On common purposes

A couple of weeks back, I discussed the possibilities for NDP cooperation with members of Canada's other political parties, and concluded that the most interesting prospect would involve joining forces with all or part of the Bloc. With that in mind, it's worth noting a couple of recent stories which help to flesh out the opportunities and limitations of such an effort.

First off, let's note Kady's comment after Joe Comartin fell off the ballot for Speaker of the House of Commons:

So where does the NDP go now? To Milliken - or Scheer? And more importantly - what about the Bloc Quebecois? They were locked into Comartin - but now they’re free agents, as it were.

Now, it's worth noting that the Bloc presumably couldn't have been entirely locked into Comartin. After all, the combined vote of all of the NDP and Bloc MPs would have assured Comartin of a place among the top three contenders. And since it seems unlikely that many NDP MPs would have voted against their own partymate, the most likely conclusion is that there was at least some difference of opinion within the Bloc even while Comartin was still on the ballot.

Which is a shame in terms of the eventual result in the race for Speaker. But it may also serve some highly useful purposes in the long run: surely the more examples left-wing Bloc MPs and supporters see of their efforts being thwarted by the Bloc's other wings, the more likely they are to see some benefit in building stronger connections to the national party which shares their progressive values.

And indeed, Murray Dobbin's column yesterday suggests that there's already substantial cross-party work going on to set up an accord in Parliament:

Talk of a parliamentary accord between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP continues across the country, and inside and between the Bloc and NDP parties.

It would take the form of a Liberal minority government, following a non-confidence vote, with a proposal to the Governor General that the three parties would agree to govern for at least two years.

It would be based on a limited policy agenda -- for example, child care, climate change, the Kelowna accord, early troop withdrawal from Afghanistan -- defined by the considerable overlap in the three parties' election platforms.

Now, Dobbin spends most of his column criticizing the Libs for refusing to play along based on the fact that their corporate-friendly agenda would have to take a back seat under such an arrangement. But it's worth noting the possibilities that could arise even with only the NDP and the Bloc involved.

After all, the combined seat count of the NDP and the Bloc would exceed that of the Libs alone. So if the Cons were to lose a confidence vote or try to dissolve Parliament again, a strong argument could be made that an NDP/Bloc joint effort should receive the first opportunity to form an alternative government.

From there, one would have to expect a concerted focus on areas where the Libs' platform lines up with the NDP and Bloc, leaving the Libs with no reason at all to vote non-confidence. And to the extent of any disagreement (particularly on corporate tax cuts), any Lib threats to bring down a coalition would only serve to strengthen the ties between the other two parties.

Naturally, the greatest difficulty with that type of scenario would be the need for the Bloc to take an active role in government, rather than merely supporting an NDP/Lib coalition from the sidelines. But if Bloc members are already working with their NDP counterparts based on mutual agreement that the Cons need to be removed from power, the distinction need not be an insurmountable barrier. And indeed, the prospect of not only toppling the Cons but also ensuring a genuinely progressive federal governemnt could be just the catalyst needed to finally bring the Bloc around to the benefits of working within Canada as a whole.

It of course remains to be seen whether the current discussions will lead to that type of result. And it may be that the Libs will prefer propping up the Cons indefinitely to creating a situation where the left actually could unite. But it's almost certainly for the best that links are forming between progressives within the NDP and the Bloc - and a significant reward for such efforts may not be far away.

On comparators

The Cons' attempt at being environmentally friendly from their throne speech today:

90 percent of Canada’s electricity needs (will) be provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power...

...is roughly the same as a dietician recommending the following...

90 per cent of Mr. Harper's caloric intake will be provided by healthy food sources such as broccoli, deep-fried Mars bars, unicorn steaks or asparagus.

Dion, Libs - Fine with More of the Same

There wasn't much doubt that the Libs would come up with some reason to keep propping up the Harper government. But the actual excuse looks like it dovetails nicely with the NDP's message that only the New Democrats offer any real prospect for change:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said his party is focused on making Parliament work and will not oppose the throne speech.

"As there is nothing new in this throne speech, it would be irresponsible to bring the government down on this," Dion told reporters.

Now, there's plenty of reason to dispute the claim that there wasn't anything new in what the Cons served up today. And I'll deal with some of the brand new problems with the throne speech itself in future posts.

But even assuming it to be true that there wasn't anything new, is there a worse message the Libs could send than to say that more of the same from Harper is just fine with them? And will that kind of public position make it even tougher for the Libs to summon up the spine to actually oppose the Cons in the future?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Specific concerns

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

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

Be specific in throne speech: Liberals...

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

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

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

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

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

Wipeout

Following up on this post, it's worth asking just what the Cons think they're accomplishing with their pattern of trying to wipe out their previous messaging.

After all, I'd think that "natural governing party" title which the Cons seem to covet would require the development of some broadly recognized history and continuity. Which is no easy task - and indeed is bound to be an area of weakness for a party which didn't exist at the start of this decade.

But the Cons only seem to be making that process all the more difficult by reinventing themselves every year and a half in often contradictory ways, then trying to send everything they professed to stand for beforehand down the memory hole. And if the Cons don't think they can afford to let Canadians develop any kind of consistent impression of them, what does that say about their chances of somehow making the "default government" label stick?

Disappeared

Shorter Conservative Party of Canada:
The statements, promises, principles and positions which led to our election are no longer operative.

On stragglers

Kady points out the comical list of MPs in the running for Speaker of the House of Commons. But a look at the MPs who seem to be on the list due to a failure to inform the Clerk that they didn't want to stand for election - rather than any indication that they actually want the position - turns up a noteworthy pattern.

On my review, the only two opposition MPs on the list in the absence of a public push for the Speaker's chair are the Bloc's Christian Ouellet and the Libs' Alan Tonks.

Meanwhile, the Cons - despite a minority of the seats in the House - boast 7 members who didn't pull their names (Anders, Calandra, Del Mastro, Lunney, Smith, Tilson and Weston). And the list of Con MPs includes one who they've rewarded with the title of Manitoba caucus chair, as well as four other multiple-term MPs who should have at least some idea what's going on in the House of Commons.

Which would seem to offer yet another indication of the calibre of MP one can expect in voting for the Cons - and one more reason to question how long Canada can afford to be governed by a party with so many MPs who can't be bothered to pay attention to what's going on around them.

On critical thinking

The NDP has announced its shadow cabinet for the upcoming session of Parliament. But perhaps more interesting than any particular individual assignment is NDP's continued effort to frame the areas of discussion in Parliament rather than letting the Harper government dictate what topics deserve to be dealt with.

By way of comparison, the Libs' list of critics is based almost entirely on the Cons' framing of their own cabinet - on a quick first look, the only difference that I noticed was the inclusion of a single critic for "Water". And the end result is that every effort by the Harper government to change their cabinet composition toward a more conservative bent (such as the change from "social development" to "skills development") is only mirrored by the Libs - while the issues that Harper has chosen to marginalize receive no dedicated focus.

Within the NDP, on the other hand, the list of critic responsibilities is drawn up to emphasize issues which go far beyond Harper's chosen turf.

Needless to say, the Cons aren't likely to dedicate cabinet posts to "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Transgender Issues", "Housing, Homelessness and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation", "Persons with Disabilities" or "Substance Abuse and Prostitution Issues" anytime soon. But NDP supporters concerned with those issues can rest assured that whether or not Harper would prefer to sweep their causes under the rug, they'll find a voice within the NDP caucus.

Compare and contrast

The delegate count from this year's Saskatchewan NDP convention, which was far too broadly spun as one reflecting declining party membership and enthusiasm:

Party finances, organization, leadership and reconnecting with rural Saskatchewan are on the agenda for the approximately 700 delegates who are expected as the convention continues during the weekend in Regina.

The delegate count from this weekend's Sask Party convention, spun as representing the glorious ascendancy of King Brad I:

At the largest convention in the Sask. Party's 11-year history with more than 500 delegates...

Now, it's probably true that the NDP needs to rely on more in-province support since (unlike the Sask Party) it can't count on being bankrolled from Alberta.

That said, it's striking that even at its apparent peak, the Sask Party still can't muster enough support within the province to match the NDP's delegate count. And if even the most favourable set of circumstances imaginable on taking power hasn't been enough to enable Wall to build much of a party within the province, then a resurgence in 2011 would seem to be well within reach for the NDP.

Numbers based

In the wake of the U.S. election, all of the Canadian parties are understandably looking to mimic Barack Obama's successful campaign - and indeed I've suggested several ways in which the NDP can do just that. But let's note Ezra Klein's take on the underlying philosophy that seems to have worked so well, as the specific tactical choices which have received most of the attention were built on a foundation of data-driven decision-making - or as Klein puts it in language that I've tried to tie into Canadian politics before, a "Sabermetrics campaign".

Of course, as in baseball, there's still plenty of room for argument as to what indicators are most important in evaluating the success of a political operation. But the Obama campaign may reflect the first step in a shift from general reliance on the hunches of grizzled political veterans to far more widespread efforts to ground political decisions in empirical data - much as the same has happened in baseball's front offices over the past decade. And this may be one more lesson from Obama which could easily translate into an advantage for the Canadian party which works hardest to follow suit.

On building blocks

It's seldom a bad idea for a political party to be seen building up its presence within a particular pool of voters: for example, Jason Kenney's efforts to tap into different cultural communities on the Cons' behalf were likely made a lot more effective by the media attention they received. Which is why today's news about the NDP's designation of Bob Gallagher to oversee party-building efforts in Toronto is probably a plus on the balance.

But it's worth a reminder that the goal of building up a party capable of winning a substantial chunk of the GTA will involve an awful lot more work than a single staffer can carry out (or even supervise directly). And it'll be a serious concern if the NDP is counting on shuffling personnel around within the current organizational model to produce future gains, rather than building the kind of party behind the scenes which can move the headlines when they count the most.

NDP Strategic Review, Step 4: Building Connections

Following up on my earlier posts in the NDP Strategic Review, I'll quickly point back to my earlier comments on the party's online presence in the past election to set out the framework for what the NDP should be looking to do in the future.

Again, the creation of the Orange Room puts the NDP ahead of its federal counterparts for the moment in enabling user-generated content, while efforts to make use of other platforms (such as a successful push to keep NDP candidates ahead of their competitors in Facebook support0 have also been at least somewhat effective. But that speaks far more to the pitiful efforts of the other federal parties than any sense that the NDP has maximized its potential to use the Internet to connect actual and potential supporters.

Instead, the path forward would seem to me to involve something comparable to Barack Obama's MyBO platform which both ensures that the party's central site becomes a primary online destination, and allows for decentralized organizing rather than funneling all activity through the NDP's central office (which is still the case to the extent that the Orange Room is filtered by a central review).

Obama's efforts seem to have borne fruit, resulting in what looks to be a unique means of delivering content, tracking supporters and facilitating decentralized networking and organization. Yet the payoff for developing a similar system may be even greater in Canada than it was south of the border.

After all, Obama's online platform looks to have been bound to change in a hurry based on the outcome of the election. While the initial organization was centred around Obama's primary run, the site has had to evolve since to turn toward the general election, and has now faced questions about what will become of the site as Obama's focus turns toward governing.

In contrast, a platform which finds its basis in a stable party to begin with would have no need to account for that kind of metamorphosis. Which means that the site's profile and user involvement would seem to have significantly more potential to carry on and continue building over an extended period of time.

Of course, that would also require the NDP to put in sufficient resources to both develop a similar platform to begin with, and keep it up to date so as to ensure that it stays on the cutting edge. And the easy answer might seem to be to say that party resources are better put into more traditional efforts.

But given that the NDP has seen fit to get at least a temporary jump on the other Canadian political parties as a hub for user-generated content, it would only make sense to put in the additional effort required to put together the kind of online infrastructure that can actually give the NDP an advantage in terms of organization. And the combination of a "my NDP" site which reduces the need for geographic proximity with a concerted push to connect with supporters currently off the radar would seem to me to be the most promising means of expanding far beyond the NDP's current pool of supporters.

The experts have spoken...

...and they're in agreement that Jim Flaherty's planned selloff is a boneheaded idea:

"It's hard to believe this is an ideal environment to sell any asset," said Bank of Montreal economist Douglas Porter.

"And it raises the bigger issue of just how hard should the federal government press to keep its books balanced. My view is if it comes down to selling the family silver at a discount rate just to make the books balance, that doesn't make sense."

Portfolio manager Adrian Mastracci of Vancouver-based KCM Wealth Management said the other disadvantage of selling assets at this time is that the private sector would only be interested in the government's best properties. He said his advice to clients is wait for better conditions unless there is no other choice...

"We actually own some of the most valuable real estate in the country," says Gordon McIvor, vice-president of strategic acquisitions for Canada Lands.

McIvor said that unless Ottawa has changed its mind, he has been told that the CN Tower, which the government acquired in 1995, is not for sale.

But when to sell is key, he adds.

"Part of our job is to make sure we sell at an optimal time. We don't want to flood the market, and we also don't want to sell when it is not going to achieve the best value for the taxpayer."

Which leaves Flaherty alongside the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation in arguing that anything to get assets out of government hands is worthwhile even if it means selling at a lousy price. So much for pragmatism over ideology...

Absent minded

It's not much of a secret that right-wing governments don't have much time for actually bothering with their legislative duties, with Gordon Campbell's pattern of canceling legislative sessions ranking as a particularly odious example. But I wonder if the Sask Party has reached a new low in having over a third of its caucus too bored to show up barely a year after taking office - including a premier who seems to think he can phone in the job of governing.

Sell, sell, sell

Following up on Jim Flaherty's mooted sell-off of federal assets, there's been plenty of commentary about the sheer lunacy of selling off assets at a time when their value is the lowest. And that goes doubly when the federal government - unlike at least some of the businesses whose assets figure to be available for fire-sale prices - unquestionably has the ability to weather the financial storm such as to avoid taking pennies on the dollar.

But then, these are the Cons we're dealing with. And if one assumes a guiding philosophy that the federal government should generally be looking to give away its assets to benefit those capable of snapping them up, then the prospect of tying an asset selloff to Flaherty's budget deficit looks like more of an opportunity than a danger.

With asset prices lower than usual, the Cons seem to think they've bought themselves an excuse to auction off more assets than they'd normally have to in order to fill a fiscal hole of their own making. And the effect only figures to be self-reinforcing: the more properties the Cons put on the market, the greater the glut will be to drive down prices - which Flaherty would then point to as reason to put even more on the auction block to make up for lower returns.

The end result would then be to privatize as much as possible as quickly as possible for the least return possible. Which would fit with both the Cons' governing philosophy and Flaherty's track record.

The only problem, of course, is that there's no evidence at all that Canadians in general want to see their government run based on such an asinine view of the world: indeed, a substantial chunk of the reason why the Cons covered the impending budget deficit during the election campaign was presumably to avoid having to justify such obviously flawed plans. And if Flaherty is determined to push ahead with a selloff, then the opposition parties need to be prepared to force the Cons to sell voters on the concept.

Cue the selloff

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
Based on my government's sterling track record of taking voluntary pay cuts and pouring every available cent into decorative trinkets to impress the neighbours, please don't question my claim that we have no choice but to pawn the furniture.

On joint efforts

While the Globe and Mail's coverage of Jack Layton's meeting with Stephen Harper focuses mostly on the economic discussions, there's another area of the conversation which looks to be worth a mention:

There does seem to be common ground between the two parties on some issues, including democratic reform, said Mr. Layton.

The New Democrats have said they want to move to proportional representation. The Conservatives have said they want fixed terms for Senators, who would be elected rather than appointed.

“We indicated that we'd be prepared to look at some of the Senate reforms that Mr. Harper is proposing if he would be prepared to look at proportional representation reform for the House of Commons,” said Mr. Layton.

It's of course an open question whether or not Harper will want to work with that type of framework. And indeed there would seem to be a real danger that Harper would offer at best some type of biased consultation about PR in exchange for substantive change to the Senate.

But there's no reason in principle why changes which would substantially increase the power of the Senate should be seen as requiring less consultation or discussion than one which affects how seats and power are allotted in the House of Commons. And if the NDP can reach would-be Senate reformers in the Cons' ranks with that message, then it may be difficult for Harper to justify picking an unnecessary fight over his party's Senate proposals rather than working toward changes on both fronts.

A chance to unite

A few posts back, I mentioned that the NDP would likely be best served looking to attract progressive Lib and Green supporters rather than aiming for a formal merger with anybody. Now, a couple of stories suggest that there should be a significant opportunity to bring environmental voters in particular into the fold based on the direction of the other parties.

From the Lib side, at least one supporter is figuring (and probably rightly so) that Stephane Dion's failures will lead to the environment being tossed aside as an issue. And I'd have to agree that the NDP should be ready to take the opportunity to provide a voice for those who may have been drawn to the Libs by the promise of a greener philosophy.

As for the Greens, they surely don't figure to drop the environment as an issue anytime soon. But with a push to remove Elizabeth May as leader winning praise from current and former members alike, at least some significant chunk of the Greens (likely the anti-May contingent) will find itself out in the cold. And particularly if May uses the Greens' limited review processes as her means of clinging to the leadership, the promise of a party which actually values internal democracy should be a fairly compelling prospect.

All of which means that if the NDP reaches out to green Libs and reformist Greens, the previous split in environmentally-conscious voters may largely resolve itself in time for the next federal campaign. And that end result would look to be a plus for both the NDP as a party and the environmental movement as a whole.

More strategic considerations

I'll plan to add to my NDP Strategic Review series over the next couple of days. But for those looking for a fix in the meantime, this post at enMasse is worth a look.

Deep thought

If I were to make a list of appropriate moods for a convention held in the midst of an economic crisis which a party has exacerbated while in power, "feel-good" would rank somewhere near the bottom.

Bank shots

In the midst of a global financial crisis, I'm not sure how many Canadians were being kept up at night worrying that federal giveaways to banks might only go where they're actually needed. But the Cons' latest move to ensure that the entire banking sector wins out long before anybody else should satisfy at least that target group:

In addition to increasing the amount of money available to buy mortgage debt, the Department of Finance also slashed the price it will charge banks for guaranteeing their loans.

Commercial banks have complained loudly that the loan guarantee program designed by Ottawa a few weeks ago was too expensive to be of much use.

While other countries' banks could buy what amounts to insurance at a low price, Canadian banks were paying higher rates. The program was only useful for banks in dire trouble, and was putting the Canadian financial institutions at a competitive disadvantage globally.

In other words, faced with an argument based on little more than a desire to see Canada match the giveaways already happening elsewhere, the Cons were apparently happy to make sure that even banks facing no particular financial trouble can get in on cut-rate, publicly-funded benefits.

Of course, the Cons are trying to put forward their usual trickle-down theories to the effect that what's good for the banks is good for everybody. But considering the banks' track record, there's every reason for suspicion that the real effect will merely be to improve the bottom line of already-healthy banks, while ignoring the real economy which actually needs the help.

The Pork Barrel Steam Train

Your latest example of the Harper government's patronage-first approach in action: at the request of one Con MP (Lawrence Cannon), another Con MP (Jean-Pierre Blackburn) rewrote the rules of an economic development program intended to develop infrastructure in poorer parts of Quebec in order to funnel $2 million to a steam train operator in Cannon's riding which wasn't included in the program's mandate.

No word yet about any response from the regions who were supposed to be on the receiving end of the money. Or from the Cons' Reform base which split from the Mulroney PCs over exactly the same type of behaviour. But it would seem to me to be worth the opposition parties' effort to make sure the Cons' latest example of putting political interests over proper administration of federal programs doesn't go unpunished elsewhere.

Clearly unprepared

Shorter Elizabeth May:
So it turns out that neither I nor the rest of the Greens had any clue what we were doing in the past federal election. Now if only there were some individual - let's call him or her the "leader" - who could be responsible to make sure that basic planning and strategy were addressed.

Deep thought

Imagine just how bad things would get if we didn't have a federal government so skilled in preserving business confidence at a time of crisis.

Manual transmission

The Cons apparently aren't shy about saying that their dirty tricks manual will be put back into effect as soon as Parliament starts up again. But it might be worth the opposition's while to call Gordon O'Connor's bluff about what's included:

The infamous House "committee obstruction manual" from the last Parliament will be refined, improved and will be back in play, says new Chief Government Whip Gordon O'Connor who also hopes for a less raucous and more productive 40th Parliament when it returns on Nov. 18.

"What it is in reality is it's like the Cole's Notes of what committee chairs should think about, or how to operate in committees," said Mr. O'Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.) in an interview with The Hill Times. "I think there's a need for that certainly for people who will be chairs from our side, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to go through the book—if you want to call it that, but it's just a bunch of sheets of paper—and I think I'll try to refine it and improve it so that it's focused on how to be an effective chair."

Assuming O'Connor could be taken at his word that the dirty tricks manual is really nothing more than a handbook for chairing committees, there would then be no reason at all for the Cons to refuse to keep it hidden for partisan purposes. And indeed, they'd have every incentive to want to work with the other parties in developing a manual which could be applied to all Parliamentary committees, including those which are chaired by opposition members.

So O'Connor's spin can be tested very easily: if the Cons actually believe they've produced nothing more than a handy guide for better committee operation, then for the sake of having all committees running smoothly they should be eager to make it public. On the other hand, if the Cons think their manual needs to be kept in-house lest it be used against them by opposition committee chairs, then there's no reason to think they've changed in the slightest from their perpetual obstruction and tantrum-throwing from the last session of Parliament.

NDP Strategic Review Part 3: Message Management

Following up on my earlier posts about the NDP's direction, I'll turn to what looks to be one of the more neglected areas of the road ahead - that being the type of message which the NDP should be seeking to send going forward.

In trying to define what the NDP should be doing, I'll note that messaging may be one of the areas where the genius of the Obama campaign hasn't yet been fully fleshed out. While there has been plenty of discussion about how much room was left for interpretation in the concepts of "hope" and "change", my suspicion is that they're exactly what made Obama's campaign so successful.

Rather than using rallying points for the base which served to repel potential swing voters (or vice versa), Obama managed to define his message in terms that held significant appeal for both. And that not only made it easier for Obama himself to keep his message headed in the right direction, but also ensured that person-to-person contacts didn't get bogged down in differences based on differences in underlying assumptions.

For the NDP, the best sell may not be precisely the same broad themes used by Obama. And indeed the "new kind of strong" messaging used in the past campaign looks like a positive first step.

But there's plenty of room for an additional focus on messages which are aimed less at the effect of a single ad than at creating the best possible environment for person-to-person persuasion. And if the NDP can base its public image on overarching themes like the ones successfully put forward by Obama, then every effort the party normally makes to push its message can only enjoy greater returns as a result.

On financial malpractice

Shorter Jim Flaherty:
It would utterly reckless to spend any time diagnosing and curing what's ailing the international financial system when we could instead focus all our attention on a slightly differently-shaped band-aid.

NDP Strategic Review, Step 2: Uniting the Left

Having dealt with what looks to be the less contentious preferences as to how the NDP should look to build itself up from within, I'll move on to the question of whether and how the NDP should be relating to the other parties on Canada's political scene.

I've used the "unite the left behind the NDP" tag on a couple of posts before, and it nicely encapsulates what the party should be seeking to do.

I'll note however that the NDP focus doesn't mean ignoring the other federal parties or their supporters. Instead, it means continuing to work with other parties and their supporters where along with actors in the progressive movement where there's agreement on specific issues. And once there's been either a significant achievement or a loss that's come about due to a lack of combined political power, that's the time to seek to persuade the other actors involved both that a unified effort is required to push a progressive agenda, and that the NDP is the best vehicle for getting the job done done.

In contrast, the idea of a formal party merger is almost certainly a non-starter. The most often-mooted scenario involving the Libs simply leaves far too much likelihood that the NDP's current strength, like the progressive wing within the existing Libs, would simply be drowned out by the traditional dominance of business Libs when it comes time to decide what priorities to pursue. Which means that any merger would be almost certain to spawn another party to provide exactly the kind of voice the NDP now offers.

That isn't to say that the most obvious source of strength for the NDP is anything but the progressive Libs who for now have hooked onto a party which they see as more likely to take power. But the draw for those people has to be a strengthened NDP from other sources to persuade them that they don't have to accept playing second fiddle to the centre-right in order to win power.

Slightly more likely would be the possibility of joining forces with the Greens. But I'd want to see some awfully compelling reason to think that a combined party would actually have a strong likelihood of winning a wider cross-section of support than the NDP does already to make it worth the effort of fusing the two party structures.

Perhaps most intriguing is the question of whether the Bloc could be largely brought on board. If leftish Bloc members have any interest in joining a Canada-wide government in the making in order to boost progressive efforts both inside and outside Quebec, then the balance of risks and rewards would look to be by far the most favourable.

The problem for now, though, is that with both the Bloc and the NDP looking to be fairly satisfied with the recent election results, it's hard to see either wanting to take the risk involved in proposing a merger with part or all of the other. And indeed the NDP could reasonably figure that it's best off working to siphon off Bloc supporters individually to take over if it expects the Bloc to lose strength naturally, rather than pushing now for a formal alliance which might not play well elsewhere.

Of course, there are also options short of a complete merger. But those would likely raise many of the same problems as a merger with less of the rewards - making them too into a less viable option for now than simply working to build the NDP as a magnet for progressive values.

In sum, the NDP certainly should be building connections into all of the other "left" parties, and continuing to frame a message of unity similar to the Unite 4 Change concept which received some mention during the most recent campaign. But its efforts are almost certainly better directed toward winning individual supporters one by one, rather than looking to any formal merger as a short cut to the same final goal.

(Edit: fixed title.)

NDP Strategic Review, Step 1: No Support Left Behind

Before getting into my discussion of the strategic issues raised by Brian Topp and Les Campbell, let's add NDP Outsider's post as well as a Babble discussion to the mix.

With those sources in play as well, let's start with what looks to me to be the most important available opportunity.

Most of the sources talk at least somewhat about expanding the party's reach through something akin to the U.S. Democrats' 50-state strategy. But there seems to be some significant difference of opinion as to whether the party should immediately start paring down its sights to go after only the most readily available gains (see Topp's "without foolishly dissipating resources" proviso which assumes a net cost to reaching out, or NDP Outsider's targeting top-down communications to targeted groups), or whether the step should involve a willingness to establish an NDP infrastructure even where the prospect of an immediate payoff in seats may be remote.

From my standpoint, the clear preference has to be for the latter. And indeed, considering the NDP's need to expand beyond its traditional bases in order to form government, the decision seems more obvious for the NDP than for any other party: no stone should be left unturned and no area unorganized in an effort to build a structure which can facilitate party loyalty and support growth for many election cycles to come.

Now, that doesn't mean focusing solely on current dead zones either. Instead, it means starting from the same point as the Obama campaign - putting the initial emphasis on recruiting and training as many volunteers as can be brought into the fold from as wide an area as possible, and making sure that participants see themselves as both empowered to work creatively on the party's behalf, and accountable for getting results.

If the step works, then that volunteer structure should not only be able to spread the party's message to peers in ways far more persuasive than a robocall or a TV ad can possibly be, but also improve the party's capacity to bring dollars and votes into the fold when they're most needed. And that's what the NDP will need in order to accelerate its current progress.

Of course, there may well be a time for targeting, which would come in the lead up to another election campaign. But the greatest mistake the NDP could make would be to leave potential supporters and volunteers out of the fold by failing to look beyond the current electoral and demographic assumptions. And with the Cons focusing on governing and the Libs tied up in another leadership race, now is the best opportunity the NDP may have to build a grassroots network which can expand its current reach.

Artistic differences

Sure, the Cons may use the economic downturn as an excuse for their decision to cancel all plans for a national portrait gallery. But the real reason is obvious enough: contrary to the Cons' intentions, all of the proposals insisted on displaying more than just portraits of Stephen Harper.

Points of discussion

The Globe and Mail's NDP strategy session with Les Campbell and Brian Topp is definitely worth a look (at least the parts other than an extended tangent on Afghanistan). I'll plan to deal with some of the suggestions in more detail later. But for now, I'll note a couple of passages which seem particularly worthy of additional discussion.

First, from Campbell:

I believe the NDP can lead a unite-the-centre-left movement. The Liberal Party, still not willing to acknowledge the end of its incredible run, seems to be headed for another tribal gathering where its members will choose a leader that satisfies their internal impulses without responding to Canada as a whole or to their radically diminished capabilities.

While it might make you unpopular within our ranks, I'd suggest that you quietly meet with Preston Manning, Rick Anderson and the others who helped unite the right — there are lessons to be learned.

The NDP, in pursuing internal renewal, should invite all interested citizens to take part in the discussion. Give young people a reason to get involved in politics. Start a debate about a united left. Sponsor town hall meetings. Develop a method for public input in the policy renewal process. Commission papers. Launch a cross-country "listening" tour. Enlist NDP MPs and ask them to reach out to supporters of the other parties. Capture the agenda, downplay partisanship and emphasize hope. Try to recreate the Obama feeling in Canada by asking everyone to get involved.

Do it now — don't wait for the Liberals to regain their footing.

And from Topp:

There is always room for improvement in every aspect of our work. But to my mind we are now essentially competitive in the campaign "air war." We can match the Tory-Liberals dollar for dollar nationally. We can break through their monopoly of public dialogue on television, where elections are decided. We can run rings around them on the Internet. And we can even get the occasional article into globeandMail.com, praise the Lord.

Where we have some daunting work to do is on the ground. There is a lot to say about this, but the bottom line is that a prerequisite to victory is taking a winning campaign into our opponents' fortresses and cracking them there - riding by riding, on the ground. We need our version of the 50-state strategy, without foolishly dissipating resources.

On allegiances

It's always worth noting when the public manages to get a glimpse behind the Cons' facade of party unit - as has happened again today. But more significant than the mere fact that there are some internal battles looming is the strategy the Harper regime is appparently using to try to quell them:

A key goal of the postmortems is to put an end to infighting between the provincial supporters of the Quebec Liberal Party and the Action Démocratique du Québec, who make up much of the Conservative team in Quebec.

During the federal campaign, a number of prominent positions were in the hands of ADQ supporters, and many Conservatives with ties to the provincial Liberals blamed them for the poor results.

The clear directive from the Conservative hierarchy is for all Quebec supporters to put their federal allegiances first and foremost...

Conservative organizers are being urged to focus their energies on governing, and to limit their contribution to the current Quebec campaign.

Now, it may seem that Pauline Marois should be sending Harper a thank-you card for the directive. All indications are that the PQ is at least in striking distance of the Charest Liberals - and to the extent Harper succeeds in ordering any substantial chunk of Charest's party to sit out the provincial election, the likelihood of a PQ government increases accordingly.

That is, assuming that Harper's order actually sways anybody to stay out of the provincial campaign. But it's hard to see how the Cons can really expect to have deeper roots than the provincial parties (particularly the Libs). And one could easily foresee most provincial organizers calling the Cons' bluff and severing their federal ties - or at least viewing the other side of the divide with even more suspicion.

So the request to stand down from the provincial race poses loads of potential downsides for the Cons and for those who would heed the call. And all in the interests of...what, exactly? Last anybody checked, there was no indication that even most cabinet ministers had any particular ability to influence the course of Harper's government, meaning that organizers can't expect to get much done merely by focusing on "governing".

At best, one might figure that the Cons are simply looking to lock in half of the internal divide. While there doesn't seem to be any reason to think Charest's party would want to abandon ship in the middle of a run for a majority, it could be that supporters of a weakened ADQ will be willing to make the federal Cons into their main political vehicle.

But that seems to be an awfully remote possibility compared to the virtual certainty that the call to abandon provincial politics will both boost the PQ, and drive away Con organizers who actually care about both levels of government. And it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the latest gambit ends up backfiring even more than most of the Cons' efforts to deal with Quebec.

The Harper rules

The jury is still out on how much change there is between the list of Con policy resolutions posted by National Newswatch and the final one.

But it's worth noting a rather striking proposal just three pages into the list now available. Apparently due to some concern about the fact that ministers now theoretically "have authority" over their porfolios, the Cons' central command is looking to eliminate that from the party's statement of principles - while at the same time leaving the blame at the departmental level.

Of course, that may be a matter of reflecting Harper's actual control over his cabinet rather than any change in what the Cons actually do. But surely it says plenty about the Cons' caucus that it's focused on little more than further entrenching the combination of top-down power and lower-level responsibility.

On journalistic negligence

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has released a study highlighting the value of infrastructure spending as a means of boosting Canada's economy. But it would have a far better chance of having the needed impact if the Canadian Press could be bothered to report what the FCM actually said.

Here's the FCM's message about the delays to date:

Because of administrative delays, the cost-shared $8.8 billion federal Building Canada Fund (BCF), announced in the 2007 budget, has, so far, financed very few projects leaving close to $3 billion in unspent federal money...

“What is needed now is the political will to cut red tape and ensure that the money budgeted for these projects in 2007 and 2008 gets spent immediately.”

Now, the FCM is remarkably willing to avoid casting any blame for the delays, given that it's the federal government which insisted on the agreement process, then failed to get anything done. But given the FCM's relative neutrality, one could understand if coverage merely omitted that detail.

What doesn't make any sense, though, is to try to turn the FCM's message into a one-sided slam at the provinces. And that's exactly what the CP report does:

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says there are hundreds of municipal projects ready to go that can be financed by existing funding. But it says the provinces are taking too long to sign spending agreements with Ottawa.

And then there are the potential effects of infrastructure spending. The FCM rightly points out that it would actually be far more effective than tax cuts in stimulating the economy:

The study, conducted last June and updated in October, looks at the economic impact of accelerated infrastructure investments. It compares the stimulus impact of $1 billion in tax cuts (personal and excise tax) to the same amount in accelerated infrastructure investment.

The study shows that even a combined $2-billion tax reduction would produce fewer jobs and a lower economic stimulus than $1 billion dollars spent upgrading roads, bridges and water mains.

Which the CP somehow manages to turn into something else entirely:

The reports says accelerating $1 billion in infrastructure spending would have the same impact as a $1-billion tax cut.

So who might stand to benefit from an interpretation which absolves the federal government of any responsibility for delays in funding, while wrongly pretending that tax cuts would serve the same purpose just as effectively?

Alone in the world

The Harper regime obviously isn't wasting any time trying to shape Barack Obama's stay in office. But for all the misleading talk about the Cons' plans fitting in with Obama's, there are plenty of important differences - including one in particular where Bush's departure will put the Cons offside from the U.S. (along with most of the rest of the world):

U.S. environmentalists argue that Ottawa's approach to climate change is inconsistent with a serious effort to reduce emissions, and insist the oil sands represent the kind of dirty sources of crude oil that a new administration should be most worried about.

“The trend in the United States is a much greater focus on lower-carbon fuels and promoting energy efficiency,” said Liz Barratt-Brown, a senior lawyer with Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

“That approach does not bar tar sands, but it would make it much more difficult for refiners and blenders to lower the carbon content of their fuels if they are relying more on high-carbon supplies from Canada.”

California has already passed regulations that require gasoline marketers to reduce the carbon emissions from their fuel sources, and require them to account for those emissions right back to the production source.

Mr. Obama's campaign platform promised a similar approach, which has also been included in climate-change bills that have been introduced in Congress.

Ms. Barratt-Brown noted that, unlike U.S. plans, Canada's approach does not include a firm cap on emissions, but instead uses an “intensity target” which regulates emissions on the basis of production levels.

Needless to say, there's no apparent reason why Obama would want to undermine his own emission reduction plan by allowing the Cons to dictate the terms of any climate change deal. Which means that if the Cons do manage to get Obama to talk about the kind of deal they're now pushing, they'll soon face a choice of either admitting that their approach all along has been woefully inadequate, or scuttling their own talks due to an insistence on letting the oil sands off the hook for emission increases.

On hidden motivations

It's not that Bob Rae's suggestions to make the Libs' leadership race a small-money, more inclusive affair are bad ones. But when one of the two candidates who would seem to have the most to gain from rules that favour established organization makes a public call for just the opposite, it's worth wondering just what might be behind the move.

Is it that Rae's organization is weak enough at the moment that he doesn't think he'll be able to keep up with a higher-resource Ignatieff campaign?

Is it in hope that with a more diverse candidate field, there will be less focus on his own personal negatives than if he and Ignatieff spend the entire race under the microscope?

Or is Rae trying to curry the favour of also-rans in hopes of winning their endorsements once the battle is down to two candidates - even though last time out that same strategy failed to actually bring delegates into his corner?

On missed opportunities

Blogging Horse has a nice catch in highlighting Dwight Duncan's observation that Jack Layton and the New Democrats alone among the federal parties have shown "the guts to tell it like it is" when it comes to the needs of Ontario's manufacturing base. But wouldn't it have made more sense for Duncan to make the point a month ago when it could actually have had an impact on federal representation?

Setting the tone

It's indeed a historic day, with Barack Obama winning the U.S. presidency and increased Democratic majorities appearing in both the House and Senate. But while it's certainly worth celebrating the occasion, there's still an awful lot to be done to make sure those numbers translate into real change.

In FDR's terms, the "now, go out and make me do it" phase is just beginning - as how the election result is framed and turned into action will make all the difference in what happens from here on in.

And it isn't just the U.S. which has a stake in ensuring that the Democrats live up to their promise. For anybody in Canada or around the world who wants to see NAFTA and other trade agreements reworked to include meaningful labour and environmental protections, or who recognizes the link between corporate-driven U.S. policies and a race to the bottom elsewhere in the name of competition, now is the time to convert the energy and hope which drove last night's ballot-box repudiation of Bushism into ongoing issue-based action. And if that effort succeeds, then last night will be only the first of many victories to come.

Update: Good to see that Obama himself seems to agree:

(A)bove all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Heavily redacted

Mentarch and pogge have already covered a couple of the more important angles in today's CBC report on Environment Canada documents which were left on a street last year. But it's worth pointing out another issue in how the Cons' perception of the documents has changed:

Last August, a 131-page document in an envelope marked "Protected B" was found by a passerby on a street in Ottawa's Kanata area and given to the CBC.

The papers provide a risk assessment of an Environment Canada enforcement database that tracks polluters and law-breakers and the steps taken to enforce environmental and wildlife-protection legislation.

At the time, Baird brushed off the lost document saying, "it's neither classified nor secret, and it'll be something that could be available under access to information."

But a CBC request under the Access to Information Act for a copy of the same document found the content heavily redacted.

Ninety-seven of 131 pages had parts deleted that related to the security of the environment database, including its failings and vulnerabilities.

Now, I'm not sure whether the CBC or anybody else still has an original copy of the documents to compare. But while there's every reason for doubt about Baird's initial assertion about the documents, there's also room for suspicion about the sheer quantity of material that's been blacked out now that CBC has followed the Cons' suggested process.

After all, the Cons' stay in office has been marked by repeated efforts to suppress information in the absence of any good reason for doing so. And indeed, their instructions to overclassify documents was part of the story when the documents in question were first found.

So to the extent the documents are ones where the CBC has actually seen the original version, this might be a prime case study in whether or not the Cons are once again wrongfully suppressing information. Which means that if the CBC challenges the decision to black out as much material as they did (with Baird's statement serving as evidence that there wasn't any reason to redact anything), then the most interesting part of the story may be yet to come.

Unequal distributions

Andrew Potter is right in noting that most reporting on the Cons' equalization announcement has buried the lede, as Jim Flaherty's unilateral declaration that he plans to cap increases in future payments based on the movement of the national GDP looks far more important than the single-year numbers which dominated the headlines. But even Potter seems to miss just what the cap means for equalization in general.

Let's go back to the principles underlying equalization that I'd discussed when a cap was first mentioned last week:

(I)t's worth keeping in mind a fairly obvious point: if equalization payments are growing at a particular pace under the formula which the Cons approved, then so too is inequality among the provinces by Flaherty's own terms.

What Flaherty has effectively done is to completely detach inequality among the provinces from any calculation as to how much equalization should be paid. And it's hard to see how one can square that with the purpose of equalization in general.

After all, if the goal of equalization is to ensure at least relatively similar capacity to provide services across the country, then it should make all the difference in the world just how large the gap is between the wealthier provinces and the poorer ones. And if the gap increases for the same amount of economic activity, then there's every reason for more equalization to be paid - which should be possible due to what would presumably be higher tax returns from the wealthier areas (assuming a remotely functional progressive tax system).

But not so under the Cons' plan. So long as Canada's central industrial heartland remains in dire enough straits to deflate national economic performance, the amount of equalization paid will also stagnate regardless of how much more wealth might be accumulating in the "have" provinces.

Needless to say, the Cons would likely have been duly punished at the polls if they'd gone public with their plan to remove the concept of relative equality from the equalization program. And given how quickly they've started in on opening up the field for increased regional disparities, it doesn't figure to be long before the same starts happening among income levels in general.

On mandates

Shorter Peter Milliken and Noel Kinsella, trying to start a turf war against Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page:

Dammit, how are members of Parliament supposed to pretend to know better than the unwashed masses when you insist on providing accurate information to the public?

(Edit: added label.)

Left hanging

A couple of weeks ago, I noted that the bulk of the Libs' leadership contenders had gone out of their way to accept being associated with the idea of being left of centre. But it's worth pointing out another striking development: thanks to Bob Rae's pledge of allegiance to the mushy middle, the Libs' leadership race now features a grand total of zero viable candidates who are willing to even pretend to represent the left.

Let's try this

Since no new candidates have yet made moves to enter the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race - and with even Dwain Lingenfelter's public presence remaining silent in the absence of any declared opposition - it's obviously time to try to spur some of the would-be candidates to action. So without any further ado...

(Deb Higgins/Frank Quennell/Len Taylor/Andrew Thomson/Nettie Wiebe/Yens Pedersen/Dion Tchorzewski) has expressed some hesitation to close friends about whether (he/she) will enter the campaign.

With any luck, we should actually have a race within days.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Strong openings

NDP Left posts the opening statements from the candidates at the first debates in Ontario NDP leadership race. And while there's plenty of good material, Andrea Horwath's opening looks particularly interesting in picking up on exactly the part of the Obama message which I'm hoping to see imitated by the NDP federally and provincially:

(W)hen I think about what we need in this province I think about what I’ve learned because after university I spent most of my career as an organizer. I organized the Days of Action in Hamilton, I’ve organized co-op housing in Welland and that’s what I believe we need in this party - we need organizers.

Of course, in Obama's case that organizing ability and focus beneath the surface has always been matched by a candidate who's been able to offer a persona and vision which has inspired a remarkable number of people to become part of the organizing effort. And the NDP has some work to do on those areas as well - though to a point I wonder whether a party should actually have an easier time of that than would an individual candidate.

That said, it's essential for leaders on the provincial and national levels to recognize the need to put organizing at the forefront of what the party seeks to do. So kudos to Horwath for making that her focus - and hopefully whoever wins the leadership in Ontario (along with holding similar roles across the country) will take the message to heart.

Rally caps

Nick Kohler rightly notes that Canada currently doesn't have anywhere near the type of political rallies which the Obama campaign has been able to generate. But I have to wonder whether the theories presented as to why reflect a classic case of failing to question flawed conventional wisdom:

Tory MP Jason Kenney says the main reason is because crowd-manufacturing takes work, and our political types have decided it's not worth the hassle. "I think they're of limited utility," he says. "A lot of parties in Canada concluded they don't get much bang for the buck in terms of allocating scarce resources." Nor does the landscape encourage American-style rah-rah-rah. "Where would you go other than an arena in Canada — and if it's winter, where do you go unless it's a covered arena?" asks Liberal MP Joe Volpe. "You can count those on one hand and they're thousands of kilometres apart."

Elections are shorter in Canada, too, so events must be planned just days in advance. And while Volpe argues that large turnouts in the U.S. indicate a certain je ne sais quoi quality to Obama, others attribute them to massive election budgets. Our campaign finance laws discourage monster events, one Tory says, adding his party couldn't afford the $200,000 price tag attached to big rallies, given a budget of $18 million and a travel itinerary that costs $5 million. "Obama has an unlimited budget, so they can finance the advertising and venues and mailings it takes to organize something like that — these things don't happen spontaneously," says Kenney.

Friction between local candidates and the national parties in Canada can also rule out big crowds. Simple door-knocking is more likely to win an MP's seat than an appearance on TV with Steve or Stéphane. "In the U.S., you're not commanding all the people organizing the congressional campaigns to turn people out — they're different operations," says Liberal organizer Mark Marissen. "The people you call [here] are all in the riding campaigns — and they groan."

From what I can tell, the above includes a lot more excuse-making than genuine strategic thought.

Let's start first with the issue about the cost of a rally. While it's true that parties operate under a spending cap during campaign periods, there's nothing at all preventing them from holding events outside a campaign. And indeed, to the extent a party is able to both seek donations at an event and generate added enthusiasm to boost its volunteering and fund-raising capacity, it would seem qusetionable to consider rallies as pure costs rather than opportunities to boost a party's bottom line in the long run.

Now, that might well make for a genuine question of strategy. But it would seem to me to be one where the reward of getting thousands of people excited about one's party far exceeds the cost of a rally.

And that goes doubly during the course of a campaign, particularly when compared to the other possible uses of money. Sure, the cost of three or four large rallies could be spent putting a party's ads in slightly heavier rotation. But particularly given the ad saturation that tends to take place during a campaign, isn't it highly likely that a few well-televised rallies which show genuine widespread public support for a party would do far more to build the party's image than merely putting its top-down message in front of viewers a few more times? (And that's beyond the obvious person-to-person effect generated by those who actually attend the rallies.)

Finally, there's the question of whether riding associations will want to play along. But there too, the answer would seem to be an obvious "yes" if a party can actually generate an enthusiastic public response. Indeed, the attendees at a rally presumably reflect exactly the people which a riding association will want to add to its contact lists and get involved in the party going forward. And the process of holding a rally might make for the best opportunity to add them to the fold.

Of course, it's true that rallies would figure to be a relatively late step in building a party: it would indeed be impossible to assemble an Obama-style crowd without a substantial amount of behind-the-scenes work already being done. But if Canada's political parties aren't now capable of attracting large crowds, that seems to me to say more about their failure to fully engage the public than any limitation of rallies as a concept - and may signal that the first party to assemble the kind of movement which can pack arenas across the country will be the one best positioned to end the current political malaise.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On consistent returns

I'm not about to complain about the fact that the NDP is rightly being recognized as having taken in more money from more people than the Libs so far in 2008. But is it really too much to ask that reporting on the story actually note that the two parties have basically been in a dead heat since the beginning of 2007, rather than sounding an undue note of surprise?

All too true

Digby nicely sums up how the right wing's complete lack of scruples or first principles which won't be tossed away where politically convenient has made it impossible to have a genuine conversation about what kinds of actions are and aren't acceptable:

(T)hey have retired the concept of hypocrisy. It goes far beyond double standards or duplicity or bad faith. There's an aggression to it, a boldness, that dares people to bring up the bald and obvious fact that the person making the charge is herself a far worse perpetrator of the thing she is decrying. There's an intellectual violence in it.

In a world in which the conservatives weren't such post modern shape shifters, we could come to a consensus on certain issues in this country --- like privacy, for instance. We could agree that it's wrong for government employees to use private information for partisan purposes --- or for the media, including bloggers, to stalk and publish private information of anyone who dares speak out for a political cause. But we don't live in a world like that.

We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.

(I)t's not that I believe liberals are purely good and decent. We have many, many faults and are almost preternaturally talented at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory before we even get finished celebrating. But failing to truly grok just how pernicious this right wing rejection of hypocrisy really is and how much power it gives them is a foolish mistake.

And lest there be any doubt, no, the Cons at home aren't any different.

Internal considerations

There's been plenty of talk about the Cons' cabinet shuffle. But so far I haven't seen much more than hints at what strikes me as the most likely impact of the new structure: while the changes figure to do little to modify how the Cons govern, they may do plenty to consolidate Stephen Harper's hold on power within the party.

The most obvious example, picked up to some extent by the CP, is the decision to put Jim Prentice in Environment. But the story there isn't merely some slight perceived demotion for the most obvious heir apparent to Harper.

After all, the Cons have made clear all along that they don't plan on introducing anything but weak, loophole-ridden "intensity" targets as their means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. But it's Prentice who will not not only have to introduce the final regulations, but also take ministerial responsibility for the first couple of years when some targets actually take effect. And while the Cons' plans stood little chance of getting much done at the best of times, it's particularly improbable that Canadian industry will meet targets which are tied to output during the course of an economic downturn which will make it difficult to invest in new technology or increase production.

Which means that Harper has ensured that Prentice will spend the next couple of years under heavy opposition fire, and likely wind up personally wearing the failure of a policy which was never designed to succeed.

And that may not even be the most damaging effect on Prentice's future. While the Cons' plan is doomed to fail, it also needs to be presented to the public in a way which at least pays lip service to the reality of climate change. Which in turn will hurt Prentice's standing with the denialists who form so much of the Cons' western base.

So in one move, Harper has simultaneously ensured that both the opposition and a substantial chunk of the Cons' core support will end up turning against his most obvious possible successor.

Who else might otherwise have been able to launch a credible challenge to Harper? I'd think that next in line would have been Lawrence Cannon, who's likely the lone Quebec MP who might be seen as having the heft to potentially convince voters from the province to abandon the Bloc. But as has already been noted, Cannon has been moved against his will to a position which will keep him too focused on international affairs to focus on building a personal power base.

And as an added bonus, the MP with the next-best chance of making the same type of case, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, has also been shuffled out of a position which would seem to allow him to connect with voters to one which is seen as both a relative insult, and one which leaves little room to build any popularity.

So who ended up in the plum positions which would seem to offer a platform for advancement? Well, Jim Flaherty remains in Finance. But whatever his ambitions might be, any minister who's gone out of his way to insult his home province can probably be ruled out as a real leadership threat. And John Baird takes over the pork opportunities linked to Transport and Infrastructure - when he isn't busy accompanying the current leader's wife to social events.

Which means that it's a real challenge to try to figure out who might have the best chance of making a future case for leadership based on a current ministerial role. Rob Nicholson remaining at Justice? Tony Clement at Industry? Jason Kenney at Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism? Christian Paradis remaining at Public Works?

What does seem safe to say is that if those are Harper's biggest internal threats, then he can likely hold onto the Cons' leadership as long as he wants it. And considering how little impact individual ministers have been allowed to have in actually managing their portfolios, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that's the main reason why Harper set up the cabinet how he did.

Some perspective

Lawrence Cannon may not be happy about being put in Foreign Affairs. But imagine what the hundred-odd Con MPs who likely want the position think about being passed over for somebody who doesn't.

Unequalized

There wasn't much doubt that the Cons' efforts to clean up their own fiscal mess were going to result in at least some conflict. But Jim Flaherty may have just chosen the one target area most sure to call his government's competence into question:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, facing Canada's first budget deficit in more than a decade, said he will limit the growth of equalization payments to the poorer provinces.

Speaking to reporters after the first meeting of Stephen Harper's new cabinet yesterday, Mr. Flaherty said the equalization program, which redistributed $13.6-billion in the current fiscal year, is growing at an unsustainable pace of about 15 per cent a year.

He said he would discuss the subject at a meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Toronto on Monday. While he might be willing to negotiate how tightly to pull the reins, the federal minister made clear his mind is made up on the need to constrain future equalization payments.

"It's a federal program; we will put a limit on the growth of it," Mr. Flaherty said. "This is not something that is discretionary. We must do this, otherwise the integrity of the program will be under attack."

Now, it's worth keeping in mind a fairly obvious point: if equalization payments are growing at a particular pace under the formula which the Cons approved, then so too is inequality among the provinces by Flaherty's own terms.

Mind you, it's far from surprising that regional inequality would be growing: after all, the Cons' economic policies have been based on a steady combination of handouts to already-profitable industries and regions, and neglect for ones in need of support. But it's noteworthy that having gone out of their way to exacerbate regional differences, the Cons are now using the predictable result as an excuse to complain that it's beyond their capability to try to ensure relatively equal service levels.

So who might stand to lose out if the Cons end up attacking equalization? Well, here's the most recent federal information on the subject - with six provinces already receiving what look to be rather substantial numbers in an effort to equalize their service levels with those available elsewhere. And it may only get more interesting: now that even Ontario is reported to be close to receiving payments, the Cons may effectively be telling a strong majority of the country that it should be willing to settle for a lesser service level than that available in the western provinces.

Needless to say, that doesn't figure to go over well either with the provincial governments who would once again see the federal government trying to balance its books at their expense, or with citizens who rightly recognize the need for services to be available on a reasonably comparable basis across the country. And if the Cons really don't see any less damaging means of improving its fiscal position as ideiologically acceptable, then it wouldn't be surprising if the next few steps are enough to set in motion a wave of anger that eventually results in their removal from office.

Link burst

Assorted notes on Dwain Lingenfelter's campaign launch today based on the reports I've seen so far...

First off, it's surely a bad sign that "winning" is apparently the main message which Lingenfelter is seeking to sell, rather than anything he'd like to get done upon doing do.

On the brighter side, the volunteer initiative looks to be a significant positive. And the mention of a Web site (which as best I can tell has yet to be launched) suggests at least some awareness of Internet traditions.

Finally, as a point of interest, note that Lingenfelter only managed half the turnout that Jack Layton managed for his Regina breakfast appearance this fall. Which seems particularly striking considering how much of the caucus has already announced its support. Which may serve as an indication that the party's grassroots at least aren't yet anywhere near as supportive as the caucus.

Mind you, the best news for Lingenfelter so far may be the relative disorganization and indecisiveness of the most likely alternatives. With nobody else yet willing to formally announce and all the past or present MLAs in the mix playing a waiting game, it may be that Lingenfelter will be able to get a head start which puts him out of reach - though it's hard to see it ultimately being a plus for the party's hopes of winning the next election if nobody else ends up putting together a substantial support network.

More Liberal visionaries

So what kind of values are the Libs looking for in their leadership race? Surprise, surprise...

"There's one factor here and only one factor and that's getting an electable leader," said a senior Liberal, who asked to remain unidentified...

Stephen Clarkson, a University of Toronto political scientist, argues for a "thinkers conference" like those that have taken place when the party was in the wilderness in the past.

Unfortunately, the Liberals do not have the luxury of time in this minority government era, he said. "They can't do what they should do."

But Liberals are bullish that the difficult economy will erode confidence in the Tories during this time, perhaps lessening the need for such a rethink.

Burning questions

What will Dwain Lingenfelter do with the portion of his leadership dowry that can't be spent on the campaign? And does the answer change depending on whether or not he wins?

A perfect fit

Like many, I was skeptical at first when Pinball Clemons' name was tossed around in connection with the Libs' leadership race. But one has to give him credit for wasting no time in embracing the party's deepest traditions of finger-pointing and avoiding responsibility just in time for the contest to start:

A report in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday hints at friction between Michael (Pinball) Clemons and team management over who is at fault for some of the decisions made this season...

The report in the Globe and Mail raises questions about who had final say on the Joseph deal.

Clemons admitted to the newspaper that he played a small part in the trade but said he was not part of the final decision.

"If they say no, it's done," explained Clemons to the Globe and Mail. "I got no say in that, got no decision in that. If they say, 'No, we don't want Kerry Joseph,' it's a done deal. There's no more conversation. Conversation is over. So they said yes, and the process continued. That's what happened, football ops said yes."

According to the Globe and Mail, sources within the Argonauts told them that the team's football operations were not overly excited about making the move.

Clemons explained the team's management structure to Globe and Mail and told them the final decision on every move was Rita's.

The Harperpedia awaits

Sure, it's interesting to note that the federal government now has an internal equivalent of Wikipedia to assist in the collaborative sharing of information. But the real question is how long it takes for the Cons to develop the equivalent of the deservedly-ridiculed Conservapedia to provide a similar forum for those who want an ideologically-obstructed view.

Time to decide

I'm not sure that Angus Reid's polling to the effect that 54% of voters had already made their minds up before the start of the election campaign should come as too much of a shock, as the number at least roughly approximates the parties' base support levels. (Though the number does offer a strong indication as to why the parties can't afford to wait until the start of a campaign to make a serious push to win support.)

What strikes me as more interesting, though, are the numbers within the campaign itself. There, roughly equal numbers of voters made their decisions before the debates (15%), following the debates (12%), and on election day (15%).

I'd tend to figure that for a voter who hadn't yet decided anything by the start of the election period, there would be little reason to finalize any voting decisions before all the information from the campaign is in. But it appears that a remarkable number of voters tuned in from the start of the campaign, then made a fairly quick decision as to who to support.

Now, it could be that the dynamic in 2008 was based mostly on the diverging campaign fortunes of the two parties mentioned most often in the media's horse-race narrative, such that the same pattern might not hold in other campaigns. But if the distribution does reflect how undecided voters will generally reach their decision, then it would seem that parties may be best served focusing more of their resources on the beginning of the campaign (when there are at least as many voters to be won, as well as an opportunity to shape a public narrative for later) than on a closing push. And that could lead to a significantly different campaign shape than what we saw this year.

On tarnished brands

It's interesting to see Robert Silver's surprise that Dominic Leblanc is doing everything possible to run away from the title of renewal/grassroots candidate. But it makes perfect sense from my standpoint that the Lib contenders might be seeking virtually any other available available label first.

After all, Stephane Dion held just those designations at the last leadership convention - however dubiously in light of the apparent lack of grassroots support following his leadership win. And with the Libs's latest race now in progress as a direct result of Dion's failings, it makes sense that Leblanc and other candidates would see some serious danger in branding themselves in a way that would build associations to Dion.

Of course, that raises issues as to whether the Libs' leadership contenders will end up either being detached from any party renewal process, or completely drowning it out. And it may be that Dion's greatest damage to the Libs is yet to come if his path to victory winds up discrediting the symbols associated with him among the Libs' new leadership contenders.

Deep thought

It seems to me that the "unite the right" movement consisted entirely of people who identified themselves and their parties as right-wing.

It only counts if you're a Liberal

Most readers will be familiar with the concept of IOKIYAC, meaning "it's okay if you're a Conservative", as a shorthand for the double standards typically applied by the right. But it may be time to unveil a new abbreviation along similar lines: IOCIYAL, for "it only counts if you're a Liberal".

For today's example, let's go to Sheila Copps' column on women in politics:

A record number of Canadian women actually rode into Parliament on a wave created by the election's biggest loser. Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced early that he would try to nominate an unprecedented one-third women for the Grit team. In the end, the party topped its target, nominating an unprecedented 113 women or 37 per cent of its candidates.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and Dion's bold move encouraged most other political parties to expressly target more women nominations.

The Bloc Québécois ran 20 women and managed to elect 15 of them, defying the prevailing myth that women are somehow less electable than men. The New Democrats nominated 104 women, electing 11.

Copps' claim is a fairly simple one: that Dion's target influenced the NDP and the Bloc to nominate and elect more female candidates. But there's a fairly glaring problem with the assertion if one actually checks the evidence.

After all, a quick look at the Pundits' Guide election numbers shows that in the 2006 election, the NDP led the pack by far with 108 female candidates, with the Bloc running 23 (to 79 for the Libs).

As a result, it would seem to be beyond reasonable dispute that both the NDP and the Bloc were doing plenty to bring female candidates into the fold long before Stephane Dion won the Lib leadership. And moreover, the Libs' target had absolutely nothing to do with the number of female candidates nominated by the other opposition parties.

Now, it's worth noting that attempting to give credit to the Libs for being on the cutting edge is itself a fairly laughable proposition. In every previous federal election in the Pundits' Guide database, the NDP had a healthy lead on the Libs in the number of female candidates nominated - and in both 1997 and 2006 the NDP had already exceeded the 33% target which Copps claims to have been so revolutionary.

Which means that if one wants to give credit to anybody for setting a precedent for relative gender parity that other parties have felt a need to follow, the place to direct praise would be toward Alexa McDonough and Jack Layton. But thanks to IOCIYAL, Copps and her party are apparently well along the path toward editing the history books to delete any reference to female candidates prior to Dion.

Duty calling

Andrew Potter has put up a few posts dealing with voter turnout over the past week. But one of the columns mentioned by Potter looks like one worth considering in greater detail both as a matter of general interest, and an area which political parties may want to focus in on.

Here's Don Butler on why citizens generally do vote even where it might not be an obviously rational choice:

A survey done for Elections Canada after the 2006 election found 94 per cent of Canadians agree it's a civic duty to vote. Mind you, nearly nine in 10 also said they voted in the election, so perhaps we should take the findings with a shaker or two of salt.

"Once somebody gets this sense of duty to vote," says the University of British Columbia's Fred Cutler, a voting expert, "it's hard to move. They tend to feel badly, and think others will think badly of them, if they don't vote."

I'll leave aside for now the later discussion of a study as to how social influences may promote voting, though that may certainly be worth some future commentary. Instead, I'm curious as to whether or not the current trend toward retail politics may both depress turnout and serve as a suboptimal means of motivating voter choices.

After all, if the main reason why people vote is because of a perceived public duty, then it would seem at least possible that the question of how people vote could be strongly influenced by an appeal to much the same principle - or at least that parties might see the most benefit by making their messages appeal to the desired answer for both questions.

And likewise, it might make sense that to the extent politics are seen as more a matter of choosing from cynically-targeted policies based on one's personal advantage, citizens can be expected a more skeptical look at whether or not to vote in the first place.

So what does that mean for Canada's political parties? At the moment, the Cons are likely the only party which can be said to have a policy message that's largely tied in with its desired level of voter motivation: it seems generally well-accepted that low turnout plays to their strengths in having a motivated base accompanied by a fairly strict ceiling of support, and the Cons' retail politics surely help on both counts.

In contrast, it seems to me to be worth asking whether the opposition parties would be best served tying their messages to the idea of a duty to be a part of something greater. If successful, that could counteract not only the Cons' ideology, but also their efforts to soften public interest in voting. And that can only help to ensure that some Canadians who have been turned off by the current level of cynicism see themselves as having reason to cast a vote which can help end the Cons' me-first model of government.