Never mind the furniture

John Ivison discusses the possibility that the Libs might end up canceling late-campaign ad buys in order to save money. Which is a big enough story on its own - but downright stunning when one considers the context in which the money would (or wouldn't) be spent.

Here's what Ivison has to say:

Insiders suggest that discussions about reining in spending on the current campaign are are ongoing, as party executives weigh the prospect of saving seats against the need to conserve cash to fight another day.

Financial pressures are likely to build after this election because the party's biggest-single source of revenue -- the $1.75 it receives annually from the government for every vote cast -- is likely to fall in line with the slide in Liberal support.

According to the last Liberal accounts, the party received $8.5-million of its $12.7-million of revenue from its government allowance. If the Liberals vote falls in line with current polling, the party will see that figure cut by $2-million a year -- money they can scarcely afford to lose, since they recorded a deficit of $1.7-million last year. This, after all, is a party that spends 50¢ to raise $1 in donations, according to its own financial figures.

The real world impact on the current campaign could be on advertising budgets in the last week of the campaign. Since Mr. Dion does not have sole discretion over Liberal spending, it may well be that when he goes to his party executives asking for last minute air support, they turn him down.

So what makes the possibility of the Libs cutting back on spending during the campaign so remarkable? Remember that federal parties are entitled to a 50% rebate on their national election expenses - meaning that whatever the Libs spend nominally on the campaign, they'd effectively get half of it back almost immediately. Assume for the moment that the Libs were otherwise planning to spend $2 million on ads which would be canceled: a million of that would be returned to party coffers as a matter of course.

So what would they get for the million that would actually come out of pocket? For those who aren't familiar with Canada's party financing rules, the answer is in Ivison's text: every vote the Libs can win with the money they spend is worth $1.75 per year until the next election. Assuming voter turnout comparable to 2006, that means that the Libs would make their million back if the ads could persuade 4% of voters to join their camp in a Parliament that lasts a year, or 2% if Parliament lasts for two years. And all that would be in addition to the possibility of potentially winning more seats than they would otherwise.

So what would the Lib sources discussed have to have concluded in order to even consider that they might end up financially better off by refusing to authorize ad spending? From my standpoint, they'd not only have to have decided that the party is headed down in flames, but also that Dion and his camp have absolutely no clue how to spend the money to improve the Libs' share of the popular vote. And if even the top decision-makers within the Libs have that low an opinion of Dion and the people running the party's campaign, it's all the more hard to see why voters should have any confidence in them.

Reason to switch

For all the focus on the party numbers from this morning's Angus Reid poll showing the NDP tied with the Libs, the even more important news may be this:

More than half of Liberal voters (54 per cent), and almost half of NDP (47 per cent), and Green (44 per cent) voters would seriously consider "strategically" switching their votes against their preferred candidate if it looks like another party has a better shot at winning, and could block a Conservative.

Now, I'm surprised the Libs don't have more of a core voting bloc than they apparently do. But these numbers suggest that the Libs' decline doesn't merely reflect leaners moving elsewhere while the party's previous core remains intact.

Instead, respondents currently supporting the Libs are more likely than their NDP counterparts to be willing to move elsewhere if that's the best way to stop Harper. And for voters who don't have a strong values-based preference between the parties, there's little reason for them not to do so when the NDP is already on even terms with the Libs.

What's more, with more Lib voters willing to switch, there's also a higher upside to their actually following through. If the NDP can carry all of its current support plus the Libs and Greens who would be willing to switch, then its support would reach 35.42%. In contrast, the Libs' similar best-case scenario would be 33.95% of the vote.

With the Cons likely stuck with a relatively poorly distributed support level in the mid to upper 30s, that point and a half could make the difference in determining whether the Cons remain in power - or whether a minority NDP government is able to start reversing the damage done by Harper over the past two and a half years. Which means that for voters who are inclined to vote based on stopping Harper, there's another strong reason to make the NDP their choice.

Values added

Both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper made promises this week which on their face involve restricting the export of raw materials to encourage value-added jobs in Canada: Layton's dealing with the export of raw logs, and Harper's with raw bitumen. But on a closer look, there are important differences between the two which speak volumes about the respective visions the two leaders have for Canada.

First, there's the issue of sustainability. Layton's plan is one which seeks to develop opportunities related to a renewable resource - meaning that the jobs created by encouraging processing in Canada are ones with the potential to last indefinitely, and serve as the basis for communities which are able to sustain themselves in the longer term.

In contrast, Harper's plan is tied to an industry which plainly has a best-before date: not only are oil reserves themselves finite, but the current global push toward alternative energy has the potential to drive demand through the floor even before the reserves run out. Which means that any production which might be diverted to Canada would also be a temporary benefit at best.

But then, one has to ask what industries can actually handle a boost in near-term employment - which leads to the second key difference between the plans. Layton's move would encourage increased investment in value-added work in sectors which have a glut of workers in need of opportunities. In contrast, Harper's is directed at an industry whose problem is already a lack of workers to do the jobs possible based on current capital investment - a problem which would only be exacerbated by a push to require processing in Canada.

And that's particularly important in light of the third key difference. The manufacturing and processing jobs encouraged under Layton's plan would be spread across a wide swath of the country - including B.C. in particular, but also areas in northern Ontario, Quebec and anywhere else that there's a substantial forestry presence. As a result, Layton's plan would help to diversify Canada's economy based on geography as well as industry.

In contrast, it would seem virtually inevitable that any additional construction of bitumen-processing facilities would take place near the source. Which would work out extremely well for Harper's base, but not so well for the rest of the country which is already suffering from government policies which have boosted the oil patch at the expense of the rest of Canada's economy.

In sum, the contrast nicely encapsulates the respective economic values put forward by Layton and Harper. Voters will face a choice between New Democrats who favour an economy rooted in a broad base of sustainable jobs and responsible resource management, or Conservatives who want to keep increasing Canada's dependence on quick-fix oil-sands exploitation even if it means holding off on economic development which could possibly be maintained in the long term. And particularly in an election whose ballot question figures to be which leader is best equipped to manage Canada's economy through troubled times, it shouldn't be difficult for Canadians to decide they want the former.

Strategic complications

One more followup note on strategic voting. As problematic as it is at the best of times to try to figure out where a vote is best placed even if one wants to vote strategically, this year's election looks to be a particularly difficult one to try to break down neatly. And that can be readily seen from the suggestions at the Vote for Environment site which seems to have emerged as the main source for strategic recommendations.

Rather than making recommendations based primarily on current polling numbers, its figures are based primarily on 2006 election results with not much regard for what's apparently changed since then. So even with the Libs potentially losing up to half of their 2006 popular support and falling behind even the Greens in B.C., the site still recommends voting for Lib candidates in ridings like Fleetwood-Port Kells, Newton-North Delta or Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca - even though the NDP would rank ahead by a substantial margin if the difference from 2006 to today in provincial polling numbers is applied to the ridings.

Which isn't to say that applying the 2006 results is necessarily an unreasonable starting point for recommendations. But it does raise a significant risk that an effort to vote strategically may backfire: a strategic push toward the Libs in that kind of riding could only dilute the effects of increased general support for the NDP, allowing the Cons to win seats which they wouldn't hold otherwise.

And of course there are equal dangers in the other direction. Ultimately, any recommendation can easily be counterbalanced by some other factor far outside the influence of a strategic voting effort.

In fairness, Vote for Environment does plan to issue updated recommendations after the debates - so some of the bugs which one might point out now may be fixed by then. But that still leaves plenty of room either for things to change between then and election day, or for the group's assumptions to be wrong to begin with. And faced with that risk, the best plan in the vast majority of cases is still to vote for the party who best reflects one's values based on the knowledge that it'll benefit in a number of ways, rather than hoping to guess right in a strategic voting scenario.

Strategic calculations

With so much talk circulating about strategic voting, I'll take a moment to point out my ruminations from the 2006 campaign. (Which I'll stand by even if it turns out that the NDP ends up a position to benefit from strategic voting by the time all is said and done.)

A man of the people

Shorter Stephen Harper:
Of course I'm in touch with the common folk. Why, just last week my party hand-selected one or two to serve as a backdrop for a photo opportunity. Frightful, that was.

Stupid things

Following up somewhat on this post, Stephen Harper seems to have offered the opposition parties an ideal opportunity to point out how his government has mismanaged public money:

"All the fundamentals of the Canadian economy are good. It's not the time to do anything new, wild or stupid," he said.

"I think we will be fine -- not great -- but we will be fine as long as we don't do stupid things," the Tory leader told reporters as he campaigned in Victoria

So what stupid things has Harper done in office which deserve to be highlighted in response as the kind of things Canada can't afford? Again, my first votes are for the $1.25 billion public infrastructure selloff fund and the $800 million for the least efficient environmental program in the world - but there's surely plenty more large and small worth noting.

An avenue of attack

When both Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are trying desperately to inoculate themselves against a particular type of criticism, I have to suspect they have reason to be worried. And so it is for what looks to be a glaring broken promise that's slipped under the radar - and which could eat into two of the Cons' most important perception advantages (on keeping promises and on economic management) if it's handled properly.

With that in mind, here's my suggestion as to how an ad or other message should be attacking the Cons for their federal spending increases.

Start with a screen shot of this promise from the Cons' 2006 platform (warning: PDF - see p. 17):

A Conservative government will:
Limit the future growth of federal spending on federal grant and contribution programs and by federal departments and agencies (other than National Defence and Indian Affairs) to the rate of inflation plus population growth.

Cut to a graph comparing the actual population plus inflation number to the actual spending growth under the Cons, showing the overall gap increasing from year to year. (The CTF's numbers of 7.5%, 6.9% and 8.4% annualized growth over the past three years would do the job nicely.) Include a voiceover about how the Cons have broken their promise more and more every single year, and perhaps a Coyne quote for emphasis.

Ask, "So what has Harper done with our money?" Cut to screen shots featuring something along the following lines:
- $150 million for a rail line to Jim Flaherty's riding which was "nowhere on (the province's) priority list";
- $1.25 billion to push infrastructure projects out of public hands;
- $800 million for the "most expensive environment program anywhere in the world by a wide margin".

Cut away to a shot of Harper with voiceover and text emphasizing that Harper has already broken his promise to handle your money responsibly, and can't be trusted now.

If there's a problem with the above, it's that it might be a bit late in the game to start pushing a counternarrative which really should have been developed sooner. But I have to figure that this type of ad - combined with the ongoing effort of the opposition parties to tie Harper's economic philosophy to Bushco's - would have a better chance than anything else of shifting opinions against Harper when it comes to money management. And that looks to be the key to cutting into the Cons' current strength in the polls.

On target audiences

Not that I'd want to stop Michael Ignatieff from making himself look silly. But does he really think that any Canadian who wants to see Nixon-style politics and a communications policy of "shut up" isn't already firmly in Stephen Harper's corner?

Open Net goals

It didn't even rank as the New Democrats' top policy announcement of the day. But for those of us who are concerned about net neutrality it's worth noting that the NDP's commitment to the issue already set out in an earlier private member's bill is now a formal part of the party platform:

Although Mr. Layton said he will create a new minister of protection, it will not come with a ministry. Instead, the new minister will work with a small staff taken from the industry department and ministry. The NDP promised that the measure entails no new expenditures.

Mr. Layton also promised to cap interest rates on credit cards to a maximum of 5 percentage points over prime, expanding on a promise he has made previously.

The NDP leader also said he would implement a “net neutrality” policy -- essentially allowing Canadians to access the web without restrictions.

At last notice, we were still waiting on a final decision from the CRTC to determine whether or not it would bother doing anything about ensuring that the Internet is available for all kinds of traffic rather than leaving the door open for throttling.

But there's every reason for voters to be concerned about leaving the matter to chance - particularly in the hands of a body which didn't bother to take immediate action when first presented with the issue. And of course any positive decision from the CRTC could itself be overridden by any government which doesn't see net neutrality as a priority. Which means that it's a definite plus for voters to know that at least one of the major parties is committed to ensuring fair access.

Con MP Lee Richardson Keeps Digging

NDP Candidate Tyler Kinch and blogger Leftdog have already pointed out Con MP Lee Richardson's asinine comments blaming crime on immigrants. But it's worth noting that Richardson's attempt to deflect and backtrack looks no less offensive than his initial remarks.

First, there's a sad attempt to cast the blame on his constituents rather than accepting personal responsibility for his words:

When Fast Forward phoned Richardson the day after the initial interview to ask him to clarify his earlier comments, he expressed regret for what he’d said. “I just don’t want to go there at all,” said Richardson. “That is not my intention. If I misspoke, I apologize to you for that.” Richardson said he was referring to only a “small minority” of people and was reflecting what he’s heard from his constituents. “What their comments are based on is probably anecdotal — what they read in the newspapers,” he said.

But more damningly, there's also Richardson's attempt to justify the statement itself:

“I just don’t want [my comments] to be torqued out of context,” Richardson added. “We see anecdotally — and through our experiences here — the differences from the Alberta that I grew up in. And that’s the same in a lot of big cities across the country. That’s really all I was trying to say…. I regret having said that yesterday.”

So what differences are there now from "the Alberta that (Richardson) grew up in"? Well, Wikipedia lists Richardson's date of birth as being in 1947. So let's take a look at the province Richardson grew up in - let's say from 1955 to 1965, when he was aged 8 to 18 - and ask what kind of Alberta he's apparently concerned about having left behind.

Sure, there are such forms of progress as abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the like. But it's hard to be sure that any given Con actually agrees with the increased rights granted in those areas. So let's look at some factors from Richardson's halcyon days of yore which even the Cons would seemingly have to agree are far better left in the past.

After all, it wasn't too long ago that Stephen Harper apologized Canada's shameful residential school system. Which was in full swing during the time Richardson "grew up" - and presumably had an influence on the types of people Richardson would (and wouldn't) have interacted with. And for that matter, during the first half of the period in question, the right to vote was withheld from status Indians.

And in Alberta in particular, the period also spans the time when the provincial government's heinous Eugenics Board was able to forcibly sterilize "mentally deficient" individuals. Which was itself the subject of a formal apology by Alberta's Conservative government not long ago.

Now, there are doubtless many more examples of how Albertan society has changed for the better in the meantime. But what makes the above policies particularly important in considering Richardson's statement is that they came about precisely because decision-makers were convinced that extraordinary measures were required to remove the threat of a set of "others" who could cause social unrest - defined as a different society from the one they grew up in.

While Richardson presumably wouldn't advocate the same policies, his comment and clarification are plainly based in the same mindset: vilifying those who are perceived as different for the sake of clinging to a narrow, self-centric view of the world. And that kind of attitude demands a strong response before it's too late to stop another self-centred and inward-looking government from engaging in policies we'll end up regretting later.

Abandoning the fight

As usual, the Libs' attempt to appeal to progressive voters is based on little more than their ever-less-plausible claim they - and only they - can offer an alternative to Con government. Which makes it particularly noteworthy that internally, the Libs have given up on the prospect of actually taking power:

Usually at this point in a successful campaign, however, there is thought given to forming a transition team.

Senator David Smith, one of the co-chairs of the Liberal campaign, said yesterday that he wasn't "going to get into it" when asked about transition.

"We're primarily campaign-focused," he said. "On that subject, given the front-bench strength that we have compared to even the current government ... we've got a lot of people with ministerial experience ... it's not as if we don't have people who haven't been there, done that."

Another senior campaign strategist burst out into laughter when asked about whether there had been any thinking as to a transition team.

"It wasn't even in my vocabulary or my brain," said the strategist, suggesting the Liberals are trying to hold what they have.

Now, the news raises a few questions about the Libs both for the campaign and for the longer term. For example, how is it that the same experienced politicians touted by Smith as "front-bench strength" haven't yet brought up what the Libs would have to do in order to form government? And does this signal Bob Rae's ascendancy within the party as Libs take on the view that "so what do we do now?" will work better on a national scale than it did in Ontario?

But the most important story is that the Libs' public message is far out of touch with their own internal expectations for the campaign. And the more Canadians recognize that the Libs themselves have given up on trying to stop Stephen Harper, the more likely they'll be to shift their support to another party which won't back down.

Location, location, location

I can certainly understand some of the appeal behind the New Democrats' strategy of labelling the Cons as the party of Bay Street. But I have to wonder whether it's the best way of defining Harper and his party for the balance of the campaign.

Off the top, there are two obvious upsides to using the Bay Street reference. First, and perhaps most importantly, it fits extremely well into the general New Democratic message. After all, to the extent the focus is on kitchen table vs. boardroom table, it certainly makes some sense to associate one's opponents with the best-known set of boardrooms in the country.

And to the extent the Libs are still in the race, the shorthand applies equally well to them as to the Cons - helping to reinforce the NDP's main themes against both of its key competitors. (Of course, there's a flip side to that which I'll get to later.)

But then, it seems clear that the primary NDP strategy is focused on the Cons. And trying to tie them to Bay Street may pose a couple of problems going forward.

First, it's less likely to resonate with the public than identifying the Harper Cons with their Alberta base. Describing the Cons as Oil Sands Steve and the Calgary Conservatives both fits perfectly with the image the NDP would ideally want to paint, and probably comes closer to how most swing voters are likely to already see Harper and his party. And the NDP surely can't want to make its sales pitches any more difficult than they have to be.

More importantly, though, the one area where the NDP most needs to ramp up its public support is Ontario. And had it responded to the Cons' attack on Ottawa by painting itself as the defender of Ontario (not to mention Quebec) against the Cons' attempt to impose Alberta values and favour the oil sands at the expense of central Canadian manufacturing, the NDP would have been in an ideal position to become the clear alternative to the Cons in the one province where the Libs are still holding their own.

Instead, the New Democrats have not only made it somewhat more difficult for parts of Ontario to see them as an ally, but they may have left at least a slight opportunity for the Libs to paint themselves as Ontario's regional defender.

Mind you, it seems as likely as not that the current geographically-based titles will be quickly forgotten (if they even enter into the public consciousness). But from this angle, the NDP is likely best off doing its best to ensure that happens or switch to running against Calgary and the oil patch, rather than presenting an opening that even the Dion Libs might not miss.

Operation Government Shutdown

The Citizen reports that the Cons aren't done throwing monkey wrenches into the works of government yet, as the federal civil service is facing an almost total prohibition on normal purchasing processes and other operations for the duration of the election campaign:

In an unprecedented clampdown, Public Works and Government Services Canada is vetting all federal purchasing to ensure only contracts for "essential or urgent" goods and services are issued during the rest of the election campaign...

The screening of contracts is part of a sweeping clampdown imposed by the Privy Council Office on communications and business that is slowing down the work of some departments to a crawl.

The restrictions have resulted in travel bans in some departments, public servants bowing out of long-scheduled conferences, speaking engagements and meetings with everyone from consumer advocacy groups to industry representatives. Bureaucrats, lobbyists, suppliers and anyone who deals with government say they have never seen such a chill on the workings of the bureaucracy. Many say the Conservative government's tight control of information over the past two years has bureaucrats overreacting.

Public Works normally refrains from signing or awarding any big contracts during an election, but public servants say they have never seen all contracts screened and reviewed before being posted. The written directive provided by PCO says that during an election, "the government acts with restraint, confining itself to necessary public business -- continuing to communicate on matters that are routine, non-controversial, and urgent and in the public interest."

What is different this time is that the government doesn't seem to trust the judgment and restraint bureaucrats used to be expected to exercise during an election in deciding what contracts to issue. Caution has snowballed into "paranoia to the extreme," said one procurement expert...

It also comes at one of the busiest times for the bureaucracy as departments are racing to get contracts ready or in place to get their work done before the March 31 year-end. Deferred contracts will come back to haunt the government with delays and backlogs.

Not that it should come as much surprise that the Cons' iron fist has been gripping the public service even harder than usual during the election campaign.

But it should once again say plenty about Harper's priorities that he's effectively ordered Public Works to avoid doing its job for the balance of the campaign - ensuring that it'll have to rush to finish the same work later - in the name of improving their position during the campaign. And the Cons' continued insistence on putting their interests over any desire for good government should have both the civil service in particular and Canadians in general eager to remove Harper from power.

Liberal credibility at work

The Libs' efforts to paint themselves as the only possible alternative to Harper even as their poll numbers drop to fourth place have been rightly laughed off in most corners. But let's be fair: surely if anybody can claim expertise in successfully holding off a right-wing opponent, it's Ujjal Dosanjh, right?

Clinging to power

Following up on this post, it's worth asking just how far Stephen Harper plans to try to push the envelope in order to stay in the PMO, as the outcome of the impending federal election would seem to have potential to give rise to a serious constitutional crisis.

Here's what Harper said in demanding the chance to form government again even if a majority coalition is lined up against him:

That didn't answer the more complex question of what would happen if Harper formed a minority government, but the three left-wing opposition parties band together to defeat him on a quick vote of confidence - such as the throne speech opening a new Parliament.

Under constitutional convention, the Governor General would almost certainly let the opposition try its hand at forming a government.

Harper, however, dismissed that scenario as anti-democratic.

"Whoever wins the election will have a mandate to govern," he told a news conference.

"I think it will be incumbent upon the opposition parties - at least for a period of time - to respect that mandate. I think they would not do so at their peril."

Now, Harper's dividing line for the moment appears to be the question of which party wins the most seats in the House of Commons. Which is of course likely the one which gives the Cons the best chance of retaining power (if one with no foundation in Canadian precedent). But the question of which party wins the most seats doesn't seem to make all that much difference either in constitution or in principle.

Constitutionally, based on the concept of continuity of government, the Cons are still technically in office now - and will continue to be so until such time as somebody is sworn in to replace them. Which means that if Harper is determined to hold onto power as long as possible even if the election goes sour, then his best bet is probably to muddy the waters as much as possible to keep anybody else from replacing him.

In that respect, Harper's shot across the bow appears to be aimed to preventing two possibilities: either the opposition parties voting him down in the House of Commons, or the Governor General selecting somebody other than Harper to lead the government based on a publicly-known coalition in the absence of a vote.

But with Harper effectively declaring that he considers himself entitled to hold onto power even if a majority coalition is prepared to vote down his party and assume government, is it much of a leap to think he might try to put off the organization of a new Parliament in order to impose as much of the Cons' agenda as he can by executive fiat before any confidence votes take place? And if Harper is willing to claim that he should be able to maintain power based on a single-party seat total which obviously bears no relation to actual confidence within the House, is it much of a stretch to think he might change his tune and claim the ability to do so based on continuity of government if the party standings turn against him?

All of which is to say that Harper's statement yesterday may amount to a declaration that the only way he's leaving 24 Sussex is if Canadians drag him out by his sweater. And the fact that Harper is so desperate to cling to power should make Canadians question whether or not he's fit to exercise it.

La democratie, c'est moi

Shorter Stephen Harper:
The prospect that other parties might loosen my iron grip on power based on something as inconsequential as the ability to hold the confidence of the House of Commons is deeply anti-democratic.

In hiding

Following up on this post about the I Believe in Open campaign, I'm not sure it could ask for a better boost than a reminder of the type of government we're stuck with for the moment:

(W)hen reporters asked to speak to (Dona Cadman) after Mr. Harper gave a speech to a Surrey rally, she was instead whisked out of the back door, and out the building.

A spokesman for Mr. Harper, Kory Teneycke, said it was not the local candidates' priority to speak to national media, but rather to get elected. When it was pointed out that local reporters were present, he said that he hasn't said it was their priority to speak to local media, either.

Wide open possibilities

With the Cons having decided that their commitment to accountability ended when they took office and the Libs having never warmed up to the concept even in opposition, the campaign to date has seen far too little talk about how to make Canada's federal government more transparent. But David Akin points out at least one developing movement pushing for open government. And it shouldn't be much surprise which party is getting behind it in a hurry, as 14 NDP candidates have already signed on when even public involvement is limited to a few dozen names.

It remains to be seen what impact the I Believe in Open group will have on the campaign. But particularly in the wake of Harper's ultra-secretive government, now should be exactly the time for Canadians to demand something more than closed-door decision-making. And a national response to this type of initiative looks to be just the way to send that message as the campaign progresses.

Uncosted

It's far from the first time the Cons have ignored the costs of needlessly draconian criminal laws. But their lack of any attention to the expense associated with increased prison sentences is particularly striking in a campaign where they're trying to run on economic management.

First, it was their announcement that they want to make it easier to subject juveniles to sentences of up to life in prison - with no apparent recognition of the resulting need for increased federal penitentiary space if the change were to pass and avoid being struck down as unconstitutional.

Now, the Cons are offering an uncosted promise to pay the provinces to house additional inmates as a result of their eliminating conditional sentences as an option for 30 offences. But the Cons don't even have any idea how many cases might be affected, let alone how much the change would cost:

The Conservatives said it was difficult to obtain statistics on how many people are given conditional sentences for the 30 offences on their list. They said 11,000 people served conditional sentences in 2006, but the 30 offences make up a small fraction of those in the criminal code.

Mr. Harper also said there will be costs for putting more people in jails, and his government will negotiate compensation with the provinces because many of the extra inmates will be sent to provincial jails. (Sentences of less than two years are served in provincial jails.)

In other words, the party which is lecturing its competitors about fiscal responsibility despite having driven the country to the brink of deficit is making absolutely no effort to even figure out - let alone inform voters about - how much its criminal law platform will cost. Which once again gives Canadian voters plenty of reason to doubt Harper's commitment to anything other than pulling wool over the eyes of the public.

Dion: Corporate Tax Cuts More Important than Stopping Harper

As others have noted, Jack Layton's talk about a possible coalition with the Libs consisted largely of a willingness to keep options open which one would expect out of any party or leader. Which makes Stephane Dion's response rather stunning, as the Libs' leader has categorically rejected any attempt to find common ground based on his insistence on cutting corporate taxes:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion flatly rejected forming a coalition government with the New Democrats today on the heels of hints from NDP Leader Jack Layton that he'd be open to the idea.

Mr. Dion, speaking after an address to a Vancouver-area business crowd today, said he could not work with Mr. Layton in this way because the NDP leader wants to hike taxes on business.

“We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period,” the Liberal leader said.

So all that Liberal outrage about food safety deaths under the Cons? As far as Dion is concerned, he's rather let them continue than rein in corporate tax cuts.

Culture? Immigration? Aboriginal issues? Health care? Child care? All to be tossed out the window if taking action means working with the New Democrats.

And even meaningful action on the environment is apparently secondary to Dion's desire to see more money stay in corporate hands.

Needless to say, this should send about the strongest possible signal as to whose interests the Libs will once again favour when it comes time to decide which priorities are most important to them. And with the Dion seeing Harper's corporate tax cuts as so important as to be worth throwing the rest of his party's values and platform under the bus, there can't be much doubt left as to who's really standing up to the Cons.

Update: From LKO in the comments:

(T)o categorically reject the idea of a coalition based upon not wanting to implement every single piece of the NDP platform? Frankly, it suggests that Dion either A) Doesn't understand the meaning of the word "coalition", B) Doesn't think he could lead such a coalition to make the compromises necessary for it to govern, C) Isn't really running a campaign focused on gaining ground on the left the way we all thought he was, or D) Thinks he's winning the election.

No matter which it is,

That's just idiotic.

Home-field disadvantages

A couple of bloggers have already pointed out that the Libs appear to be in danger of falling behind the Greens in British Columbia. But as dangerous as it is for the Libs to be running for fourth place anywhere, the drop may signal even more weakness than it would appear to at first glance.

Remember that much of Dion's organizational structure came from British Columbia, with strong links to both the Martin camp and the Campbell government. Mark Marissen was Dion's campaign manager for the leadership race and at last notice was serving as a national campaign co-chair, while several others with similar ties also played prominent roles. Which would seem to make B.C. one of the provinces where the Libs are likely to be relatively well-organized.

Moreover, while there would normally be some ideological difference between the B.C. Libs and their federal counterparts, those lines have been largely blurred now that both are taking fire over their respective carbon tax plans. Simply put, the Campbell government would seem to have reason to want to make sure that Dion doesn't go down in flames, if only to avoid creating a narrative which will increase their likelihood of doing the same in 2009.

Yet even in a province which plays home to Dion's organizational base - and where the provincial government and its supporters have every reason to want to back the Libs' main policy plank - the Libs are apparently bleeding support from all sides, possibly to the point of facing an uphill battle for third.

Of course, there's at least some symmetry there with the fact that Dion is likewise fighting to stay out of fourth place in his own province. But when neither Dion personally nor his top organizers can apparently win over even their home provinces, what can the Libs possibly have left?

For now, then answer is force of habit, particularly in Ontario. But if the New Democrats can take advantage of an obvious opportunity to gain ground there, then we may soon reach the tipping point where the NDP becomes the default alternative to Harper. And if that comes to pass, then the Libs' drop so far may look positively insignificant by the time the campaign is over.

Without historical precedent

Shorter Lysiane Gagnon:
I can only assume that a Harper majority would go out of its way to govern from the centre rather than imposing an ideological agenda contrary to the views of mainstream voters. And since you asked, no, I haven't heard of Mike Harris. Or Gordon Campbell. Or indeed Stephen Harper for that matter.

Absent Liberals

As Jan points out in the comments here, a new set of viral videos shines a painful spotlight on how Stephane Dion's Libs were missing in action when it came to dozens of important votes in Parliament.

But while these videos are a great start, I have to figure that they're only the beginning of how the Libs' choice to prop up the Cons can rightly be used against them. Now that the source videos are so readily available, it should be an extremely simple process to develop new material which splices footage of the Libs' empty seats with a quick narrative/screen shot of the issues which were being voted on at any given time. Which will show just how weak the Libs were in pretending to oppose Harper in the last Parliament - and why Canada can't afford to entrust them with the responsibility of standing up to Harper in the future either.

On trust markets

In principle, Jack Layton's comment about a coalition government makes for an effective way to keep the Libs from gaining much momentum out of their platform launch. But it's looking like Layton need not have bothered, as the Worst Campaign Ever continues to fall short of even the lowest expectations.

Today, the Libs have managed to undercut a platform launch which was supposed to serve as their jumping-off point for the rest of the campaign. Rather than actually making their wider platform the story, they've instead scooped themselves by reannouncing an income trust tax adjustment which they'd already made public last year - which will only ensure that any actual new proposals will get lost in the shuffle.

What's more, Layton could hardly have scripted a better message to put the Libs on the wrong side of his "kitchen table/boardroom table" contrast than a focus on corporate structures and reopening tax loopholes. All of which suggests that while the Libs may succeed in pointing out one of Harper's more glaring broken promises, they're also opening the door even wider for Layton and the New Democrats to emerge as the governing alternative.

On flexible federalism

Jack Layton's promise to allow provinces and municipalities to ban handguns is certainly noteworthy from the standpoint of dealing with gun violence. But perhaps more interesting is the direction it may signal when it comes to future issues of federalism.

While the Cons have tried to minimize most functions of the federal government, the one area where they've shown no interest in acknowledging the different interests in different parts of the country is crime - even though it should be obvious that the criminal law priorities may differ radically from place to place. And all indications are that their plan for the next session of Parliament is to impose their agenda with even less allowance for such trifles as public opinion or the relative effectiveness of different policies than they've been willing to put up with so far.

Which makes it noteworthy that the New Democrats' first policy plan related to crime is based on permitting provinces and municipalities to take action if they see handguns as an important issue, rather than imposing anything from a national perspective. And the approach would seem to be one which can work on other criminal justice and related issues as well. (For an obvious example, consider how much less vitriol there would be over programs such as Insite if municipalities were granted the ability to allow or prohibit them locally, rather than having to rely on federal dispensations.)

Of course, a contrast would still exist between the parties' relative treatment of criminal law and other related issues, and that of social programs such as child care and health care where the NDP tends to favour establishing some national standards while the Cons simply hand over money with no questions asked. But that too could make for a valuable debate: where do Canadians (and their provincial and municipal representatives) most value more room for provincial and local decision-making, and where are they more concerned with seeing the same principles applied from coast to coast to coast?

Now, my guess is that the NDP's policies are closer to the right side of public opinion on those questions. But whatever the end result, it's still worth noting that any attempt by the Cons to claim to offer greater flexibility to lower levels of government now faces at least one glaring counterexample - and the more the New Democrats can unveil through the campaign, the more likely they'll be to set themselves apart as the preferred partner for their provincial and municipal counterparts.

Update: Cameron has more.

On target audiences

Andrew Potter asks if the Libs' latest attempt to sell Stephane Dion's leadership is the worst political ad ever made. But the answer looks to me to depend what the Libs do with the ad.

If they actually plan to put the ad on the airwaves based on the hope that it'll improve Dion's standing with the general public, then the answer is an unqualified "yes". Indeed, the use of a clip which appears particularly clumsy even for Dion makes it seem as if the Cons weren't the only party to have had an ironic call to vote against them distributed in their name.

But what if the Libs simply leave the ad online where it likely won't be seen by anybody who isn't already keenly interested in the election? In that case, its main effect might be to lower expectations for the debates to the point where a single coherent sentence is seen as a triumph for Dion. And a narrative of "Dion performs better than expected" might be the most the Libs can hope for at this point.

Of course, the problem with that strategy is that Canadians may understandably expect more than that from the leader of a party whose other main strategy is to scream that Canadians don't have any other choice but themselves. And with even one of the Libs' brightest partisans suggesting the party may need a decade on the sidelines to get its act together, there's all the more reason for Canadians to turn elsewhere to stop and reverse the Harper agenda in the meantime.

Harper: Hooray for Roads to Nowhere!

The most obvious reason why Stephen Harper wouldn't want to offer an opinion on Sarah Palin is the massive ideological chasm between her and the voters Harper needs to pacify before election day. But Bill Curry unintentionally highlights another factor: that Harper apparently manages to take great personal amusement in Palin's style of zero-benefit spending:

(Harper said) his favourite northern spot is Alert.

“It's the most northerly human habitation in the world,” he said. “The scenery there is really spectacular. It's mountains. It's fjords. And a great little thing there: There's a 14-kilometre road to nowhere.”

Mr. Harper said the road was built in the 1970s in the hope of making it to the next outpost.

“They just eventually concluded it would never get done,” he said.

Now, for those of us who tend to think that the federal government should be using public money for actual useful purposes, "great" is hardly the first word that would come to mind in describing an utter waste of resources. And that outcome certainly wouldn't be a positive factor in how we'd see the region where the waste took place.

But then, the Cons have shown all too clearly while in power that they're downright eager to throw large amounts of money into pits ranging from utterly useless programs to blatant vote-buying efforts. Which explains why Harper is able to see past waste as a matter for personal enjoyment - and also why it's long past time to get our public funds out of Harper's hands.

On stopped clocks

It's not often that I have to agree with Michael Ignatieff - and even in this case, he's right only for the wrong reasons. But his comment when presented with the possibility of uniting Canada's left speaks volumes about why he and his supporters can't be counted on to counterbalance to the Harper Cons' right-wing agenda:

Some commentators have mused on the prospects of some sort of Liberal-NDP-Green coalition should the Tories be re-elected. Mr. Ignatieff, campaigning in Whitby, Ont., on Friday, strongly rejected such a possibility.

“I don't think the Liberal Party of Canada is a party of the left. There's no coalition to be done,” he said. “We're a party of the centre and people vote for us because we're in the centre.

Now, the obvious message is that the Libs' #2 figure (who's as likely as anybody to be the leader by this time next year) is going out of his way to distance the party from any defence of anything which might be construed as left-wing. Which likely makes for a far more accurate statement of the Libs' position than most of what their apologists would try to claim - but also sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the efforts of both Barack Obama in the U.S. and Jack Layton in Canada to present a strong contrast between progressive and conservative principles.

That said, the undertone of Ignatieff's message may be even more significant. Rather than presenting the Libs as remotely interested in uniting left-wing opposition to Harper, he's apparently bound and determined to keep his party firmly on the fence. Which means that actual progressives can count once again on getting nowhere trying to advance small-l liberal positions through the large-L Libs - even in the wake of further pushes to the right through another Harper government.

Of course, if that's the kind of treatment the left can expect again within the Libs following the election, there's ever less reason to pretend the Libs can be considered a viable alternative to Harper now. And the sooner that leads to an actual united left backing the New Democrats, the sooner we can begin to repair the damage Harper has already done.

Developing themes

Perhaps even more interesting than the national party polling numbers are Ipsos Reid's polls surrounding the party's campaign message so far. And at first glance, the story seems to be that none of the parties is managing to reach more than about a third of respondents in trying to define themselves:

On the core theme of the Harper campaign, that he would provide "steady leadership in tough economic times," 52 per cent rejected that notion, while 35 per cent agreed.

Respondents kicked the legs out from under Layton's core pitch to voters that he is the leader who "will act on the priorities at the kitchen table instead of the boardroom table," with 45 per cent disagreeing versus 35 per cent who agreed.
...
Dion's core theme -- that his Green Shift plan makes him the most credible candidate on the environment and the economy -- was rejected by 55 per cent, compared with only 30 per cent that accepted it.

But it's also worth paying attention to how successful the parties have been in defining their competitors. And on that point, it looks like the NDP's framing of Harper has been right on the money:

Meanwhile, while most Canadians agree Harper is a strong leader, a sizable number say they are uncomfortable with his leadership. Fifty-five per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that "Stephen Harper may be a strong leader, but he's not the kind of leader that I'm comfortable with."

Now, that's significant enough in what it means for how Harper is seen by a majority of respondents.

But even more importantly, the number also signals that most respondents are in agreement with the New Democrats' message on what figures to be the main ballot question - which can only give them more reason to take a closer look at where else they may agree with the NDP. And the more Layton can link the consensus view of Harper to the second half of his main theme (that he's in the best position to stand up for the interests of most Canadians), the more likely it'll be that the latter part of the New Democrats' message will gain traction as the campaign progresses.

Burying the story

It probably isn't all that surprising that CTV is bringing back the story about Conservative candidate Sharon Smith's nude pictures as mayor now that the federal election campaign is up and running. But is there really any reason to mention the pictures alone as a point of interest in Skeena-Bulkley Valley while ignoring the real scandal which showed just how much contempt Smith and her party have for democratic representation?

Room for praise

Now this is a huge step in shifting the New Democrats' online presence from a mechanism for top-down message delivery to a means of building connections to and within the party. I'm somewhat surprised to see it apparently go live in the middle of a campaign when there are bound to be some kinks to work out - but kudos to the party for coming up with a new platform which should offer both a mid-campaign boost of energy and a long-term means of linking up NDP supporters.

Time for some answers

Needless to say, Stephane Dion's statement that the Green Shift carbon tax scheme isn't a major part of the Libs' platform - and more damningly, that it's only the media who's attempted to make it so - is one which demands some further investigation.

After all, how is it that the media managed to hack into the Libs' party site to make the Green Shift the lone policy issue given a heading of its own, on par with "candidates" and "vision" as part of the Libs' public message?

How is it that the media set up a separate site and branding strategy for a policy which isn't different from any other? Or did the media manage to shut down Lib sites set up for the rest of their policies which are on the same, non-major level? Should we be keeping a close eye on, say, theEmissionsReductionCredit.ca, theGreenFarmsFund.ca, or theRegionalFlexibilityFund.ca (all based on Lib platform announcements today) to see if those sites can be restored?

And how did the media manage to infiltrate Dion's own mind to make the plan alone Dion' basis for celebrating his own "bold vision and courageous leadership"?

Presumably Dion and his team are hard at work trying to work out answers to just these kinds of questions. And if that takes their time away from the ongoing federal election, then all the better for the chances of the rest of the campaign producing a counterweight to Harper who doesn't run away from his principles at the first sign of resistance.

Myth-busting

The Cons' claim that their combination of reckless tax cuts and politically-motivated spending hikes somehow qualifies them as responsible fiscal managers has been laughable at the best of times. But can we finally put the myth to rest when even Stephen Harper admits that his government has been throwing around more money than it should?

In need of explanation

It's come to be seen as accepted wisdom in politics that when you're explaining, you're losing. So what does it say when a politician is reduced to explaining why he's having such a tough time making his explanations stick?

CanWest editorial policy: Con promises UP TO 75% OFF!!!

Wouldn't it be nice if there wasn't a need to follow up on this post. But CanWest apparently can't resist minimizing the cost of Con promises, as multiple articles have taken policies which the Cons themselves say will cost over $420-million per year once fully implemented and value them at "$420 million over four years".

At best, one could figure that CanWest simply assumed (based on little other than the words "by the fourth year", which are themselves limited to one part of the policy) that nothing would be implemented until 2011. But if that were the case, then the obvious way to phrase the cost would be as "$420 million in the fourth year" - not "$420 million over four years" which makes the annual cost appear to be a quarter of what it actually is.

Which means that the Cons once again have an eager media ally in their attempt to mislead Canadians about how much damage they're doing to our federal finances.

Update: And it continues - this time with a full-platform comparison which lists the Cons' annual costs in direct comparison to promises covering up to a 10-year time period.

Decisions, decisions

The respective promises from the NDP and the Cons today suggests an obvious question for voters: does anybody want to take their chances on being able to buy all the home care they need for $150 or less?

But perhaps more interesting is the Cons' strategic choice in trying to sell their scheme. Are they brazen enough to pitch a random tax giveaway bearing no relationship to the price of the care in question a "choice in home care" payment like they did with child care in 2006?

On contradictions

It's easy enough to see the rationale behind the Libs' two latest promises. But could Stephane Dion really not have avoided demanding an audit based on the fear that the Cons have left a massive budget deficit at the same time as he stakes a $70 billion infrastructure plan on little more than idle hope that the concern is wrong?

Foxes and henhouses

For all the talk about what the Wall government has done to influence the federal election campaign, there may be more reason for concern about what they're doing within the province while attention is being paid elsewhere. That's right: in the wake of the listeria outbreak and concern about the federal government similarly abandoning any regulatory responsibility for food production, airlines and other industries - not to mention a U.S. economic meltdown caused by insufficient financial oversight - Wall is putting business interests alone in charge of reviewing the province's regulatory structure:

Establishment of a new advisory council, to make recommendations on how to reduce the burden of governmental red-tape faced by Saskatchewan businesses, was announced Wednesday.

But skeptics were asking questions about whether a single interest group, specifically business, is being given too much control over issues that have broad public interest implications in protecting public health, the environment and avoiding other problems.

The Regulatory Modernization Council unveiled Wednesday will consist of seven people. All seven have senior positions with Saskatchewan businesses or business organizations.

Sadly, it'll be a few years before Saskatchewan gets another chance to replace Wall and company with a more responsible government. But at the very least, it'll have the chance now to try to make sure at least one level of government is willing to do its job rather than simply leaving business to regulate itself.

On reckless spending

It'll be awhile yet before we see the parliamentary budget officer's report on the costs of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. But it's certainly worth pointing out one major piece of the puzzle, as the costs to the Defence Department alone have been estimated at over $22 billion:

The Afghan war is going to end up costing the Defence Department more than $22 billion, in actual money spent on the mission and future payments to rebuild equipment and provide long-term care for veterans, a military conference heard yesterday...

In an interview last night, Mr. Perry said he was not surprised at the numbers he found. "We're fighting a war on the other side of the world and that takes a lot of resources," said Mr. Perry, currently in Ottawa.

He said that the number of Canadian veterans of Afghanistan is projected to be around 41,000 by 2010. That far exceeds the estimated 25,000 Canadian veterans from the Korean War, Mr. Perry said.

Officials with Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office did not respond to a request for comment.

The figures don't include the cost of aid to Afghanistan or the cost of the mission for other federal departments such as the RCMP and Foreign Affairs.

Presumably the Cons will need some time to fire up the spin machine in order to explain why this particular eleven-figure expense is entirely different from the much smaller initiatives which Stephen Harper has been trying to label as "mind-boggling".

But with only one portion of the price of Afghanistan dwarfing even the most ambitious social programs on offer during this election campaign, it's apparent that it's Harper and his party who have the worst track record of ignoring the real costs of their pet projects. And when the full picture comes out in the near future, the reckless waste of Canadian resources for a mission which even Harper concedes to be nearing the end of its shelf life should only become all the more clear.

On crisis management

While there have been plenty of comments about Gerry Ritz' mockery of listeriosis deaths under his watch (see Scott's list so far), the comments I've seen so far miss another part of the story which may say more than anything about the Cons' unfitness for office. Here's Ritz' excuse after the fact:

Ritz emailed an apology that he intended to deliver publicly in suburban Ottawa later Wednesday.

"It was a highly stressful time," he said in prepared remarks. "Many people were working countless hours and attending countless meetings to keep on top of the situation. In that context, I made a couple of spur of moment offhand comments. In particular, one about my official opposition critic, whom I have already called to apologize.

"My comments were tasteless and completely inappropriate. I apologize unreservedly."

So what's wrong with that response? Remember that Ritz was one of the MPs who Harper singled out for inclusion in his cabinet - giving him authority to make emergency orders in some circumstances precisely on the assumption that he would be capable of making responsible decisions in the face of a crisis.

Instead, even if one takes at face value that the incident was out of character for Ritz, it shows that he was completely lacking in judgment in the face of exactly the type of situation which can be expected to come with his role in cabinet.

And it only gets worse when one considers Ritz' comment about Wayne Easter. Keep in mind that the other participants in the call included representatives from the Prime Minister's office as well as assistants to Tony Clement - and there's no indication that any action at all was taken until other people on the call went public.

Which can only be taken as a tacit statement that Harper and his party don't think it's a problem for a cabinet minister to respond to a crisis by musing about the death of political opponents. And from my standpoint, that makes it downright frightening to consider what kind of action or reaction we might see from the Cons in the event of a more urgent national emergency.

All of which is to say that while Ritz' comments were indeed tasteless and inappropriate, they're also far more than that in what they say about both his reaction to the listeriosis outbreak, and his party's standard of acceptable behaviour for a cabinet minister. And whether or not Harper does anything now that the matter has gone public, the only appropriate response is to ensure that none of Ritz, Clement, Harper or their party kin is in a position of responsibility next time a crisis surfaces.

A little-known fact

The Conservative word for "crisis" is the same as their word for "opportunity to play Last Comic Standing".

How Stephane Dion Lost the Election

There's been plenty of discussion already about the possibility that the Libs might drop into third place behind the NDP in the upcoming federal election - usually with some recognition that it would require some significant misstep by the Libs to fall out of their longstanding perch as one of the two default options. But Stephane Dion seems to have written exactly the script which could make that happen:

Stéphane Dion is lauding Liberal budget discipline, but refused this morning to categorically state that he would never allow the federal government to go into deficit if the economy slides.

"I will not speculate about how much an economy may go down. I just want to tell you that we need to have strong fiscal discipline. To never overcommit, to come with strong policies that are well-targeted, to never use the money of the taxpayers unwisely," he told reporters in London, Ont.

Asked twice more if he will commit to keeping Ottawa out of deficit even if the economy falls into deep recession, Mr. Dion refused to say the words.

Now, it's obvious enough that Dion's waffling serves to cut him off from the Chretien/Martin Libs' budgeting record, and that the Cons will be able to add even more undeserved heft to their arguments about fiscal management. But the broader ramifications for Dion go far beyond that.

As long as the Libs stood firm in support of balanced budgets (one of the motherhood and apple pie types of principles which typically finds support on all ends of the political spectrum), they could relatively easily brush aside ideologically-based criticisms by claiming their focus was merely on centrist management. But with Dion offering nothing more than platitudes when it comes to handling the budget, the Libs will be ripe for attack as to why they won't promise to keep Canada in the black.

After all, Jack Layton has emphasized his personal commitment to running balanced budgets - which will effectively position him closer to the perceived centre on budget management. Yet he'll also have an ideologically-friendly answer as to how he can promise to do so while Dion can't, since the New Democrats' plan to reverse massive corporate tax cuts makes for far more room to maneuver while allowing for needed social investments.

Likewise, Stephen Harper will also claim to intend to run balanced budgets, arguing that he can make the promise since his party plans to spend less than the Libs within a relatively similar tax structure. Which will make the natural clash for the rest of the campaign the one between the NDP and the Cons as to which priorities are most worth addressing within limited fiscal means.

In effect, Dion's muddled answer when it comes to balancing the budget only figures to make the Libs' everything-to-everyone strategy look far more like nothing-to-anyone. And that could easily be the decisive blow in what had already been a rough campaign for Dion and his party.

(By way of postscript, Dion could easily have evaded the question to his own benefit by noting that Jim Flaherty left Ontario with a hidden deficit, and he can't promise that Flaherty hasn't already done the same federally. But three strikes later, Dion doesn't figure to get another chance to deliver that hit.)

An obvious choice

Embassy reports that a U.S. investor is looking to use NAFTA to launch an all-out attack on Canada's health care system - but is waiting to see how the federal election plays out before taking any more steps. Which would seem to offer an ideal opportunity for Canadians to decide what kind of government they want dealing with the threat.

On the one hand, there's the Harper strategy of happily negotiating away legal victories, excluding Canadian (and Canadian-friendly) interests from discussions, paying off U.S. interests for their nuisance complaints, and then strongarming Canadians into putting up with their capitulation by promising to make matters even worse if anybody dares to resist.

On the other hand, there's the Layton strategy of sticking up for Canada's victories, and rallying allies to fend off any attempts by a hostile party to force a bad deal.

It would seem clear enough that Canada would have been better off with Layton at the table on softwood lumber to begin with. But now that our health care system is the latest target, it's all the more important to have a leader who'll fight to defend Canada's interests rather than being willing to give away anything for the sake of making a deal. And fortunately, now is exactly the time when Canadians get to decide who they want on their side.

On useless measures

Dave and Wheatsheaf have already pointed out a couple of the problems with the Cons' latest campaign gimmick. But let's note as well just how completely out to lunch are the Cons are in trying to pretend there's anything resembling an economic basis for a tax credit linked to home purchases.

Harper's sole attempt to pretend that the policy is anything but a bribe to potential voters is to mention the remote possibility of a boost to the construction industry. But that speculation doesn't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

After all, what percentage of first-time Canadian home buyers can afford to build their own home or buy new, rather than buying one which is already built? And what percentage of those would see a maximum of a $750 tax credit as the difference between building and not building?

That's the sum total of any boost which the construction industry could possibly see. And all for a price tag of $200 million per year.

Which isn't to say that this particular waste of money particularly stands out compared to some of the Cons' previous efforts. But it does highlight the fact that we're currently stuck with a government which is far enough out of touch with reality to argue that a non-existent boost to one of the few industries which doesn't need the help is worth blowing an amount of money which could otherwise be used to train the doctors Canada needs. And the sheer absurdity of that same party trying to claim the mantle of responsible financial management should be setting off alarm bells for anybody who sees the function of government as including more than paying voters off to keep itself in power.

On symmetry

From what I can tell it's purely coincidental. But with Danny Williams set to go national with his Anything But Conservative campaign, the NDP may have managed to reinforce how it fits into that message while pitching its own policy on a completely unrelated subject:

The NDP proposes to invest $100-million annually in an expanded Canadian Training and Apprenticeship tax Credit which Mr. Layton said would create 100,000 new training opportunities.

Mr. Layton's proposal to increase access to training programs was endorsed by a private-sector organization that promotes literacy.

“We're really heartened by the NDP's commitment to improving skills training programs in Canada,” said Margaret Eaton, the president of the ABC Canada Literacy Foundation.

“Many of these jobs that used to require less than a high school education are requiring more basic skills, and we're concerned with whether or not Canadians are equipped for jobs in the new economy.”

CanWest editorial policy: Cons' promises are ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!!

It was suspicious enough when Kelly McParland's comparison of the parties' respective election promises conveniently left off the price tags of most of the Cons' platform - failing to mention the massive $600 million annual cost of a diesel tax cut, or any cost at all associated with either perpetually increasing capital gains tax exemptions or increased small-business exemptions.

But today CanWest is at it again. Not only does its general coverage describe the three main parties' latest platform planks while including price tags for only the NDP and Lib proposals, but it also misleadingly places the total cost of those plans next to the per-recipient cost of the Cons' house-buying tax credit - making it appear that the cost of the Cons' promise is several orders of magnitude smaller than it is.

Needless to say, the Cons' strategy of pretending to be fiscally responsible (against all available evidence) fits nicely with coverage which distorts or hides the actual cost of their promises. But for voters looking for an accurate comparison of what the parties actually have on the table, there's plenty of reason to doubt that they'll find that in CanWest's coverage.

Update: Here's some improvement - though it's still striking how selective the latest effort is in presenting promises over four-year periods rather than annually.

On catastrophic failures

It's definitely interesting to note that the Libs have finally woken up to the need for a plan to address catastrophic drug expenses. But should it escape notice that the idea was suggested multiple times during the Libs' last stay in office - and ignored by Lib prime ministers in majority and minority governments alike?

Fundamental contradictions

Shorter Stephen Harper:
Canadians don't need to worry that the U.S.' downturn will affect us since we're on fundamentally different economic ground. Which reminds me: who's up for some regulatory harmonization and deep integration?

(See here for more about how Canada's independent financial system has helped to avoid a U.S.-style meltdown.)

Signs of weakness

Stephane Dion's whining about a grand anti-Liberal conspiracy seems to have received surprisingly little comment today. Which is surprising, since it strikes me as the surest sign yet that the Libs' campaign is in a world of trouble.

That's so for two reasons. First, it indicates that Dion and his handlers haven't learned a thing about speaking to voters' interests rather than their own over the course of the last year and a half.

It may be true that Dion and his party perceive any slight against the Liberal Party as an outrage which demands a national call to arms. But anybody who agrees is almost certainly already in the Libs' camp - while few if any swing voters figure to value the greater glory of the Libs over everything else that's being discussed during the campaign.

Which means that Dion's message at best makes for an utter waste of breath and media attention, and at worst sounds like little more than a continuation of the culture of entitlement which turned voters away from the Libs last time Canadians went to the polls.

Second, Dion's attempt to shove others' views of his party into the spotlight reflects how far the Libs have fallen from their apparent upside at the start of the campaign. After all, it wasn't long ago that the conventional wisdom was that either the Libs or Cons would likely form government if they could successfully make the election into a referendum on the other.

But barely a week into a campaign which has focused largely on Harper, the Libs have been forced to reverse course and try to beg for attention. And that can only signal that Dion has recognized the likelihood that the New Democrats rather than the Libs are likely to be the beneficiaries of a campaign whose ballot question consists of the public passing judgment on the Cons.

Of course, Dion's problem is that by gaining attention for himself, he only figures to make his own shortcomings all the more glaring as the campaign progresses. And if the Libs are really as out of touch with voters as today's complaint makes them sound, then they may well have been better off being ignored.

On priorities

Just so we're clear: when the NDP proposes to spend $300 million a year to increase the number of Canadian doctors by 50% and make sure all Canadians actually have access to primary health care, Deceivin' Stephen thinks the idea is "high-priced" and not affordable.

But when the Cons promise to give twice that amount away to oil companies and retailers based on the unsupported assumption that some tiny fraction will trickle down to Canadian consumers, Harper considers that a "modest and affordable" step.

So what do most voters value more: a third of a cent off a loaf of bread, or access to primary health care for all Canadians - plus $300 million a year left over? And doesn't the fact that Harper's on the wrong side of the calculation say everything voters need to know about how much the Cons' priorities differ from their own?

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Popular revolt

Today's story about how the manipulation of the Cons' Edmonton-Sherwood Park nomination meeting won't likely affect the results in a riding which they won by nearly 27,000 votes in 2006. But it can only combine with past riding-level distortions to reinforce concerns about the Cons' anti-democratic bent:

Voters in Edmonton-Sherwood Park will have their pick of two conservatives this election as a result of an acrimonious split in the Tory riding association's board over former Mill Woods candidate Tim Uppal's nomination victory.

The majority of board members quit after Uppal soundly defeated local municipal councillor Jacquie Fenske for the Conservative nomination, and his team took control of the board...

Noonan believes the party took advantage of a weak local board to put in place its favoured candidate from outside the constituency. "I don't know how many other places they have done this, but I am working like hell for Jim to teach the S.O.B.s a lesson. It's as simple as that. If this is what the Conservative party has become, they should go down into Central America."

He doesn't know if Prime Minister Stephen Harper endorsed the move, but says he and several other board members received a taped phone call from Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day endorsing Uppal before the nomination vote.

Former board member Donna Clarkson says eight of 12 board members quit or left over the issue.

"For these people to come in and tell us how to run our board -- we just had enough of it."

Ford, who assisted Fenske in her nomination bid, says association members weren't given sufficient notice of the nomination meeting. Although most members reside in Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan, the vote was held in north Edmonton, he says.

Now, it's worth noting that the group of dissenters is hardly without its own problems. Indeed, it's the new independent candidate who's apparently using the problems with the Con party apparatus as an excuse to propose legislation to freeze non-citizens out of any nomination process.

But the fact that the Cons are willing to run roughshod over their own riding associations in order to secure the political outcomes they want can leave no doubt that groups who are less friendly to the party are even more likely to see their interests trampled. And that can only highlight the importance of breaking Harper's hold on the country while voters have the chance.

A study in contrasts

Knowing that reporters leaving Jack Layton's campaign plane represented somewhat of a captive audience, the New Democrats gave them autographed copies of Layton's books - encouraging them to gain a better understanding about the ideas which Layton is promoting on the campaign trail.

Knowing that reporters leaving Stephane Dion's campaign plane represented somewhat of a captive audience, the Cons ambushed them with a grab bag of juvenile gimmicks bashing the Libs - encouraging them to view the campaign on the same content-free level as the Cons themselves.

So which of these sounds like the party which Canadians want in charge of the country's most important decisions?

Favourable impressions

This morning, I noted that Jack Layton alone among Canadian political leaders has managed to avoid having his public perception lowered through the rigours of the campaign so far. But it's worth remembering the starting point for any movement during the campaign - which likewise shows Layton outclassing the rest of the field:

The NDP's Jack Layton remained the most popular of the five leaders, with 53 per cent of respondents registering a positive impression and just 33 per cent a negative one.

Needless to say, Layton's combination of the highest starting level of positive perception and the best job of preserving that impression can only strengthen his position in convincing Canadians to put their support behind New Democrats as the campaign progresses. Which makes it obvious why the Cons are beginning to worry about what Layton and the NDP can do to stop Stephen Harper - but also signals the uphill battle that the Cons will face in trying to attack Layton.

On lost support

It shouldn't be much surprise that a government which is actively trying to mimic both Brian Mulroney in both his political coalition and governing tactics would earn the ire of those who left the Progressive Conservatives in disgust over the same strategies. And today one of Harper's former Reform party-mates delivers a scathing critique of the Cons' abandonment of democratic ideals:

With his other attempts at political reform blocked in the Senate, fixed election dates could have been Harper's enduring legacy -- a change in the system. Instead, he will be remembered as an opportunistic, masterful tactician who, in the course of only three years completely purged the Conservative party of its Reform ideals and restored the Mulroney model of government. The concepts of popular control of the party from the grassroots, open government, MPs representing their constituents and fiscal responsibility, were replaced, early on, with total control from the PMO and the broadcast seeding of public funds in vote-rich areas.

Defiance of an inconvenient electoral law is the cherry on the sundae. As we used to say in the halcyon days of Reform, "Liberal, Tory, same old story."

A few days ago, I had a call from a nice Conservative party lady asking for a donation to help fight the election. I responded with a polite, but firm "no" and I expect that many old Reformers will do the same.

This election will mark the first time in more than 50 years that I won't be supporting a small "c" conservative party. So much for the new way of doing politics in Ottawa.

For now, Harper may not be all that concerned about losing a single former colleague and supporter - particularly with current polls suggesting that his patronage politics have produced more gains than losses.

But one of the most obvious weak points in the current Con coalition has always been the potential for former Reformers to decide once again that they're not prepared to put up with dishonest top-down politics. And if those looking for a change from the "same old story" put their efforts behind the party which is offering just that, then it may not be long before Harper's legacy also comes to match Mulroney's in seeing his party decisively booted to the curb.

Leading the pack

CanWest's coverage of the latest Canadian leadership polling focuses primarily on the fact that Stephen Harper managed to fare the worst of the lot over the past week despite the Cons' efforts to smooth out his rough edges. But it's worth noting as well that the other campaign centred on leadership fared far better, as Jack Layton managed to post both the highest level of improvements and lowest level of declines in public perception out of all the party leaders:

The Ipsos Reid poll, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global News between Sept. 9 and 11, shows Canadians' impressions of the leaders slipped instead of strengthened, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the worst week of them all.

Thirty-six per cent said their impression of Harper had "worsened" since the start of the campaign on Sept. 7, compared with 32 per cent for his main opponent, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe also failed to impress -- 23 per cent said they had a worse opinion of him--and 15 per cent said New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton fell in their eyes...

While Harper and the other leaders failed to gain support among some voters, not all was lost in the first week of the campaign, the poll indicated. Fifteen per cent said their impressions of Harper and Layton improved, 13 per cent for Dion and 10 per cent for Duceppe.

Now, it makes sense that in the midst of a campaign where each party has had to deal with attacks from four different sides, it will be difficult for any party or leader to present enough of a positive vision to improve how Canadians see them. And the numbers bear that out for most of the leaders.

Harper ranks worst of the lot at -21 in comparing improvements to declines. And it's hard to take that as anything but a stunning indictment of the Cons' strategy in trying to centre their campaign around a plush-toy version of Deceivin' Stephen. Meanwhile, Dion at -19 and Duceppe at -13 (while presumably being seen by less voters) weren't much further ahead.

Against that backdrop, Layton alone among the leaders mentioned in the poll has managed to hold his ground in terms of public perceptions. And the fact that the NDP's focus on leadership has succeeded where the Cons' has failed should send a strong signal that Harper can indeed be beaten on the battleground of leadership - as long as Canadian progressives choose the right leader to rally behind.

Targeted words

Kady and Cameron have already discussed the Cons' dishonest attack on Jack Layton. But it's worth noting that a second obviously false part of the Con press release seems to have gone largely undiscussed.

The focus so far seems to have been on the concept of insulting Canadian troops generally, as well as the Cons' conflation of Canadian troops and coalition ones. But there's another piece of the Cons' claim which may be the least explicable of the lot:

NDP Leader Jack Layton made the disturbing suggestion yesterday that coalition troops are targeting and recklessly killing Afghan civilians.

Pay close attention to the use of the word "targeting". There's a readily seen difference between raising the possibility that civilians have been harmed as a side effect of carrying out another task, and accussing somebody of "targeting" civilians such that the actual goal of a mission is to cause harm to them. And indeed the Cons' inclusion of the two separate concepts makes it clear that they recognize the distinction.

So why does that matter? As Kady points out, the line refers to the following quote from Layton:

Yesterday in Newfoundland Layton said the following about Canadian troops: “This horrific practice of coming in with planes and strafing villages and having civilians killed, it’s turning the civilians against the mission,”

It couldn't be much more obvious that Layton doesn't suggest that civilians are targeted in any way. Instead, his criticism is that the tactical choice of strafing villages results in civilian deaths as an unintended side effect - with the further consequence that Afghan civilians are turned against the coalition's mission.

Now, the Cons could have met that criticism by limiting their focus to what Layton actually said. But instead, they apparently felt the need to add a lie about Layton's statement to try to paint him as unreasonable.

Of course, the Cons are likely counting on being able to make the lie stick with enough of their supporters to turn it into a political benefit. But the action really only suggests that when it comes to debating the truth of the matter, even the Cons recognize that Layton occupies the higher ground.