role of some sort, it's hard to see their future, particularly if the Liberals ever get their act together in Quebec.

Leadership issues: I can't see Gilles Duceppe being under pressure from within, but then I don't know that party. But it seems to me if he wants to keep the job, it's his. I just wonder how long he'll want it. What is there left for him to accomplish? At times, it just seems like he's going through the motions.

Tomorrow: Part Two: The NDP

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate

Nice to know that Greens watch The Simpsons too. From a CP story on Elizabeth May's whistle-stop tour:

It's a good thing for Green supporters, too, 40 of whom were waiting at the Saskatoon station for one of May's nocturnal rallies. They held signs that read: "I choo-choo choose Elizabeth May."

Go ahead. Throw your vote away!

PS. Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos last week.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why is Stephen Harper scared of Elizabeth May?

The leaders debates will be October 1st and 2nd in Ottawa, reports the Globe. Or will they...

There are concerns that Ms. May could throw her support behind the Liberals toward the end of the election, and the Conservative Party and the NDP have expressed strong reservations about her participation in the debate.

While the Liberals agree with inviting Ms. May, it's not clear that the Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will agree to appear if she is on the set.

Stephen, I've met Elizabeth, and she's really very nice. There's absolutely no need to run from the set in fright if you see her standing there.

Seriously. She won't bite.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Chrétien backs Dion on Central Nova/May alliance

I knew that Jean Chrétien have a speech last week in Nova Scotia, but I'd missed these comments about the decision not to run a candidate against Green Party leader Elizabeth May in Central Nova:

Chrétien, who delivered the annual Allan J. MacEachen lecture in politics at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, was asked what he thought about Dion's strategy not to field a candidate against Green party Leader Elizabeth May.

He said the rules permit Dion to take that approach.

"It's part of your responsibility; you're the leader, too. If you sit back and everyone tells you what to do, what the hell to be the leader for?" Chrétien said, to laughter from the audience.

"You should have a few ideas of your own. So, if you have the power, you use that."

Ah, Jean. Hearing from Chrétien reminds me of just how boring the political discourse has become in this country. We could use a little Chretien-style smackdown on the nervous nellies these days, me thinks.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You know you arrived when...

...national newspapers do silly features of dubious value on you, such as evaluations of your fitness routines.

Therefore Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, you have arrived! Congratulations. Peter McKay had better demand equal billing for his walking his rented dog fitness plan or he's in trouble…

Damaged hip dictates a careful routine
Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada leader

BENJAMIN LESZCZ
From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 25, 2007 at 8:56 AM EDT

My goal
"My right hip is painful from osteoarthritis, and I'm on the wait list for a replacement. My goal is to recover quickly from surgery and get back to the things I love."

My workout
Nearly everyday: 15-minute routine at home consisting of three exercises; pushes legs against the wall; balances on hands and knees and lifts right leg in the air; lies on back and straightens legs in the air (holds all three exercises for 30 seconds each, two to three sets of each).

Health club, weekly: 10 laps in the pool; some weights and a brief ride on the stationary bike.

Monthly massages.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Look over here! Shiny!

Besides it being incredibly dumb, I’m not surprised this whole ordinary family nonsense was started by the Deceivin’ Steven’s First Blogger the evening of the budget vote. It practically screams out ‘hey, forget what incompetent boobs we’re being right now and look over here!’

I think Ted and the others he has linked to have done a good job of exposing the stupidity of Taylor’s ‘thesis.’ Rather than pile on, I’d like to keep the focus on the incompetent bunging (ed: should that be competent bungling? because they seem so good at it.) of Deceivin’ Steven’ and company.

Last night the budget vote passed with the help of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Voting no was the exiled Bill Casey, kicked out of the Conservative caucus for standing on principle. Harper was able to bully the less principled Gerald ‘unsteady’ Keddy into line however (impressive given he'll be sleeping on the couch now) and as for his other Nova Scotia MP, well Peter McKay and principles haven’t been mentioned in the same sentence for years.

So while the earthquake may have passed (the Senate may bluster but they won’t mess with a money bill) the aftershocks will continue, and the damage won’t be clear until the next election

Interesting observations though today in the Post from John Ivison who, while he thinks Harper is right on the facts, thinks the man once hailed (ed: by his supporters) as a master political strategist couldn’t have handled this worse:

The question is -- armed with such a compelling case -- how has the Prime Minister contrived to come across like a schoolyard bully, threatening lawsuits against all dissenters?

Conservative MPs, staffers and supporters are united in their condemnation of the way the issue has been handled by the Prime Minister's Office. "The people in PMO communications meant to help MPs understand the audience don't get them. They don't get the pride, the passion and the tribalism of the East," said one source.

"Dropping a sledgehammer on two of the provinces that endorsed you at the last election is not exactly the way to say 'thank you' on a file that clearly touches a chord in Atlantic Canada," said another senior Conservative.

This government's obsession with secrecy and control will be its downfall. The Conservative party has a front-bench overflowing with natural communicators and a strong story to tell, yet it seems either reluctant or unable to do so. It takes a real organizational talent to fritter away that advantage.

Rather than consider the advice, I suspect the Harper PMO is instead about to launch a mole hunt for the anonymous staffers. And let me say, as a partisan Liberal, it sure is nice to see anonymous senior Conservatives talking smack about their party in the media for a change. Not a leader, yada yada.

Meanwhile, I’m going to Las Vegas next week but I suspect it’s too late to clean-up with a long odds bet on Elizabeth May to take Central Nova. Should have put some cash down a few months ago, as I bet the oddsmakers have already adjusted the line, as the mood in Nova seems ugly:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Nova Scotia’s embattled representative in the cabinet, has kept a low profile since the province’s Conservative premier and one of its Tory MPs started denouncing the federal budget as an abject betrayal.

But in his riding of Central Nova, local residents had plenty to say Tuesday about their MP and his chances for re-election.

“I voted for Peter MacKay, but I would have a hard time voting for him anymore,” said Linda MacDonald of Westville as she sat in a local coffee shop.

“I have watched him on many issues turn about face.... That’s a real issue with me right now.”

Her friend, George MacDonald, said he was impressed by the stand taken by maverick MP Bill Casey, who was thrown out of the Conservative caucus last week for voting against a budget implementation bill.

I’ll give the last word to 2004 Deceivin’ Steven (not to be confused with 2007 Deceivin’ Steven):

"What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Exclusive: More food polling numbers

You may have read about yesterday’s Harvey’s hamburger poll, but that was just the first of what will be a bountiful harvest of food-related polling numbers. My sources in the mysterious world of public opinion measurement have forwarded me the results of a couple of polls to be released in the coming days, and I’m going to share the high-level results with you.

The first poll is the East Side Mario’s Vegetable Lasagna poll, which asked Canadians which federal political leader they’d most like to invite out for a dinner of vegetable lasagna. Dion did better here than he did with the hamburger crowd, but still lagged behind the leader. And Harper suffered a serious setback with the veggie crowd. Here’s the numbers:

Jack Layton: 30 per cent
Elizabeth May: 28 per cent
Stephane Dion: 25 per cent
Stephen Harper: 11 per cent
Gilles Duceppe: 6 per cent
Sample size 1000 Canadians MOE: +/- 5 percentage points 19 times out of 20

These results aren’t overly surprising, after all vegetarians tend to be lefties and Harper eats nothing but Alberta beef.

The next poll is the La Boulangerie Quiche Loraine poll, which asked Canadians which federal political leader they’d most like to share Quiche Loraine with.

Stephane Dion: 37 per cent
Stephen Harper: 29 per cent
Jack Layton: 15 per cent
Giles Duceppe: 14 per cent
Elizabeth May: 5 per cent
Sample size 1500 Canadians MOE: +/- 4 percentage points 19 times out of 20

Here Dion scored very well, though he still lost to Duceppe in the Quebec numbers. Harper showed surprising strength with quiche eaters as well. Much of May’s support came from vegans, which hurt her quiche numbers.

So, I think the results of these surveys when viewed together show us that Canada is indeed a diverse, multi-gastronomical mosaic, unlike the gastronomic stewing-pot of the U.S., for example. And clearly no political leader has had much success growing their support beyond their gastronomic base.

And doing so is fraught with challenge. If Harper, for example, starts eating vegetable lasagna in public, that may cost him support with his beef-eating base that will think he’s gone sissy. Unless, of course, they recognize the vegetable-eating is only part of the majority quest, and part of his hidden dinner agenda. His frequent quiche photo-ops, though, have yet to pay dividends, despite the ADQ’s breakthrough.

UPDATE: Just in case it's unclear, those last two polls are made up. No one likes vegetable lasagna. But the hamburger one though is totally real.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Neville!!!

I wonder if former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ever knew his lasting contribution to the world would be to serve as an analogous prop for lazy politicians looking to warn of the dangers of appeasement/ignoring grave threats? Seriously, they should put him on a stamp or something, or give a pound sterling to his estate for each mention.

The latest politician to fall into the trap of using the Chamberlain/appeasement analogy, and get thwacked for allegedly making a Nazi comparison is, of course, the Green Party’s Elizabeth May. She was out of line, and was roundly condemned for the remarks. Allow me to add my note of displeasure to the chorus. (Not to sidetrack, but I found her religious comments more disturbing).

May is not the only politician to play the Chamberlain card however. Far from it. A mini Web brouhaha erupted last spring when Bob Rae used the analogy while talking softwood lumber. And, as MacLeans.ca reports in an amusing article (make Radwanski editor of the print mag and I'll read it), Chamberlain has been a favourite crutch over the years for politicians of all stripes, and no one should be too pious in their denunciations.

While, on the one hand I guess it’s good our politicians have enough faith in our education system to expect most Canadians will know who the hell Neville is, let alone the history of appeasement and the Munich Pact, there seems to be a certain intellectual laziness creeping into our political discourse with this overuse of the Chamberlain example. Can we not to do better people?

I think Neville has had his day in the sun, and it’s time for a Chamberlain moratorium. Is there not some other historical analogy we can use? History majors, time to put those degrees to use! We need a new Neville Chamberlain-like analogy for the 21st Century.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What else? The Dion/May thing

I hesitate to kill more virtual trees over analyzing the May/Dion thing but I'll say this, in typical Liberal fashion: it will either go really well, or really badly.

The more I think about it though, the more I think it's a good, although risky move. On reflection I think the whole running in each riding thing is more important to politicos than it is to regular Canadians. The one part I still have trouble with is the plight of the Liberals in Central Nova, I know if this happened in my riding I'd be pissed. Hopefully I'd get over it, but I'd be pissed.

I certainly understand the objections of Liberals that have concerns with the move, like my friend Ted. I don't agree with them all, but I understand. I think though that, as I said, what we as political junkies feel is important aren't necessarily what most Canadians feel is important.

And I think most Canadians are tired of the partisanship and the rancor of three years of minority governments. They don't care about long-held political traditions, they have other things on their mind. But they do see politicians as increasingly childish, and they want to see politicians try to work together. I think they'll welcome, and applaud, moves in that direction.

If, that is, the messaging is done right here. The spin war has already begun, the battle for the hearts and minds if you will. Hopefully we can pull this one off. As I said, it will go well (seen as working together for the greater good) or it will go badly (seen as political opportunism). Time will tell.

Blowback

This certainly seems to have many grand Liberal mucky-mucks upset, given the large number of anonymous “senior Liberals” being quoted by the gossip columnists. Pretty chickenshit to be hiding be hiding anonymity to make comments like: "In Monty Python lexicon -- we are the silly party." Anyway, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this “insiders” nonsense, their motivations are far from pure.

I did laugh out loud (it deserved to be spelled out rather than LOL'd) at this line though:

The criticism from senior Liberals also focuses on what this deal says to the grassroots...

Yes, because senior Liberal insiders have always been sooooooo in touch and concerned with the grassroots before. Trust me friends, the grassroots are liking this.

That brings me to the Conservatives, who for some reason sent Monte Solberg out to spin on this one. I thought it was a pretty weak performance, and this bit was particularly amusing:

He also says Dion must explain to Canadians whether he endorses the entire Green Party platform - and agrees with them that Canada should leave the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Tories have co-operated with the Bloc Quebecois to pass their budget and keep Parliament alive.

But Solberg quickly dismissed a suggestion that - by his own logic - that means the Conservatives could be accused of supporting Quebec independence.

"The Bloc Quebecois thinks it's in the interest of Quebec to support the Conservative budget and we agree with that. This is about Stephane Dion's leadership," Solberg said.

Yeah, hey, look over there! Sponsorship, and what not! Pay no attention to the man behind the mirror, or my logical contortions! Oppsy.

The Cons though only see this as an opportunity to gain some ground though, they don't stand to lose from the Dion/May deal.

Now, the NDP on the other hand...which would explain Jack Layton's rather angry response. Long story short, he's threatened. He needn't have been, it seems May wanted to work with him to and he refused to take her calls. One hopes if we ever see the kind of electoral reform the NDP advocates, he'd be more willing to work with the other progressive parties.

I can't blame him though for trying to maximize his gains under the current system. Disappointing, but entirely understandable. I will, however, say this. If we're picking dance partners and the Liberals and Greens are doing the tango, I wouldn't want to be the NDP left on the dance floor with the Harper Conservatives...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Libs won't run candidate against May

Canadian Press is reporting Stephane Dion has decided not to run a candidate against Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in Central Nova. The Greens also won't run someone against Dion in St. Laurent-Cartierville, and May reportedly will “essentially endorse” Dion for PM, CP reports.

Wow. I'm not too sure yet how I feel about this. A first thought is I don't like the fact we won't be running candidates in every riding across Canada. We've always prided ourselves on being a national party, at times (arguably) the only truly national party out there. And I have to wonder how the Liberal riding association in Central Nova feels about this. How are Green Party activists going to react?

There's lots of reasons as a politico to be wary of this thing. But the larger question is how will regular Canadians outside the Ottawa bubble view it? Will it be seen as political opportunism? I know that's how the Cons (and I'd wager particularly the NDP) will be spinning it. But is it? I'm not so sure. Certainly it gives May a boost in Central Nova, though she still faces an uphill battle. I don't think the Greens were going to take many votes in Dion's riding, which he won handily, so little gain there. The gain for the Liberals will be in the May endorsement, whatever form that may take.

While both sides gain though I don't think you can call it opportunism. At least, not in the negative connotation that you'd be implying. Certainly not if the goal is real, meaningful action on the environment and green issues.

To that end, I'd say if we're going to do this we should go big or go home. Follow-up with a jointly developed environmental policy platform, a Green Book if you will, that both parties will take to the people of Canada and say here is why we're working together, this is what we want to accomplish.

This move has the potential to be a harbinger of a new more cooperative style of politics, and could resonate with Canadians...but only if, I think, it is followed-up with substantive policy action. Hopefully that will be part of the official announcement, or will be soon to come.

Still digesting all this though, will wait for the official news with interest.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's Conservative team

More numbers from SES Research today, and these ones are decidedly less positive for the Liberals than these. It's the infamous “Best PM” numbers, and once again Steve Harper is a run-away leader while Stephane Dion lags well back.

Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister:
Stephen Harper: 42 per cent
Stephane Dion: 17 per cent
Jack Layton: 16 per cent
Gilles Duceppe: 7 per cent
Elizabeth May: 4 per cent
None: 7 per cent
Unsure: 6 per cent

Not a good situation for the Dion Liberals. As I've said before this isn't insurmountable (particularly given the party support numbers) but, and it's a big but, we need to start turning this around soon before it does become insurmountable. I mentioned the other day how the Liberals have been unable to build their support in the party support numbers; it would appear Dion's (lack of) popularity is holding those numbers back.

I'd wager those "Not a Leader" attack ads from the CPC have found their mark. While they haven't budged Liberal support, they have weakened Dion as a leader and sapped his ability to grow the party's support. What's the answer? Hey, I think he's the bees knees so it's hard for me to say. One thing I often hear is when people see him in person, they like him, so keep getting him out there. And hope there's no election this spring.

While Dion lags his party in popularity, it's also interesting to note Harper is more popular than his party by six points. It wasn't that long ago Conservatives saw Harper as a liability, now he looks to be their greatest asset. A cautionary note, I think, on how quickly these things can change. Will be interesting to see how this might effect CPC strategy: even more all Harper, all the time?

Looking at the regional numbers (pdf), hard to find any bright spots for the Libs:

And here's commentary from SES boss Nik Nankos:

What is emerging is a situation where one leader is ahead of his party (Harper) and another leader trails his party (Dion). Of note, Harper is the second choice as the best PM among committed Liberals, New Democrats and BQ voters and the first choice as Best PM in the province of Quebec.

As shown in the previous research conducted with CPAC, Harper does well on leadership factors. From a polling perspective, Liberal ballot box support is being maintained by entrenched party support. The Conservatives are more likely to be encumbered by residual concerns on social issues (code - abortion/same sex marriage etc.).

Even with these numbers, one should exercise caution. Perceptions of leaders can turn quickly. All it would take is for one attack ad on Dion to go too far to potentially turn the numbers and change the environment.

Interesting times. I still think things are volatile. You have to remember, In our first past the post system, with 40% support winners take all. With numbers like these we may see more of a “Harper Government” and less of the “New Conservative Government”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers