On choices

A couple of Lib stalwarts are already starting the conversation about what that party figures to do if faced with the choice of supporting either the Cons or the NDP as Canada's government. And without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we definitely shouldn't take for granted that the Libs will support an NDP effort to replace Harper - though there's one easy step the NDP can take to significantly swing their decision.

To start off with, I don't think there's much doubt that at least part of the Libs' braintrust will insist on sticking to its current plan of doing nothing to suggest the NDP might be of use to anybody based on the hope that it'll go away on its own.

To the extent the Libs are more concerned about their party brand than their ability to accomplish anything useful in public life, there's at least some argument to be made for that view. And I'd fully expect the Cons to take up that message at every available opportunity to the extent they don't want to give an inch on either policy or cabinet posts.

Of course, that list of non-negotiable items from the Cons hints at the options available to the NDP. But the Libs figure to be a relatively difficult party to win over in terms of policy.

Yes, some Lib MPs will genuinely want to see a progressive alternative replace the Harper Cons, and an NDP government would likely be willing to implement some of the Libs' core platform planks if that's the price of their support. But I'm not sure anybody thinks the Libs as a whole are so attached to any policies as to make those the deciding factor.

But that leaves the area where there's the most room for discussion.

After all, the Libs' late-campaign attack on the NDP has included an attempt to paint their own experience as a major selling point. And that leaves the door open for Jack Layton to say that while he fully intends to follow through on changing Ottawa, he'll be glad to see the Libs use their experience for the good of the country under a coalition government.

That may make for a rather compelling opportunity not just for Michael Ignatieff himself, but also for the Bob Raes, John McCallums and Carolyn Bennetts of the party who surely figured they'd be headed for senior cabinet posts rather than third-party status. And younger Lib members who haven't yet had a chance to serve as parliamentary secretaries might also see more of an opportunity than they'd ever receive as long as the Harper Cons are in power.

So if yesterday's EKOS results reflect where the campaign is going, I'd fully expect the battle among the Libs to be less an issue of red versus blue, and more a question of strategists versus MPs (to say nothing of a substantial part of the party's base). And considering what the strategists have accomplished in the last four election cycles, the Libs would be well advised to be skeptical that they should carry the day this time.

Thursday Afternoon Links

Some light reading material to pass the day...

- Gilles Duceppe's sniping at the NDP can only be explained by the expectation that the NDP's continued growth in Quebec stands to cut into his party's seat count. But I find the particular lines of attack even more interesting than the fact that they're being raised: if Duceppe really sees nothing to differentiate his party from the NDP on policy than shades of opinion on a single language bill in the Assemblee Nationale and strategic direction on the gun registry, then doesn't that only serve to support the view that Quebec progressives are better of linking up with their brethren across the country?

- There's rightly been much ado about Lib MP Keith Martin's unequivocal statement in favour of privately funded and delivered health care.

But Martin's opinion piece (and its apparent endorsement by John McCallum) aren't the only signals from the Libs that they're less than interested in preserving and improving public health care in Canada. After all, Michael Ignatieff's new choice as health critic is...the same Ujjah Dosanjh who preferred to let the Libs' government fall than to work with the NDP when it sought to improve the Canada Health Act.

- Meanwhile, Michael Rachlis points out that there's no evidence that privatization schemes like the one being implemented by the Wall government will do anything to reduce costs.

- It shouldn't come as much surprise, but it's worth a reminder that farmers aren't seeing much benefit from increased food prices.

- Finally, Erin points out exactly why Canada's interests are at risk if Canpotex is undermined by any possible PCS purchaser:

Typically, China has been Canpotex’s biggest customer. The exception was 2009, when China bought less than Malaysia! This dramatic cut was engineered by Sinochem, the state-owned chemicals corporation that controls almost all of China’s potash imports.

If China can leverage its position as a major potash consumer to bargain lower prices, surely Canada should be able to leverage its position as a major producer to negotiate higher prices. Even if one believes that the world would be better served by more competitive potash markets, a viable “second best” may be for Canada’s coordinated selling power to offset China’s coordinated buying power.

Failure in action

Thomas Walkom's evisceration of the Libs' ineffectiveness has received plenty of well-deserved attention. But why settle for a column pointing out the Libs' ineffectiveness when we can see it being lived out before our eyes?

As I've noted before, the Cons have managed to make themselves look silly and isolate themselves internationally as the lone voice fighting a coordinated tax to make the financial industry responsible for the costs of insuring against its own failures. Which would seem to make for an ideal point of contrast for any competent opposition party.

So naturally, here's the Libs' position:

"I think it's a diversionary tactic to take attention away from subjects they regard as unpleasant on which the Harper government has been isolated," said Liberal Finance critic John McCallum. He did, however, say he also opposed a bank tax.

That's right: given a chance to paint the Cons as irresponsibly standing in the way of global financial stability, the Libs...are quibbling about process while agreeing with the Cons in substance.

Which hints at another reason why they've been missing in action on the Cons' omnibus bills and other manipulations of government. For all the bluster in both directions, there just isn't much difference between the Libs and the Cons when it counts - even when that leaves them united arguing against the world.

On meaningless reporting

Congratulations to John McCallum, who apparently needed only a month after the Libs decided that the Libs' request for reports would do anything to keep the Cons in line to figure out one of the glaring problems with that theory:

The Liberals amended the ways and means motion to force the government to report on its progress with "getting money out the door" and into communities for infrastructure projects and other initiatives related to the stimulus package.

The reports would provide information on how the government has implemented the budget and be tabled in the House of Commons at least five sitting days before the last opposition day in every supply period this year.

The first supply period ends March 26, but the House is on a break from March 16 to 20. If the last opposition day is scheduled for March 26, the first report would be due to be tabled in Parliament by March 12...

"The government's own record is that money does not go out the door. Money sits forever under a mattress in Ottawa doing nobody any good, so that is why we'll be holding the government to account, to make sure the money does flow for infrastructure, but also the money for business lending," Mr. McCallum said, noting that because the first report is due in a few weeks, it will be a different nature than the subsequent ones. "The money is not even legal to go out the door before April 1. The first report will be different from the others in the sense that we cannot expect budget money to have gone out the door when we're still in March and the new fiscal year has not begun."

Of course, it was the Libs who chose for themselves when to ask the Cons to provide their reports. But they apparently didn't think far enough ahead to consider when any meaningful information would be available.

As a result, the first report supposedly intended to ensure that budget money actually does flow to its intended destinations can't say anything other than that it's impossible for money to flow yet. And the fact that the Libs have just realized that fact now that would seem to suggest that the Cons aren't the only party in Ottawa which is sorely lacking in the bare competence department.

On factual deficits

I commented over at CC about the Cons' latest effort at rhetorical sleight-of-hand. But it's worth drawing some more attention to how Harper and company are trying to draw a false equivalence between a federal budget deficit and stimulus spending to boost the economy - and how the media seems to be more than taking the bait.

Here's my initial comment on the problem with the numbers being tossed around for federal budget deficits and stimulus spending (both of which happen to mirror the $30 billion which the coalition has agreed to for stimulus measures):

The starting point is that the Cons have actually created a structural deficit (to use their term for what they'd avoid) over the next few years. Deficit Jim's current number for that is $15 billion including $5 billion next year, but that counts unspecified asset sales and spending cuts - so the business-as-usual number for the next four years probably is in the $30 billion range.

But that's before any stimulus comes into play. And it's by adding, say, $15-25 billion in stimulus that the deficit for next year alone will likely reach a similar number.

Now, Harper's game is to try to link the two numbers as often as possible in order to pretend that the actual deficits over the next few years are solely a result of the stimulus. Consider it his Saddam-9/11 link - he probably won't let himself get caught claiming directly that the deficit is solely the result of the stimulus package, but will do his best to confuse the issue to the point where the general public sees the two as inseparable.

From there, let's take a step back to what Harper has actually said, and how it's being spun in the Cons' favour. I'll be looking mostly at this Globe and Mail article, but there doesn't seem to be any lack of other examples.

Here's Harper explaining the prospect of a federal budget deficit:

In a year-end interview with CTV this week, the Prime Minister offered a broad outline of what his government's stimulus package will look like when the budget is unveiled on Jan. 27.

He said the program would create a deficit “in the $20-billion to $30-billion range,” and would include measures to encourage consumer spending, housing, work retraining for the unemployed and aid for specific industrial sectors like auto and forestry.

Note the conspicuous lack of any mention that a substantial part of the deficit is something which the Cons had already created regardless of whether or not any stimulus spending takes place. Instead, Harper seeks to paint the entire deficit as a product of a stimulus plan in an attempt to weasel out of his party's responsibility for the red ink which already exists on Canada's public balance sheet.

As hinted at in the comment above, it's easy to see the parallel to the deception which eventually led a majority of Americans to wrongly believe that some link existed between Saddam Hussein and 9/11: by using similar numbers under "deficit" and "stimulus" and using the figures for one to represent the other, the Cons seem to be banking on their ability to build a public perception that the two are inextricably linked.

But then, matters only get worse when Harper's words then get spun to the Cons' advantage by the media. The article mentioned above goes out of its way to paint the Cons' proposals as "stimulus" and the opposition's demands as "deficit spending":

Opposition takes credit for planned deficit spending...

Liberals and New Democrats took credit yesterday for Mr. Harper's sudden commitment to deficit spending in areas like job training and housing, but expressed strong skepticism as to whether they can trust the Conservatives.

Needless to say, not a single individual cited actually phrases their preferred outcome in those terms. And in fact, the only other appearance of the word "deficit" is in a false Con talking point:

“Finally, this government is talking about a real stimulus, which is what other countries have been doing for months,” said Liberal MP John McCallum...

In a year-end interview with CTV this week, the Prime Minister offered a broad outline of what his government's stimulus package will look like when the budget is unveiled on Jan. 27...

“He argued strenuously against them up until just a few days ago, and his government's attacked, very specifically, that size of stimulus package in the House of Commons,” (Jack Layton) said...

“As [Liberal MP John McCallum] said, ‘I would point out that the basic reality is that the NDP does not understand the first thing about economics,'” said Mr. Flaherty.

“That is patently clear when we hear they want to run a $30-billion structural deficit in Canada.”

Which means that while Harper's statement twists the facts to try to conflate stimulus with deficits in order to cover up the fact that his party had created the latter in the absence of the former, the Globe and Mail goes several steps further in distorting reality. And conveniently enough, the result is one which enures entirely to Harper's benefit: to the extent readers fail to question the article's classification, he gets to pretend that the opposition parties are happy with Deficit Jim's sea of red ink and looking to expand it, while getting to wear the label of backing "stimulus" which all parties support.

All of which means that an underlying reality where the opposition parties have consistently shared a common concern about both the Cons' budget deficit and Harper's lack of any stimulus is now being distorted to almost precisely the opposite effect. And it'll take some significant effort to make sure that Deficit Jim and Recession Stephen ultimately wear the consequences of their own failings.

Fool me twice...

Shorter John McCallum and Scott Brison:
If Jim Flaherty lied to us last time he presented Canada's financial picture, that's all the more reason to trust that his next set of books will be super accurate to compensate.

Specific concerns

Well in advance of today's Throne Speech, both the NDP and the Bloc clearly set out their demands from a policy perspective, both offering some vision of where they want to see the government go and declaring inferentially that the Harper government's direction would be evaluated on the merits. Which would seem to me to be the proper role of an opposition party.

But then there are the Libs, who apparently more interested in critiquing the Cons' writing style:

Be specific in throne speech: Liberals...

Federal Liberals say a worried public deserves to hear specific plans and specific reassurances from the Conservative government in the throne speech that opens Parliament.

Ontario MP John McCallum says the country is facing its biggest economic crisis in decades and the Harper government has an obligation to provide clear answers to questions related to the auto sector and private-sector pensions.

While McCallum is quoted mentioning a couple of policy suggestions, those are apparently only an afterthought for the Libs. Instead, their primary message to the Cons is utterly devoid of substantive content, sounding better suited for the instructions accompanying a written test than a debate over public policy.

And that's a problem for more than just the Libs as a party. After all, both the NDP and the Bloc have laid the groundwork for the Cons to face rightful criticism if they don't do enough to help Canadians who are suffering as a result of the economic downturn. And one would think the best way to solidify public concerns about the Harper government would be to amplify that message.

Instead, the Libs have gone out of their way to frame the throne speech based on form rather than content. And that figures to make it far easier for Harper to deflect attention from the likely failings of his government's direction.

Lessons unlearned

In case anybody held out hope that the Libs would start to focus some of their attention on actually opposing the Cons rather than navel-gazing and internal warfare, it's time to lower those expectations yet again. Not only does the Libs' impending leadership race figure consist of little beyond ammo for future attack ads and a chance to renew the party's usual internal rifts, but they apparently can't even name an interim leader without a fight to the death.