Saturday Afternoon Links

For your holiday reading.

- If you're looking for as concise a survey of the federal political scene as possible for 2010, look no further than John Geddes' review.

- Perhaps the weirdest part of Norman Spector's much-criticized rumourmongering is that it comes from a blogger who's normally a fairly reliable parrot of the Con party line. Which leads me to wonder whether there's something more at play than the obvious: is the choice to publish thoroughly unverified rumours simply a cry for attention by Spector, or is there some concurrent thought that widely-condemned questioning of Stephen Harper's family life in the media might help to make Harper himself seem more sympathetic - making Spector's post a gift to the Cons rather than a slight?

- While I don't agree with his Lib cheerleading, Daniel Veniez is absolutely right about the need for skepticism about the Cons' "economic manager" brand:

It’s a good time to debunk the biggest Stephen Harper myth there is: “We are good economic managers”. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

We need to spend $15 billion on jails because unreported crimes are rising? Don't believe them. We need to stop the long-form census, because the census-takers are going to send you to jail? Don't believe them. We need to kill the long-gun registry, because the police are leading a cult conspiracy to take away everybody's guns? Don't believe them. We awarding a $19 billion untendered contract for new jets because the Russians are coming? Don't believe them. This is a government that is counting on fear, driven by lies, to earn the votes it needs to win again.

- And finally, to celebrate the day: Santa's Privacy Policy.

A request worth heeding

Norman Spector notes one passage from the recent Wikileaks document dump which nicely highlights just how little use Canadian troops are serving from the perspective of the government they're supposed to be propping up:

“Non-US troops can stay home” is the headline in a cable recording a meeting Hamid Karzai had with the U.S. ambassador and Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, at the end of 2009. Showing his strong preference for U.S. soldiers, in the Afghan president’s view the 7,000 extra troops promised by NATO allies as part of the troop surge in 2010 were more trouble than they were worth.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted material for your end-of-week reading.

- Chris Selley points out just how odd it is that Michael Ignatieff is serving as an apologist for arbitrary security measures:

Michael Ignatieff was asked on Wednesday if he’d endured the new indignities being foisted upon air travellers, which are the subject of an ongoing backlash on both sides of the border. “I’ve long ceased worrying about these issues,” he responded. “We have to keep this country safe and the people I feel strongly in support of are the hardworking security scanners.”

In other words: Everything Transport Canada approves must be designed to keep us safe, right? Why else would they do it?

This seems an oddly credulous thing for any leader of the opposition to say — his duty being, in part, to oppose the government. It’s odder still for an ostensibly liberal leader of the opposition. And it’s downright bizarre for a leader of the opposition who was once celebrated as a human-rights brainbox. We’re talking about the needless, hideously expensive violation of basic privacies Westerners used to take for granted.

- Sometimes, the system doesn't work - and the G20 example looks to be glaring enough to raise questions about whether it was ever intended to. After all, even if it's difficult for an outsider to determine which police were responsible for which abuses, shouldn't it be possible to do so, presumably at least some of the officers at the scene would have some idea who had done what - making the lack of any answers look highly suspicious.

- Just when you thought the HST was nearly done with as an issue, it looks to be back on the front burner in Quebec. And if the Bloc indeed sides with the Quebec government (which doesn't seem like a sure thing to be given that harmonization would result in an unpopular federalist government ceding authority to Ottawa), then the NDP's efforts on the issue in Ontario and B.C. should put it in perfect position to capitalize.

- Finally, I don't entirely disagree with Norman Spector's theory that the NDP can do more to build and shape a protest movement on Afghanistan among other issues. But one would think Spector should take the time to at least check, say a simple Twitter feed to see what NDP MPs are doing across the country before pretending that they're nowhere other than in Ottawa.

Asked and answered

I'd tend to agree with Norman Spector to the extent that he sees plenty of opportunity for the NDP to generate outrage based on the events of recent days - even if I'd think at least one of the possible targets (Jim Prentice) is probably something less than the best possible example of the principle involved. But I'm at a loss as to how Spector thinks that view was missed in Brian Topp's recent advice.

Spector:

With the Globe and Mail linking a Conservative MP to Swiss bank accounts this morning (albeit under an improbable headline), where’s the demand for a review of our loophole-filled tax system – the kind of thing you heard even from left-Liberals like Eric Kierans in his day? With a Conservative minister de-camping to Bay Street on the eve of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff arriving from the same square mile, where’s the voice of Main Street that you heard from even Conservatives like John Diefenbaker in his day?

Topp:

They say it’s “time to stop the gravy train.” We should say good idea! Let's stop the gravy train – starting with the insiders, rich tax cheats, speculators, and all the other geniuses who wrecked the world economy and put millions out of work, while pocketing the bailout money.

Spector:

And, with the National Post front-paging the latest in medical queue-jumping, where’s the rounding defense of public health care for everyone that you would have heard from Tommy Douglas?

Topp:

They say it's time to sell off and privatize schools, hospitals and public services. We should say there are some important things best done together – like good public education for our kids and good health care no matter how big your wallet is.

In effect, all Spector has produced is a list of ideal examples of exactly the points Topp suggests making. Add "the insiders like Andrew Saxton and his clients", or "hospitals like the ones reported to be offering private MRIs and CT scans", and the two messages are entirely consistent.

Granted, there's room to question whether the NDP has in fact taken the opportunity to the extent that it can. But there's no reason at all to point to Topp or his suggested messages as somehow falling short of establishing exactly the type of frame that can turn concern over current events into NDP support.

On misplaced celebration

Shorter Norman Spector:

Huzzah! We've successfully killed off any global action on climate change! Let's party while we burn!

On blanket treatment

Norman Spector's attempt to blame G20 violence on people who have nothing at all to do with it is bad enough on its own. But it's worth paying particular attention to how Spector chooses to frame the treatment of groups of protesters in describing what he claims to be proper means of limiting the amount of violence:

Second, the destruction of property and other acts of violence were quickly condemned by the Mayor of Vancouver — a former NDP member of the legislature — and the city council, also controlled by the left. They were joined by the opposition party in the provincial legislature (Ignatieff, Layton:are you listening?). Non-elected lefties on the west coast quickly followed suit in condemning the violence.

Third, the protesters were roundly denounced by the media; in fact, I cannot think of any journalists who expressed even a modicum of sympathy or admiration for the demonstrators, which is not the impression I’ve been getting in reports for the past week from Toronto.

Finally, after some initial hesitation, the violent demonstrations were eventually condemned by the BC Civil Liberties Association.

While there's some reason to be concerned with Spector's belief that he's entitled to demand a denunciation at any given moment, I don't otherwise have much of a problem with the points dealing with the condemnation of violence.

But Spector takes his message much further when it comes to the media in his third point. Never mind focusing on how the media treats violence or vandalism, and certainly never mind distinguishing between the few violent protesters and the thousands seeking to make a legitimate political point. As far as Spector is concerned, all "protesters" and "demonstrators" must be condemned in the press at all times, lest the public otherwise develop any "sympathy" for them or their causes.

Needless to say, that looks to be nothing but a recipe for ensuring that non-elite voices are never heard, whether surrounding a meeting like the G20 or otherwise. And a blanket policy of refusing to even listen to the message from peaceful protesters would only seem more likely to give rise to violence as disaffected citizens go to ever greater lengths in trying to be heard.

Update: Meanwhile, I'm sure Spector will be apologizing to the NDP any minute now.

On misinterpretations

Following up on my post about Brian Topp's upcoming book, let's note one utterly bizarre claim in the review by Norman Spector:

Moreover, though a draft of the book was read by members of Mr. Topp’s “tribe,” the final product is not completely scrubbed of material unhelpful to coalition proponents. We learn, for example, that Stephen Harper had not discussed formation of a coalition government with the opposition parties in 2004, as many claim; their letter to the Governor-General was about “sending the minority Liberal government [of Paul Martin] a message that it was going to have to govern in consultation with the Opposition parties.” Later on, when Mr. Duceppe explained that Mr. Harper would be prime minister of a coalition government, Mr. Layton “withdrew from the three-party group.”

Now, I'll be interested to see the full story from the book - at least to the extent Topp is able to speak to the discussions (and as I'll discuss, the major gap in knowledge seems to primarily involve the Cons and the Bloc). But from Spector's description of the 2004 arrangement, there's absolutely no indication that a coalition government was off the table at the time from the Cons' perspective.

The passage does suggest that at the time the three-party letter was signed, there hadn't been any explicit discussion of a coalition involving the NDP. But it's obvious enough that the Cons' willingness to sign onto the idea that the Governor-General should consider alternative governments had to be based on a willingness to rely on the Bloc and the NDP for support, allowing for no meaningful distinction between the Bloc's role then and the one which the Cons blasted in 2008.

Moreover, it would seem that the Bloc's expectation of a coalition arrangement would have to some from somewhere. And based on Layton's rejecting the concept of a coalition as soon as it was raised, there's absolutely no basis to suggest it was the NDP pushing the idea at the time.

That leaves two possible explanations for the course of events described by Spector. It could be that the Bloc developed the idea of a coalition out of thin air without consulting with either of the other parties who were supposed to be involved - which would effectively leave them on an island as the lone party which thought that any replacement government would take the form of a coalition, and leave wide open the question of the Cons' position at the time.

But there's another possibility which makes far more sense given the specific mention of Harper as the prospective PM: it could be that the Cons and Bloc had actually talked about a formal coalition before either approached the NDP about the idea. And if so, then all indications are that the Cons sent a positive enough message about their willingness to enter into one that Duceppe was able to approach Layton to pitch the possibility.

Of course, there's ample reason for argument as to whether there's any reason to exclude democratically-elected Bloc MPs from any talk of a coalition in any event.

But to the extent a party's willingness to attain power based on a deal with the Bloc matters, Topp's account (at least as portrayed by Spector) only figures to reinforce the fact that the Cons were no less willing than the progressive coalition to pursue a government which relied on the Bloc's support. And in fact, it raises the possibility that the Cons may have gone much further in discussing a coalition format including the Bloc which all parties agree wasn't on the table in 2008. So there's no apparent reason to buy Spector's attempt to spin the events of 2004 as "unhelpful to coalition proponents".

On weak defences

Shorter Norman Spector:

Some may have slammed Jim Prentice for attacking Quebec's vehicle emissions policy. But now the truth comes out: not only did Prentice single out Quebec for bashing without any particular reason, but he was also factually wrong in doing so. Take that, critics!

How to make matters worse

Memo to Norman Spector: A scheme to eliminate any cost to government legislation as the result of prorogation is better classified as "disastrous" rather than "ingenious".

Yes, it's a problem that work done on government bills has been killed by Stephen Harper's decision to shut down Parliament. But the answer isn't to ensure that the only direct consequence of prorogation is to allow the government to hide from confidence votes and opposition questioning, as would be the case if a rule is put in place to "save legislation" while allowing the unfettered abuse of the PM's prorogation power to shut down all ongoing Parliamentary proceedings.

Don't forget the cake. And lots of Kool-Aid.

Did you know that it's Even More Implausible Twist on Already-Nonsensical Conservative Spin Day? Because plenty of pundits seem to have received the memo.

Take for example a Shorter Norman Spector:

For opposition parties to work together on so much as a single issue like prorogation is unnatural! A coup! TREASONOUS!!!!

Or perhaps a Shorter John Ivison:

If the opposition parties don't want to see politics overwhelmed by paid partisan advertising, why don't they (and their Liberal hack buddies like Harper appointee Marc Mayrand) engage in more of it themselves?

And finally, there's a Shorter Don Martin trying to sugercoat the Cons' woeful environmental record:

It's good news that the Cons are declaring that any problem with the tar sands only has to do with PR rather than actual environmental issues.

On unhelpful suggestions

Shorter Norman Spector:

Dude, I just had the best idea! I know it sounds kinda crazy, but just hear me out: what if Stephen Harper tried wrapping himself in the flag while being condescending and dismissive toward anybody who disagrees with him? I can't believe nobody's thought of this before!!!

The reviews are in

Norman Spector demolishes the Cons' latest set of excuses and rationalizations:

Yesterday, Conservative anyonymice (sic) were offering a new reason for prorogation. The PM, we were told, wanted to ensure that ministers with new portfolios had time to bone up before facing their opposition critics in Question Period.

Pish.

Had that been Mr. Harper’s true motivation, he could have shuffled his cabinet weeks ago. For, as has been widely reported, the Prime Minister sent his ministers updated mandate letters before Christmas. Normally, these letters are given to ministers on the day they assume their new responsibilities.

Had the shuffle taken place before Christmas, the new ministers would have had roughly the same amount of time to prepare as they will now have. Outgoing ministers would have been spared some useless work over the holidays.
...
Yesterday, Conservative spin doctors were whispering that Stockwell Day’s appointment as President of the Treasury Board was a signal of the Harper government’s seriousness in reining in spending. Mr. Day’s experience as Alberta Treasurer was cited as proof; in truth, per capita program spending under the Klein government was the highest of any province in Canada. All the rest was the kind of spin that you can only get away with in a one-party province.

Burning questions

What's more shocking about Norman Spector's response to Stephen Harper's latest attempt to spin his way out of trouble: is it that a Con supporter is willing to admit this?

Some of what we saw on CBC Tuesday evening may be real. But most of it is fake. Who doubts that Conservative attack dogs are operating with Mr. Harper’s approval, even if he is not micromanaging each and every one of their low blows?

Or is it that Spector manages to leave the impression that saying Harper's public presentation bears little to no relation to reality is somehow a compliment, to the point where the other federal party leaders (per Spector) should be trying to emulate the deception?

Blatant Straw Men 101

Shorter Norman Spector:

As Canada's political parties weigh the important legal and constitutional considerations surrounding Parliament's role in carrying out effective oversight of the government, I'd encourage them to keep in mind that Parliament contains...(gasp)...OOGABOOGASEPARATISTS!!! And in case you missed it the first time, OOGABOOGASEPARATISTS!!!!

The reviews are in

Norman Spector (!):

Perusing reports of Janine Krieber’s anti-Ignatieff missile, er missive, this morning, I notice a discrepancy in the English- and French-language coverage.

In La Presse, we read that Stéphane Dion’s wife may be thinking about joining the NDP — a point that Chantal Hébert also makes on her L'actualité blog . In English, there’s no mention of what would be a rather startling development should it come to pass.
...
The more likely explanation for the discrepancy in the coverage is the longstanding tendency of the media to give short shrift to the NDP — a tendency that is less and less evident in Québec.
...
Let’s be frank: Whether you agree with them or not, the NDP has been consistent in its opposition to the Afghanistan war — even after the 9/11 attacks, when it was not easy to take this position. And it was also noticeable, last week, that the NDP was the first party in Ottawa to call for a public hearing into Mr. Colvin’s allegations — a bandwagon that the other opposition parties quickly jumped on to.

One of the NDP spokespersons, Paul Dewar, radiates sincerity on the issue — as opposed to the faux outrage one normally sees on our television screens coming from Ottawa. And, in Jack Harris, the Dippers appear to have an MP who can match Bob Rae in competence.

So let’s give credit where credit is due. And, with the NDP riding high in the polls and even outscoring the Liberals in the Hochelaga by-election, isn’t it also time for the media to take the party more seriously and give them a bit more coverage?