Michaëlle Jean and memories of prorogations past

An interesting story came out this week offering some insight into former Governor General Michaëlle Jean's decision to grant Stephen Harper's Conservative government a prorogation of Parliament in 2008 when he was facing defeat at the hands of the Liberal/NDP coalition.

Constitutional scholar Peter Russell told OntarioNewsWatch.com this week that weighing on Ms. Jean’s mind at the time was the likelihood the Tories – had they lost office – would have poisoned confidence in the coalition government through a PR campaign framing the change as an illegitimate transfer of power.

The Conservatives, he told the Ontario-based news website, “have a huge publicity machine” at their fingertips.

“If a ‘no’ had come out of Rideau Hall and an attack launched on a Dion-Layton coalition that said we’ve had a coup d’etat in Canada,” he said, “we would have been there in the headlines of the world like Greece. [That’s] not very good for the country in any which way.”

If you think that fear is unwarranted, you've forgotten the rhetoric that was spewing from the Conservatives at the time. Here's a reminder:

As I wrote at the time, I disagreed with Jean's decision (and I still do) as I think she was wrong on the constitutional question. She should have exercised her powers, but I understand why she didn't feel comfortable doing so.

While I strongly disagree with Madame Jean’s decision, I think she was in a no-win situation no matter what she did, and there was no precedent to inform a decision on prorogual under these circumstances. So I don’t blame her. 

In a no-win scenario she opted to maintain the status quo. Perhaps, given the fact she holds an unelected position, that was the right thing to do. It wasn't the right thing to do constitutionally however, and perhaps we need to look at reforming the role of the head of state in our system of government. We shouldn’t be putting an unelected figurehead in this position if they lack the moral authority to use the powers of their office to make the right decision, using the powers granted to them by the constitution. We need a head of state role in our system of government, but they also need to have the degree of legitimacy needed to play their role when called upon.

But I've digressed. I don’t blame Jean. I blame Harper. He put the Governor-General in this position, and now a very dangerous precedent has been set: illegitimate governments that have lost the support of the people’s representatives can govern with impunity, fleeing parliament at will to avoid accountability. Mark my words: Conservatives, and all Canadians, will come to regret the precedent set here today.

As we now gain more insight into Jean's thinking at the time, it reinforces for me the need to revisit the practice of having an unelected, appointed figurehead serving in the sometimes constitutionally important role of Governor General.

If someone holding that role feels that, as an appointee, they lack the moral authority to exercise their constitutional prerogative because they fear the PR consequences or because it would conflict with the will of the government (and I can understand where they're coming from) then we should consider reforming the system so that we elect our head of state. An elected head of state would have the moral authority to over-rule the government when constitutionally appropriate, and there may be times in the future when it is appropriate. And they could publicly defend their decision.

Whether it means ditching the monarchy or not, I don't see this as a republican issue. We could simply vote for the person the Queen appoints, instead of it being on the PM's advice. But I think having a head of state with the moral authority to use their reserve power is necessary.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Re-frame the question: Who will make Parliament work?

Interesting watching the fall-out of Ignatieff's clarification on coalitions, and the predictable Conservative response of fear mongering and doomsday prophecies.

In the latest return-fire from unnamed Iggy spokesthingy, I see the seeds of a promising way to turn the narrative on this and reframe it on better ground:

The Ignatieff official says that their plan – “repeated many times” – is to form a Liberal government.

“So there you go. We’ll run to form a Liberal government. And we will work with everybody – Conservatives included – to make Parliament a place where respectful and meaningful debates happen, not the disgraceful Bairdesque circus Conservatives seem to love so much.”

I like where this is going. We need to pivot back to prorogation and the Conservative abuse of Parliament, an issue the Conservatives took a serious hit on.

We're about making Parliament work, and the Conservatives aren't. Unlike the Conservatives, you can trust the Liberals to respect the will of Canadians and to work with members of all parties in the best interests of Canadians. The Conservatives have shown they're unwilling to respect the democratic will of Canadians -- they've locked the doors of Parliament twice to avoid the accountability of the people's representatives -- and believe Parliament is just a nuisance to be swept aside at a whim. We believe differently. That's why we need to elect a strong Liberal government. Because you can count on us to respect you votes and be ready to work with anyone -- even the Conservatives -- for the betterment of Canada.

Something like that. But shorter. Flip the issue around and re-frame it.

Since I slagged him the other day, I'll say Scott Reid had it right on Power and Politics tonight. We need to stop being so dammed frightened of Conservative talking points, or what they'll say in their scary ads. Man-up, get on the offence and take it to them for a change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stupid talking points

Sometimes there are examples that highlight why people outside Ottawa think all politicians are morons. Here’s one.

Today, instead of reporting on a Nanos poll that shows the Liberals and Conservatives shockingly tied (hard to fit that one into the narrative, I suppose) many media outlets are dutifully copying and pasting, often unchallenged, the latest talking points from the Conservative War Room mothership. Ctrl-c, tab to browser, control-v, post.

The Conservatives say, to media delight, that that silly Michael Ignatieff wanted Parliament back so badly, and now in the second full week he’s off talking to students in Newfoundland or some fool thing, instead of performing for their amusement in question period and giving them clips on the detainee issue so they can go on TV and ask why he’s talking about an issue that is only of moral importance and isn’t giving him any polling traction (ignore Nanos) instead of getting out of Ottawa and talking to real Canadians or something.

It’s not a completely off base criticism. The optics are pretty silly, going off on a speaking tour the second week Parliament is back. Hard to deny that.

Were I to don my Liberal hat for a moment (it’s more of a beret, really) I’d make a few observations though:

One would be that the tour was scheduled previously, as Parliament was scheduled to be recessed this week for Spring Break. Cancelling on everyone would be quite the hassle. Particularly if they didn't buy travel insurance. Cancellation fees these days are mad.

Second would be that Parliament is sitting this week because Stephen Harper, smarting from prorogation and needing damage control, decided to cancel spring break, because there was so much gosh-darned important stuff for Parliament to be working on. In fact, the media thought that Harper had laid a clever trap for the opposition, who checked with Admiral Ackbar and replied “sure, cancel it, and let’s come back even sooner,” to which Harper had no clever retort.

Third would be to mention that, despite it being supposedly so gosh-darned important for Harper to cancel the spring break (besides damage control) because he had such important matters to put before Parliament, since the House came back, the Conservatives have yet to introduce, or re-introduce, any significant legislation. They scheduled three opposition days this week. There’s been pro-forma throne speech and budget debate. And…that’s about it. Still waiting on them to even try to bringing the bulk of their crime legislation back. Where’s the beef, Steve?

And fourth, I might mention that Parliament can keep on working just fine with Ignatieff taking a few days to go about the country. Harper stayed in his office most of Monday, and life went on just fine.

Were I to now doff my Liberal chapeau and take a more critical look at all this, I’d mention that to accept the Conservative position is to completely invalidate their previous position. Indeed, it all requires the Liberals and Conservatives to flip positions.

For during prorogation, while the Liberals argued Parliament needed to be sitting so work could be done, the Conservatives responded work doesn’t just happen in Parliament, we’re out there meeting with real Canadians. And now that Ignatieff is out there meeting with real Canadians, the Conservatives say real work is being in Parliament, debating opposition day supply motions, and not talking to real Canadians like we were saying before.

So for the Conservatives to attack Ignatieff for being out there meeting with Canadians instead of in Parliament, they’re also admitting their response to prorogation attacks was invalid (and expect us to ignore the contradiction).

As well, they're reminding everyone about prorogation too. Indeed, they're now chortling about Ignatieff "proroguing himself" when just weeks ago they were saying prorogation was a completely normal parliamentary procedure. Now they think they're cleverly contradicting the Liberals, but they can't make that case without contradicting themselves too.

When you think about it, it's really all pretty stupid. Which is why, perhaps, Mike Duffy is so opposed to critical thinking.

Thankfully, there’s little of that happening in Ottawa these days, not when ctrl-c is so easy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You don't need Admiral Ackbar to see through Stephen Harper

As I chuckled while reading reports of the “clever trap” that Stephen Harper had set for the opposition parties by daring them to deny unanimous consent for his sudden proposal to scrap parliamentary break week in March and April after shutting down Parliament to “recalibrate” I was reminded of the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar:



Of course, the opposition parties didn’t need Ackbar to see through this latest gambit from a Prime Minister whose the increasingly unearned reputation for strategic genius is but a faded memory:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he has no problem with the Conservative government's plan to cancel parliamentary breaks in March and April.

But he says he'd prefer if the Tories simply came back to work now.

Ignatieff, who has been holding meetings with his MPs in Ottawa since Jan. 25, says Harper's excuses for the shutdown have disappeared and now the PM is "in a scrambling act to ... catch up to the Liberal party."

"We've been at work for two weeks and we've had some great results," Ignatieff said during a break from party roundtables on community safety and energy and the environment.

"Parliament should not have been shut down. Canadians are prepared to get Parliament back to work. Why is the prime minister not prepared to do that? And now, he wants us to work during the break weeks in March and April.

"We're perfectly prepared to do that but we're wondering why we couldn't have started working on the 25th of January" when the Commons was scheduled to reconvene after its Christmas recess.

And if you had any doubts that Harper’s supposed reputation for chess playing is proven a façade when he’s faced with an even marginally competent opponent, consider this latest brainwave from the PMO: he has invited himself to address the British Columbia Legislature on the eve of the Olympic Games:

The B.C. legislature is slightly agog over next week's pending visit by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Apparently, he intends to address the chamber Thursday.

Topic: the 2010 Winter Olympics, presumably, though more than a few observers have been joking along the lines suggested by the headline on this item.

No one has made an official announcement, but the news was broken earlier this week by Sean Holman on his Public Eye Online website.

Even lacking official confirmation, controversy abounds.

Apparently, the visit was not by invitation from the provincial government. Rather it was Ottawa's idea.

Nor is there any obvious precedent for a prime minister to speak to the provincial house, though Gov-Gen. Michaelle Jean did address the legislative chamber in March 2006.

Yes, that’s right. Harper is going to use this prorogation, this period when Parliament had to be shut down so he could focus on the budget, to go talk to B.C.’s Parliament. He’s using this prorogation, when Parliament had to be shut so we could all focus on the Olympics, to talk to B.C’s parliament about the Olympics. Funny too, isn’t it, that B.C.’s Parliament can sit so close to the Olympics, and Ottawa’s can’t, isn’t it?

I mean, who thought sending Harper to the BC leg was a good idea? The optics are bad for about a dozen reasons. He shuts down the national parliament, avoiding questioning and scrutiny, but goes to speak to another one? At a time he is supposed to be knee-deep in economy saving? Drawing attention to the fact that B.C.’s legislature will be sitting on the eve of the Olympics, but Canada’s won’t, making Harper’s Olympic prorogation excuse even more pathetic?

Just like moving to cancel the spring break weeks, far from an opposition trap, only served to further underscore the narrative that prorogation was wrong, that Parliament matters and has work to do, and that Harper now tacitly admits it. And it again raises the very valid question: If it’s so important to for Parliament to cancel those break weeks, why isn’t it sitting now?

Heck, even the media are starting to outright mock the government in news copy. This was filed on the CP wire this afternoon, emphasis mine:

The Harper government is scrambling to take back the political agenda after suffering a beating in the polls over its decision to suspend Parliament.

The Conservatives trotted out a pair of cabinet ministers Thursday to assure Canadians they're hard at work _ and that a new proposal to cancel parliamentary spring breaks is not just a cynical political ploy.

``The two break weeks need to be cancelled so we can work hard,''
Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis said. ``We want to sit as much as possible in order to get the measures passed that we think Canadians want to see passed.''

He didn't explain why Parliament couldn't be doing that work now.

Conservative whip Gordon O'Connor sent a memo to Tory MPs and senators on Wednesday, telling them to cancel their traditional spring breaks _ a change that would need unanimous approval by all parties.

When they’re laughing at you, Steve, it’s over. Forget strategic genius. Even Admiral Ackbar could have seen this train wreck coming.

Maybe he should lead the Conservatives?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Bonus Bob Rae piano footage

Before you head out to the local anti-prorogation, pro-democracy rally near you today (if you're in Toronto, we'll be at Yonge & Dundas Square at 1:00 pm) here is some bonus Bob Rae on the piano footage from Thursday's Liberal event in Toronto.

The highlight was certainty "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues" which I shared yesterday, but he also entertained the crowd with "You are my Sunshine" (sadly, not sang as a serenade to Michael Ignatieff) and Auld Lang Syne. The first song is a little shaky, he and the fiddler had a little trouble getting in key.



And here again is the new hit single, "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues":

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Bob Rae on piano singing "Stephen Harper: He Prorogues"

Last night I attended a party at the Royal York for supporters of the Liberal Party's Victory Fund. I'll have more a little later this morning, including video, on Michael Ignatieff's speech and his promise of concrete and substantive policy at the policy forums the party is holding next week as Liberals return to work on January 25th.

First, I wanted to share some video of what was for most of us there the highlight of the evening. Among the entertainers was Liberal MP Bob Rae, who sat down at the piano and played (and sang) a number of songs for everyone. (Alas no, he didn't play With a Little Help From My Friends.)

In the highlight, he re-wrote the lyrics to Let it Be by The Beatles (what is it with politicians and The Beatles?) and called it Stephen Harper: He Prorogues.

Enjoy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On restricting the power to prorogue

My highly influential Liberal blogging friend Steve has a post up on the NDP's proposal, or I guess musings about a proposal, to restrict the ability of a Prime Minister to prorogue parliament, and lamenting the NDP seems out ahead of the Liberals on this issue. I left a few lengthily comments on the matter there that probably merit further exploration here.

It should be noted that it seems the NDP are just talking about writing a bill, so it's hard to comment with too much authority about a hypothetical proposal. Essentially, they think that the PM shouldn't be able to ask for prorogation, but that it should require a majority vote by the House of Commons. (They seem to have forgotten about the Senate, not sure if that's intentional or not. Hard to justify excluding them though, if it was intentional. They get prorogued too.)

That said, I do have some thoughts, however.

First, I don't think the power to prorogue is the real problem here. Any tool can be abused. That doesn't mean the tool is flawed, though. Take guns. Guns have legitimate uses: safety and protection. They can also be abused to commit criminal acts. So we don't ban guns, but take steps to restrict their use. Still, gun control alone won't solve crime. The deeper problem is the criminals. So just as I support reasonable and effective gun control, I'm open to exploring reasonable and effective prorogation control, to coin a phrase. I'll get more into that in a moment.

I don't think prorogation is the real problem here though. It's the abuse of prorogation. The abuse of prorogation is a symptom of a larger disease: a prime minister contemptuous of parliament and democracy, our of touch with the priorities. Treating the symptom is fine. But it won't cure the disease. That's where our focus should be. Let me put it another way: Stephen Harper is a serial abuser of parliament. We can run around finding ways to change parliament; he'll just find other ways to abuse it. The problem isn't with parliament. The problem is with Stephen Harper. We need to get him into treatment.

Now, back to prorogation reform. I have to wonder, isn't there a constitutional question here? What I've read from the NDP today talks about restricting the PM from asking for prorogation. But it's my understanding that prorogation is a power vested in the Governor General who, by convention, accepts the advice of her Prime Minister on the matter, largely without question.

I'm no constitutional or legal scholar, but it seems there are two angles you could address it from: stop the PM from asking the GG for prorogation, or stop the GG from taking the PM's advice on it.

On the first, I don't see how you can legally bar the PM from stopping by Rideau Hall or, horror of horrors, phoning over and asking her for whatever he wants. Whether she says yes is another matter entirely, but you can't restrict his right to free speech. He can still ask for it.

Which leaves us with restricting the GG's latitude for accepting her PM's advice. Can that be done by simple law alone, or is that a change to her powers as described in the constitution? I'm no lawyer, but that would seem to tread into constitutional matters, which trump any legislation passed by Parliament alone.

So, to this layman, merely passing legislation that seeks to restrict the PM from being able to ask for prorogation seems largely symbolic and legally unenforceable. He can ask, and legislation won't change the fact prorogation is the GG's to grant, or to not grant. Now, it's true, a GG could feel morally obligated to heed the advice of Parliament as expressed through such legislation, and decide to overturn the convention of accepting the advice of her PM. She wouldn't be legally bound to do so without constitutional reform of her powers, but she does have that discretion, in theory.

She'd be under no obligation to do so, however. Indeed, the debate would have many parallels last year's prorogation, when the GG was asked to set aside the PM's request for prorogation in favour of the petition from the opposition coalition. We know how that one came out, and the unfortunate precedent set.

So, if we want real reform I really don't think this is as simple as saying "let's write a bill to restrict the PM's ability to ask for prorogation." I trust though he NDP has considered all the legal and constitutional questions, and crafted legislation (or plan to, I guess) that is intended to be legally binding and effective, and not mere symbolism. When they do come up with a proposal, if it will be binding and effective I'll be on board.

I know the Liberals are studying proposals for democratic reform, and are consulting with legal and academic experts on the wider issues. I'm not overly concerned that the Liberals haven't lept forward on this issue IF they're taking the time to craft legislation that could actually be effective at improving the system. Because I think it's effective reforms people are interested in, not symbolism, and I'd rather get it right than get the headline first.

In the mean time, let's not get so bogged-down treating symptoms we forget the disease. Look for the anti-prorogation rally near you on Saturday, come on out and make your voice heard.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The drip drip of negative perception

An examination of the rise and fall of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1993 to 2006 would show that, despite what the polling numbers may have shown, it wasn’t as if the party suddenly and surprisingly dropped off a cliff in 2004 when the tsunami that was the sponsorship scandal shook the party. While adscam was certainly the straw that broke the back of the party, it wouldn’t have done it alone.

It was a steady drip drip that had built up in the public consciousness over the entirety of the Liberal tenure in government that led to the public beginning to move away from the party in 2004, and finally backing away entirely in 2005/06. There were many unpopular decisions and scandals, both real and imagined, that hit the Liberals over those 13 or so years. I won’t go through and catalog the list. And while each one was seemingly weathered with little to no lasting hit in popular support, each did register in the public consciousness, a festering concern or disappointment that, while not enough to change voter support, did shape their view of the party, building with each additional incident.

Despite growing displeasure over various Liberal decisions and actions, support held for some time for a number of reasons: each incident in isolation wasn’t enough to change minds, the government was doing many other good things people liked, and there was no compelling alternative to move support to if people were so inclined, whether it was the divided right or a weak Stockwell Day in 2000.

For many, sponsorship was the proverbial last straw that served to put all those other more minor scandals and other problems they’d had with the Liberals over the years into a linking narrative, triggering a change in voter support. But even with a united right, it wasn’t enough in 2004 to move government to the Conservatives. It wasn’t until 2005/06 when that increasing displeasure with the Liberals, sealed as mentioned by sponsorship, was combined with a Conservative platform that gave people a place to feel comfortable parking their votes – tax relief, a relatively moderate policy platform – that the public finally fully left the Liberals and elected a new government.

The lessons to be learned? It’s not any one single incident, but a drip dip of actions and events that shape a perception and a narrative, that will move public opinion. And they won’t move en masse until they have somewhere compelling to move to.

Why the history lesson?

I took this extended trip down memory lane because I see many interesting parallels to today’s political situation.

Looking at the past four to five years, there have been a myriad of hits the Conservatives have taken, from listeriosis to isoptopes and cancer is sexy all the way through to detainee torture and prorogation, with many more of varying sizes and import. By and large, up to the current backlash over prorogation, each past incident hasn’t generally caused a lasting decline in Conservative support.

That’s because each incident, on its own, wasn’t enough to trigger a meaningful change in voter intention, given the other things the government was doing that people agreed with, and given the alternatives on the market. But each incident did serve to help move and shape public perception of the Conservative Party in the public consciousness. It builds a narrative.

Looking at prorogation initially, in isolation, I didn’t see it as a major game-changer. However, a spate of recent polls, including most recently from Ekos, The Strategic Counsel and Angus Reid, would seem to be proving me wrong, all showing sharp declines in Conservative support.

It appears that, for many Canadians, the prorogation affair may be that proverbial straw that causes their scales to turn against the Conservatives. It’s not just prorogation itself, but prorogation builds on top of the narrative caused by all those other little incidents and scandals over the last few years that Harper largely got away with at the time. Prorogation serves to solidify the negative impression that all those other incidents had created in the minds of many Canadians and has led many of them to the point where they are ready to change their votes. The government’s negatives begin to outweigh the positives.

Of course, that galvanizing event that finally moves public opinion is only half the equation. As we’ve seen, if they’re going to move to somewhere en masse, they need to have somewhere to go to. That’s borne out by those same polling numbers. Yes, the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals has closed substantially, from as much as 10 to 15 points to, in two cases, a statistical tie. But the gap was largely closed by a collapse of the Conservative vote. Liberal support has gotten a small uptick, but not much of one, still languishing around the 30 per cent level which, until last fall’s freefall, was the historical bottom of Liberal support for the last five or so years.

It brings me back to my steady message of these last few weeks: if the Liberals are to capitalize on this opportunity that prorogation has given them, public anger with the Conservatives will only take them so far. The public didn’t finally turn on the Liberals in 2005/06 until the Conservatives gave them a strong alternative leader with a compelling, measured moderate policy agenda that they could relate to. They’re not going to leave the Conservatives in lasting and meaningful numbers until we do the same.

Lest I sound too pessimistic, I do have optimism on that front. Michael Ignatieff’s campus tour is going very well, and getting good reviews. I think the “back to work” strategy on January 25th of public policy forums is a good one with the potential to put meat on the bones, but they must include real ideas and proposals, not just platitudes, and make it accessible to those outside the capital, even if only by Web cast. I’ll be watching for that. And, of course, the Thinker’s Conference in March. I’m also hearing that the party is undertaking a process that will lead to the generation of real ideas for democratic reform. It may not come as soon as many would like, but it does appear to be on the radar.

In the end, it will be a major challenge to both sustain the displeasure that prorogation has generated in the Conservatives, as well as convert that displeasure into positive support. Things can change quickly in politics; I think the last three weeks are clear evidence of that. Whether this will be 2004 or 2005/06 will only be known with time.

Either way though, it’s safe to say the drip-drip of scandal has worn heavily on the once formidable Conservative brand, with prorogation causing a heavy hit. For maybe the first time in four years, people are at least ready to consider change.

The only question is, are we ready to give it to them?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper is on guard for thee, but the instability contagion is spreading!

Be on watch, patriotic Canadians! There is a sinister danger lurking in our gentle land, an evil scourge that threatens our economy, our jobs, our economic recovery, even our families and our very way of life. What is this evil plague, you ask? Is it gingivitis? Well, that’s bad too, but no, I’m talking about: Instability!!

Yes, I know, it’s frightening, but it’s true. Instability has taken root in our land and is spreading. No one is safe. You, or your little dog Toto, could be next. Thankfully, we’re lucky enough to have a glorious leader in Stephen Harper with the foresight and bold vision to recognize this growing threat. And he is waging the battle against instability for you, Joe and Jane Canadian!

He recognized the growing threat of instability as far back as this summer, when the possibility of an election that would send Canadians to the polls to vote for their elected representatives threatened to give instability a beachhead into our democratic system:

"We do not need another round of political instability and another round of elections — we need parliament to focus on the economy," Harper said in Adstock, Que., as he announced a $225-million project to expand high-speed internet to rural areas across Canada.

Yes, our leader Stephen Harper had the foresight to know an election would give oxygen to the embers of instability and allow its flickering flames to burn our nascent recovery in the fiery fires of even more instability, but a kind that burned people and stuff.

NO! He declared, you stay away from Parliament, you dreaded instability! We need Parliament working, passing legislation, focusing on the economy, we need Parliament doing its work and not getting all unstable, and what not!

In September, seeing the instability still advancing, the Prime Minister launched another counterattack: get back, instability, we need Parliament on the job!

“The fact of the matter is that Canadians do not want an election, Canada does not need an election and an election is not in this country's best interest. We have important economic measures before Parliament. All the parties in Parliament should be focused on those measures and on the economy. The Leader of the Opposition should focus on our country's best interests.”
– Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, September 14, 2009.

Despite his valiant efforts though, instability proved to be a tenacious adversary. Despite Harper’s defences, and the ordering of plenty of instability vaccine, even if it arrived rather late, the instability was insidious and, rather than triggering an election, the instability mutated, and began to infect Parliament itself.

Instability, in our Parliament! We did not make this up! We’re not allowed to make this up.

Faced with this threat of instability in the very cradle of our democracy, with the infection beginning in the toe and spreading slowly up the leg, like a surgeon Stephen Harper had no choice but to do what he had to do to stop the spread of instability before it became life-threatening: cut off the foot.

"As soon as Parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy."

You see, he had no choice but amputation, er, prorogation! Yes, it was vitally important that we had Parliament on the job back in July to focus on the economy, that’s true. But that was before the instability infection had spread to Parliament. Now it had to be prorogued, for the good of the economy and Tim Horton’s and Hockey Night in Canada, before the instability spread further.

Let’s just hope that Harper finally has this nasty bout of instability beat, and that prorogation will do the trick. If the instability spreads to his cabinet, if the incompetent performances of his ministers begins to put the recovery at risk, he may have to resort to a cabinet shuffle.

Because if that doesn’t work, the instability could even infect the Prime Minister’s Office itself, and Stephen Harper could be out of a job.

And that would be pretty unstable indeed.

Well, for Mr. Harper, at least.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper opens mouth, inserts prorogue

I wrote the other day that one of the challenges for the Liberals and for the opponents of prorogation will be to keep the issue alive and in the public and media consciousness in the days and weeks ahead. The radio and print ads launched on the weekend are part of that. Thankfully, they’re getting some help keeping the issue alive and it comes from an unlikely source: Stephen Harper.

For a guy who doesn’t like the media, and only granted two year-end interviews for 2009 (one English, one French) our Prime Minister has been quite busy granting media one-on-ones since he padlocked the doors of Parliament for two months. Last week he sat down with the CBC and with Canwest. Yesterday it was CFRB and the Business News Network’s turn. It’s been an uncharacteristic period of media accesibility for Harper, and I’m sure it has nothing to do with the growing anger over prorogation that he insists, repeatedly and to more and more media outlets every day, that no one cares about.

Anyway, on BNN yesterday Harper graced us with his latest justification for prorogation, which is sure to extend the story even further:

As soon as Parliament comes back, we're in a minority Parliament situation, the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about, but, you know, the government will be well prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy, so that's what we're going to be doing.

Let's set aside, for a moment, that it's Stephen Harper that opts to make everything a confidence vote and fosters a spirit of bluster and instability in order to play one opposition party off the other for political advantage.

I can see what Harper is trying to do here. He’s trying to bring back the framing that he used to pull the trigger on the last election, and that he was probably hoping to use to pull the trigger after the budget in March until he underestimated the mood of Canadians (I’m hearing new polling numbers out shortly will underline this anger even further): I need a majority to fix the economy and see Canada through this period of economic uncertainty.

Perhaps that approach would have played a few months ago. But the framing of the issue has changed, apparently without Harper having noticed. In the context of Harper proroguing Parliament for the second time in one year, in the context of growing public dissatisfaction with the decision, in the context of a concerted opposition campaign to highlight this as Harper avoiding democratic accountability, in the context of even former senior Harper campaign adviser Tom Flannagan admitting prorogation is clearly about the Afghan detainee issue, Harper’s latest attempt at spin rings hollow.

(It's also worth nothing Harper's line here is also an apparent admission that he's too incompetent to both govern and manage Parliament at the same time. I know it's not easy to make priorities, Stephen, but it is part of the job. If you're not up to it, phone the GG and tell her you quit.)

Indeed, in the context of the growing narrative that Harper’s prorogation is the latest in a string of moves by this government to thumb its nose at democratic accountability, Harper’s comments actually serve to underline and reinforce that developing negative narrative: he’s implicitly saying I prorogued because those pesky MPs elected by the people in Canada are getting in my way. He’s making the opposition’s case for them. In asking them to choose, does he expect people to say "Yeah, let's just get rid of Parliament and give Harper free-reign?"

Once again, Harper’s reputation for strategic genius proves greatly over-rated. He should be talking about anything but prorogation. Were I him, I’d just get out there and be Prime Ministerial. That’s the greatest advantage he has: he has the job. Get out there and cut ribbons and meet with people and announce things.

But if he wants to keep offering lame justifications for sending his MPs on a two-month vacation and explaining why the people’s representatives are such an impediment to him doing whatever he wants to do, I’m cool with that too.

I'm sure it's also cool with the 167,200 (and counting) members of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Liberal ads: Keeping the momentum going

On Sunday, the Liberal Party released three radio ads (two English, one French) and a print ad focusing on the Stephen Harper Conservatives’ decision to shut down parliament for two months. These ads are noteable for a number of reasons, and would appear to signal a shift in strategy and thinking by the DonOLO.

Cover-up (English, radio)


Present (English, radio)


Fermeture (French, radio)


First, the ads themselves. They’re simple, on message and to the point: Harper prorogued parliament to avoid accountability and debate on important issues, what does he have to hide. They’re negative, yes, but they’re issue-based negative, not personally negative.

I’d argue the purpose of the ads is to keep the prorogation issue alive and in the public consciousness a little longer, with the hope of continuing to stoke that anger and, hopefully, begin to convert some of that anger into Liberal support.

Of course, the ads won’t do all that. They’re merely designed to keep the issue and the anger alive. Harper and the Conservatives are banking on this whole issue just fizzling-out and the public losing interest, returning the political landscape to the status-quo. The challenge for the opposition in the coming weeks will be to keep the momentum going, and keep both the public and the media interested and engaged.

Of course, as I’ve been writing, it’s not just enough to keep the momentum going. You need to do something with it. That’s what the Liberal back to work January 25th and the policy forums are about, as well as Ignatieff’s tour. Converting that momentum into support will be the challenge, but the minimal investment in these radio and print ads (buttressed by a healthy dose of free media) are a worthwhile investment to give that phase two conversion an opportunity to succeed.

More broadly and inside basebally (baseballish?), these ads do signal an interesting shift in strategy by the DonOLO. These ads are the first negative (although issue-based) ads the party has ran in English Canada outside a writ period in recent memory, although the French TV ads in the last round of ads did have more of an edge than the English Iggy in the forest spots.

I know many of my partisan friends were very disappointed the LPC didn’t take more of a hard-edged tone in those ads, opting instead for a feel-good Ignatieff intro approach. So they’ll be happy with the more negative, attack tone of these spots. Myself, I thought the instinct to introduce Ignatieff in a positive way was correct, I just didn’t think those ads did that effectively.

I heard though that, at the time, it was felt to go hard after Harper would backfire in English Canada, but Quebec was more open to it, hence the differing strategies. It would appear with these ads that perhaps it’s felt Harper’s perception numbers have shifted, and a harder edge will now be accepted and could bear fruit. So that’s interesting.

So is the fact that there’s now a willingness that seems to have been lacking for some time now to take the gloves off a little, that’s a positive development. Couple that with issue and policy development and it could prove interesting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The demographics around the anti-prorogation anger

In an interview with Kathleen Petty yesterday on CBC Radio's The House, pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research made some interesting points about what his research is showing him about the growing discontent with the Stephen Harper Conservatives around the decision to shutter parliament for two months. The short of it: it's not just the usual suspects that are annoyed, and it goes deeper that the prorogation.

Here's a transcript. Emphasis is mine:

KATHLEEN PETTY (HOST):
Well apparently, Michael Ignatieff is not alone; In a national poll released by the firm EKOS, two thirds of respondents didn't think the move was crazy, necessarily, but they did know the Prime Minister shut down Parliament, and of those, nearly 60 percent were opposed to the prorogation. Frank Graves is the president of EKOS; he joins me in the studio. Good morning, welcome to "The House."

FRANK GRAVES (PRESIDENT, EKOS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES):
Good to be here.

PETTY:
So, is it the number or is it the demographic behind that number that really tells the story, here?

GRAVES:
Well, I think they're both interesting, but perhaps a more interesting thing, which hasn't really been discussed at this point, is the demographic. There's another very interesting feature to the demographic, but I think the most striking one is the... how much this issue has caught the attention of the most educated portions of the electorate and the "baby boom" cohort, which as we know, has been an extremely influential and large portion of the electorate, ones that all show up to vote, ones who have an inordinate level of influence. You could argue that this particular group has exerted almost a stranglehold over the political system for a long time. This group has been pretty solidly onside with Mr. Harper for some time, now. They came onside in the last election and were one of the keys to this success which almost propelled him to a majority victory. So, the fact that they're now having second thoughts about this particular issue... I think this particular issue has become a bit of lightning rod which is capturing a broader sense of disaffection on a number of other issues which have occurred previous to it, but it is something that probably signals greater importance as time goes on, or it could potentially do that.

PETTY:
It also speaks to whether it can be sustained, it seems to me. Because if you're talking about people who are influential and who are opinion leaders, then the ability to sustain a dissatisfaction or unhappiness with prorogation... it seems to me that the likelihood is higher in that case.

GRAVES:
Absolutely, and I think just to add further credibility to that thesis, it's my sense that we've seen a bit of a turnaround in some of the elite intelligentsia coverage of Mr. Harper, which has moved from this very fawning applause that we saw concurrent with the NAC performance - which also, coincidentally, coincided with him moving into majority territory, he was around 42 points, then. Today, he's around 33 points, but it does seem that there's now... We have front page editorials from the Globe and Mail, we have him pilloried by The Economist -

PETTY:
And we've got a trend, and that's the other interesting part. You talk about the NAC performance, but as you take a look at your polling over a period of time, the gap between the Tories and the Liberals used to be wide.

GRAVES:
Almost insurmountable; You had a daunting 15-point lead which was understating the Conservative edge, because the Conservatives have a much more committed voter base, so in fact, when they were running 41-42 points, our calculations are that they would have produced a very decisive majority in the neighbourhood of 180 seats at that point. Today, these numbers would suggest that they're at least as close, probably... no they are closer to actually sitting on the wrong side of the House than they are to that goal of forming a majority.

PETTY:
But these numbers aren't just because of prorogation; it's a cumulative effect to which prorogation has sort of added an extra push, in your view.

GRAVES:
Yeah, but it seems to me that now, this latest issue shouldn't be judged just in terms of, "are people really that upset about prorogation?", or has it become something which captures a broader critical mass of concerns about -

PETTY:
Emblematic.

GRAVES:
Yes, and you're quite right. The decline that we'd seen in sort of... "propeller head" terminology was a monotonic progressive straight-line decline. It was up here or... it wasn't oscillating up and down, it was on a very well- behaved statistical pattern. It seemed to have stopped when Parliament recessed, and this newest episode... remember, over the Christmas period, there's really. .. nothing else happened that would explain why we saw a further three-point drop, which in our samples, which are very large, was highly statistically and substantially significant. So, the only thing that plausibly explains it, and when you link it back as well to concerns about this and look where the attrition occurred, it was this same group that we were talking about before, the "boomers", the educated, and so forth, who seemed to have had some serious second thoughts. That may not be permanent, but it's something which is perhaps more important than the usual sort of three-point fluctuations that you might see on a day-to-day basis.

PETTY:
Okay, well you've given us stuff to watch for, and we will watch for it. Frank, thanks very much.

GRAVES:
Okay, my pleasure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ignatieff’s presser: It’s a good start, but get out of Ottawa!

I wanted to watch the unfiltered video of Michael Ignatieff’s Friday press conference before commenting on it (alas, the GG didn’t prorogue my workplace so I was on the job at the time) and I got a chance to do that Saturday. And now there are also print and radio ads launched today by the Liberal Party as well, I’ll save that for the next post.

First, to the press conference. I saw some good messaging there from Ignatieff. He led with the prorogation, tied it to Stephen Harper’s demonstrated disdain for parliament and democracy, and said that the Liberal caucus is coming back to work on January 25th, when parliament was supposed to be returning. Canadians want them to be working through to the Olympics, and that’s what they’ll be doing, he said. That’s the right message.

And emphasizing that it’s not going to be a stunt, he said they would be holding pre-budget consultations and public policy forums, focusing on issues such as jobs and the economy (particularly happy to see him mention youth unemployment), governance (tying the prorogue into a larger pattern by the Conservatives), and the environment.

I like all that, but with one major caveat: it can’t be just about attacking Harper inaction on these issues, and mouthing general platitudes about how important these issues are. These forums need to include real ideas for action, meat on the bones about what we could or would do on some of these issues. Specifics, not “the children are our future” generalizations are what’s needed. And be ready to acknowledge we haven’t done all that we could have in the past, but that we must do better in the future.

So I like all that, but I do have one significant concern: my impression based on Ignatieff’s presser is that the Liberal caucus will be spending the entire period up until the Olympics “working” in Ottawa. As I wrote earlier, that’s a mistake, and I hope they revisit that.

Spend a few days in Ottawa, maybe a week, with the agenda that you’ve outlined. But after a few days you’ll have gotten the bang for your buck. The public and the media will lose interest after a little while. If you want to seize this opportunity you have got to get out of Ottawa.

There may be more genuine discord brewing around the prorogation than I’d originally thought there would be. The anti-prorogation Facebook group now has over 138,000 members. And in an amusing cross-society illustration, last night Ron MacLean was making prorogue jokes on Hockey Night in Canada while 75 university professors released a letter condemning Harper’s prorogation.

That anger may be out there, but we will not tap into it with the entire Liberal caucus spending the next few weeks on Parliament Hill. Send out the caucus in groups, each with a headliner (Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall-Findlay, Ken Dryden) to hold some of these public policy forums on the road. Get out of Ottawa and meet with Canadians, particularly in swing and unheld ridings.

The longer they spend in Ottawa, the more momentum is lost. And maintaining momentum is going to be key; Harper is banking on people losing interest by the Olympics. Plus the longer they're in Ottawa, the national media will begin to turn on them, for virtue of being the only show in town to lob questions at. (I find David Akin’s explanation of how he decides to use his very limited opportunities to question Stephen Harper an interesting parallel to this.)

We saw a taste of that with Julie Van Dusen’s ridiculous questioning/taunting of Ignatieff on Friday: “What you’re saying is that he can push you around and get away with it! There’s no threat of an election! You’re not saying like you did in September that your time is up! You’re just saying you’re going to have a big gab-fest here and come back when you feel like it!”

This was after multiple questions and answers in both languages, I’d note, on the certainly relevant question of would he force an election over this and if not, why. So the issue was covered-off thoroughly. Van Dusen seemed to have her own narrative to fill though, annoyed the story wouldn't fit it, and it was a vivid demonstration of the dangers of the parliamentary bubble: everything there is about the horse race, treat and bluster, whose is bigger. And it demonstrates just how out of touch the bubble is with the rest of the country.

Thankfully, Ignatieff handled it with more grace that I or Josh Lyman would have, but he was clearly, to use his own word, “astonished.” Canadians want us working, he said. We can’t threaten elections every time Harper acts like a dufus, even if it does make for better television.

Anyway, I say again, do a few days to a week in Ottawa and then get everyone out on the road, in groups, to tour and meet with Canadians. Stay in Ottawa and the national media will get bored and move on to other things. Going to talk with every local media outlet that will have you will keep the issue alive, tie it into the larger narrative, and connect it to real issues that matter to Canadians more than threat and bluster reporting.

Get out of Ottawa!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Look beyond the polls

Two polls out this morning that will no doubt give some comfort to the anti-perogie forces, but both should be taken with a grain of salt and should only be considered a conformation that while there is opportunity around the Conservative decision to shut down parliament and take a two-month vacation, converting on that opportunity is both challenging and uncertain.

The first poll is from Angus Reid and the Toronto Star and surveyed specifically on the decision to prorogue parliament, and it found a majority (53 per cent) opposed the decision, either strongly or moderately. Just 19 per cent agreed with the decision, while 28 per cent were unsure. Support was highest in Manitoba/Saskatchewan at 31 per cent, and opposition was highest in Atlantic Canada at 61 per cent and Ontario at 59 per cent. Along party lines, naturally opposition supporters were opposed, but so were 35 per cent of Conservative supporters (46 per cent of them agreed).

Asked if they believed the government that the decision to prorogue was just about gearing-up for the next stage of the economic plan, or the opposition that it was about hiding from the Afghan detainee abuse scandal, 23 per cent believed the government, 38 per cent sided with the opposition, and 39 per cent didn’t know who to believe. The party line numbers are predictable.

So, Angus Reid tells us Canadians disagree with the decision to prorogue (and that most aren't really paying that close attention either). That’s all well and good, but in isolation it means little. The real question is, what impact, if any, will this disagreement have on their voting intention? Just because I disagree with something doesn’t mean it will change my vote.

That’s where the latest poll from Ekos and the CBC comes in to play. Here’s the latest Ekos numbers on voter intention:

Conservatives: 33.1 (-2.8)
Liberals: 27.8 (+1.1)
NDP: 16.0 (-1.0)
Green: 13.4 (+2.2)
Bloc Quebecois*: 9.8 (+0.6)
Undecided: 14.7

So, an outside the margin decline for the Conservatives, a small within the margin gain for the Liberals, a slight drop for the NDP and an unusual increase for the Greens. What does it all mean? Who knows for sure, but here’s my take:

Since not much else has been happening lately, it’s safe to say based on the Conservative dip that the prorogue story is putting a crimp in their numbers. And it’s also safe to say the opposition parties have yet to benefit much at all from the public disapproval of the Conservative decision.

These numbers largely echo what I’ve been saying since this began: even if people are annoyed at the Conservatives, the Liberals haven’t done the necessary spadework to be able to convert that dissatisfaction into support. We’re still languishing below 30 per cent, and only got a small bump. That’s because while there is anger with the Conservatives, they’re not enamored enough with the alternatives to make the jump. If the Liberals were a more credible alternative, you’d see a larger Conservative decline and a higher Liberal increase. But just because someone dislikes one choice doesn't mean they automatically like another.

Instead, you see a relatively small but still significant Conservative decrease, as those that are really dissatisfied park their support temporarily with the Greens, a traditional holding-basin for the temporarily annoyed, or with the undecided.

If the opposition parties, in particular the Liberals, don’t do anything to begin converting those dissatisfied former Conservative supporters into Liberal supporters by giving them a reason not just to be mad at the Conservatives but to support the Liberals, then over the next few weeks and months that support will slowly trickle back into the Conservative support column, and we’ll be back where we started.

That has been the clear pattern for several years now. They know what they need to do to break it. If they will or not remains to be seen.

UPDATE: For more on the polls see Scott and Scott, as well as Impolitical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Back to work: How to not make it a stunt

I’m cautiously optimistic reading the news that the Liberal caucus will be “reporting for work” on Parliament Hill on January 25th, the day parliament was scheduled to resume before Stephen Harper decided giving politicians a two-month vacation was more important than passing anti-crime and (pro) consumer safety legislation.

This is a good move in theory, but they’ve got to tread very carefully to avoid making this seem like a stunt. So no banging on locked doors, as the article said, and no rhetorically asking questions you would ask in question period, or sit-ins/mock parliaments in an empty chamber. That's a recipe for mockery.

I’ve argued since the start of this perogy business that, even if it was an issue that could turn the public from the Conservatives, they’re not ready to turn to the Liberals yet – not liking the other guys is not a reason to support us. So if we just bring the caucus back to Ottawa and spend the whole time complaining about Harper’s two-month winter vacation, that’s a one-day story that ultimately changes little. In fact, the Conservatives would love if it if we spend the next two months doing nothing but kvetch about the shuttering of parliament.

There is an opening here. A great deal of media attention (thanks to the vacuum created with the Harper vacation) and an increased level of public attention is now being paid to the issue. Certainly the media will be out in force for the January 25th “return to work.” The question is, what do we do with that attention? Our message needs to be about more than the prorogument.

It’s perennially hard to get attention as an opposition party. Well, here’s the chance. Seize it. Use it to say we’re here because we believe our parliamentarians should keep working for Canadians, even if Stephen Harper doesn’t, because there are many important issues Canadians want us to be working on.

And then talk about those issues. The economy and jobs. The environment. Education. Health care. Child Poverty. The deficit. And so on. Talk about what we’d like to do on those issues, not just what the Conservatives aren’t doing, or are doing wrong. Bring in experts to talk about why action in these areas are important, and suggest actions that could be taken to help if only parliament was still meeting.

Use this opportunity to show not just that the decision to prorogue was wrong, but why: these are all the issues we should be in parliament working on. This is what we would do were we calling the shots in parliament. Give people a sense not just that there is an alternative to the Harper approach, but a sense of WHAT that alternative is.“Upset with prorogument?” you ask. “Well here’s what we’d do differently. Maybe give us a try?”

Most importantly though, after a day or two get the heck out of Ottawa. Michael Ignatieff already has his university listening tour scheduled, build on that. But it needs to go further. Draft the entire caucus and get them out on the road.

I’d like to see the caucus break into groups of, say, five Liberal MPs, all touring the country. Put a headliner in each: Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy, Martha Hall-Findlay, and so on. Give them an issue area and send them out into the country to speak with Canadians about our ideas in that area, and to listen to the ideas of Canadians about what they want to see the government do on health care, or the economy. Have them meet with every local newspaper and radio station that wants to talk with them. Hang out in coffee shops. Listen and be visible and let the contrast speak for itself: we’re listening and working, the Conservatives are on vacation.

Bottom line: these two months Harper has given us can be an opportunity, but only if we seize it. Don’t get bogged down in the prorogurment, but instead use it as a spring board to define ourselves and connect with Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sound and fury signifying what, exactly?

I share the displeasure of my Liberal and progressive brethren with Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament. And going back to the first leadership race, Michael Ignatieff does have a definite history of taking vacations and going on media blackouts at the most inopportune times. I think there was a week in 2006 his staff couldn’t even find him. And it happened again last summer until he launched the Hiding in Plain Sight Tour. Opposition leaders don’t get vacations, Michael.

So it’s been left to the likes of Ralph Goodale and Bob Rae to go in front of the cameras and provide the obligatory clips of outrage about how upset we are about the decision to prorogue, how it’s an affront to democracy, how he’s hiding from his incompetent and duplicitous handing of the Afghan detainee, thwarting the democratic will of parliament and its order to produce documents, and so on. And they've done that well. But it was certainty a missed opportunity for Ignatieff to have been front and centre in the media spotlight.

My question though is still what it was a few days ago: to what end? Whether it’s Rae and Goodale or Ignatieff up front providing the outrage quotes (probably more so if it’s the leader and not a surrogate) I’m still left to wonder “OK, you’re pissed off. Me too. Now what are you going to do about it?”

Putting Ignatieff up on this issue would have made that question even more pointed, and I’ve yet to hear any credible suggestions on that front. Short of forcing an election which we’d most likely lose (although the Conservatives may want to precipitate a spring vote anyway, is the latest speculation) our options are decidedly limited. Apparently some folks are planning protest rallies for Jan. 23. And Coyne wants opposition MPs to hold their own unofficial parliament in a bowling alley or something; interesting, and theatrical, if a bit (lot) of a stunt.

I’m all for raising the issues that need to be raised, and for calling attention to grievous injustices and perversions of democracy. And I'm open to creative suggestions on that front. My bigger concern though is that we’re in no position to actually do anything about it. Even if people were ready to turn on the Harper Conservatives, even if this could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back, four-plus years of farting around as a party means it’s very unlikely we’d be able to capitalize. We haven’t done the work needed for Canadians to turn to us when they’re displeased with Harper.

That’s because for far too long now long (going back multiple leaders) we’ve been focused on the tactical. We’ve hungrily lept at every scandal and Harper miscue and bitten-in hard, wanting to believe it was our ticket back to our rightful place in the seat of power.

Yet, at every turn, we’ve been unable to capitalize on each of a litany of Conservative scandals, faux-pas, screw-ups, miscues and arrogant decisions. No bump in the polls. No lasting increase in support. Why is that? It’s not because Harper is so dammed loveable. It’s because, compared to the alternatives, he still has more appeal to most Canadians because a) he’s the devil they know, and b) we haven’t given them a reason to vote for us.

Until we do, until we finally, at long last, stop looking for the easy home-run, but instead re-build our brand and develop our leader and start giving Canadians a reason not just to vote AGAINST the Conservatives, but to vote FOR us, then we’re just spinning our wheels. And all the Conservative scandals in the world won’t help us. He gets away with it time and time again not because we won’t fight, but because we’re too weak to stop him.

I want Harper gone as badly as anyone. That’s why, while we can get rightfully worked-up over this prorogument, I’d much rather we ALSO finally move past the tactical and do the strategic heavy-lifting around policy, vision and leadership (like finding some) so that when Harper pulls crap like this, we can call him on it and be in a position to actually do something more about it then provide soundbites of outrage for the political magazine shows.

It’s all well to fight and die for the noble cause. I’d rather fight and win.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Donate $20.10, and send a message to Stephen Harper on proroguing parliament

Here's a great way to send a message to Stephen Harper that you don't get to take two months off with pay for the Olympics, and you don't think our MPs should be able to either: Make a $20.10 donation (or $210.0 if you prefer) to the Liberal Party of Canada, or your local Liberal riding association, today.

It's also coming to the end of 2009, so tomorrow is your last chance to get your end of year donations in to have them count for the 2009 tax year, so you can get the deductions back on your income tax in a few months. If it's your first donation of the year, a $20.10 donation could cost you just $5.03.

I just made my $20.10 donation. And it'd be great to send a message by seeing lots of other $20.10 donations in the Q4 numbers. So go to the Liberal Web site today and make your donation to send a message to the Harper Conservatives that ordinary Canadians don't get to take the Olympics off, so neither should he!

P.S. If you support one of the other opposition parties, I'm sure you could send $20.10 their way too. :)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper prorogues ... and still the world keeps turning

So the political twitter/blog world is all a buzz today with the word Stephen Harper -- surprise surprise -- will prorogue parliament until March.

Officially this allows him to reconstitute Senate committees with a Conservative majority following the Senate appointments he will make in a few days that will give his party its first majority in the upper chamber since Brian Mulroney stacked it full of Conservatives to ram through the GST. Of course, as a happy not so side benefit, he also takes some of the heat off his government on issues such as the torture of Afghan detainees, why his government seems to have mislead parliament and Canadians on what they knew and when, and how someone as staggeringly incompetent as Peter MacKay can be allowed to serve in a position of authority.

I agree with all the arguments being made about how Harper is tucking tail and running, thumbing his nose at parliament, ignoring the democratic will of the people. Andrew Coyne is particularly irate, and as a former history major I certainly appreciate appreciate any columnist who draws amusing historical parallels. Most columnists can't go back further than four years.

Really, though, as much as it saddens me, it doesn't really matter much. It's no coincidence that this announcement came during the post-Christmas, pre-New Year week when people are paying even less attention to politics than usual. And it's no coincidence it comes on the same day the Canadian Men's Olympic Hockey roster is being unveiled. Wonder which will lead the news tonight? Clearly, they're embarrassed and are trying to low-key this thing.

Really, though, I don't know why they'd even bother. If Canadians didn't care when Harper prorogued last December to avoid imminent defeat in the House of Commons, they certainly won't care he's doing it now for much less odious, although still suspect, reasons. It just won't resonate. Frankly, I'm having a hard time mustering anything more than pro-forma partisan indignation. Perhaps the Harper reign has numbed my sensitivities?

So sure, make the case about how Harper is thumbing his nose at democracy, turning tail and hiding from parliament, and all that. But focusing all our righteous indignation around making that argument and trying to rally Canadians in some kind of futile anti-prorogation, respect for democracy crusade would be a waste of time, and ultimately pointless.

Want to stop Harper from thumbing his nose at parliament and at democracy? Get into a position where you have a reasonable prospect of defeating him. Gain the confidence of Canadians as a credible and competent alternative to a government they're not enamored with, but like slightly better than the current alternatives.

The Liberals and Michael Ignatieff need to use these next two months as an opportunity to get outside of the parliamentary chatterbox and connect with Canadians. Get out from the scandal-of-the-day track that question period drives and talk about real issues that matter to real people. Discuss our vision for the country. Talk about the economy and the budget and our alternatives.

That's what will ensure Harper has to respect parliament and take it seriously: a credible, strong opposition he won't be able to ignore. Right now, that's just not the case.

So let's stop whining, get to work and play the long game here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Live-blogging Prorogue Watch 2008

14:55: Will they prorogue, or won’t they? Speculation last week was that the Harper Conservatives, likely to prorogue parliament this fall anyway to delay its return and avoid a possible fall election, may prorogue Parliament a little early to avoid summer committee hearings into their electoral In-and-Out scandal:

Opposition MPs fear the Harper government is preparing to cut off parliamentary business for the summer rather than endure an inquiry into allegations of election spending fraud by the Conservative party.

After months of Tory filibustering that delayed a probe of the so-called in-and-out election financing scheme, the Commons ethics committee is finally scheduled to begin hearings on July 15.

Chief electoral officer Marc Mayrand and other officials from Elections Canada, the independent watchdog that red-flagged the alleged irregularities, are slated to be the first witnesses.

But some opposition critics suspect Prime Minister Stephen Harper will prorogue Parliament, a pre-emptive procedural tactic that governments usually employ when they want to wipe the legislative agenda clean and start fresh with a new throne speech.

In this case, since the full House of Commons has already adjourned for the summer, the main impact would be to dissolve all committees, thus thwarting the planned examination of the in-and-out affair.

The committee hearings are now less than 24 hours away . Will Harper prorogue? Will they filibuster? Or is there some crazy, unrevealed chapter in the committee dirty tricks handbook?

Stay tuned for regular updates.

15:05: There’s been a prorogual!...in Pakistan:

The seventh session of the Punjab Assembly was prorogued here Saturday after sixteen days of business during which the provincial budget for 2008-09 was passed by the house. Acting Speaker Rana Mashhood Ahmed Khan chaired Saturday’s proceeding but he had to prorogue the session when Q-League MPA Amna Ulfat pointed the quorum, which was incomplete on head count.

So close, and yet so on the other side of the world a few days ago. I’ll keep an eye out though.

15:30: Still no sign of any hot proroguing action. It is getting steamy out here in suburban Toronto though. Tomorrow they're calling for 41C with the humidex. Madness. Will probably be hot in Ottawa too. To hot for committees? We'll see.

16:00: O'Malley reluctantly informs me that I got the date of the committee meeting wrong. It's actually NEXT Tuesday! Personally, I blame Stephane Dion for this committee timing trick. So that means Prorogue Watch 2008TM has eight more days to go. Maybe Harper will put us out of our misery early with a snap decision?

16:41: It's all quiet on the proroguing front. On the plus side though, I can now spell prorogue. It's a hard one to spell too. I'd have gone with perogue originally. Seems more natural. If you're wondering, the word comes from the Latin prōrogō, or to defer. The last hard to spell word blogging taught me to spell? Ignatieff.

17:01: Time to head home from work, and at last check no prorogue yet. Would a promulgation be the same thing? While they're similar words, the meanings are actually different. Wikipedia says "Promulgation or enactment is the act of formally proclaiming or declaring new statutory or administrative law when it receives final approval."

All this proroguing talk though has made me pretty hungry, and I'm craving, go figure, perogies. So I'm off to Price Choppers to pick up the necessities. How do you like to cook and prepare your perogies? Does Jason Kenney really like perogies, or just when he's trying to woo the Ukranian community?

18:42: My coverage of Prorogue Watch 2008 has been interrupted so I cal bring you Perogy Watch 2008. I've returned home perogies in hand, and I'm just waiting for them to defrost before panfrying them with some bacon. Might top with a little grated cheddar. Healthy, I know, but I got the light sour cream so it all balances out. Just realized I forgot to get mushrooms and onion which, along with the light sour cream, would practically have made this health food. Ah, well. Updates as warranted.

21:45: Perogies were quite good, although the mushrooms and onions would have been nice. This will conclude Perogy Watch 2008.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers