Hebert, Walkom, and (not that) Harper talk #cdnpoli at Word on the Street

Up next after the city hall politics panel in the Toronto Star tent at the Word on the Street festival on Sunday was the federal politics panel. On hand were Toronto Star federal politics columnists Chantal Hebert, Tim Harper and Tom Walkom. The topic? "Stephen Harper vs. Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair."

The discussion was wide-ranging, but one thing that struck me was that, although the Star was the only paper to endorse the NDP in the last federal election, the columnists on the stage sure don't think much of Tom Mulcair. I'm sure the NDP will react defensively, but they'd also do well to listen to their advice: mainly, that Mulcair has largely failed to define himself, and he should get on that. He let Trudeau beat him to condemning the Quebec secular charter, he's great in question period, but no one watches question period. People have a view of Trudeau and Harper, said Hebert, but ask them about Mulcair and they probably draw a blank. Harper was harsher; he said Mulcair wanders off into intellectual forests when answering questions and is tarting to remind him of Michael Ignatieff. Hebert added he risks becoming the Robert Stanfield of the NDP.

The panel agreed Trudeau has done a pretty good job so far. Hebert was impressed he was able to speak out against the Quebec secular charter in a way that resonated in Ontario without alienating Quebec, adding his "rockstar" persona has proven lasting. Walkom said Trudeau is playing very well in Ontario (which all three agreed will decide the next election), conveys a sense of optimism that resonates with people, and reminds the older generation of his father; and unlike the youth that people often say Trudeau appeals to, seniors actually vote. Asked if Trudeau is the right fit for Quebec, Hebert said she doesn't see anyone else likely to do better, and noted he has brought vote switchers home to the Liberals.

And there was much more; the Storify below has all my live tweets of the panel.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Talking Rob Ford and Toronto Politics at Word on the Street

Continuing my run of political Sundays, I spent the afternoon yesterday in the shadow of Queen's Park in downtown Toronto, where a number of panels and discussions at the Word on the Street took on a political theme.

Up first was the Toronto Star tent, where the city's paper of record gathered some of its political reporters to talk about their respective beats. And opening things up was "Mayor Rob Ford and the Year at City Hall" with city editor Irene Gentle, columnist David Rider and reporter Robyn Doolitte.

As you'd expect, given the character that is our Mayor and what some would term the Star's obsession (others would say its job) with documenting his activities (he refuses to talk to the Star, so the feelings are mutual), the Mayor was a frequent topic during the panel. It wasn't all a Ford fest though; development, transit, and other more substantive issues also made the cut.

The panel wasn't as negative on Ford as you may think; they even, tounge in cheek, endorsed his re-election -- they say he sells newspapers and is saving journalism. But more seriously, they praised his skills as a politician, and said he has a very good chance at re-election. They would like him to talk to the press more, and not play favourites.

The infamous video alleged to show crack smoking also got much discussion. They said they walked about buying it and did negotiate, but they were concerned about the price and, more importantly, where the money would go. Would their money be putting more guns on the street? They think the video will probably eventually come out, and implied there's more to the story they're not able to report yet. They did shoot-down two video-related rumours: they don't believe a Toronto lawyer for one of the accused has it, and they don't believe the police (allegedly through Project Traveler) have it either.

Below are a selection of live tweets from the panel, and a few pictures as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Diagnos? Check. Cure? Umm...

I seem to be on a medical theme today. But The Star's James Travers does a fine job of diagnosing the illness in his column today on the media's failure to look past the fluff and ask critical policy questions during the last election:

Where we in the media were missing, though, was in the fall federal election. Preoccupied first with an imploding Stephane Dion and then with Stephen Harper's insensitive, decidedly dicey stock market advice, the national press let the major parties promise surplus heaven with the country teetering on the threshold of deficit hell. Even after the September financial meltdown, leaders clung to badly dated summer statistics to make campaign commitments that, in ranging from Liberal ludicrous to Conservative careful, clearly couldn't be kept.

I like Travers so I don't want to give him too hard a time, and he's certainly going further than the bulk of his colleagues by even considering these questions. And I think he's making an effort here. But I believe I misspoke when I said he has diagnosed the illness. In actuality, by focusing merely on the economy, he has actually only succeeded in identifying one of the symptoms, not the illness itself.

He's correct, the media by and large failed to ask critical questions of the party's economic platforms during the campaign. They also helped create a environment where politicians who didn't “play the game” were in trouble: remember the furious backtracking Stéphane Dion had to do during the campaign when he admitted a deficit may be possible due to the economy. The Conservatives went after him hard and the media both mocked him and played it up, and Dion was forced to quickly back down and tow the line: deficit? No way, you crazy, sunshine and sprinkles.

But this was merely a symptom of the larger illness, for the media's lack of desire to provide critical analysis of important policy areas also manifested itself in other areas. The obvious example? The Liberal Green Shift. We didn't get any critical analysis of the merits of the policy during the campaign. There was no examination of its effectiveness of ineffectiveness, or attempt by the media to examine it in the context of the proposals of the NDP and the Conservatives. Not until after the campaign, when we got a raft of analysis/eulogies saying what a shame it was such a great, effective policy wasn't embraced. Heck, even big oil is now pushing similar policy (h/t Wherry).

That's all after the campaign though. After the campaign the media are eager to revisit the merits of a carbon shift, or critically analyze the party's economic policy proposals. During the campaign, however, the bulk of coverage was exceedingly superficial, and was focused on the politics before, and in exclusion of, the policy. New poll numbers, puffin poop, how will this trivial event effect the horse race, interview outtakes and bloopers.

This isn't a new phenomenon, and it certainly didn't begin in this campaign. Critical reporting is becoming less and less common in today's media, whether there's an election on or not. There's less and less room for investigative reporting and even the analysis piece. While you'd think the 24-hour news cycle would give more room for real journalism, instead it seems to encourage a focus on the superficial and the trivial.

And in the end, while he has only identified one of the symptoms, Travers is right in that its the citizens that suffer, for we are less informed and educated as a result, which can only hurt our democracy. But it goes beyond the media. Responsibility must be born by a political culture that feeds into this mentality. And we, as citizens, bust bear responsibility as well, for both rewarding the media and politicians that play into this cynical game, and not standing behind the increasingly rare politicians that attempts to go against the grain and give us the “politics done differently” we always haughtily claim we want.

Sadly it's a mistake few politicians, even if they have a chance, will make twice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What's this, I agree with Scott Reid?

It seems weird to me and yet, reading his op/ed in the Star this morning I found myself nodding my head in agreement: The Liberals should angle for a fall election.

If timing is everything in politics, then October 2007 is the right time for Stéphane Dion to do everything possible to force Stephen Harper into a general election.

If that sounds risky, consider the alternative. The Conservative Prime Minister clears his cabinet of chronic mistake machines like Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and reboots his policy agenda with new legislation. He then spends a year blitzing the airwaves with yet more negative political ads and finally, next March, triggers an election on his own terms after a budget of his own design.

His argument makes a lot of sense, and Scott paints an interesting scenario. While, at these point at least, a Fall election doesn’t look ideal the simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t likelier to get any more ideal than it will be this fall; indeed, for Liberal prospects barring the unforeseen it is only likelier to get worse.

If we let the fall go by Decivin' Steven will have had time to shuffle the deadwood out of his cabinet, put some attractive (if not effective) policy on the table (much of his current trouble can be traced to lack of an agenda) and to introduce another goody-laden budget. He’s likely to engineer his own defeat around that time under much more attractive (for him) conditions, making him much harder to beat.

The best-case scenario for the Liberals is a strong summer for Dion and the Liberal team on the BBQ circuit to try to give some boost to party support and, as well, his own flagging popularity numbers. Then, when the HoC comes back in the fall, likely with a Throne Speech after a Conservative prorogue, start playing hardball. Make the case on all the legislation the Cons killed by proroguing. Come into the session with a strong policy agenda of our own, and push hard on Throne Speech amendments.

Here’s Scott’s scenario:

Perhaps even more importantly, a scheduled confidence vote provides Dion with the chance to define himself in unmistakable terms.

Imagine a challenge to the Prime Minister in October that makes Liberal support contingent on three under-advertised but already-articulated Liberal priorities: broad-based personal income tax cuts for the middle class, proclamation of MP Pablo Rodriguez's Kyoto bill and an unequivocal declaration that our troops will be rotated out of Kandahar in February 2009.

Harper will find it hard to support these policies. But he will find it even harder to convince Canadians they are policies unworthy of support. Similarly, the NDP and Bloc would find it difficult to explain their decision to back Harper rather than Dion on these issues.

I like the strategy of that idea. The NDP and BQ would indeed find it difficult to support Decivin' Steven on such a vote, and would pay a political price if they did.

Now, there’s a lot to argue against pushing for a Fall election. Our poll numbers still aren’t swell, but we have the summer to turn that around and with the right issue to go into a vote on and the right campaign strategy those numbers can change quickly. There’s also the scheduled Ontario vote for the Fall too but c’est la vie, the Cons and NDP will be impacted there too.

The fact is, as I said earlier, wait into next spring and the picture only gets more uncertain and the challenge more difficult for the Liberals. It won’t be easy, a lot needs to go right, and there’s a lot of hard work to do, but I agree with Scott a fall election would be the best chance for the Liberals to wrest power from Decivin' Steven and return progressive government to Canada.

Elsewhere, Tribe thinks his fellow Scott makes a good case. Interestingly, over in Blogging Conny land, when they're not giggling about beer and pop corn and complimenting each other on their cleverness, they seem to think the idea is bad. Which leads me to think there may be something here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers