Polling B.C.

Mustel Group came out with its latest polling numbers for British Columbia(opens a PDF). While on the surface the numbers look similar to the federal numbers, given regional factors in the province things could be rather interesting.

While some polling firms have had the Liberals in the lead in B.C., Mustel has the Cons in front at 37, with the Liberals at 30, the NDP at 21 and the Greens at 12. Here’s the chart:

The disappointment there has to be for the NDP, and also that the Cons aren’t stronger. The Libs are also off historic Mustel highs. That said, the Cons have been gaining at NDP expense. From the last election the NDP has dropped 8 points; Mustel has said most of that has gone to the Cons. Sounds odd, I know, but a lot of the B.C. electorate is anti-establishment, and the Liberals are still seen as the Eastern establishment, so swings between Cons and NDP are not uncommon. The recent NDP swings have been stark though, from 20 in March, a peak of 29 in June, and then a dive back down to 20 for October.

Despite gaining NDP support however, the Cons are still exactly where they were last election, meaning they’ve lost support elsewhere too, balancing the NDP gains. The Liberals are up one point, but look to have a fairly steady base to build on at 30-33 per cent. Also interestingly the Greens have been on a steady upward trend, from 5 in the election up to 12 today. Not seat territory, but enough to play spoiler. Also, with the May/Dion alliance it will be interesting to see where that 12 per cent goes on e-day; it may bode well for candidates like Briony Penn in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

To truly make sense of these numbers though we’d have to see where they break down. The Liberals are largely a non-player in a lot of interior and coastal ridings, where the Cons and NDP have and will likely continue to fight it out. If the NDP is truly losing support in B.C. we could see ridings like Skeena-BV (Nathan Cullen), Vancouver Island North (Catherine Bell) flip Conservative, possibly Nanaimo-Cowichan as well (Jean Crowder).

The Liberal vote in B.C. tends to be very efficient and urbanized, and in these ridings our opposition isn’t generally the Cons, but the NDP, putting ridings like Victoria (Denise Savoie) and Burnaby-New Westminster (Peter Julian) on the table, and making it a little easier to reclaim Vancouver-Kingsway from the Cons (David Emerson). It may also be time to finally unseat Nina Grewal in Fleetwood-Port Kells.

Looking briefly at some of the other numbers provided in the polls, here’s the approval figures for Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion (none were provided for other leaders):

If I were to spin here for a moment, although I think it’s sensible spin, Dion’s disapproval rating is only 4 points higher than Harper’s, and given that Harper is the PM spending billions of taxpayer dollars, and millions on attack ads targeting Dion, that’s pretty darned good. The big number is 39 per cent no opinion on Dion: that’s a lot of room for growth. On the downside, the 7 month trend is troubling, and should give the party pause.

On the government’s approval on issues, on the environment they’re 45approve/44disapprove, crime 47/38, Afghanistan 28/47.

And if you’re interested in the fine print, 851 BC adults were polled Oct. 10-22, with a MOE of +/- 3.4 per cent. And undecideds were 15 per cent.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

15 per cent of Con supporters don’t want a Con majority

Since everyone on the blogsphere is having fun with numbers today, I didn’t want to be left out. Accordingly, I’m going to take my shot at having some fun playing with, slicing, and dicing poll numbers to draw likely questionable conclusions.

There’s a new poll from Ipsos. It tells us that 58 per cent of Canadians want a majority government. And, of those that support a majority government 58 per cent want a Harper Majority government. Therefore, we can conclude 34 per cent of Canadians overall want a Conservative majority. With me so far?

Now, in that same poll, Ipsos polled the Conservatives at 40 per cent. A dubious number, but let’s go with it for pseudo-scientific purposes. According to Ipsos 40 per cent of Canadians support the Conservatives, but only 34 per cent support a Conservative majority. So, a six per cent gap between the two numbers.

Therefore, we can conclude that 15 per cent of Conservative supporters don’t trust Stephen Harper with a majority government.

And thus ends today’s session of fun with numbers.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Machiavellian Conservatives following Flanagan's playbook

The media loves conflict, so they're loving things in Ottawa right now. And they're going to keep on loving things for some time to come, given the current Conservative 'governance' strategy.

It began with the throne speech; one that, despite all the Conservative bluster beforehand, was purposely designed to be just bland and inoffensive enough the Liberals could hold their noses and let it pass.

It was quickly followed by omnibus justice legislation, getting the media election fever flaring-up again. Change one comma, Harper warned, to an election we go. Again though, underneath the bluster, he had compromised on the legislation just enough to allow the opposition to support it, allowing the Conservatives to avoid the election they profess to want so badly:

The showdown over the Conservatives' much-ballyhooed omnibus crime bill fizzled into a debate over technicalities yesterday as the government introduced a bill that opposition parties largely support.
…
But four of the revived bills included all of the compromises made with the opposition in the previous session. And on the fifth, which would toughen provisions for dangerous offenders, the opposition parties said they will push for what they called only minor amendments.

The fact is, if Harper wanted an election we’d be in the midst of one right now. He would have written something into the throne speech we couldn’t possibly support. Same with the justice bill, it would have been an ideal piece of legislation for him to run on, allowing him to paint the opposition as soft on crime. Instead, he quietly compromised.

He doesn’t want an election. But he does want the bluster, the posturing, the brinkmanship. He wants to be seen as tough, like he’s dictating terms to the opposition, even while he quietly compromises just enough. He wants to avoid an election while mocking the Liberals for choosing to avoid an election.

And this while brinksmanship strategy shouldn’t be a surprise. Harper’s longtime advisor, Tom Flanagan, laid it all out back in August:

No government can survive politically if it acquires a reputation for weakness, and that is the risk the Conservatives face if they remain tied up in Parliament.

By using confidence measures more aggressively, the Conservatives can benefit politically. If the opposition parties retreat, the government gets its legislation. If the opposition unites on a matter of confidence, the Conservatives get an election for which they are the best prepared.

"Fortune is a woman," Machiavelli wrote in a now politically incorrect aphorism, "and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force." It is time for the government to take advantage of its advantages.

So, this should be no surprise. There will be many more bills to come that Harper will label as do or die, my way or the highway confidence motions. The media will work themselves into al election frenzy each time, covering the conflict they so love and ignoring the policy.

We, however, need to calmly and soberly judge each piece of legislation on its merits. If amendments are needed, move them. If it’s acceptable legislation, support it. And if it’s bad legislation, vote it down. And if that means an election, so be it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Throne speech after dark – No election, says I

While I was watching the pre-game coverage on the CBC it certainly was clear the media think there’s going to be an election. Or, at least, they want there to be an election. The media like covering elections. Its fun. And easier then covering policy, to be sure.

Me, prior to hearing the speech I wasn’t so sure, I was thinking Harper, despite his bluster, is a sager judge of the political landscape than many give him credit for, and doesn’t think it’s in his best interests to go now either.

But then I heard their plans for copyright reform…to the hustings, says I!

But seriously, no. I think the message from this speech is that Harper doesn’t want an election. There’s no poison pill in here. There’s a lot I don’t like, but nothing to vote the government down over. It was a yawner. As Ignatieff said, vague and disappointing. No vision. No energy.

Some of the contentious issues: Afghanistan, spending power, crime, Kyoto, gun registry.

On Afghanistan, they said they’d like to see us stay past 2009, but the majority of parliament will decide in a vote. So, we’ll decide that then. It also mentions the Manley panel, for Harper to spin a vote for the speech as a vote in favour of 2011 would be Harper neutering his own panel, so that’s a non-starter. Legislation to limit the federal spending power? I disagree, but it will be debated in separate legislation. Crime? I guess those are the bills the Cons stalled themselves stalled, right? Let him reintroduce them and if he wants to make them confidence votes, we’ll deal with that then. Kyoto? After Harper shelving the Clean Air legislation of course we can’t meet the commitments now, that’s not a surprise. And the gun registry repealed? They’ve been saying that for years and haven’t tried yet. Why not? Quebec.

The opposition reacts. Dueppe? Whatever. Layton? Please. I give the line of the night to Michael Ignatieff:

“I love getting lessons in principles from the NDP.”

But I laughed heartily at this comment to Smiling Jack from generic CBC reporter #3:

“I appreciate you might need some time to review the finer points of the speech.”

Yeah, he was really back and forth on his talking points until he stepped-up to the microphone, could have gone either way. Fact is, Layton decided how he was going to make his caucus vote before Harper even decided what the GG was going to say. That’s the luxury of not having to be a responsible opposition party, or one with a reasonable chance of ever forming government. You don’t have to think that much, or make hard choices.

Or know much about how our parliamentary system, such as with this line, where he buys the CPC line that voting for the throne speech…

“(Dion) will have given Mr. Harper a mandate to govern.”

No it doesn’t Jack, only an election gives anyone a mandate. Once again, the NDP parrots asinine Conservative talking points. Colour me surprised.

Lastly, my own Liberals. Where was Stephane Dion, pray tell? Why in the frick was he not in front of a camera? I mean, seriously. That’s whack thinking there. They put Iggy up, he tap danced as best he could.

So, what will the Liberals do? Beats me. That’s probably why Dion isn’t showing himself tonight. They’re still trying to figure it out. The media rumour is Dion wants to go/feels he needs to go; but much of the party isn’t onboard.

Since I don’t know what they’ll do, what do I think they should do? I think, at this point it’s up to us. There’s no poison pill so there’s no moral imperative to force an election. We can safely go either way. If the party wasn’t in such a clusterf*** in Quebec I’d say let’s go to the polls. Given the mess we’re in though, some more time would be nice.

So, all things considered, an election now? I vote no. Canadians don’t want an election. The Conservatives don’t want an election. The Liberals don’t want an election. Neither do the BQ or the NDP, they just want to attack the Liberals while they hide behind us. Make no mistake, Jack is stalled in the polls and wouldn’t gain any ground in a vote.

There’s nothing nuclear in this speech, nothing to get overly excited about. It was dull and boring. If they bring in legislation that’s bad for Canada, we’ll deal with it then. Until then, let’s keep parliament working. It would be nice to see the opposition parties take the battle to Harper by getting together on some legislation and amendments for a change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The morning before the throne speech

So, tonight is the big night. Well, the first of two big nights I suppose. First, tonight will be the Speech from the Throne, where the lady the Cons love to hate, Michaelle Jean, will read their plan for forcing an election…er…governing. And, of course, Thursday evening will be the big vote.

It will be interesting to see what’s in there. Not so much for the content, but for the message Harper sends with it. Will he indeed include a poison pill to force an election, or just toss in enough of a wedge to drive the Liberals into a tizzy? Or will he put forward a substantive, policy-based document designed to find consensus in a minority parliament? Hey, it’s possible…

Of course, no one really cares about the policy of it. Which is really kind of sad. But it’s all about the strategy. Which will come into play more so on Thursday than it will tonight. At least tonight though we’ll be able to at least know what we’re talking about voting on.

Not that that has stopped the NDP from deciding its evil and must be voted down, sight-unseen, no ifs, ands or buts. Not that I blame Layton for his strategy here, particularly given the spot the Liberals are in. However, if they really do hope to ever become the main opposition party or, horrors, even govern one day, they may want to try actually reading these bills first. Part of being a responsible opposition means compromise every now and again, not just blind opposition.

But anyway, the spotlight of course is really on the Liberals. While I eagerly await the contents of the speech, I’ve already made clear that, unless it really is a moderate document designed to reach consensus and compromise, we probably need to vote it down. I think Liberal blogging ranks are somewhat divided on that, and messaging from the party mucky mucks seems to be leaning towards voting no but holding back enough people to let it pass, which I’ve already said I think is a horrible idea.

I need to run downtown for an event this morning, so I’ll leave the last word to Paul Wells, who I thought put it well:

Speaking of Liberals, if only a handful of them show up for a vote on the government's basic program, they will be saying, nearly in so many words, that they have convictions but they don't want those convictions to have consequences. Do they believe, given their behaviour since 2002, that such a statement would constitute playing against type? Do they believe it would be honourable? Do they think it would help them politically?

If you believe something, you follow through. A quaint idea, which went out of fashion in the Liberal party shortly before the Liberal party went out of fashion in Canadian politics.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Shoe Store Project, or Conservative Media Control 2.0

By now the (very successful) attempts of the Harper government to control and cow the national press corps are old news, from the lists to ask questions to using the RCMP to chase the media out of public hotel lobbies. If you thought Harper’s recent press conference in the National Press Theatre was a sign of a thawing of the relationship between the PM and the press, think again: Harper is just getting warmed up:

The Prime Minister's Office, which has long had a rocky relationship with the national media, has been working on a secret project to build a new, government-controlled briefing room at the cost of $2 million, documents obtained by the Star show.

Long kept under wraps, the plan – codenamed the Shoe Store Project – is in the works by the Privy Council Office and the PMO to establish a new government-controlled media briefing centre near Langevin Block.

The yellow-brown building that now houses Stephen Harper and his senior staff would supplant the current National Press Theatre, just a block away.

The difference between the two? The National Press Theatre, the traditional venue for press conferences along with the smaller Charles Lynch room in the Centre Block, is ran by the non-partisan Parliamentary Press Gallery, which controls membership and who gets to ask questions. In Harper’s Shoe Box, Canada’s Ageing Government would decide who gets in, and who gets to ask questions. And to Harper, it seems that’s worth blowing $2 million of taxpayer monies.

The result would be a little fancier than the National Press Theatre and, most important, give the PMO a lot more control over who gets in and, quite possibly, what gets filmed and broadcast.

A hand-drawn sketch of the PM's renovated shoe store/press theatre indicates a space for "maybe permanently installed cameras with feeds to media."

That could put the news cameras in the hands of government-employed camera operators, not independent photojournalists employed by the television networks. It suggests the Prime Minister's communications people would send broadcast feeds to the TV networks for their use in reports, or as most politicians prefer, live-to-air broadcast.

I don’t expect the public to care although that’s unfortunate, as the subversion of the vital role an independent media plays in our democracy is certainly an issue worth caring about and the lack of interest speaks ill of the level of political engagement in the country,

One wonders though when the media will start caring, and just how much longer the national press corps is going to keep getting dumped on by the Conservatives and just pretend it smells like roses. As Scott Feschuk wrote today, talking about the huge unexpected Conservative surplus, you know the kind the Cons used to dump on the Liberals for having:

Harper must stare at the media horde and wonder to himself: what line of hooey won't these suckers swallow? Maybe tomorrow I'll send troops to Iraq and deny having denied having supported the invasion in the first place. Don't think he could pull it off? Remember that the press gallery routinely reports that Harper has achieved his five priorities from the 2006 election, even though wait times haven't been reduced, the promised 125,000 new child care spaces won't be achieved, the GST hasn't been cut to five per cent and Harper killed his own anti-crime legislation when he decided to prorogue Parliament. But, you know, apart from all that ...

UPDATE: Great column on this from Macleans.ca's Kady O'Malley. Sadly, I suspect that among the press gallery her moxie will be a minority. I hope they prove me wring

If this double plus Machiavellian madness actually comes to some sort of fruition, and WeThePressGallery consider going along with it for so much as a nanosecond, we may as well just hand over our press passes, turn in our BlackBerries and move on, en masse, to some other profession; one, perhaps, not quite so essential to a functioning democracy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The chips are falling into place...

...for a fall election. At least on the Conservative side. Even though Harper, of course totally doesn't want an election. No way Jose...

The federal government has reached a deal with Nova Scotia over offshore revenue sharing, ending a politically damaging battle with the province amid talk of a fall election.

The new arrangement will provide Nova Scotia with a guarantee that it will not lose any royalties under changes made to its cherished offshore accord in last spring's federal budget.

A deal, or a surrender by Harper to pave the way for a fall election? I don't know enough about the details to say one way or another, so I'll leave that to the experts and the spinners. I do know this though:

A three-person panel will be set up to study the value of the complex cash royalty, which was part of the province's original 1985 offshore agreement...The panel is expected to report with a binding decision, which could mean a large cash payment to the province.

A billion here, a billion there, and just in time for an election campaign. Handy that. It will be interesting to see if Bill Casey now comes back into the Conservative fold. I imagine the Cons will be putting major pressure on him to do so. (Or not, see update below) One also wonders if it will be enough to save Peter McKay's seat.

Found it a little peculiar there were no comments from Premier MacDonald in the story, just Harper, as I was interested to see how Rodney would frame it. Maybe CP will add that in later. Also interesting was that this came the day after the Newfoundland elections and Danny Williams' landslide victory. Danny, by the way, called the Nova Scotia deal a bad one:

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador blasted the agreement in St. John‘s today, saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper has gotten Premier Rodney MacDonald to take less than he would get under the Atlantic accords, adding that Harper has “a way of preying on the weak.‘‘

So, Newfoundland is still an issue to be dealt with for the Cons, as is Saskatchewan, who the story notes are still suing the feds over equalization. Between this and the Wheat Board brouhaha the Cons are in trouble in Saskatchewan. I'd expect the NDP to take some seats from them there at the moment, and maybe if we're lucky the Liberals could sneak-in too.

After the Nova Scotia deal, if we see a quick move to appease Saskatchewan it would be an even clearer sign (were it not blindingly obvious already) that Harper is determined to go to the polls this fall.

Meanwhile, in Liberal land, Stephane Dion had a press conference yesterday and announced...well, not a lot really. He shuffled around his shadow cabinet, made Bob Rae foreign affairs critic, gave Garth Turner a job too, and booted one MP from their critic portfolio:

Mr. Dion also stripped MP Raymonde Folco of her role as official languages critic — she had told reporters that Mr. Dion was not selling in Quebec and was too old to change his ways...

Good, this was very necessary. I would have liked to have seen some of the other people that broke confidentiality and ran to the press over the Carroll thing punted too though. Still, hopefully this sends a message. While debate is good, and changes need to be made, it's important for party executives and MPs to work within the system, not through the media. Undermine the leader in public and there need to be consequences.

On an unrelated matter, I would also have liked to have seen Denis Coderre moved out of the defence critic job. I admit, that was probably impossible after the whole Afghan trip thing this week, the timing and optics would have been brutal. But while I've defended Coderre on the trip issue because I believe he's in the right there, I still would rather see someone else in that role. Nearly anyone else, to be honest.

In other news from the Dion presser:

Stéphane Dion signalled Tuesday that he will try to sidestep a fall election, and might even tell his Liberal MPs to sit out a confidence vote on the Conservative government's agenda.

Sigh. It looks like Bryan Wilfert wasn't freelancing after all, but was floating a trial balloon for the OLO. I've already articulated why I think this is an exceedingly crappy idea, and nothing I've heard since has served to change my mind. I'm not pleased to hear this. As I said earlier, we need to start standing-up for Liberal values again. Prop-up the Cons and I don't care how you spin it, it'll be bad. Jack and Gilles will be over the moon.

Finally, an example of really lame attempted Conservative spin:

Conservatives, meanwhile, scoffed that Mr. Dion has decided to avoid an election because his party is in disarray.

"The Liberals are struggling with a weak leader, thin bench strength and a tarnished brand," said Conservative party spokesman Ryan Sparrow.

Of course, the Conservatives (say they) don't want an election either. I guess that's because Harper is such a strong leader with strong bench strength and a shiny brand, right Ryan? Or maybe they're just lying when they say they want to avoid an election...

UPDATE 1: Via Garth Turner comes this exchange from Harper's presser on the Nova Scotia deal, and Bill Casey:

Question: Prime minister, now that you’ve got this agreement, are you going to welcome Mr. Casey back into the Conservative caucus?

Answer: No. Mr. Casey made demands that he knew were incompatible with our budget, that he knew that this government would not agree to and has not agreed to. Mr. Casey is not welcome into our caucus. Just so I can be as clear as i can be on it, there — when there is a next federal election there will be a conservative candidate in Mr. Casey’s riding, and it will not be Mr. Casey.

Well, I guess that settles that. As Garth says, vindictive, petty, spiteful, bully. To that I would add stupid. I could see Harper being enough of a dick to freeze Casey out if he wanted back, but what's the political upside to such a course. I've always maintained that, despite his being arrogant and wrong and all that, Harper is a smart strategist. He's lost me here though, because I don't get it. Neither does Steve.

UPDATE 2: Speaking of Carroll, something that was probably inevitable finally happened today. Since it seemed fairly clear we were heading this way, one wonders what the frick took them so long?!

Jamie Carroll has officially stepped down from the party's top administrative job and he has given up his role as deputy national campaign director as well.

The announcement comes after weeks of controversy over Carroll's allegedly dismissive response to demands that Dion include more Quebecers in his inner circle.

It's unfortunate, because I think Carroll is a good guy and that the infamous diversity remarks were blown widely out of proportion by people with their own agendas. However, I think for the good of the party and the sake of party unity he probably had to go. Rightly or wrongly, he had become a lighting rod for controversy. It dates back to his ill considered remarks in Diebel's book. It wasn't all his fault, but he had become a roadblock to progress.

Now, with Carroll gone, it will be interesting to see if the people who were calling for his ouster now get on board and start being team players working for the good of the party. Were their motives what's right for the party, or driven by their own personal agendas? With Carroll now gone, their reaction and behaviour going forward will tell the tale.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The media and Harper: An odd relationship

The way is pointed to an interesting Lawrence Martin column in the Globe by Accidental Deliberations, on how Harper's bash the media strategy has resulted in a compliant and subservient press corps that ignores a cost of Conservative hypocrisy, failure and double-speak to instead focus on the leader of the opposition:

Rather than hurt him, Mr. Harper - is there method in his badness? - is getting increasingly favourable media treatment. To look at the recent coverage, you would think his government is on a roll. Breathless reports follow breathless reports on how he could destroy all opponents in an election this fall.

That's not bad for a governing party stuck at 33 per cent in the polls for months, one that has fallen six or seven points since it tabled its last budget in March, one that has lost more support in that time than the Liberals or NDP, both of whose numbers have remained stable.

This is usually the kind of news that gets you booed out of town. But, in the case of Mr. Harper, the scribes are doing more cheering than jeering.

What's the answer for the Liberals here? Treat the media even worse than the Conservatives? Trade the whale-watching trips and returning of phone calls for icy glares and lists to ask questions? Unfortunately, since we're in opposition we can't have the RCMP bully them.

Maybe that wouldn't be the best way to go though. I don't know the answer really. I do know one thing that would help the Liberal media strategy though. Stop leaking them so much juicy crap! Give them easy infighting stories to run of course they'll run them and ignore Conservative misdoings. I'm a journalist myself, we're lazy. Trust me.

Perhaps it isn't Harper's brilliant trash the media strategy that's at play after all. Maybe if we kept giving them so much to write about, they'd turn their attention to the Conservatives...and if not, then we should consider taking away the Wii.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hail to the chief? Harper’s presidential airs

I'm about 400+ pages into Brian Mulroney's very weighty auto-biography (here's a preview review: Brian was right and everyone, especially Trudeau, was wrong) and we're in the midst of his first mandate at the moment, so I haven't gotten yet to his thoughts on Stephen Harper.

Luckily though, he shared his thoughts on his successor as Conservative PM (in between two swell Liberal guys that balanced the budget and turned-around the economy) with the media so I don't need to wait:

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney says current Tory PM Stephen Harper reminds him of the Gipper, Ronald Reagan.

"Of all the people I've met internationally, he reminds me more of the style and the approach and the decisiveness of Ronald Reagan than anybody else," Mulroney told a Calgary luncheon audience Wednesday.

Hmm, does that mean Harper is consulting astrologers, selling arms to the contras and running huge deficits? The deficits aren’t there (yet), and I doubt he’s funneling arms to Nicaragua via Iran. He does have a psychic on staff though, so who knows…

Still, the comparisons to Reagan may play well in Calgary, but I doubt they’re particularly helpful in Quebec. Or B.C. Or Ontario. Or the Maritimes… If you listen closely you can hear Conservative strategists crying"Shut-up Brian!"

Old Lyin’ Brian may be on to something with the whole Harper/Reagan thing though, at least when it comes to taking on presidential airs. And if anyone would be an expert on delusions of grandeur, it’s Brian Mulroney.

As the Globe noted this week, it’s odd Harper would want to take a space that was intended for a public portrait gallery and convert it into a multi-million dollar, private, receiving-hall for Pres…Prime Minister Harper to welcome foreign dignitaries:

In other words, it wants to take a public place that would have showcased Canadian art and history to millions of Canadians and turn it into a place that would be off-limits to the public and would showcase a politician to a handful of foreign eminences.

Sounds a little odd. Doesn’t Canada have a head of state? And doesn’t that head of state have a hall to receive foreign dignataries? The answer to both is yes, Michaelle Jean and Rideau Hall. But then again, these Conservatives have never had much respect for the GG’s role in our system of government, in opposition or in government.

As for the PM, every other one has always made do with the Government Conference Centre, the Lester B. Pearson building, the Confederation Room and, well, their office, which the Globe notes Mulroney found good enough to receive Reagan in:

How odd, then, that it is Mr. Mulroney who is remembered by some as the Conservative prime minister with presidential airs.

Odd indeed. I’m sure Harper will change that though. He already has a personal stylist, and now a grand presidential reception hall. He has the media calling his plane Air Force…err Air Bus 001. He has a gas guzzling presidential-style motorcade.

How long before he has the Navy Band strike-up ‘Hail to the Chief’ when he walks into the room?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

General Hillier out, General that Harper likes in?

According to CTV news, the Conservative government plans to replace General Rick Hillier as chief of defence staff when his term expires in February, because he's outshining his political masters and he made Gordon O'Connor look like a doofus.

Now don't get me wrong. I won't be sad to see Hillier go. Indeed, I think it's probably a good idea. And this detainee document cover-up scandal won't be going away either.

But what I wanted to mention was this line from the CP piece, where they speculate on possible successors to Hillier as CDS. I'm not sure if I'm amused, or concern. I'm thinking a little of both actually.

CTV says potential successors include Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson and Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, although insiders say Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk is likely to get the top job because the prime minister likes him.

Surely the most important qualification, no?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The political evolution of Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper 1.0, speaking in January 2006 during the last election campaign:

"I'm not sure there's such thing as a true Conservative majority in the sense of a Liberal majority," Mr. Harper said after a number of public opinion polls placed his party within striking distance of a majority government.

"We will have checks on us and limits on our ability to operate that a Liberal government would not face."

"The reality is that we will have, for some time to come, a Liberal Senate, a Liberal civil service, at least at the senior levels where they've been appointed by the Liberals, and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals," he said. "These are obviously checks on the power of a Conservative government. That's why I say ... there is certainly no absolute power for a Conservative government and no real, true majority."

And Stephen Harper 2.0, speculating Tuesday about the next election:

"With the current political alignment - I'm probably not supposed to say this, my election strategists won't like it - but with the current political alignment, I think the possibility of minority government at any election, including one in the near future, would loom very high," Mr. Harper said.

Same message (don’t worry, be happy, I won't burn down the house), same goal behind the remarks (feel comfortable electing a Conservative majority), but much better execution a year and a half later. He’s learning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Two Tory scandals that aren't going away

There are many reasons why, pronouncements to the contrary, Stephen Harper is likely eager to have Canadians trek to the polls this fall. Beyond the obvious motivations, there are also two lingering scandals that’d he’d rather not have erupt before the campaign.

*The first is a real ticking time bomb, and it’s the Conservative election advertising “in-and-out” scandal. It may have slipped out of the headlines but this situation is still developing, and is far from over.

Conservative uber strategist Tom Flanaghan, who is to Harper as Karl Rove is to Bush, is flogging a book and so has been all over the media, saying lots of interesting things. Today, he talked about the alleged ad laundering scheme:

Tom Flanagan says it was only a shortage of money in 2004 that kept the Tories from employing the "in-and-out" money transactions that were used by the party in the 2006 election and are now under investigation by the federal elections commissioner.

He adds:

"It looked to me as if this is in conformity with legislation, but I don't claim to be an expert on it."

No, Tom, you’re not an expert. You know who are experts on election legislation? Elections Canada. The guys your party have taken to court for refusing to sign-off on your little scheme.

This line from the same article was also of note:

Three of the candidates have told the Citizen they believed the payments to the party were for national advertising, and one former candidate has said his campaign was compelled by party headquarters to join in.

So, while Conservative apologists continue to maintain these ads were local and all is above board, three of the candidates have admitted the obvious: these were national ads. Which blows the Conservative defence right out of the water. The fact national campaign was pressuring ridings to participate in this scheme is also troubling.

Speaking of candidates, the LPC has released a list of the 66 Conservative candidates they allege were potentially involved in the ad scheme. There are 17 elected MPs on the list (and five cabinet members), namely:

Dick Harris, Ron Cannan, Jim Abbott, Stockwell Day, Colin Mayes, Jay Hill, David Anderson, Patricia Davidson, Maxime Bernier, Sylvie Boucher, Daniel Petit, Steven Blaney, Jacques Gourde, Luc Harvey, Jose Verner, Christian Paradis and Lawrence Cannon.

Quite a few on the list are from Quebec. Wouldn’t help Harper’s promised Quebec breakthrough to have this scandal explode between now and a spring election, now would it?

*The other lingering issue the Cons have been able to sidestep without Parliament sitting, and would likely be able to keep on the backburner if the throne speech triggers an election, is the suppression of information by DND relating to Afghan detainees.

If you haven’t been following, the government’s mishandling of the Afghan detainee was one of the final nails in the defence minister Gordon O’Connor, now put out of his misery in the revenue portfolio, where he may never be seen again.

Likely looking to save the government, and DND, further embarrassment CDS Gen. Rick Hillier decided all detainee information would henceforth be classified for highly dubious “national security reasons” denying the public’s right to know. Not one Conservative elected official has yet come forward to support or condone what would appear to be a decision outside of Hillier’s purview. O’Connor dodged it until he was put to pasture, I’ve not heard a peep on it from McKay.

I was reminded of this issue again the other day reading this story:

Canada is still unable to account for at least 50 prisoners it captured and handed over to Afghan authorities, keeping alive concerns that some detainees could have been subject to torture.

This issue isn’t going away. The Liberals were out on front on this when it broke, and the NDP threatened to recall the defence committee over it, although they didn’t follow through on that threat.

If parliament were to resume this fall however and not be quickly dissolved for an election, I have no doubt the freedom of information issue will be the subject of heated hearings by the defence committee, which would no doubt call Hillier, O’Connor, Ward Elcock (since shuffled out of DND) to get an explanation into this mess, and figure-out just whom was running the show at DND. It would be an unhealthy media spectacle to say the least.

Two reasons why, no matter what he says in public, Harper may more than be happier to go to the polls this fall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper and women: What would Mulroney say?

Much has been written about the record of the Harper Conservatives on women's issues, from the Status of Women cuts all the way to a cabinet shuffle that lowered the clout of women in Harper's inner circle. The latest developments have been covered by Impolitical, Unrepentant Old Hippie and Garth Turner.

On a related note, I'm reading Brian Mulroney's 50 pound autobiography at the moment. Look for a review some time around 2010, because this thing is crazy long. But I bring it up because, in light of current events, I found this passage from the guy Conservatives are now rallying behind to be interesting:

On election night in 1984, I made the following pledge to the women of Canada: “From now on, the advancement of women's rights will be one of the major concerns of the Government of Canada. Injustices that women have suffered – belatedly recognized as such by many of us – will no longer be tolerated in this country, and our government will attempt to remedy the most glaring of problems and will vigorously address the difficulties that remain.”

I spent the next nine years delivering on that pledge, by appointing more female ministers, deputy ministers, senators, and judges than any other prime minister up to that time. I also initiated anti-stalking legislation, and implemented many other measures to support women.

I guess Mulroney must have fixed everything, given the record of Harper's government on these issues. Indeed, based on their actions it would seem Canada's New Government believes Mulroney went too far on women's issues, and they need to dial it back a bit.

It's yet another reminder of why the Conservatives dropped the Progressive moniker. Must be one of the few times the Harper Cons decided for truth in advertising.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is no referendum

Steve writes about the coming Quebec by-elections, and a media analysis of their national implications. Frankly, I think this whole opinion that it's a referendum on Dion's leadership is tiring.

Perhaps there's a group in the party, in Quebec, that have never liked Dion, were upset when he won and are looking for any excuse to boot him out and get their person in instead, so they can advance. I don’t doubt that. But do I think most Liberals actually consider this a 'referendum' on his leadership, a make or break? No, not at all.

The three by-elections last year were Harper's first as PM. Did he not handpick/backdoor support the selection of Dianne Haskett ran in London? She lost, badly, as I recall, to the Liberals. And the Cons lost the Quebec by-election to the BQ too. Didn't impact Harper's leadership at all, did it?

And now there's three by-elections in Quebec, a province Harper has tapped as key to his majority dreams, and has poured billions of billions of dollars, and extended tons of effort. So, given all the importance and effort Harper has expanded on Quebec, why aren't these by-elections a referendum on his leadership? Wouldn't a failure to take at least 2/3 speak to a massive failure of his Quebec strategy, a rejection of Canada's New Government by Quebecers. If he loses all three, that will be four Quebec by-elections Harper has lost since forming government. And he’ll be 0/5 on by-elections overall. Yet, it’s not a referendum for Harper.

And Jack has invested quite a bit of effort in Muclair in Outremont, what's the price he pays if that's all for naught?

By-elections are by-elections. Certain groups within the party can try to use them to further their own nakedly obvious internal power grabs and personal goals, and the Cons and NDP can play along to support their own strategic goals. But that doesn’t mean I’m buying it. Get over it people, and move on. The rest of us have.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A question for Mr. Poilievre

Cher Pierre,

You say the right to funnel money from the national party to the local party for purely national advertising, and get reimbursed with taxpayer money for that spending, is somehow possibly equated with "free speech".

If that's so then why, pray tell, did your Conservative Party make it illegal for me to donate more than $1000 to the political party of my choice? Isn't that impugning my right to free speech?

Are you and Mr. Harper saying the Conservative Party's right to free speech, and the right to free speech of third-party groups like the National Citizen's Coalition, is somehow more important than the right of an individual Canadian citizen to free speech, or less worth defending? Why is that exactly Pierre?

Just curious.

Jeff

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another reason for Harper's proroguing Parliament?

In the midst of a blog posting on whether or not Parliament has actually been prorogued yet or not (it has to do with when the PM actually makes the official request to the GG, whose approval is generally a given), Macleans.ca’s Kady O’Malley makes an interesting and as yet otherwise overlooked observation about another potential motivation: killing potentially embarrassing committee hearings.

… the House Public Accounts Committee…is supposed to hold two days of hearings on the RCMP pension scandal later this week.

If Parliament is prorogued, those meetings are cancelled, since at that point, the committee no longer officially exists. But if it doesn't happen until next week, when the PM is back in town, it's full speed ahead for all concerned...

Makes the timing of the proroguing rather interesting, doesn’t it? If Parliament has indeed been officially prorogued, which as Kady writes is a bit unclear at the moment, then these pesky hearings that the Cons would rather not have happening would magically disappear since this committee, like all others, will go poof.

No unsavory headlines generated. Among those scheduled to testify this week are/were Stockwell Day and new RCMP Commissioner William Elliot. Harper can stop it all with one phone-call to Madame Jean he could make at any minute.

The Cons won’t even need their pesky how to disrupt committee meetings manual for some time. If will be quite awhile before the Defence committee can look into the cover-up of Afghan detainee documents, for example, among other troubling issues the Cons would rather not have committees shine lights on.

And Duffy thought it had something to do with the Ontario election…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper is not a leader

So, Harper announced yesterday that instead of Parliament returning this month he’s going to prorogue Parliament, with Parliament instead re-opening with a Throne Speech October 16^th.

Reading Conservative talking points as gospel from his Blackberry, CTV’s Mike Duffy explained this is really all about the Ontario election. Speaking on Newsnet, Duffy sagely told us his Conservative sources have said the PM decided to prorogue so as to not interfere with the Ontario election, since the Feds have so many dealings with Ontario and they didn’t want to get dragged into the election. Yeah, and I’m sure Parliament will prorogue during PEI’s next election too Mike.

That’s a huge load of BS that you shouldn’t have just parroted unchallenged Mike. Since when have provincial elections been a cause to prorogue Parliament? That’s a ridiculous suggestion. Let’s look back into the very recent past…

Harper didn’t prorogue during the Quebec election, did he? No. Not only did he not prorogue, but Parliament sat and Harper passed a budget designed to give Jean Charest an electoral boost. He didn’t get dragged into that provincial election, he dove-in head-first. So, sorry Mike, but you should have called BS on that sad Conservative spin.

Why did Harper prorogue? Because he’s stalled in the polls, has failed to inspire Canadians and desperately needs to give a fresh start to a government lacking in both newness, direction and accomplishment. A little pageantry to distract from the long list of flip-flops and broken promises, and try to give the impression they’re doing something.

What they’re doing though is letting a long list of bills from the last Parliament die. According to the usual Conservative logic, they therefore must be against all those things, right? Among the bills in limbo because of Harper’s need for a fresh coat of paint for his not so new government:

C-7, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (Conservatives are against National Defence?)

C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (Conservatives are soft on crime?)

C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act (Conservatives even softer on crime?)

C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) (Conservatives crazy-soft on crime)

C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace) (Conservatives megasoft on crime)

C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) (Conservatives soft on the environment)

C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences) (Holy cow that’s a lot of Conservative softness on crime)

C-43 An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate (Conservatives stalling on Senate reform)

C-44 An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Conservatives soft on human…nah)

So, according to the usual Conservative logic, the Conservatives are soft on crime, didn’t get it done on the environment and stalling Senate reform.

More proof Stephen Harper is not a leader! And so on, and so forth.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Three Quick Friday Hits

*Anyone who seriously believes Dick Harris came-up with the dumb idea of making the Conservative candidate in an NDP-held riding as a government representative and encouraging residents to bypass their elected MP all by himself, with no help from the PMO or CPC leadership, raise your hand? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

*So Iggy made a dumb analogy about a bird. It must be the silly season when this is getting as much attention as it is. It’s not even in the top five list of questionable Iggy comments. I think my favourite one had something to do with herding cats. I also liked his review of Borat. And anyway, why is it bad to hide your excrement? Should you be putting your excrement on display or something? Does Harper fling his around at cabinet meetings? No thanks, I’d rather you dispose of it, thanks.

*On a more serious note, I see the phrase “President Harper” has made its way into the official Liberal taking points. I first heard it from Denis Coderre during cabinet shuffle spin and I’ve heard it a few times now from Dion, most recently during his speech at the caucus retreat. Please, OLO comms people, can we drop this line? It’s lame, it’s cheap and it’s lazy. There’s ways to make the points you’re trying to make, that Harper is a Bush Republican-loving autocrat, without such hackneyed lines as “President Harper.” And why do we even need the Republican/Bush references, which only open us to (false) charges of anti-Americanism? Harper is screwing-up plenty himself and giving us lots to work with, there’s no need for bogeymen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why it's hard to take the NDP seriously

I get the NDP's e-newsletters each week, and not a week goes by without at least one item bashing the Liberals. Often they bash the Liberals more than they bash the Harper Conservatives, but that's just carrying-on the same strategy they adopted in the last election campaign, where they all but ignored the Conservatives, even as it became clear they were heading to government, to attack the Liberals instead.

Today, however, their weekly Liberal bashing is particularly amusing:

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion today showed an utter lack of leadership and contempt for Canadian voters by flip-flopping on deeper North American integration.

In a press conference in Ottawa, Mr. Dion came out swinging against the Security and Prosperity Partnership that will be discussed at the Montebello Summit from August 19-21.

They must be referring to this release and rather detailed position paper (pdf) that the Liberals released last week, outlining Liberal concerns about the SPP process and detailing six steps PM Harper should take to put Canada’s interests first at the talks.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion today released Strong and Free: The Liberal Blueprint for the North American Leaders Summit at Montebello, Quebec – August 2007, outlining a detailed proposal to ensure Canada’s interests are effectively promoted at the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meetings in Montebello.

Given that the NDP is attacking Dion for raising concerns about the direction Harper is taking the SPP, you must think Layton and the NDP are in favour of SPP, and are angry Dion is attacking it.

Well, not quite. You see, the NDP also has concerns about the SPP. They’re just angry that…the Liberals have concerns too? That only the NDP is allowed to oppose the SPP?

Well, that’s not how they put it. You see, they point to the fact that the SPP process began under the previous Liberal government as some kind of smoking gun revelation. Now that the Harper Conservatives are taking the process in a new direction that is concerning to the Liberals, Layton’s NDP is pulling out the 'ol lazy political crutch, the flip-flop card.

The NDP says:

In doing so, Mr. Dion showed a level of historical revisionism unseen since Mr.Ignatieff’s mea culpa for supporting the war in Iraq.

When all else fails, play the blame Iggy card, it's imaginative. Maybe we should start calling him Taliban Jack more, that's equally creative. And yes, Liberals, how dare you agree with us! Shame on you for now having the same opinion as us, for shame!

What a load of poppycock. Here’s Dion addressing the point:

“The original spirit of the SPP was one all Canadians could embrace,” said Mr. Dion. “It existed to strengthen Canada’s national interest on security, trade, competitiveness, health, safety and the environment by working closely with our neighbours – to allow Canada and its friends to provide a better life for each nation’s people.

“But Mr. Harper is taking the SPP in a very different direction,” added Mr. Dion. “Under the veil of secrecy, he is blurring the line between partnership and imitation.”

I know Jack may not know this, but the Liberals aren’t in government anymore and frankly, I don’t trust the Harper Conservatives to run this process, nor do I trust the direction they’re taking it in. It is entirely legitimate for the Liberals to be raising concerns, and for the NDP to be attacking the Liberals for sharing their own concerns, well, such weird strategy may be why the last SES numbers looked so bad for them.

Now, I can see the communications strategy here by the NDP. Last week the Liberals came out with a detailed policy paper outlining concerns about the SPP process with specific recommendations for Harper to take in the negotiations. It was well received. The NDP, comparatively, came out with a more general, broad release just expressing their opposition with some broad themes sketched-out that looked a tad paltry by comparison to the meaty liberal paper.

Seeing the Liberals moving in and outflanking them on what they claim solely as one of their issues, and with a poll that puts the NDP at a paltry 13 per cent nationally, today the NDP rushes out a more detailed release opposing the SPP and throws in a larger broadside at the Liberals for good measure to defend their flank.

So, I can see what they’re doing, but I think the execution here was rather off. If I could make a suggestion were I the NDP (scary thought, I know) I might have taken a more sarcastic approach, thanking the Liberals for finally coming into the light, seeing the error of the ways, joining the NDP, following their leadership, yada yada… Wouldn't necessarily be accurate, but might have been more effective.

Because attacking someone for agreeing with you just seems kinda lame. But I'm sure the pros in the NDP know what they're doing...right?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper is an equal opportunity hater of independant thought

Given the wealth of attention paid to the fact female representation at the senior cabinet level dropped in Harper’s cabinet shuffle this week, some may look at Harper’s decision to demote a female senior staffer, Michele Austin, described by colleagues as “a strong woman” as part of a pattern of behaviour, and given that recent history it wouldn’t be hard to see why:

A number of Tory aides and insiders spoke of Ms. Austin's abilities and credited her with a large role in Mr. Bernier's successes, and said they felt it was unfair that she would be told to trade jobs with Mr. O'Connor's former chief of staff, Aaron Gairdner, who will now run Mr. Bernier's office.

They said she was well respected, but known as willing to challenge the will of the PMO. "She wasn't a wallflower type of girl. She was a strong woman," one said. "They [the PMO] believe that if you are minister's staff, you work for the Prime Minister, as opposed to the minister."

But I don’t think the pattern has anything to do with her being a woman though. Rather, I think Harper hates all people equally that show any signs of independent thought. He’s equal opportunity in that sense, Stephen is, and never let it be said otherwise...

P.S. Conservative six (or less) degrees of separation:

…Aaron Gairdner…happens to be married to Stacey Gairdner, executive assistant to Stephen Harper's wife, Laureen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers