Confusing Canadians about coalitions to score political points

We hear a lot about coalitions these days, and it seems clear there’s a bit of confusion out there about what it means and just what the post-election options for cooperation are – confusion likely deliberately spread by the NDP.

I was canvassing in Scarborough the other day. It’s a riding that was Liberal for many years, until 2011 when the NDP took enough Liberal vote for the Conservatives to win with little growth in vote. And they’re trying hard for a repeat. I knocked on the door of a woman who told me she had voted Liberal all her life and really likes Justin Trudeau, but she’s thinking of voting NDP for the first time. Why? Well, she wants to get rid of Stephen Harper, and the NDP was at her door recently and told her that Trudeau doesn’t want a coalition to defeat Harper – he’d rather see Harper stay.

It’s an example of the NDP strategy across the country – try to solidify the anti-Harper vote (even in ridings where it would likely just help elect Conservatives) behind them by painting the Liberals as unwilling to cooperate to defeat Harper, or worse, to even prop him up instead of supporting the NDP. It’s a pretty disingenuous, not to mention dishonest, approach to take, but it may prove effective.

Like any good strategy, there’s at least a modicum of truth: yes, Trudeau has said no to a coalition. Consistently so, in fact. Unlike the NDP; Tom Mulcair’s position has flip-flopped too many times to count, usually tied to their position on the polls.

For example, here’s what he said on the topic in 2012:

“N.O. The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop.”

Now that the polls show he could form a minority government that would need support from someone, his tune has changed. If you notice though, the word the NDP keeps using, and what Trudeau actually said no to, is coalition. And that’s the operative word.

What is a coalition? A governing coalition is a joint governing agreement where the two parties sit on the government side, and share cabinet ministers and a legislative agenda. Think the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats in the last UK parliament. We’ve never had a governing coalition in Canada before, and the word never really came up before 2011 when the Liberals and the NDP briefly tried to form one.

We may not have had coalition governments, but we’ve had minority governments. Many of them long lasting and extremely productive. Lester Pearson’s Liberal minorities brought us many of the progressive social policies Canadians cherish today. All without a coalition. David Peterson’s Ontario Liberal minority provides a great example. The NDP agreed to support a Liberal government for two years, in exchange for action on several specific NDP legislative priorities. The NDP didn’t sit with the government, and was free to vote as it wished on bills that weren’t matters of confidence.

Cooperation. That’s the word you don’t hear the NDP using today. Because Trudeau hasn’t said no to cooperation. That door is very much open, and so it should be. Should the NDP be in the position to form a minority government (which is frankly rather presumptuous at the moment) I could certainly see the Liberals agreeing to support a budget and throne speech in exchange for the inclusion and support of a number of key Liberal policy priorities. It would need to be negotiated, but the door is very much open.

And that is what the woman whose door I knocked on in Scarborough wanted: the door open to cooperation to defeat the Harper Conservatives. The NDP tried to confuse her with talk of coalitions; she was relieved to learn cooperation was definitely not off the table and she could still vote her conscience, instead of being bullied into a strategic vote that, in her riding, would not be very strategic at all.

A poll today, from a notoriously unreliable pollster, says most Canadians favour a Liberal/NDP coalition. I don’t doubt the respondents said that, but I do doubt the difference was explained to them between coalition and cooperation. I believe a majority of Canadians want to see progressives cooperate to defeat Harper; I don’t think they care which of the “c” words gets us there.

Why no to a coalition?

Why do Liberals oppose a coalition? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I believe being the junior partner in a governing coalition with the NDP would be the death of the Liberal Party. The right flank of the party would flee in revulsion, into the hands of the Conservatives. And the other half of the party would come to the conclusion that they may as well just join the NDP since we’re in bed with them anyways. And frankly, while both the NDP and the Conservatives want to see the Liberals disappear and are working towards that end, the Conservatives certainly believe the math of a two-party state (putting aside the Greens and BQ for a moment) favours them. And I tend to agree.

Thankfully though, despite the misinformation the NDP is trying to spread, coalition is not the only option. Liberals are open to cooperating with them, even if they seem very determined to make it hard to do so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What would Jack Layton say about Linda McQuaig’s push for a two-person debate?

Four federal by-elections have been called for Nov. 25^th, including in Toronto Centre. While a new poll shows the Liberals comfortably ahead, I think it’s going to be a real battle. And so does NDP candidate Linda McQuaig, judging by the gambit she launched this weekend.

McQuaig is challenging Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland to a one-on-one debate on income inequality, a topic they’ve both written about at some length. Such a debate would exclude every other party running in this election, such as the Green Party and, oh yeah, the folks with a majority government that are running the country, the Conservatives.

Big difference between @cafreeland & me on income inequality. Debate wd help #torcen residents decide. #ndp #lpc http://t.co/gGNEf9Xc8N
— Linda McQuaig (@LindaMcQuaig) October 20, 2013

Freeland isn’t taking the bait; she says she’s looking forward to many debates with all the candidates.

Looking fwd to taking part in all-candidates debates over the coming weeks. Important for #torcen voters to hear from all parties #cdnpoli
— Chrystia Freeland (@cafreeland) October 21, 2013

Of course, the idea of excluding major parties for more limited debates isn't new. In 2008, the NDP and Conservatives teamed-up to bar Green Party Elizabeth May from the leaders debate. After pressure from the Liberals and Canadian citizens, the NDP and leader Jack Layton backed down, and the Greens were included.

McQuaig isn't talking about excluding the other parties she must not consider contenders from all debates though, apparently. Just from this one.

.@cafreeland Yes -- all candidates debates! How 'bout extra one on impt topic -- rising inequality -- we've both studied? #torcen #cdnpoli
— Linda McQuaig (@LindaMcQuaig) October 21, 2013

Of course, an additional debate of just two so-called front-runners isn't a new idea either. In the 2011 election, Stephen Harper challenged then Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate that would have excluded the NDP's Layton. Ignatieff quickly accepted the challenge; Harper then quickly changed his mind -- he wanted it to replace all leaders debates. And that obviously wasn't on.

In retrospect, such a debate would have been rather arrogant and exclusionary, as fun as it all was at the time. The voters like to decide for themselves among all the candidates though, as the results of that election (vaulting the NDP into the official opposition) would show.

Which brings us back to Layton. What would he have to say about having a separate one-on-one debate that doesn't include other parties, as McQuaig is seeking to do in Toronto-Centre? Well, we know what he had to say about it in 2011:



Layton called this idea an "anti-democratic approach" the he didn't think was right or would be accepted by Canadians. He noted it "prejudges the position of Canadians" and compared it to American-style politics. So Layton, clearly, would have a problem with what the NDP is proposing in Toronto-Centre.

One has to wonder if McQuaig ran this by new NDP leader Tom Mulcair. And one also has to wonder what McQuaig and Freeland would debate, as most of McQuaig's ideas on the topic have been soundly and publicly disavowed by Mulcair as unrepresentative of the party's position.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cell phone packages and cable bills: Is this the real middle class agenda?

The Harper government won’t deliver its speech from the throne until Wednesday, but the theme has been telegraphed for months, and much of the contents well-leaked over the past week. The government will appropriate the middle class theme that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been trumpeting since he began his leadership run, and will appropriate several mini-policies the NDP has proposed over the years, including ones the Conservatives have voted against in the past.

It’s time-worn political tactics to attempt to neuter the opposition by outflanking them, and the Conservatives are clearly concerned with the apparent durability of current Liberal popularity under Trudeau. Normally they’d want to strengthen the NDP to balance off the Liberals, but borrowing some of their micro-policies allows them to put some grizzle on their middle class bones and, in the best Conservative tradition of micro-targeting, allows them to offer something tangible to their target voters,  like the transit and arts program credits of past budgets, at little cost.

What micro-policies? We’re hearing through carefully-placed media leaks, and on the record interviews like Sunday's from industry minister James Moore, about airline regulations to strengthen passenger rights in situations such as overbooking, wireless carrier regulations to favour users when it comes to contracts and subsidies, regulations around the bundling of channels in cable packages, and other things of this nature. You can never go wrong picking on Air Canada and the big three wireless carriers, after all. It’s being billed as a “consumer agenda.”

Besides trying to outflank the opposition, it’s a pretty transparent attempt by the Conservatives to change the channel from the drip drip of a Senate scandal that seems to be in no hurry of letting up. Which isn’t to say it won’t work. At some point, political scandal becomes white noise. But when Canadians hear (no doubt in a coming wave of taxpayer-funded Economic Action Plan ads) that the government is going to make their cable bills cheaper, that’s real to them and their lives, today. It will resonate. So it very much has merit.

Let’s put aside for now that ideological conservatives must be aghast at what they’re hearing. If a Liberal government proposed an agenda of across the board sweeping intervention in private industry, protecting consumers against greedy corporations, the right would go insane. Instead, let’s ask, does what is being proposed by the government really qualify as a middle class agenda?

To hear Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the problem with the leaked throne speech contents is that the Conservatives are late (and probably not overly genuine) converts to the consumer agenda, and should have voted for these things when the NDP proposed them and/or put them forward years earlier in their government.

OK, sure. But how about mentioning the stunning lack of ambition of the Harper government? With a majority government, having hit the reset button to put forward a new agenda for governing Canada, they come up with cable bills, cell phones and airline overbooking? This is why they want to govern? This is their agenda for a 21^st Century Canada?

I have no doubt these items will be superficially popular with middle class Canadians. So would buying everyone a pony. And if middle class Canadians were to take a break from running the kids around to extra-circulars and making school lunches for a moment, they’d realize having to pay for more cable channels than they want isn’t their biggest worry.

Their bigger worries are probably how are they going to save for their children’s education and pay off their mortgage at the same time? How are they going to be able to care for their ageing parents when they’re no longer able to care for themselves? How will they ever be able to afford to retire? And what if one of them loses their jobs?

We need a government that looks at the bigger picture, and thinks to the future. The government's priority shouldn’t be cell phones and cable bills, and the problem isn’t that they didn’t ban airline overbooking sooner. The problem is this government’s stunning lack of ambition. Stunning, and deliberate, as the Conservatives don’t see a role for government in education, in health care, in elder care (and yet, bizarrely, they do in regulating cell phone plans).

This is a middle class agenda that demonstrates a stunning level of ignorance of and disdain for the middle class, and for all Canadians. The challenge will be getting Canadians to look past momentary self-interest, and think of themselves, not as consumers, but as citizens.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals and NDP pick their Toronto-Centre by-election candidates

A busy day in downtown Toronto on Sunday, as both the Liberals and the NDP picked their candidates to replace Bob Rae as the MP for Toronto-Centre at nomination meetings just a subway stop apart. It made for interesting comparisons, and I attendeed both meetings.

The Storify below shares some of the highlights of my live-tweeting and selected tweets by others, so I won't rehash the entire day at length. Rather, I'll share some thoughts on the result and, with respect to the other parties, the marquee match-up of the upcoming by-election: Liberal Chrystia Freeland and NDPer Linda McQuaig.

As a Liberal, I think Hollet would have concerned me more. She's more in the mold of a polished politician, more moderate, younger, has the Much Music cred, and would have been a threat to woo moderate Liberal/NDP swing voters. McQuaig is much more the voice of the left wing NDP base. She has national profile, communicates forcefully, knows her stuff, and will no doubt have a very well-funded campaign. She will energize their base, but can she grow it? I'm sceptical, but she'll need to in order to win.

I mentioned comparisons; here's one. We heard a lot more about Justin Trudeau and the Liberals from the NDP than we did about Tom Mulcair and the NDP (or the Harper Conservatives) from the Liberals. Sensible strategy, but also telling. In her pre-vote speech, McQuaig was already looking past Hollet and running hard against Freeland. The NDP are going to run a negative and personal campaign, against both Freeland and Trudeau. It will be interesting to see how the Liberals respond.

I got to see both Freeland and McQuaig speak today; again, another interesting comparison. Both highly intelligent, accomplished women, with strong and differing views on economic issues. Both very different styles. McQuaig is vocal, in your voice, knock you over with the point. Freeland is more conversational, build an argument, persuade you. Both styles have merit. I think McQuaig's forcefulness will begin to grate, but Freeland is going to need to fight back strongly too. If McQuaig's challenge will be to moderate, Freeland's will be to develop her skills as a retail politician that can give as well as she takes.

It is shaping up as a very interesting race, and I look forward to seeing how it plays out. No, I don't mean them both being journalists -- only other journalists care about that. We're probably about to hear more actual substantive debate about economic policy than we've had in Canadian politics in a generation, which ain't a bad thing (Harper only says he's focused on the economy, he doesn't much talk about it).

Elections should be about clear choices on important issues, and both sides will get a good hearing from Freeland and McQuaig.

UPDATE: Pundit's Guide was also at both meetings, and offers her take here with 23 differences between the two meetings.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

NDP puts its flawed unity policy on the table for 2015 election

You might say I was against the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration before it was cool. Having somewhat of an interest in the unity of Canada, I’ve long been aware of the emptiness of NDP policy when it comes to handling the unthinkable but not implausible – a referendum on a province leaving confederation – and their duplicitous habit of saying one thing in Quebec, and one thing in the rest of Canada.

For some time, they played this two-faced game. In Quebec, they declared Sherbrooke was their policy. In the “rest of Canada” they claimed fidelity to the Clarity Act. And, when challenged, they claimed there was no contradiction between the two – a position easily exposed as utter nonsense.

Nearly two years ago I outlined at length how the two positions were contradictory, I invite you to read that post for the background. Needless to say, whenever I’d bring up their conflicting positions on the unity file, NDPers would accuse me of dredging up dead and irrelevant issues, that by winning seats in Quebec they’d killed separatism forever, and talking about it would only lead to the end of all life as we know it.

Until, I suppose, when they want to talk about it:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has waded into the national unity swamp, with proposed legislation specifying that a bare majority Yes vote would be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec’s secession from Canada.

New Democrat MP Craig Scott tabled Monday what his party is dubbing the “unity bill.”

The bill would repeal the Clarity Act — introduced by former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien after Quebecers came within a hair of voting to secede in 1995 — and replace it with legislation which Mulcair maintained would provide more certainty and be more respectful of Quebecers.

I will credit the NDP for one thing – they have ended their two-faced wishy-washiness on the Clarity Act vs. the Sherbrooke Declaration: they are against the Clarity Act, full stop. It’s probably the most significant policy shift the NDP has made since Tom Mulcair took over for the late Jack Layton.

Unfortunately, it’s a completely irresponsible and just plain wrong position un-befitting of a party propposing itself as ready to govern all of Canada. You need a 2/3s vote to amend the NDP constitution, but they will let the separatists break up Canada with 50 per cent plus one. That’s irresponsible in the extreme.

And who is opening a dead issue now? The Clarity Act has been the law of the land for nearly 13 years. The federalist vote in Quebec increased after its passage. Is there anyone clamoring for its repeal, other than the Bloc Quebecois, and perhaps the former sovereigntists in Mulcair’s Quebec caucus?

I don’t think so. Nevertheless, Mulcair and the NDP seem to want to make this a national issue, given that the bill was tabled by a Toronto MP, Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth). So, speaking as one Liberal and just for himself (though I’m sure I’m not alone) I’m happy to take him up on his generous offer.

Now that Mr. Mulcair has given us his blessing, I’m looking forward to the 2015 election, where we can talk across Canada about the NDP’s belief that Canada can dissolve our confederation with one scant vote. I think that will be a most interesting debate that voters in Toronto-Danforth, and across *all* of Canada, will be very interested in.

So thank-you, Mr. Mulcair. I’m looking forward to it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons vs. NDP on Dutch Disease shows marginalization of Liberal Party

I remarked last week on Twitter about how NDP leader Tom Mulcair has been dominating my daily news clip package lately, as his comments about an alleged Canadian case of “Dutch Disease” and subsequent trip to the Alberta oil sands spark a heated debate about the Canadian resource sector and its impact on the manufacturing sector and the wider economy.

A piece in Macleans recently helped put into context how this debate is an example of a rare issue where it’s advantageous to both sides to stoke the fire, something the NDP and the Conservatives have wasted no time doing.

It was a rare case of both sides seizing on the same acrimonious argument as a potential political winner. If they continue to see it that way, this regionally sensitive clash over economic and environmental policies could be a defining factor in framing the choice between continued Conservative rule and the NDP alternative. So get ready for “Dutch disease” to claim a key place in the vernacular of federal politics.

The article doesn’t mention the Liberals at all, save a throw-away line about Mulcair not wanting to be defined by the Conservatives as were Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. And that omission is telling, for this whole Dutch Disease/resource sector debate raises (for Liberals, if no one else) an important question: in a Canada where the political debate is increasingly polarized between left and right, NDP and Conservatives, are the Liberals being squeezed out?

Polarizations of the sort we’re seeing around this issue tend to lead to a simplification of the issues: make dirty polluters pay, support a valuable strategic industry that provides billions in tax revenue. And that’s what we’re seeing here: black and white lines being drawn.

Of course, in modern governance few, if any issues are black and white, and neither are the actual positions of the respective antagonists in this debate, even if they underplay that. There are many reasons for the decline of Ontario’s manufacturing sector. Few suggest shutting down the oil sands tomorrow. And credible plans to price carbon have been rejected by both sides. Still, it serves both sides to oversimplify the debate into good vs. evil, which side is which depending on your perspective.

While the NDP and Conservatives may be well-served by oversimplifying complex topics, the question is, are Canadians? I think most Canadians wouldn’t fit neatly into either camp on this issue. I think most would say we need to develop the oil sands in as green and sustainable a way as possible, as we do need those jobs and tax dollars and while, yes, we must develop alternative fuel sources, in the interim the world does still run on oil. And we must do what we can to ensure a vibrant economy in all regions of the country.

That’s not a position we’re hearing from either the NDP or the Conservatives in this debate, although many on either side would probably agree with it. We’ve heard little to nothing from the Liberals through this debate, thepoints they’ve had being drowned-out by the polarized din from either side.

Is there room for the Liberals to take a middle-ground position in this debate? And, even though it may be shared by many Canadians, would it even be heard above the noise of the left vs. right battle?

I don’t know. But the Liberals are going to have to find a way to make themselves heard on this and other issues, because this polarization isn’t going to be going away. This phenomenon is going to become more and more common and the Liberals risk being rendered irrelevant in the national debate. This issue is emblematic of the challenge facing our party.

And whether or not it’s from the Liberals, Canadians do deserve another option besides an oversimplified left and an oversimplified right.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberals need to rethink their Quebec approach

Since the election of former Quebec cabinet minister Thomas “Tom” Mulcair as leader of the NDP last month, much attention has been paid to the political situation in Quebec and the consensus seems to be the Liberals are screwed in the province.

Consolidating NDP gains in Quebec is certainly a priority for the party, and as a high-profile former minister in the Charest government whose departure from cabinet was spun as a matter of principle, Mulcair gives the NDP their best shot at holding and building on those gains.

Already, commentators such as Chantal Hebert are touting Mulcair as the new federalist champion, a position the Liberals used to like to claim:

He is well placed to establish the NDP as the default federalist party in Quebec — and, by the same token, to reduce its dependency on the nationalist vote at the expense of the Liberals.

As of the convention, Mulcair has become the top Quebec federalist on the federal scene, coming second for pre-eminence in the province’s federalist line-up to Premier Jean Charest.

While I don’t think she intended the comment in this way, Hebert also obliquely hinted at the potential weakness for Mulcair here:

Mulcair’s federalist credentials are important to his national standing. They will matter even more in Quebec if the Parti Québécois wins the provincial election.

Which raises the legitimate question: just how strong are his federalist credentials? A closer examination puts him firmly in the mainstream of Quebec’s political elite, the same “federalists” that savagely attacked Stephane Dion, dismissed Jean Chretien as unpolished and un-Quebec and tried to sideline him from the last referendum, and are determined to play footsie with soft nationalists by demanding ever more special powers and special treatment for Quebec.

The 30^th anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was yesterday, and the statements of both Mulcair and the Conservative government are interesting. It’s pretty clear both are fishing in that same soft-nationalist waters.

Here’s part of the NDP’s statement, which was finally released late in the day Tuesday after the media became vocal wondering if the party was going to ignore the charter’s anniversary:

At the same time, the anniversary of the Charter also serves to remind us that, 30 years after the repatriation of the Constitution, Quebec is still not a signatory to the most fundamental compact of our democracy.

 As such, New Democrats will continue on the path laid out by Jack Layton, working to create the conditions that will one day allow Quebec to embrace the Canadian constitutional framework. We will work tirelessly to give real meaning to the unanimous recognition that the Québécois form a nation within Canada.

Similar comments from Harper on why the federal government is only marking the charter anniversary with a brief press release:

“In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it's an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the Charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country,” Mr. Harper said.

And then there’s the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration and their opposition to the Clarity Act, a position they’ve tried to soft-play in the rest of Canada.

There has long been a tug of war within the Liberal Party of Canada between the nationalist wing (dominant in the Quebec Liberal establishment) and the strong federalist wing typified by Jean Chretien and Dion. Recent comments by Chretien illustrate the wider divide:

Jean Chrétien says Quebec politicians have cultivated a “culture of grievance” over the province's exclusion from the 1982 deal to patriate the Constitution – even though Quebeckers overwhelmingly supported it at the time and have been benefiting from it ever since.

"It will always be like that,” Mr. Chrétien told The Canadian Press. “They have a culture of grievance over it, not looking at the facts.”

I’ve long argued the Liberal Party should play to itsstrengths and become that strong, unapologetic federalist champion that puts facts before emotion instead of courting soft-sovereignists. That makes sense now more than ever, with both Harper and Mulcar courting the nationalist vote. Attracting those votes has always been difficult for the party of the charter and repatriation, and it will be even more so with Harper and Mulcair fighting for them too.

And the fact is, no one in Quebec politics today is flying the Maple Leaf and speaking to that staunch and unapologetic federalist community. It may not be as big a pie as the nationalist vote, but it’s definitely there and the Liberals have a chance to own it if we embrace our history and our strengths.

I was pleased to see comments from interim Liberal leaderBob Rae yesterday, which echo much of what Dion has been saying on the topic for years:

Quebec is not an oppressed minority, Canada is not a dictatorship, Canadian federalism, democracy, and the protection of minorities are all real things. A “clear vote on a clear question” would trigger discussions, not secession. The fantasies on this issue, now being fuelled not just by the Parti Quebecois but by the NDP in their “Sherbrooke Declaration”, have to be understood as pandering, an appeasement defies logic and constitutional reason.

It’s time, as Dion would say, to demand clarity from these supposed federalist champions. It’s time for Liberals to embrace our identity and stand up as the unapologetic federalist champions. On the constitution, on House of Commons representation, on language rights.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Post-#ndpldr, with Mulcair change will be more personality than politics

Leadership contests tend to create the appearance of stark differences where none really exist – it’s in the interests of both candidates looking to differentiate themselves and media looking for a meaningful race to cover. In reality, these differences are usually exaggerated, and governing tends to be a moderating influence anyways.

That’s certainly the case with the recently completed NDP race which crowned Thomas Mulcair the successor to Jack Layton. If there was one real contrast in the field, it was over Nathan Cullen’s proposal for joint nominations in select ridings with the Liberals. More broadly though, Mulcair, Paul Dewar and others all spoke about reaching out to other progressives, even if they ruled-out Cullen’s specific proposal. The difference that got the most attention though was the perception that Mulcair wanted to move to the party to the centre, while candidates like Brian Topp and Peggy Nash were traditionalists that wanted the NDP to hold to its roots.

Frankly, there’s less to this supposed contrast (mainly painted as Topp vs. Mulcair) than meets the eye. Jack Layton did more than anyone to move the NDP toward the centre, so far in fact that there is comparatively little distance left for Mulcair to travel. It was a key part of the success the NDP enjoyed under Layton. And right there by his side during this shift to centre as one of his key strategists was Brian Topp.

So where Mulcair seems to want to move the party is hardly in a new direction, and to the degree that it will upset traditionalists, it’s likely a fight that was fought (and lost) long ago. The only question is, will the traditionalists be less willing to accept compromise with a perceived outsider at the helm than they were with Layton. Time will tell, but I wouldn’t be overly worried.

It’s worth remembering too that governing tends to be a moderating influence, even governing a political party. Mulcair will need to bring rivals into his tent now and work with caucus and the wider membership, so he’s unlikely to get too far ahead of them.

It’s about policies and personalities more than political positioning

All this talk about moving to the centre, about usurping traditional Liberal territory, is frankly a little irrelevant. Outside the bubble no one says “well I’m centre-left, so I’m going to vote…” Canadians think in terms of issues and ideas that impact their everyday lives, communicated by leaders they can relate to and trust. Where Layton and Stephen Harper succeeded recently was in clearly defining their value proposition with Canadians, communicating a clear set of relatable, relevant ideas and policies that are more every day than pie in the sky, and being seen as leaders that can be trusted to do their best to deliver their promises. In sort, people knew what they stood for and trusted them to do their best to do it. As for why the Liberals have struggled, it’s the opposite of all that.

So if Mulcair is going to shift the dynamic as opposition leader, for better or for worse, it will be with his personality. To cement the gains the NDP made under Layton, and to build on them, as important as the policies he brings to the fore will be the tone with which he does it. His opponents will be looking to bring out his famous temper; he’ll need to keep it in check if he’s going to connect with Canadians. Harper has managed to do the same, so it’s hardly mission impossible.

And, of course, there’s the old define or be defined battle. Mulcair is a known quantity in Quebec, which will be helpful given the importance of that province to the NDP’s future. Outside of Quebec though, he’s an unknown. Much of the NDP’s success in the last election was driven by Layton’s connection with Canadians. A Conservative negative ad onslaught to define Mulcair, if unanswered, could prove deadly in the so-called Rest of Canada.

What are the Liberals to do?

I really don’t think the Liberals need to particularly react to Mulcair’s selection, in the sense that our essential challenge was and is the same no matter whom the NDP picked. It’s not about left, right or centre. It’s about the marketplace of ideas, and we need to get in there and compete. We need better ideas, and we need to communicate and sell them better. We’ve too long been pie in the sky when Canadians want meat and potatoes.

Our challenge is what it has been all along. Rebuild and streamline the party infrastructure for the modern era, finally figure out fundraising, revamp the policy development process to generate ideas from the ground-up that resonate with Canadians, and develop the capacity and skill to clearly communicate those ideas. We need to develop an identity Canadians can identify, and identify with. And then, next year, we need to elect a permanent leader to help us bring it to the people.

In short, we need to get our own act together and worry less about our opponents. I will give special mention though to Quebec, as it’s touted as the one key advantage for Mulcair, and challenge for his opponents. And rightly so; Mulcair is well-regarded in the province and Quebecers like voting for one of their own. He definitely has the potential to hold and grow NDP support there. But he’s not invincible.

I’ve long been calling for the Liberals to adopt a more stridently pro-federalist position in Quebec, and I think with Mulcair’s election, the NDP’s ascendency and their Sherbrooke Declaration-based Quebec policy it’s a smart strategy now more than ever, not just in Quebec but in the rest of Canada too. Point out the gap between Sherbrooke andthe Clarity Act (the NDP has liked to say one thing in Quebec and another elsewhere) and the NDP’s mirroring of Bloc positions on policies such as language and other issues.

With the Conservatives also championing asymmetrical federalism (although for other reasons: they want to weaken central government), the ground is clear for a staunch defender of a strong, pan-Canadian federalist option. And there is support to be carved out for a party that takes such a position. It would also have the benefit of providing personality and definition to the Liberal Party. If Quebec is to be a four-party province for the foreseeable future, it’s not enough to be just one of three non- sovereignist parties fighting for the same pool of voters. We need to differentiate.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

#ndpldr pics, video and a few thoughts

It was a very long Saturday at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre -- about 12 hours for me, longer for others -- for the NDP to arrive at what, for many, was an inevitable result: the election of Thomas Mulcair as their new leader. With Mulcair set to take his seat as leader of the official opposition Monday, only one party in the House of Commons still lacks a permanent leader.

The weekend itself was an odd one, featuring some of the elements of a traditional delegated leadership convention: the candidate showcases, the war rooms, the swag, the flash mobs, the vote line-ups. But it was also very different: people were also voting online across the country, and many more had voted well in advance of the weekend. What this was, largely, was a made for TV spectacle. In a one member, one vote era, the media still need something to cover, and the party still needs something to generate (and somewhere to focus) media interest. There are lessons positive and negative the Liberals can take ahead of our own leadership race next year; I'll save that for another post.

One has to wonder if the result could have been different had this been a delegated convention. After candidates got each ballot's results and were either automatically dropped or dropped by choice, we all watched closely to see where the candidates would go (most stayed neutral) and where their supporters would end up. But with the vast majority of votes having been cast in advance, the ability of a dropped candidate to be influential by walking over to a particular candidate was minimal: the preferential ballot decisions were already set in stone.

I tweeted after the first ballot that a similar scenario could be developing to the Liberal 2006 race, with Mulcair as the Michael Ignatieff that didn't mean first ballot expectations, Brian Topp as Bob Rae the second favourite going in but without a firm grip on second, and Nathan Cullen as Stephane Dion, the potential consensus candidate in third in need of a Gerard Kennedy to vault him into the mix. In the end, though, even if Paul Dewar or Peggy Nash wanted to play kingmaker to upset a Topp/Mulcair showdown they couldn't on the day of; the die was already cast with those pre-picked preferential ballots. They'd have had to made any deal, and encouraged their supporters to rank their ballots accordingly, weeks ago.

For me, the second ballot results made the final outcome inevitable. After the first ballot, I felt only Mulcair or Cullen could win. My prediction was that if Cullen could leapfrog Topp for second, he would draw enough support from Topp and Peggy Nash's supporters to potentially win a squeaker in the end against Mulcair. But if Topp remained solidly in second, when Cullen dropped off most of his support would go to Mulcair, making his victory inevitable. When Cullen failed to pass or even gain much ground on Topp on the second ballot, meaning Topp could still see a theoretical path to victory, even though it really wasn't there for him, it was really already over. The only thing that could have changed the outcome would have been for Topp to fall on his sword, but that would be a difficult thing to do. He convinced himself maybe, just maybe, they could pull enough Nash and Cullen votes. But it wasn't going to happen.

What could have made things different, and more like a delegated convention in the sense of people reacting ballot by ballot and shifting votes, would have been higher online turnout. Less than 10,000 people voted online the day of the vote, compared to 50,000 or so in advance. The potential pool of total voters was something like 150,000. At first, I was flabbergasted by the low turnout. Then, when we learned of server capacity issues preventing people from voting, I was astounded at how poor the NDP's IT planning was when even such low turnout was crashing their servers. Then, when the NDP claimed it was a Directed Denial of Service attack crashing the servers, it made slightly more sense, and put into stark relief the risks associated with online voting. I heard at one point tens of thousands had been unable to vote, which makes one wonder how the result could have changed if they'd been able to. We'll never know.

So after two more ballots, hours of delays and dinner with several Liberal bloggers (and one NDP blogging friend), it was back to the hall late Saturday night (I think the hockey game was even over by this point) for the inevitable result and a surprisingly lacklustre victory speech by Mulcair. Which, at the end of the day, won't matter a bit -- as long as he doesn't keep giving lacklustre speeches, of course. All the technical difficulties and delays will be forgotten too. For all the talk of any anybody but movement, and potential for holding "what if" grudges over suppressed votes, I don't think a divided party much of a risk. Not based on the mood in the hall, anyway. I think the members will get behind Mulcair because he brings them closer to power, and they'll be a moderating influence on him as well, ensuring he doesn't stray too far from the party's ideals.

Don't expect Topp to hold to his promise to seek a seat in the House, win or lose. Certainly no NDP incumbent is going to step aside for him. He ran a disappointing campaign that signalled he's a better fit for the backroom, and Mulcair would be wise to make use of his talents there. If one can win without finishing first Cullen did; his positive ideas-based campaign gained him friends and respect. The loser has to be Dewar, who was touted as a potential contender but ran a disappointing race that ended with a disappointing result. Nikki Ashton was running for experience and accomplished her minimal goals, while Martin Singh proved a compelling candidate that Mulcair would be wise to recruit to run for a Maritime seat in 2015. His business perspective would be an asset to the NDP caucus.

And so the NDPers fled from the convention centre for either their beds or the "unity" party where, I'm told, even the $10 cover and exorbitant cash bar didn't stop them from dancing into the wee hours. In the next post I'll look more into the future with a Mulcair-led NDP, and my thoughts on what the Liberals need to do, but first here's a video of the final ballot announcement and some pictures from throughout the event.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cullen won #ndpldr showcase showdown, but it's likely meaningless

With the candidate showcase showdown in the books and just over an hour until the Jack Layton tribute, I have time to switch from tweeting quick sarcastic comments to blogging with a bit more deliberative thought. Like the Senate, but even more sober (there's an open bar in the media room, but I'm behaving). (Update: the bar is for regular media only, so no need to worry)

I've already declared my soft spot for Nathan Cullen, but I think I'm not alone in thinking he had the best speech of the afternoon. Unlike most of the others, he eschewed the elaborate floor demonstration. No grand walk-in, no video testimonials, no three rounds of on-stage introductions. The stage lights came up he was on stage, microphone in hand, talking off the cuff without a prompter or a script. He sounded a bit hoarse (he said from the hospitality circuit last night), but he spoke with energy and with passion. And for those looking for that certain something, that jelly that makes a leader, he had it. It was reminiscent of Bob Rae's Montreal off the cuff, no script fireside chat in 2006, except Nathan remembered to speak French. As for the content, I was mainly pleased, save a few unnecessary nods to the evils of capitalism. One thing that struck me was that, while he did pitch progressive cooperation, he never once used the word Liberal. It's like we're Voldemort or something. Anyway, in an afternoon of not overly impressive speeches from my perspective, Cullen stood out.

Paul Dewar was the first of the candidates to have an elaborate pre-speech demonstration. Each candidate had 20 minutes to use however they want, so the more introduction the less time for the candidate's speech. Still, after some pre-game festivities and a video introduction from Mahar Arar, Dewar was up. Like Cullen, he was one of the candidates to nod toward opening the tent to people that have voted elsewhere in the past, although his analogy was setting another place at the table. Paul spoke with more passion and energy than I've seen from him in the past, although late in the speech it seemed to accelerate into yelling. He also almost had a Howard Dean moment, as he talked about winning each province. We're going to win Newfoundland, and PEI, and we're going to win Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. All that was missing was the Yeeeahhhhhh! Overall, a better performance than I've seen from him in the past, but not a barnburner or anything.

He was followed by Brian Topp, and what struck me was that, for a candidate tagged by some as the establishment pick (which isn't necessarily a compliment) he seemed to bring out title-holder after title-holder to sing his praises, with a theme of he's ready to lead. (Update: Bob Rae used the same line in his leadership showcase video at Montreal 2006) Also, Shirley Douglas and Gordon Pinsent cameos. Well, Gordon as video narrator. Finally, Topp came and delivered a speech that (for him) was fine content and message wise, but he just seemed to lack a certain gravitas, the jelly of a leader. As I said earlier, very capable organizer and strategist, but this new role needs a different skill-set. Anyway, in a not overly subtle shot at Tom Mulcair he said he's a proud and unapologetic social democrat and always has been. A few shots at the Bay Street fat cat gamblers, and some actual policy mini-nuggets with promises of a home retrofit program and a national transit strategy. Anyway, if Topp needed a big impact to turn around his underwhelming performance, this wasn't it. He's fading back in the pack.

That brought in Tom Mulcair, the perceived frontrunner of the campaign. He had the longest pre-speech show yet, between videos and an extended drum-accompanied entry that, while impressive, ate up a great deal of time so that, when Mulcair finally began to speak, he had only minutes left. It seemed to be like he raced through his speech in order to fit it all into the time left and, therefore, it was hard to really absorb much of the content. But is truck me as a fairly boring, safe, front-runner sort of address. Nothing he hasn't said before, nothing to get him into trouble. I did hear, though, that he was rather peeved leaving the stage at the timing of the thing. His speech has been panned by most observers for whatever that's worth which, frankly, isn't that much. But more on that soon.

Peggy Nash had the biggest floor demonstration of the convention, which should be expected as she represents the riding next door. But between that and the pre-speech show, she had the least time of any candidate for her actual speech. I moved up front to try to get a look at the countdown clock. I couldn't find it, but I did notice she went almost immediately off the prompter, and the operator began to race through the script. Some said it was a prompter malfunction, but from my vantage that wasn't the case. Recognizing she only had minutes left she decided to ad lib to get a few key points in; the prompter began racing through the script trying in vain to find where she was and catch up. In the end, she was completely out of time and kept talking as first the music tried to play her off, until they finally cut off her microphone. It was rather unfortunate, and while she may gain sympathy I don't think the showcase helped her cause. I was reminded though of Stephane Dion's mic being cut in 2006 after an extended Glen Pearson introduction; didn't seem to hurt Dion  in the end.

As for the two candidates expected to be at the back of the pack, I'd give Martin Singh the edge over Nikki Ashton. Singh's animated video was the best of the videos this afternoon, his son fiddling was great and his speech was dell delivered. It was interesting that, of the field, only Ashton and Singh took shots at the Liberals. (Shortly after recycling the lame "same old story" attack, Ashton talked about reaching out to progressives,  Perhaps they don't feel they need to worry about growing the tent as they're unlikely to win. Shots at the Conservatives, though, were plenty.

So, those are my impressions on the speeches but here's the thing: I really don't think they mean much of anything. Almost 60,000 have voted in advance. They're done, their votes are locked for all ballots. The 4500 or so people here still voting ballot by ballot are a fraction of that. The question is, how many people are still voting at home, online, ballot by ballot? Unless it's 45,000 or so people, this race is probably already over and we just don't know the results yet, making today purely a made for TV spectacle. So take all of this with a grain of salt.

Anyway, time has flown and the MCs are hectoring people to sit down for the Layton tribute. So I'll sign off and head back to tweeting. Please excuse the typos; I'll be back later.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A Liberal perspective on #ndpldr in Toronto

I hear a wildcat strike by unionized Air Canada workers at Pearson Airport has been delaying some NDP delegates from making it to the leadership convention, but luckily the TTC is still running and I've arrived at the Metro Toronto Convention  Centre, gotten my media/blogger badge, and settled into the blogger command centre on the convention floor to begin my Liberally-tainted coverage of the battle to succeed Jack Layton.

While walking through the Skywalk on my way to the MTCC, an older gentleman came up to me and told me I had a walk like some guy who used to lead the Ontario Federation of Labour. I'm not sure if it was intended as a complementary comment or not, but I'll take it as a sign I'm fitting in amongst the Dippers. I'll note for the record that, as a teenager working at The Real Canadian Superstore in Courtenay, BC, I was a member of Local 777 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW). So, solidarity forever and what not.

I'll be here all weekend and I'l be tweeting more than blogging, so keep an eye on my Twitter feed (@JeffJedras) for updates, pictures and sarcastic comments. Blogging will be for more indepth commentary at less regular intervals.

Going into the weekend, everyone seems to think Thomas Mulcair has this thing wrapped up. That may well be true, but I don't think that's really based on any scientific evidence. There's no real polling or anything to back it up. And I'm reminded of the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal. Everyone thought it was Michael Ignatieff's, or maybe Bob Rae in case of upset. Instead a scrapper named Stephane Dion came out of the pack, and the rest, well, that weekend was great anyway. Point is, anything can happen, and while it's easier for anything to happen at a delegated convention (now a thing of the past), there's still no way of knowing how a preferential ballot will shake out until it does, and the pundits are often wrong.

Anyway, I'll be looking to see which of the candidates looks ready to lead on the national stage as a potential Prime Minister, and how the supporters of other candidates react when the others are on stage. Also, as the NDP will need the support of Liberals like, well, like me if they're to grow, I'll be looking to see if I could possibly see myself supporting any of these people, and if any of them have any crossover appeal/send any signals of reaching outside the tent.

And I'll be hoping for multiple ballots and some drama. Random thoughts on the race so far:

Mulcair has performed well and I'm very surprised he has kept angry Tom in check. But if there's an anybody but movement, it's against Tom. I find the distortion of his pro-Israel comments particularly interesting and, frankly, it makes me like him more. But I then go the other way when I read the "vote Tom or you hate Quebec" line pushed by some pundits.

Brian Topp has been all flash little substance, under-performing and underwhelming. At the outset he was touted as a frontrunner, and while he seems to have the establishment support they each only get one vote, and are less influential in an OMOV system than in a delegated vote. He may be a capable backroom organizer, but being the front-person is a very different job and he won't be the first to fail to make the transition.

If I was ever in the NDP, I would be at one end of the party and Peggy Nash the other. She has definitely struck me as the left-wing candidate, and I disagree with her on nearly everything. That said, she's smart and talented and could well emerge as an anybody but Tom standard bearer, particularly for those who fear Mulcair shifting the party to the centre. Picking Nash would very much limit their the NDP's growth potential. Which, naturally, makes her the favourite pick of Liberals.

Paul Dewar showed a lot of promise out of the gate but, besides his questionable French, he hasn't really caught fire. While he's a possible safe choice for a consensus anybody but Tom candidate, he seems to have little momentum at this stage.

Confession: while I'm not sure about the mechanics of his joint LPC/NDP nomination scheme, I like Nathan Cullen. I spent the 2004 campaign working for Liberal candidate in Miles Richardson in Prince Rupert, when Cullen was elected for the first time. He's a warm and engaging guy that actually shares a lot of my values. He has performed ably as an MP, and the Liberals and even Conservatives I speak with that work on Parliament Hill all speak highly of him as someone that works well across party lines. While his cooperation scheme is contentious in NDP ranks, he has run a solid campaign and has potential as a darkhorse anybody alternative.

And then there's Niki Ashton and Martin Singh.

An interesting two days ahead, so stay tuned and have fun.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Our raison d'être can't be opposing

The always bubbling in the background chatter about the dream of a few to see the Liberals and NDP to merge or form some sort of coalition came to the surface again recently with comments made by Liberal MPJustin Trudeau in Victoria and broadcast by Sun TV. Here’s a snippet:

“By 2015, with the election approaching, if neither party has gotten their act together enough to shine or be the obvious alternative, then there will be a lot of pressure for us to start looking at that. I think there’s not anyone in parliament outside of the Conservative Party of Canada that is willing to risk seeing Stephen Harper become Prime Minister one more time.”

Since as it stands the choice would likely be between Harper and Prime Minister Mulcair, or maybe Prime Minister Nash, I think many would actually have to seriously consider that question.

Anyway, I reject the idea of merger or coalition along the motivations as floated by Trudeau. First of all, our raison d'être can't be opposing. I joined the Liberal Party because it best represented by beliefs and worldview, and that’s why I remain an active supporter today. I didn’t join because I hated Brian Mulroney, and I don’t remain active because I think Harper is a devil.

Wanting to stop the Conservatives is no reason to mash two groups with very different philosophies and beliefs together. It’s like a couple that don’t love each other getting married for the good of their child. In the long run, an unhappy marriage won’t do the kid any good, and you probably divorce anyway. The Liberals and the NDP aren’t the Progressive Conservatives and Reform. Reform split off from the PCs and then came back together; Liberals and NDP have always been very separate, and different.

And the laundry list of irreconcilable policy differences, from Quebec to the Middle East, is just too great. There's also the fact that the math just doesn't work. As the NDP grew in support in the last election, Liberal support began to bleed to the Conservatives as well. One plus one does not equal two in this case.

We all need to offer something more to Canadians than “we’re not Stephen Harper.” That’s not going to engage anyone but the most ardent partisans and, besides, most Canadians don't dislike Harper as much as Trudeau and other partisans do. Offer Canadians a more compelling alternative and you’ll get somewhere; a negative option will get you nowhere, even with all the coalitions in the world.

Mashing apples and oranges together under some kind of “not Harper” banner is no path to relevancy, and we need to stop looking for short cuts. 

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Are NDP leadership candidates showing up for work?

The proverbial "knock-out punch" in a political debate is a largely fictional, media-driven phenomenon. At best, it's rare. But if there was one during the leaders debate in this spring's federal election, it was probably this blow NDP leader Jack Layton landed on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff:

"You know, most Canadians if they don’t show up for work they don’t get a promotion."

Layton was taking issue with Ignaiteff's attendance record in the House of Commons, saying he shouldn't expect a promotion (to Prime Minister) when he spent so much time "not at work" in the House. Of course, Layton deliberately overlooked the fact Ignatieff wasn't on vacation, or at home watching TV, but was touring the country meeting with Canadians talking about their concerns for the country. An unfair shot, but that's politics, and it was a shot that resonated with Canadians (due, in part, to Ignatieff's feeble non-response) around the point the NDP began its meteoric rise up the polls .

Nevertheless, Layton has set the bar. If you want a promotion, get your keester into your seat in the House of Commons while Parliament is in session. Which brings us to the NDP's leadership race, which now features five sitting MPs among the registered candidates. Are these MPs who are asking for a promotion showing up for work?

Let's take a look at this week, which saw the House sitting dealing with issues such as the Wheat Board and the Gun Registry, to name but two of many.

Paul Dewar wasn't at work; he spent Wednesday and Thursday off the job in Saskatchewan campaigning for NDP candidates in the provincial election, as well as drumming up support for his leadership campaign. He also came to Toronto Monday evening to talk cities.

Thomas Mulcair wasn't at work but instead spent the week in B.C., spending four days in Victoria meeting with environmentalists. And maybe tea at the Empress, but that's unconfirmed.

Peggy Nash skipped work Friday to launch her leadership campaign in Toronto, although most MPs tend to skip out on the Friday house sittings. Unfortunately, like most Canadians, my boss still expects me to work Fridays, right until 5pm. And when you put "for a full time MP" on your campaign signs, should you really skip Fridays?

Romeo Saganash was also out in Saskatchewan this week, stumping Monday in Saskatoon and Tuesday in North Battleford. And a Happy Birthday to Romeo, who turns 50 this weekend.

Nathan Cullen didn't have a large Google news footprint this week, so I'm not sure if he left work or not. Once story from this week does have a brief mention of him "campaigning in Saskatchewan and Manitoba these days."

Now, if it were up to me, MPs taking a few days off work to campaign for the leadership wouldn't be too big a deal, as long as they're back for key votes and debates and aren't excessive about it. It's par the political course in this sort of situation. And an MP's job isn't just in the House, of course, but in their ridings too. And they can't let their seatless competitors Brian Topp and Martin Singh have all the fun, can they?

However, it's not up to me. Jack made it clear that if you don't show up for work (in your seat in the House of Commons), you don't deserve a promotion. And since the party seems unable to go a day in this race without invoking his memory or asking "What Would Jack Do?", shouldn't they be held to the standard he put forward?

You want a promotion, you come to work, right? So far, these NDP candidates are earning a #fail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The myth of the positive 2011 NDP campaign

There seems to be this impression out there that the 2011 NDP election campaign was all sunshine and lollipops. NDP leadership contender Brian Topp sought to re-enforce that impression yesterday, as he tries to paint himself as the candidate of positivity (unlike those other bastards? -- ed.)

"I don't believe that straight negative campaigns aimed at the Conservatives will defeat them," Topp said Friday, noting that the Liberal party failed miserably in its hardball campaign against the Tories.

(snip)

"The style of our next campaign may emerge as a point of debate in this leadership race. In my view, we won't defeat Mr. Harper by 'taking him on,' by 'hammering' him, or by 'facing him down,'" Topp wrote. "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates Conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote."

Topp, in his "let me say hello" letter, said Jack Layton's "propositional" approach that focused on policy solutions rather than attacks is the way to win government.

It's funny, because I remember being impressed with some of the NDP's negative TV ads in the last election campaign, particularly the health care pieces. And in British Columbia, where I spent the campaign (in an NDP target riding), they spent millions blanketing the radio waves with highly negative, fear mongery ads on the HST. Basically, they said Harper will make BC fire doctors and nurses and jeopardize the health care system by asking for the HST harmonization money if the referendum fails, but if you vote NDP you can keep the money and your doctors.

And Topp, of course, played a very senior role on that campaign and called a lot of the shots. He was national campaign director in 2008, when they blanketed Quebec with particularly impressive negative ads. He ran negative ads against the Liberals while trying to negotiate a coalition with us. So he certainly has no aversion to negative campaigning. So I find his claims of piety a little amusing.

If he wants to turn over a new leaf though, power to him.

(Not to say their 2011 campaign didn't also have very positive messages; just that it also had very negative ones.)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Belated random thoughts on political happenings

I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.

* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?

* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.

* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.

* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.

* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:

Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”

* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.

* Speaking of panic, this homophobic flyer from the Ontario Cs (I've revoked their P) is disgusting. When I first saw it on Twitter this weekend I thought it had to be a plant, a sick joke. But then Hudak embraced it on Monday, and it was more saddening than upsetting. First, much of the brochure is misleading, if not outright lies. And much of the material in question was developed under the last C government, in which Hudak was a minister. They're so panicked that Hudak goons are elbowing reporters in the gut to keep them away from one Brampton-area candidate that was distributing the fliers.

* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."

* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!

* To end on a positive note, I was pleased to see the Liberals focus on a substantive and important policy issue today with a call for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was embraced in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP. It's an important and overlooked issue, and hopefully this leads to more action. You can still sign the petition here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Goodbye, Jack

Anyone who saw Jack Layton’s final public press conference, where the energizer bunny of Canadian politics looked so frail and weak, knew he was in the fight of his life. Over his long career though, many had learned the perils of betting against Jack. He’s a fighter, and he was a fighter to the end.

Perhaps that’s why the news of his passing from cancer early this morning was so stunning. It’s just hard to imagine Ottawa, and political debate, without Jack. The NDP has had some larger than life figures -- Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent – but they were before my time. I remember Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough but for me, and more many, Jack Layton is the NDP. The happy warrior whose ever-present smile and trademark moustache belied a tireless determination to build a better Canada.

Politics can be a rough and tumble business. And make no mistake; Jack played the game as hard as anyone. But there’s also a collegiality that crosses party lines. A recognition that, despite our differences on this issue or that issue, we’re all united by a love of Canada and a desire to see it be the best it can be for all its people. And Jack typified that higher calling.

Some people like to talk about enemies in politics. I don’t like that kind of talk, and I don’t think Jack did either. Certainly, Jack wasn’t my enemy. I have nothing but respect for anyone who makes the sacrifice of public service, with all the slings and arrows that come with that commitment. And while we may have disagreed on points of policy, there’s no doubt Jack was fighting for all the right reasons. He elevated the debate, and spurred all around him to do the same.

And no matter your political learning, it was hard not to cheer Jack on this spring as, still recovering from his battle with prostate cancer, he tirelessly barnstormed across the country in an election campaign that brought his party to its greatest electoral success, and the cusp of something few would ever have thought possible before: governing Canada. His courage was inspiring to all Canadians.

It’s heart-breaking to see Jack leave us on the heels of his greatest success, with so much promise left unfulfilled. We’ll always wonder what might have been. It’s certainly too early at this juncture to consider what his legacy will be, or what the future will hold. I hope, though, that if Jack leaves us with one lesson, it’s this: you don’t need to dirty yourself in the mud to be successful. A positive vision and hard work will be rewarded.

Jack, you left us too soon. But we’re better for the time you shared with us.

Thank-you, Jack.

UPDATE: A touching final letter from Jack to Canadians (PDF).

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is she still Nycole from the Bloc?

Who says political summers need to be boring? A well-timed leak to the Globe and Mail about new NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel certainly livened things up, with the revelation that Turmel was very recently a member of two Quebec sovereigntist parties, quitting the Bloc Quebecois just weeks before she became an NDP candidate for the last election, and only promising to quit the other yesterday.

Party-switching is certainly no rarity these days in Canadian politics, and that’s fine. The key for me is to explain how you got from A to B and let the people decide. As long as the people have the information, they can make an informed decision on the person’s motivations. For me, I’ll accept a well-reasoned ideological move but frown on a move motivated purely by political opportunism or expediency. In Turmel’s case, it’s hard to argue in the context of the time that being an NDP candidate in Quebec was the expedient choice. But everyone has their own criteria.

This apparently was an issue discussed in Turmel’s riding during the campaign to some extent so that test may be met, although I find the explanations she’s offering now (she joined and donated to help a friend), her overlapping BQ/NDP memberships, and the membership in Québec solidaire, somewhat less than compelling. I’ll let others dwell on them, though.

What would primarily be an issue for the people of Hull-Alymer gained national import when Jack Layton made her his pick for interim leader of the official opposition. It's a position of national leadership. But for me, this is less about Turmel (who is essentially a placeholder until either Layton returns, or doesn't) and more about the fuzziness of the NDP’s position on Quebec, and its approach to federalism.

There are many Turmels in the new NDP caucus, many MPs who were either avowed sovereigntists or, like Turmel, at least members of sovereigntist parties, and recently so. This flirting with Quebec nationalism is dangerous; just ask Brian Mulroney. And I was no fan of the approach Jean Lapierre brought to my Liberals. As I’ve written previously, the NDP seems determined to promote one vision of federalism in Quebec, and one in the rest of Canada. They continue to ignore the undeniable gulf between their Sherbrooke Declaration and the Clarity Act.

I’m less concerned about Turmel’s membership cards (a symptom) than I am the underlying condition: where does the NDP stand on federalism and Quebec nationalism, are they consistent in that position across the country, and is all of their caucus onboard with defending and promoting that position? Until they’re clear on these issues, they’re going to have to continue to deal with flare-ups like this one, because the underlying questions will linger.

And another thing

It has been painful to watch the NDP spin in response to the Turmel story. I found their strategy puzzling from a communications perspective (in their case, I’d have said something like many former BQ/LPC/CPC supported the NDP in Quebec in the last elxn because we were the only party to address their concerns, and then pivot to issues), as it seems to only prolong and elevate the story.

But more than tactics, the most striking thing was how the NDP and its supporters is their utter inability to take a hit. They’re the Official Opposition now. They’re going to be a target and under scrutiny like they never had before. Some times the criticism will be valid. Often, it won’t be. Either way, they’re going to need to grow a thicker skin and learn to role with the punches, or it’s going to be a long four years.

You can defend Turmel’s actions, and feel they are perfectly above-board. But raising the questions raised yesterday is absolutely fair. It is a legitimate story, and the people have the right to an explanation. Provide it, and then move on to your issues. But don't cry that it was raised in the first place. If all is above-board the defensiveness is unnecessary. I read some Turmel defenders cry McCarthyism yesterday, which is beyond ridiculous.

Continually playing the victim will get old fast.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers