The Lemming Party of Canada

Shorter Scott Reid:

There is no indignity which we Libs we won't suffer, and no evil which we won't allow ourselves to be strongarmed into supporting, if it means marginally saving face for the leader irresponsible enough to embrace them in the first place.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted material for your long weekend reading.

- Elly Alboim shares some observations on what we can expect out of a surge like the NDP's ascent in Quebec:

More often than not, these sorts of break outs cannot be reversed. They represent a collective decision making process that sometimes builds on mounting evidence or sometimes catches media by surprise after events or debates — although this would represent a very slow reaction to a debate. There are notable exceptions like the PC’s beating back the resurgent Liberals in 1988 but they are rare.

Often, the final results overshoot the initial wave. Momentum builds and begins to sweep into ridings that most think are not in play. I’ve been involved in dozens of CBC projection meetings where seasoned political reporters say that it is inconceivable that certain ridings and personalities are (sic) safe. And they weren’t. Canada is littered with former cabinet ministers who never should have lost. Some examples: Roy Romanow fell to a gas station attendant in her 20s. In the same election, the CBC did not put a mobile in Grant Devine’s riding in order to save money because his Tories could not possibly win...

The numbers don’t lie. On today’s numbers (if they hold), the NDP would be competitive in more than 20 ridings, not the two to four people speculate about.

Many say that without a ground game, it will be hard to take the ridings that are within reach. Ground game is important to identify and pull core and/or unmotivated voters. But voters know how to find polling stations and vote. In a wave where they are motivated, they manage to vote without being pulled by GOTV machines. The best example of this was the Rae Ontario win. At the time, the Ontario ballot did not even specify the party, so voters had to know who the candidates were. But NDP candidates won in ridings that had literally no ground game.

- And Josee Legault echoes the view that the first wave may only be the beginning:

While new polls will confirm, contradict or mitigate the NDP's sudden surge, there's another thing Duceppe must be worried about: that the numbers that came out this week, as much as they might be overestimating NDP support, could end up influencing still more Quebecers to give Jack Layton a try.

- Sam Norris at the Mace projects possible seat distributions, with predicted results of Con 131, NDP 81, and Lib 73.

- Which is why Michael Hollett is right to trumpet the ability of progressive voters to back what they genuinely want rather than buying the Libs' spin that they don't have a choice:

We’re being told to vote for the Liberals when they haven’t made a compelling case for us to want to do it on their merits. The strategic voting clan only wants us to vote NDP when the Libs are a lock.

I’m just not that cynical, and I don’t believe elections are a math problem. Sometimes results don’t add up, but breakthroughs happen, and real change occasionally takes place.
...
Many Canadians who are newly supporting the NDP this election are energized and galvanizing around the one truly progressive party in this country that they can believe in rather than put up with.

If we spend the last two weeks of this campaign looking for progressive candidates we can trust and not getting hustled into empty choices we might all be surprised to find ourselves waking up to a Canada we can believe in, too, on May 3.

- Susan Riley touches on a point I'll expand on later in pairing a discussion of the NDP's breakthrough with a comment on our ability to decide the outcome of the election:

Most startling is news this week that Jack Layton’s NDP is leading the Bloc Québécois in Quebec (or was at press time), in two polls. Whether this surge is sustainable, or concentrated enough to produce new seats for the NDP, it is a head-turning and hard-won breakthrough. If it persists and spreads, it could change everything.

And it is largely to Jack Layton’s credit. Despite being hobbled, literally, by a hip fracture, and still recovering from his recent bout with prostate cancer, the NDP leader has campaigned with increasing vigour and more optimism than any of his rivals.
...
(T)oo much ink, time and breath has been wasted on strategic, or academic, or marginal issues — from coalition speculation, to mini-scandals, to seat projections, to “trust.”

Campaigns and media alike have nimbly avoided more pressing concerns like how we get out of Libya, soaring gasoline prices, the return of inflation, the cost and safety of nuclear energy, or the need for affordable prescription drugs — although these issues come up at rallies.

Maybe the silence is a confession of impotence.

Still, it isn’t too late for voters to take back the election: to ignore the trivial obsessions of the media, the fleeting judgments of polls and those cascading, self-cancelling attack ads.

- And finally, given Stephen Harper's track record in issuing flat denials, does his response to Dimitri Soudas' alleged political interference in the Montreal Port Authority make it more or less likely that Soudas actually did interfere?

Wednesday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Scott Stinson is the latest to note that the Libs' sudden concern for health care looks to have been fabricated solely for campaign consumption:

In the month of March, which ended with the dissolution of Parliament, the Liberal party asked many questions about tax rates, election financing and ethics. It asked questions about prisons, Bev Oda, the CBC and the Champlain Bridge. It asked questions about the environment, child care and fighter jets.

It did not ask any questions about health-care funding.

The same is true of February: zero questions about health care, save for a couple here and there that asked why the government wasn’t rushing to hold clinical trials for the controversial “Liberation” treatment for multiple sclerosis.

It’s a record that is tough to square with the Liberals’ newfound zeal for health care, the latest evidence of which was an announcement on Tuesday that former prime minster Jean Chrétien would join leader Michael Ignatieff on the campaign trail “as the Liberal team shares the Liberal commitment to protect universal public health care.” That statement came just a few hours after Bob Rae and two other Liberal candidates held a press conference in Ottawa to accuse the Conservatives of plotting to slash health-care funding in order to balance future budgets.

But if the Liberals had always intended to make this long-awaited election about health care, they sure took their sweet time getting around to it. The NDP asked at least 10 questions about health care in the House in the past few months, from the sanctity of the Canada Health Act to the need for drug coverage to, er, bedbugs.
...
The Liberal party position as the only champion of public health would be just a touch easier to buy if its platform included anything about long-term funding other than a mushy promise to be “at the table for Canadians” when negotiating an extension to the 2004 deal with the provinces. Quality would be improved, costs would be contained, pressure on families would be relieved. Possibly pixie dust would be involved.

Mr. Ignatieff has been Liberal leader for more than two years, and he’s never said much about long-term health-care funding until now. But it seems to be the message he has chosen to try to revive a waning campaign. The question is, is it too late for the defibrillator?

- The Star calls for an end to the treatment of elected MPs like potted plants:

MPs of all political stripes ought to stand up for themselves – and, more importantly, their constituents. In a minority government situation, where a party needs each and every vote, MPs may find they have more power than they realize to effect the positive changes they feel they were elected to do. The parties – so eager to blame their rivals for turning Parliament into a gong show – should look themselves in the mirror. They need to examine how they choose candidates, and the kind of discipline they enforce once MPs get to Ottawa.

- Ho-hum, just another story about the public face of the Prime Minister's Office trying to arm-twist an independent organization into hiring the Cons' choice of chairs, then falsely denying that he so much as had any contact with the group involved. No need for ministerial responsibility here.

- Also, under-the-table cash payments to cleaners at 24 Sussex Drive. Move along, nothing to see here.

- Finally, Wheatsheaf points out the sad excuse for a response from Kelly Block when the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting asked about her position on funding the CBC:

Responsive to nobody

Yes, it's well worth pointing out the absurd non-answers coming from the Cons' spinners as to their deliberate exclusion of interested citizens from their events. But it's worth highlighting that the issue goes far beyond journalists alone.

Instead, Dimitri Soudas' pathetic series of wilfully ignorant non-responses fits squarely within the Cons' general strategy of evading all inconvenient reality - whether in the form of journalists' questions, rally attendees of less than full loyalty, or any other source. And the more the focus is rightfully placed on the Cons rather than a particular victim, the better the chances of forcing a change - either in their tactics, or in the government responsible for answering to Canadians.

On implied standards

Sure, the Cons' appointment of a former ADQ candidate with links to Stephen Harper's chief spokesman as vice-chairman of broadcasting at the CRTC is utterly inexplicable based on the posted job description. But can't we agree that the hiring makes a lot more sense once the implied "doing Harper's bidding" part of any federal job description is taken into account?

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

The census debacle overview from Heather Scoffield and Jennifer Ditchburn is well worth a read - and I'll plan to circle back to a couple more points in future posts. But for now, let's highlight their concise summary of the sheer amount of dishonesty - in terms of both the number of people involved and the number of false claims - put into service by the Harper government to defend the indefensible:

The Prime Minister's Office's response in the early days of the debate was unusual at best.

The director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, sent reporters an email underlining how many Canadians had listed their religion as "Jedi" during the 2006 census, and making reference to census workers visiting homes at 10 p.m. — something Statistic Canada says does not occur.

Clement was forced to defend the decision with no prior consultation or polling to back him up. Neither was there any clear indication of just who in Canada was upset by the intrusive questions in the long form.

Bernier claimed that as industry minister, he had received 1,000 complaints a day during the census season of 2006 — but then couldn't produce a single one.
...
Cabinet members such as Transport Minister John Baird and Treasury Board President Stockwell Day helped spread a few untruths, ridiculing non-existent questions in the census on bathrooms and reading material.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

A test of responsibility

Kady has already pointed out one of the obvious corollaries if the Cons had any actual belief in ministerial responsibility, as Stephen Harper would then be responsible to explain and justify the policy personally rather than forcing the likes of Dimitri Soudas to serve as the public face of an anti-accountability strategy. But let's note that there are other areas where it'll be easy to test the Cons' commitment to the principle.

For example, a government actually intending to encourage ministerial responsibility would have to allow the minister responsible to answer the opposition's questions about any matter within the scope of departmental responsibility - and to actually discuss what the department is doing, rather than attacking the questioner or changing the subject in accordance with centrally-driven talking points. So will we see the Cons abandon their strategy of sending up the likes of John Baird to serve as all-purpose spokesparrots in favour of having ministers actually allow themselves to be held to account?

This is where we pause for laughter.

Unenforced

As for the Cons' stance on the Quebec government's plan to impose health care user fees, it's worth pointing out the yawning gap between their words and their actions in office. Here's the Con response when the news broke:

(T)he federal government is avoiding getting sucked into what would be a contentious debate. It offered a curt reply when asked whether it would halt Quebec's move.

"The Canada Health Act is the law of the land," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas.

"Provinces and territories have continuously indicated they respect the Canada Health Act and obviously the federal government expects the Canada Health Act to always be respected."

Which is certainly a positive enough sentiment if taken at face value. But it rings rather hollow coming from a government which has ensured that the Canada Health Act won't actually be enforced at the federal level - and the fact that the Cons have relied purely on provincial self-reporting looks to have played a significant role in Charest's apparent belief that his government can get away with thumbing its nose at the law.

On unanswered questions

CBC's reporting on the use of Youtube live-streaming for Stephen Harper's reply to the throne speech alone (while Google was telling the NDP that such technology was both unavailable and to eventually be offered only for a price) is both simple and damning on its face:

Google gives preferential treatment to the Cons while lobbying them on copyright and telecommunications issues.
CBC reports the story.
The Cons attack CBC for daring to report on their perks.

But while there's apparently a request out to Google as to whether they "checked the lobby registry", it seems to me that the current direction largely misses the most important point. Isn't the bigger issue regarding Google the lack of an explanation for the difference in how Canadian parties' requests were treated? And shouldn't there be some question as to when the Cons first made contact to discuss the live-streaming, and how that might have affected Google's treatment of other parties?

On lessons learned

The Hill Times' report on Con obstruction of the federal access to information system may not be surprising in substance. But it's a rather important step that at least least one Con operative is now willing to acknowledge just how thoroughly the system is being manipulated by the PMO - and now that the story had been broken, it's hard to see how the Cons will be able to keep a lid on future reports of just how widespread their law-breaking actually is.

Unfortunately for those hoping the now-public incident in Christian Paradis' office which resulted in the current scandal will result in any improvement, though, we're also told that the Cons have learned exactly one lesson from the matter:

Meanwhile, after seeing Mr. Togneri hung out to dry, the Conservative source told The Hill Times extra caution will be taken not to leave a paper trail.

"I'm a lot more careful now with any conversations I have with my ATIP officer," the staffer said. "They're all in person now, whereas before I would sometimes send emails."

Needless to say, there wouldn't be any reason for the Cons' political staffers to be concerned about what they're sending in e-mails to ATIP officers if they had any intention of following either the law or Dimitri Soudas' supposed instructions in the future. So we'd best make sure the Cons pay a due price for the actions of Togneri and others who have let their orders get put down on paper - because the next wave of Cons staffers has the elimination of any evidence at the top of its priority list.

Edit: fixed wording.

On misleading impressions

Memo to the Globe and Mail: in discussing a Dimitri Soudas e-mail about avoiding political interference, it's rather important to include the ";-)" and the "ROTFLMAO" for context.

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board:

That the Conservatives in power have developed a bad case of political myopia that renders them unable to separate their party's interests from those of ordinary Canadians was evident in the dozens of government stimulus cheques adorned with the party logo handed out by Tory MPs and ministers across the land.

But even as Canada's ethics commissioner Mary Dawson begins her investigation into whether the use of these ceremonial cheques backed by public funds "furthers a private interest," a news report suggest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be using taxpayer funds to burnish his own political image.
...
Mr. Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas, says there's no difference between the videos, which are being made available to news organizations online, and the routine photos distributed by the Prime Minister's Office to media.

The problem, of course, is Mr. Soudas's attempt to portray these videos as just "another form of communication with the media." Responding to criticism that, in no way does this practice provide reporters access to the prime minister, he said:

"The media can't have it both ways. They can't criticize us for not providing enough information and then criticize us for providing too much information."

The sticking point, of course, is whether this indeed is "information" for the purpose of presenting intelligible news to Canadians or regurgitating pre-packaged public relations claptrap from the PMO meant only to serve Mr. Harper's political objectives.

Unrepresentative

For all the talk about the Cons' attempts to sow trouble within the Libs, I'm surprised one of the most problematic aspects of the Cons' position seems to have gone unnoticed, as Dimitri Soudas' gleeful e-mail looks to reflect a disturbing assumption that all political parties are required to be as centrally controlled as the Cons themselves:

And indeed, Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sent out a mass-distributed email yesterday drawing attention to the Liberals' rebuff of Dhalla's bill. "They are voting against the (private member's bill) of MP Ruby Dhalla! Their own bill!" Soudas's email said.

Now, it's true that within the Cons the type of independent thought which would allow an MP to present a private member's bill without blessing from on high has been thoroughly demolished. But there's no reason why the Cons' decision that mere democratic representatives have no right to try to present legislation based on what they see as best for their constituents would be binding on any other party.

Apparently, though, that isn't how Soudas sees it. Instead, the Cons' official line is that any bill introduced by a member of a given party automatically becomes "their own bill" - such that a failure for the party to agree with each and every bill introduced by one of its members is supposed to be seen as evidence of internal strife within a hive-mind rather than legitimate disagreement among members of a party which can represent different interests.

And the sad part is that it'll probably work on the Libs: it wouldn't be at all surprising if Michael Ignatieff decides that allowing MPs to present bills which aren't party-sanctioned will cause more trouble than it's worth if any internal disagreement is met with scorn like Soudas'. But it's worth pointing out just how hard a party which once claimed to value MPs as individual representatives is working to grind down what little independence remains - and asking whether Canadians in general (and the remnants of Reform in particular) agree with the action.

On reasonable expectations

It's rare for the Harper government to come up with a new form of government secrecy that they haven't yet trotted out many times before. But the Cons' response to the news that they hadn't bothered answering an e-mail from the NDP looks to have managed the feat:

For the record, the Prime Minister’s spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, responded late yesterday to a Globe and Mail story published online that morning. The story quoted New Democrat spokesman Karl Belanger saying that it was “telling” that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Guy Giorno, has yet to respond to an email sent to him several days ago by NDP Leader Jack Layton’s chief of staff, Anne McGrath.

The NDP said the email was to follow up on questions the Conservatives had raised about NDP policies during an Aug. 25 meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. Layton, attended by both Ms. McGrath and Mr. Giorno.

Mr. Soudas offered this response.

“Why would we reply to people who leak e-mail correspondence?” he wrote in an email.

Leaving aside the NDP's absolutely correct point that it's the Cons who have gone out of their way to leak actual private conversations, let's keep in mind what the "correspondence" actually involved: an e-mail from the NDP to the Cons, period. Which means that no information could possibly have been "leaked" from the government because...well, it didn't actually provide any information capable of being leaked in any meaningful sense of the word.

But apparently the Cons are managing to claim that their failure to respond somehow constitutes a confidential non-communication. So as far as the Cons are concerned, their government's silence on the NDP's policy proposals - or presumably any other issue - is nobody's business but their own.

On political games

Shorter Con spokesflack Dimitri Soudas:

The opposition's failure to approve our appointment of one party hack three years ago has left us no choice but to keep appointing hundreds more ever since.

The buck stops anywhere but here

While there's been no lack of discussion about Stephen Harper's use of the international stage to launch a completely ill-informed attack on Michael Ignatieff (since he probably can't find any difference on anything of substance), I haven't yet seen anybody point out the fact that it happened in the same speech where Harper offered up this mock outrage:

"Sombody running an unsubstantiated story that I would stick communion bread in my pocket is really absurd and I think it's a real, frankly, a low point, this is a low moment in journalism, whoever is responsible for this. It's just a terrible story and a ridiculous story and not based on anything as near as I can tell."

So in summary, he's all about the accountability for anybody who gives mainstream life to utterly unsubstantiated stories. Except when they come from his own mouth, in which case it's all Dimitri's fault.

Update: CC has more.