On message cultivation

The NDP has re-launched its Unite4Change site for this fall's set of by-elections, and in the process looks to be even further ahead of the other parties than it was last year. (From what I can tell, the closest any of the Cons, Libs or Greens come to mentioning the by-elections on their respective sites is the inclusion of one event on Michael Ignatieff's events schedule.) But while it's worth noting the NDP's apparent head start in preparing for the November by-election dates, it's particularly worth pointing out one of the more subtle advantages it may hold compared to some of its competitors.

After years of planning out messages and strategies under a leader with a long-term vision for the party, the NDP has had a chance to develop plenty of messages which can be accessed and reinforced on a moment's notice while being left dormant when they don't apply. Which means that for virtually any major development in Canadian politics (based on issues or events), the NDP will have a ready response supported by past communication work.

Are there by-elections happening? Time to bring out "Unite4Change" both as a familiar message to those who have followed NDP by-election activity for awhile, and as a building block for a national message.

Are the Cons looking for excuses to once again extend Canada's military role in Afghanistan? There's a ready response to that. Climate change? Check. Tax fairness? Check. And so on.

Mind you, in every case there's some need for adaptation to the current issues at play: the tax message is only reinforced in the case of the HST where needless corporate cuts are paired with hikes on individuals, while action on climate change is now aimed toward establishing new global targets at Copenhagen rather than meeting the ones set at Kyoto. But in general, the NDP has been able to build up a consistent set of messages which it can tap into at any point while never pushing any of them to the point of fatigue at any time.

Not surprisingly, that makes for a huge contrast against the circumstances of the Libs. They've of course had four different leaders in the past four years - with all but interim chief Bill Graham spending much of their time trying to distance themselves from their predecessors, and most key party staff changing as well during that time. And to top it all off the Libs have actually changed substantive positions on plenty of issues (a prime example being their Afghanistan swings from starting a combat mission while in government, treating it as a free vote when they first went to opposition, then demanding an end to combat before agreeing to an extension), making for an even more complicated communications problem.

Based on that combination of regularly changing personnel and messages, the Libs are bound to have a far more limited number of themes even remotely developed for public consumption - meaning that they largely have to start from scratch in developing a message in any particular area. And even before that process starts, there's presumably some workload involved in documenting and cataloguing what the last few incarnations of the party have had to say on the details of each issue so as to limit the number of contradictions that can be avoided.

All of which suggests that whatever advantage the Libs may have had in fund-raising early this year, it may be serving to do little more than try to catch up to the NDP's head start in planning and message development. And to the extent that much of the goal of political messaging is to plant seeds which will come to fruition at the right time, it's questionable whether the Libs have enough time to develop any meaningful harvest by the next general election.

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

There was plenty of good news for the 'Riders in last night's win over Toronto. But while an underwhelming victory over a weak team counts for just as much in the standings as any other win, there were a couple of obvious problems which the 'Riders will have to fix in order to keep adding wins against their tougher opponents to come.

The best news for the game was almost certainly the offence's performance in the first half. After a couple of games where the offence had struggled early, the 'Riders managed to turn their first five possessions into four touchdowns and a drive into what would normally be field-goal range, racking up what would prove to be enough points to take the game by making use of nearly every weapon at the team's disposal.

And it's a good thing the offence managed to give the team that cushion to work with, as it was once again nowhere near as effective after halftime. The 'Riders' running game took some time off the clock with a few first downs in the third quarter, but the passing attack was thoroughly ineffective until the latter half of the fourth quarter. And while that late-game resurgence was enough to put the game away by adding another 3 points on the scoreboard while running most of the remaining time off the clock, it has to be worrisome that the team once again showed little inclination to put its opponent away earlier.

Meanwhile, the defence had a generally effective game, if not one to write home about. Ideally one would prefer to see the 'Riders control the run a bit better, as both Jamal Robertson and Jeff Johnson managed to put up some significant yardage. But those two never figured to be able to win the game on their own; instead, the real danger was Kerry Joseph, and the 'Riders managed to bottle him up on the ground throughout the game and anticipate much of his passing game beginning in the second quarter. There was still some room for improvement, as the Argos missed obvious opportunities due to both dropped passes and inaccurate throws - but in the end the 'Riders didn't give up more than they could afford, which has to be the ultimate goal.

And then there are the special teams, where the 'Riders have swapped out one major weakness for another. On the bright side, while Ian Hamilton describes Jason Armstead as "returning to form", I'd take a step beyond that. While Armstead has long been a dangerous all-or-nothing threat, I can't ever remember him being as consistently effective as he has this season. Which means that while it would be a bonus for him to indeed break a return or two to the end zone, the most important message the team can send is to make sure he keeps doing what he's doing to give the 'Riders better field position throughout the game rather than hinting that he should take more chances in order to score points himself.

Unfortunately, the 'Riders also faced one major problem in the battle for field position, as the punting took far more of a hit in Jamie Boreham's absence than I'd expected. That's particularly disappointing since Luca Congi managed to blast the ball when he had the chance to punt in the pre-season - but returning to the role now, he struggled with both distance and direction. And that may force the 'Riders into another strategic change if Boreham is out for long (and Congi stays in the role), as I'd have to figure it'll be worth trying a few more third-down gambles from the opponents' side of half if we can't expect to gain much yardage from a punt anyway. Or alternatively they may need to look at bringing in another punter, though the likelihood of finding a major upgrade may be low at this point in the season.

Needless to say, the 'Riders' next challenge in Calgary looks to be a far more difficult one than the Argos were able to pose last night. But the game plan shouldn't be all that different: like last night the main goals will be to keep an athletic quarterback from getting into positions where he can make plays on his own, while using a variety of weapons to find the weak points in an aggressive defence. And if the 'Riders can piece together a more effective punting game and stay more consistent on offence, it shouldn't be out of the question for the same strategy to help propel the team to the top of the West standings.

Saturday Afternoon Tab Dump

Once again, let's clear out a few links which I haven't yet turned into full posts but which deserve a look...

- Blogging Horse sets the record straight as to which party has credibility fighting against the HST. (Hint: it's not the one paying provinces $6 billion to raise taxes on their citizens.)

- The Star Phoenix notes a couple of new blogs which have emerged to cover Saskatoon's municipal races.

- What Greg said.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk notes that Brad Wall has eagerly followed his federal commanding officer in using public resources to distribute "irritatingly intolerable political propaganda".

On statements

Vaughn Palmer is right to note that there's a limited number of paths to take to try to counter the implementation of the HST in B.C. - and indeed the recall option which he points out as the most feasible means of reversing the plan wouldn't figure to be available in Ontario.

But Palmer does give unduly short shrift to the possibility that one or both of the provincial governments could come to see the "ruinously humiliating" results of backing down from the tax as less damaging than the political costs of following through on it. And with the NDP rightly pressing the issue in the one chance voters have to make their displeasure known at the ballot box in advance of a recall campaign, now may in fact be the best time to send the message that both the Campbell and McGuinty governments are better off finding a way to change course than sticking to the plan to hike taxes on their citizens.

Back to bad habits

From a strategic standpoint, one can't exactly blame the Libs for turning tail and running from their posturing this fall. It's not hard to see how the NDP and Bloc could both end up in a position where they'd be entirely willing to bring down the Cons, particularly if HST legislation were introduced this fall - so it's to be expected that the Libs would start laying the groundwork to prop up the Cons if necessary.

That said, though, from the standpoint of actually mitigating the effects of continued Harper government, the Libs' latest flip-flop couldn't have come at a worse time.

I've mentioned before the importance of establishing a new set of baseline assumptions where the Cons expect to have to listen to opposition parties rather than simply forcing their agenda on whichever party was weakest at the time. And this week offered the first hint that the Cons were actually prepared to get into the habit of taking opposition concerns into account.

But now that the Libs are sending signals that they're again prepared to be arm-twisted into supporting the Cons, it won't be at all surprising if Harper decides he's better off arm-twisting a party which won't ask for anything than talking to a party that will. Which means that the Libs may have just managed to ensure that Harper's stay in power would be as painful as possible for Canadians who stood to benefit from a more cooperative approach.

Musical interlude

Faithless - Drifting Away (Paradiso Mix)

Compare and contrast

It hasn't escaped notice that the NDP has been able to push the Cons to improve their latest EI bill by setting a firm start date for eligibility for increased benefits. But the NDP's success in getting that done is particularly worth noting in contrast to what happened in a similar situation earlier this year.

After all, the Cons' 2009 budget bill likewise included a provision linking increased EI benefits to the timing of royal assent. And presumably the same solution would have been equally possible then. But Michael Ignatieff and the Libs ignored that possibility entirely, electing to rush a mammoth bill loaded with poison pills through the Senate in order to meet the Cons' arbitrary timeline for passage rather than even suggesting a simple legislative fix.

Of course, it's to the Cons' discredit that they chose to set up exactly the same kind of time trap with their newest EI bill. But this time, the NDP was in a position to spot the problem and pressure the Cons to fix it - and the end result should serve as important evidence as to which opposition party is actually working to improve legislative outcomes for Canadians.

And speaking of just having to show up...

Pat Fiacco's pitch to get Reginans to vote for Pat Fiacco is to promise...

...more Pat Fiacco. (In this case, Pat Fiacco On Wheels.)

Mind you, given that Fiacco is the heavy favourite this year, I for one hope he'll follow through on the promise. After all, the best hope for change in the near future absent some major scandal involves a city-wide case of Fiacco fatigue.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

But your betters just have to show up.

I'm generally in agreement with Audrey's take on Murray Mandryk's attempt to defend Grant Devine's appointment to the Saskatchewan Order of Merit. In effect there doesn't seem to be much disagreement that Devine is the test case as to whether merely occupying the premier's office is enough to justify the honour in the absence of any particular accomplishments - and the answer ought to be "no", particularly since there are trappings specific to the office which Devine has already received.

That said, it's worth noting that the "participation award" standard only apparently applies to premiers. Which seems to me to raise a separate issue of elitism in how Mandryk's standard views the relative value of different careers: what possible reason can there be to require Order of Merit recipients from any other profession to demonstrate something which sets them apart from their peers, while a politician merely has to take up space?

Burning question

So how many Cons are hastily changing their party-approved Twitter password from "allpraisebetoglorioussexyrthonpmHarper69" now that Royal Galipeau's account has been taken over?

Deep thought

I can't imagine what story the Cons may have been trying to undercut by raising suspicions about their own bogus anonymous information.

Signs of desperation

Never mind polls or media narratives, the surest sign of panic among the Libs can be found in the party's choice of strategies to try to correct its course. And it's striking that Michael Ignatieff has resorted to the "we're your only choice" canard in the middle of a session of Parliament which was supposed to give the Libs their opportunity to inflict some damage on the Harper Cons.

Normally, the Libs tend to save that argument as an end-of-campaign trump card to pry votes away from the NDP and Greens. And there's good reason for not usually using it sooner, since it's the type of claim which both makes the Libs look arrogant and out of touch, and at the best of times looks shaky on the merits when the opposing parties have time to refute it.

But then, these aren't the best of times for the Libs - making the claim one which plays nicely into the hands of the NDP's strategy of presenting itself as precisely the viable alternative which Canadians want. Indeed, there's probably little the NDP would like more than for the media to spend a substantial amount of time on the question of which opposition party in Parliament is actually the more viable alternative to continued Harper government, rather than simply assuming that the Libs are next in line.

All of which means that Ignatieff's decision to go to the well now may both signal just how desperate the Libs are for the moment, and help ensure that the NDP is able to establish exactly the image which the Libs are trying to refute.

On spammers

Michael Geist has the gory details as to how the Libs and Bloc are working with business lobbyists to gut an anti-spam bill:

At yesterday's hearing, it was discouraging to see lobbyists for Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Intellectual Property Council huddling with Liberal MPs before the start of the hearing. It was even more incredible to see lobbyists for the Canadian Real Estate Association draft a series of questions about the bill, hand them to a Bloc MP, and have them posed to the witnesses moments later.

The general tenor of the hearing saw support from the Conservative MPs, general support from the NDP MP (with some fear that the bill may be watered down with the proposed amendments), CREA questions from the Bloc, and a repetition of lobbyist questions from the Liberal MPs, who persistently wondered whether the bill is too broad or even too transparent (raising the possibility of excluding it from Access to Information).

So let's ask what appear to be the most obvious questions. Is there some principled reason why the Libs and Bloc are doing the work of lobbyists to hack away at one of the few consumer protection bills the Cons have been willing to introduce? Or is the problem more that both see it as easier to repeat a corporate line than to even think about how the issue affects Canadian consumers?

On open minds

Most of the discussion about today's EKOS poll (warning: PDF) has focused on the Cons' lead in the party standings and Michael Ignatieff's plummeting approval/disapproval ratings. But there's another piece of the poll which looks to me like a far more surprising development - and it has the potential to be the most significant in the long run as well if the NDP can capitalize on it.

While public opinion has been polarized on Stephen Harper for years and seems to have solidified on the negative side for Ignatieff, Jack Layton's approval numbers aren't just the most positive of the three national leaders in Parliament (a net +3). Remarkably, six years and three federal elections into his stay at the helm of the NDP, Layton's numbers now show a small plurality in the "don't know" category (35%, to 34% positive and 31% negative).

Of course, that signals as much potential downside as upside (in fact Ignatieff was in a fairly similar position in June). And Layton's "approve" and "disapprove" numbers have both gone down since earlier this year, though the latter has been dropping more consistently since April in particular.

But the combination of a positive net result and a large number of Canadians open to being convinced one way or the other does make Layton the lone party leader with any apparent opportunity to develop a genuinely positive public impression in the near future. And there's an obvious path open for Layton to get there based on where the leaders have positioned themselves for the fall session of Parliament.

Indeed, the NDP's push to portray Layton as the responsible grown-up in a room of squabbling kids couldn't have come at a better time, as the Cons' fall narrative has been defined by Little Stevie's piano recital while Ignatieff's occasional claims of "I'm a big boy!" have consistently been disproven within hours. And the NDP's willingness to put its efforts into an ad campaign to make that message stick should maximize the chances that it ultimately will - which should give Layton another chance to sway Canadian voters from the strongest position of any federal leader.

Sounds about right

Andrew Coyne:

The only significance of the gaffe is that it fits a narrative, or rather that a narrative can be made to fit around it. A politician’s campaign is failing. He eats an ill-judged banana. Therefore the banana-eating becomes a “metaphor” for the campaign, or even a “defining moment.” Defining him as … what? As a politician who eats bananas and loses elections. It’s entirely self-referential.
...
Here, the media has inflated the importance not of a minor embarrassment, but a minor triumph. But in all other respects it functions exactly like a gaffe. A reverse gaffe, if you will.

Instead of a campaign bus with a flat tire, we’re now finding vast import in a politician who can carry a tune. And for the same reason: because it suits our professional need for narrative. The narrative the media had settled on for this week was of Ignatieff the stumblebum, the guy who couldn’t get anything right; in contrast, Harper’s exquisitely timed appearance seemed to confirm he could do no wrong. Why, he even sang on key!

So what? It has no meaning beyond that, tells us nothing we did not know about him before, sheds exactly zero light on his ability to govern the country.

Suitable for bronzing

Aaron Wherry links to the Stephen Harper speech which the NDP is rightly highlighting in opposing a federally-funded tax hike on B.C. and Ontario residents. But perhaps not surprisingly, his argument on the substance of the HST is far from the only belief professed by Harper in opposition which has long since fallen by the wayside:

It is important to point out that this bill was read for the first time in this House only on December 2, just over a week ago. This is only the third day we have had any debate at all on this piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Burlington, a Liberal member, had a tremendous argument. This one we need to get bronzed over here. It was that they would not need to move time allocation if the opposition would just support their bills. That would make it much easier.

There is a pattern here. We saw this pattern not just in this fall sitting but in previous sittings in the last three years. That has been that we have had a very slow legislative agenda for several months.

Just as the House is about to rise for a break, important legislation appears which must be passed immediately. In this sitting, the fall sitting, we passed only nine pieces of legislation, including some supply bills and housekeeping measures that were of fairly minor significance.

Last week three pieces of legislation were introduced which most analysts of Parliament would argue are the three most important bills introduced in the fall sitting, the harmonization of the GST, amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board, and the tobacco legislation. These are three of the most important bills.

Now they must all be passed according to some rushed schedule. I should add, just a couple of weeks before that, changes to the rules for the next election campaign. That is probably the fourth most important. It came in only three weeks before the end of the session.

Why does the government do it this way? I have tried to figure that out. Why are we rushing, for instance, an important debate on a GST package in order to have a prebudget debate, which the government will have no intention of listening to whatsoever? It is not on a substantive piece of legislation. Why are we doing this?

Some of it may be disorganization. Some of it may be unclear priorities. I fear the longer I am here the reason it does some of this is it really ultimately wants to rush committee stage of these bills.

Committee stage is where the public and affected interests get to express their views on the bill to indicate where amendments should be made and where parliamentarians and other expert witnesses are able to go over the clause by clause of a bill to suggest technical amendments.

That is the stage the government wants to rush. It has been increasingly rushing it, even on important legislation. The consequences of that have been very obvious in this Parliament to observers. Often we are passing legislation that is not well thought out, that is poorly drafted technically and that ends up being amended or delayed in the Senate.

Yes, that would be the same Stephen Harper responsible for a consistent track record of introducing supposedly high-priority legislation a matter of weeks or even days before the end of a session, then whining that the opposition or Senate is obstructing it by actually wanting to hold the type of committee hearings which Harper once held so dear.

Let's give Harper credit for something though: by all account, Past Steve was absolutely right about the consequences of rushing legislation through. But that doesn't figure to lead to any change in strategy from Present Steve anytime soon.

On questionable choices

So the Libs' new Quebec decision-maker is the same candidate who managed to turn Vaudreuil-Soulanges into the Cons' best hope for a Montreal-area breakthrough with his weak performance in 2006, then underperformed his party by just barely holding serve in Westmount-Ville Marie in 2008 to get elected for the first time.

Not that Michael Ignatieff necessarily had a lot of better options. But if the NDP had removed Westmount-Ville Marie from its list of Quebec targets before, the prospect of a distracted Garneau would seem to offer reason to take another strong run at the seat. And there may plenty more opportunities elsewhere as well (for the NDP as well as for the Libs' other competitors) unless Garneau somehow proves more proficient handling Quebec as a whole than he has been in winning support for his own personal campaigns.

Update: Line of the day from Rob Cottingham via Scott Piatkowski:

Ignatieff picks Marc Garneau as his top guy in Quebec. Experience working in freefall may come in handy.

On movement politics

NDP MP Denise Savoie's op-ed is worth a read in describing the wide range of B.C. citizens protesting the HST. But it's worth taking a closer look as to why it is that the coalitions developing around the HST are different from those which normally turn up on the political scene - and what they mean for the chances of successfully opposing the measure.

To start with, it's worth noting that the groups normally in the middle of the media narrative attacking taxes are sitting this one out or actively promoting the HST in principle (even while trying to harness some stray outrage over timing and implementation). And at least a few right-wing HST supporters have sneered at the prospect that the NDP and progressive groups might be able to rally opposition to an unpopular tax, rather than leaving that to the usual self-described "tax fighters".

But I'd argue that the effort to fight the HST is probably better off for having a diverse group of citizens involved. While a group like the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation may be effective in spreading a general anti-tax message, the reality that it would be no less aghast over a small surtax on found money to save the lives of starving orphans than even the most regressive and harmful of taxes leaves it practically unable to highlight any particular issue as justifying special public outrage. Simply put, "CTF shrieks about lower taxes" isn't news, and any tax protest movement with the CTF leading the charge is likely to be easily tuned out as politics as usual.

In contrast, a tax issue where the CTF actually wants to see individuals' taxes raised while progressive groups want to see them stay lower is bound to register with the public at large as something out of the ordinary, and probably make people more likely to get involved. Which means that the protest movement figures to include many more people than the usual anti-tax crowd - while a good portion of those actually inclined to support the CTF on most issues also figure to join the movement against increased taxes on themselves.

Moreover, it's also natural that the ultimate impact of the HST will break off at least a few chunks of the business lobby onto the side of the public. During Grant Devine's ill-fated attempt at tax harmonization in Saskatchewan it was restauranteurs in particular who helped turn the tide, while the current round has seen the likes of B.C. small businesses and Ontario mutual fund managers among those joining the anti-HST movement.

Mind you, there are bound to be strong voices in favour of a corporate-friendly measure like harmonization as well. But while that ensures that the protest movement won't dominate the airwaves, it also ensures that there's going to be a lively public debate about the issue - encouraging yet more people to get involved on one side or the other. And since most of those who stand to benefit from the HST are already well aware of the issue and fully behind it, the long-term effect is largely to bring more awareness to those who will ultimately join the protesting coalition.

In sum, then, the anti-HST protest figures to be a significantly more effective force for change than many efforts at activism due primarily to the fact that the HST cuts deeply across ideological lines and business interests in a way that few other issues do. And while it remains to be seen whether the push-back will be able to stop the tax in B.C. and Ontario, anybody who assumes that the protest movement should be taken less seriously due to that diversity figures to be in for a rude awakening.

Burning question

Does Deficit Jim Flaherty's "Finance Minister of the Year" award (based on his responding "quickly" to last year's recession by offering an FU to all affected) remind anybody else of this?

Not warranted

My two cents' worth on the Cons' breathalyzer bill which has given rise to a wide range of discussion today...

As "tough on crime" pandering measures go, I'd actually see this as one of the less harmful ones possible. While the current state of the law theoretically requires reasonable and probable grounds on the part of the police to justify a demand for a breathalyzer sample, the low standards in practice (either a subjective perception of fairly broad indicia of alcohol consumption or an admission that the driver drank alcohol at some point) don't offer more than a modicum of protection to citizens in any event.

In fact, one could make the case that the effect of the bill will simply be to create a more honest statement about how the law works in practice. And unlike concepts like mandatory minimum sentences or age of consent which actually create offences or jail terms where they otherwise wouldn't have existed, the actual harm caused by the bill toward any individual would appear to be minimal.

That said, though, there doesn't seem to be a particularly strong rationale to accept even the relatively small amount of damage which might be caused by the bill - so the apparent acceptance from all sides looks to be a significant problem. And I'd hope that all of the opposition parties will at least challenge the Cons to provide a public accounting as to what problem they think the bill is supposed to solve, even if they all wind up supporting it in the end.

One-upped

I'll stand by the argument that the best way for Canada's opposition parties to deal with distraction tactics like Stephen Harper's NAC performance is to avoid letting him change the subject. But this isn't a bad response either:

Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s New Democrats, will be doing two of his favorite things in his dare: playing guitar and hanging out on Toronto's Danforth Ave. It is just rare for him to do them both at the same time! Jack’s challenge will be busking in his riding, guitar in hand, from 3-5 pm at the corner of Danforth and Logan on Saturday, October 24.

In addition to donating to help reach Jack’s goal for the Stephen Lewis Foundation, Jack is inviting you join him and make some street music!

It's of particular note that rather than limiting himself to a single song for a closed audience with the element of surprise on his side, Layton will be opening his performance up to public observation and participation. And as an added bonus, it's also for a great charitable cause - which should hopefully help keep away the astroturfers, though we'll have to wait and see on that point.

Unrepresentative

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

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

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

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

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

The White Elephant March

The Saskatchewan NDP is rightly calling attention to a survey which seems to lay the groundwork for a decade of 8% SaskPower rate increases. But I have to wonder whether there's a more important problem than the projected increase in consumer prices.

The survey itself sets out short-term, mid-term and long-term phases extending out to 2030. But in only one (the short term from 2009-2014) is energy conservation even considered as an option - and even then it doesn't look like there's any actual intention to achieve any meaningful results. In fact, the projection over the entire time period includes demand increasing by an "unprecedented 2.9% per year", with no differentiation between the presence or absence of conservation measures in a particular phase.

Needless to say, there's plenty of reason to doubt that the Sask Party's projections are worth the napkins they're hastily scribbled on. And that goes doubly when there's such an obvious lack of either a rationale for projecting "unprecedented" increases in demand for power for a full decade, or any recognition that conservation strategies can reduce the need for future generation in the first place.

So why would the Wall government be eager to push such an incomplete and implausible scenario? Well, the end result of the scenario would involve the province needing to add more capacity by 2030 than it currently possesses. And that feeds nicely into the Sask Party's desire to push the province into MEGAPROJECTS!!! in order to meet that supposed demand.

Worry about the feasibility of "clean coal"? Pay attention to the dangers and unpopularity of relying on nuclear plants to generate two-thirds of our current power load? Why, with 3% annual growth, we can't even afford to think of such minor considerations! So let's put our tens of billions dollars down now, and watch the growth roll in!

If anything, it's remarkable that the plan at least recognizes that some price increases might be required, rather than entirely assuming away such unpleasantness. But the Sask Party's plan still seems to be predicated on the bare hope that unprecedented demand increases will result in a wider range of customers sharing the cost - which means that the price might actually be far higher if the growth assumptions are wrong. And that should offer ample reason for Saskatchewan citizens to push back against the Wall government's obsession with white elephants.

On distractions

In the wake of Dr. Dawg's question about the goal of Stephen Harper's NAC gala stunt and subsequent conclusion that he answered wrong, I'll take a moment to provide my own theory about what the performance would seem to have been calculated to do.

Simply put, I don't buy the argument that the appearance was a high-risk, high-reward step which could or did radically reshape how the general public sees Harper. Instead, it looks more like an attempt to avoid allowing anybody else to get traction in defining Harper - a measure which could still have succeeded had Harper's actual performance not impressed anybody, but which also doesn't carry the same degree of accomplishment.

How do I reach that conclusion? Let's note first what the Cons' obvious communication strategy has been in dealing with Lib leaders. With both Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, the Cons have relentlessly thrown money and air time at making a single negative impression stick to their main perceived opponent, with devastating effects in terms of each leader's ability to win the confidence of voters.

It only stands to reason that to the extent they recognize and apply that as their primary strategy toward the Libs, they'd want to make sure that the opposite effect would apply to their leader. But what actually is the "opposite effect" to making a single negative message stick?

While the Cons have released the occasional kitten photo or blue sweater ad to try to improve Harper's public perception, those have been met with enough derision to be set aside as the key element of the Cons' goals in presenting Harper. So the Cons have instead combined their relentless message control with a strategy of presenting Harper in enough different lights that no single negative theme actually crystallizes around him.

Of course, the opposition parties have done their best to try to counter the misdirection. But they've rarely succeeded in making much stick to Harper - and I'd argue that it's the Cons' ability to avoid having their leader tied to any fatal flaw by juggling conflicting impressions (sometimes even negative ones) which has allowed them to build the case for the status quo which has resonated disturbingly well with the general public in recent months.

Looked at in that light, the NAC performance figured to be a success no matter what happened. Even if Harper had utterly muffed his performance, the negatives associated with that (klutziness? lack of preparation?) would have been so thoroughly at odds with Harper's public image that they wouldn't have been likely to do any particular damage - while of course the chance for positive perceptions was obviously in play. But what's more important is the fact that Harper was able to guarantee several days worth of stories out of the performance, ensuring that the media's attention would be distracted from any lines of attack which anybody else tried to present in the meantime.

In sum, I strongly suspect that the Cons' goal in presenting Harper in a surprising setting like the NAC gala was less to make him seem more human than to make him seem ever more difficult to pin down at all. And judging from the response so far, the opposition parties all have plenty to learn in not allowing themselves to feed into that cycle.

But can we teach him to heel?

Bruce Hyer:

NDP MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.), who was elected in the last election in the northern Ontario "orange crush," in which the NDP picked up a handful of seats from the Liberals, said people in his riding want EI benefits, not elections, and therefore he's happy with his party's case-by-case approach.

"Training Prime Ministers is a lot like training puppies; when they do something bad, you put them in the dog house. And they did bad things 79 times in a row and we put them in the dog house. On this one the Prime Minister did something good and it's time to give him a cookie," he said.

Well said

Following up on Deficit Jim Flaherty's declaration that the "real economy" consists of asset valuations on paper rather than real people making real products while working at real jobs, Tom Korski slams the undue focus on GDP over more important factors:

In the weird math of GDP the most dysfunctional nations have the "best" growth rates. Angola is forecasting 13 per cent "growth" this year due mainly to police corruption and power blackouts that last two months. Other world-leading GDP rates are 12 per cent in Ethiopia (drought), 11 per cent in Rwanda (cholera) and 10 per cent in Niger (kidnapping). By comparison, placid Sweden is mired in recession and carefree Denmark has fallen off a GDP cliff (see CIA World Factbook: National Product Real Growth Rates).
...
People who are serious about economic statistics cite the GDP mainly for entertainment value. Before announcing an end to recessions they consult more meaningful data like employment (now down in Canada), loan defaults (up), value of goods in transit (down) and investment in machinery (way down).

Yet the GDP, the most dubious statistic, dominates news coverage. And the GDP says amid one of the most dreadful years in postwar Canada, things are looking up.

The recession is over because we are deeper in debt.

The recession is over because we are printing more money.

The recession is over because a man on TV said so.

On unclear responsibilities

So much for the theory that last week's fracas involving Denis Coderre might at least encourage Michael Ignatieff to break down some of the Libs' more anti-democratic tendencies, as he's now declared that somebody else will soon ascend to the same "lieutenant" role previously occupied by Coderre:

Ignatieff also told reporters that he will nominate someone to replace Coderre as Quebec lieutenant in the coming days, most likely another elected MP.

"I will name this representative, and I believe we will choose perhaps at the same time a leading organizer," he said.

That would seem to signal that Ignatieff is taking Scott Reid's advice and splitting up responsibilities for planning and organizing. But it's the former part of the job description which looks to be a particularly problematic one as matters stand. Despite the odd agreement among the Globe and Mail's strategist panel, there's no apparent reason why a party would be best served creating a single position which is so sacred that even the party's elected (or appointed) leader doesn't dare to exercise oversight over its actions. And that seems to be the Libs' idea of a lieutenant which Ignatieff is preserving, as a person who never answers to the party as a whole is handed the authority to make decisions such as appointing and removing candidates which may override both the desires of grassroots on the riding level, and the interests of the national party.

But it gets worse for Ignatieff. Even if one somehow saw value in the Coderre vision of a fiefdom where a single appointed person holds the "moral authority" to make all decisions within a province without considering anything but his own political interests, the reality is that Ignatieff has already ensured that there will be serious doubts about the actual authority of Coderre's replacement. Which means that even if Ignatieff isn't concerned about creating accountable structures in principle, he'd still have reason to set them up if only due to the fact that nobody will believe that his next lieutenant's decisions are any more final than Coderre's.

Instead, by maintaining the lieutenant position even after he's undercut the arbitrary authority which provides its foundation, Ignatieff has left himself with the worst of both worlds. Even as he publicly clings to anti-democratic notions of full Quebec command by an unelected figure, he's ensured that whoever holds the position next will be taken less than entirely seriously in the job - and neither the next lieutenant nor Ignatieff figures to benefit from the doubts Iffy has created.

(Edit: fixed typo/wording.)

On contempt

It's certainly worth noting noting the difference in Stephen Harper's official attitude toward NAC galas from last year to this year.

But I'd argue that Harper's appearance last night actually confirms his earlier message that he sees no value in recognizing or celebrating artistic achievement. Last year, he did that more directly by attacking the concept of gala performances - but isn't it just as much of an insult to suggest that the NAC's gala is properly commandeered as a tool for Harper's own political promotion, rather than serving as a showcase for actual artists?

Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging

The good news from Friday night's loss to B.C. is that the 'Riders' greatest weakness for most of the season turned into a massive strength. While the Lions missed two field goals and, Saskatchewan's special teams were solid across the board, with Luca Congi nailing two long field goals, Jamie Boreham punting effectively, Jason Armstead posting only one return that might be worth questioning (that in returning a missed field goal to the 13 rather than conceding a single) and the cover teams limiting the Lions' returns all night.

But unfortunately, there isn't much else positive to be said about the game, particularly for such a close contest. And while most of the attention seems to have focused on the offence's ineffectiveness until its last drive, the more worrisome angle to me looks to be the defence's difficulty in controlling the Lion offence.

Particularly after Ricky Ray's first-half demolition of the defence two weeks ago, one would expect the 'Riders to have schemed to control a precision passing game. But for the bulk of the game, Buck Pierce was allowed to do a fairly effective imitation of Ray - getting to the one-yard line mostly with a passing attack on the first two drives, and into field goal range on the next three before the Lions punted for the first time on their last drive of the first half. The most charitable explanation I can see is that the 'Riders' game plan was focused on trying to rattle Pierce even at the expense of giving up significant yardage - but even assuming that the team was following a strategy that odd, one would think that the first half-dozen times where Pierce took big hits as an acceptable price for making a play would have hinted that the plan wasn't working.

The defence was somewhat more effective through most of the second half. But it then showed its weakness again when Saskatchewan could least afford it, allowing the Lions to get into field-goal range on their final drive with little resistance.

Fortunately, the defensive issues were masked by the Lions' difficulty converting on their drives. On two drives, the defensive line managed to stuff runs from the 'Riders' one-yard line, and of course it deserves praise for that. But when it comes to Whyte's missed field goals, the defence can't take any particular credit for the low point total. Which means that the Lions would have had eight additional points just by successfully kicking makeable field goals, or sixteen if they'd managed the basic tasks of making their field goals and converting on touchdown opportunities from the one-yard line.

All of which is to say that the close score ultimately flattered a 'Rider team which was mostly outplayed on both sides of the ball. And while the upcoming game against the Argonauts may make for an ideal opportunity to get back on the winning side of the ledger, the 'Riders are running out of time to develop some consistency in dealing with their division rivals.

Deficit Jim: Your unemployment isn't real

In case there was any doubt, Jim Flaherty lets Canadians know that as far as he's concerned, the "real economy" doesn't include such trifling matters as whether workers can find jobs:

“We have to be patient,” Mr. Flaherty said. “Our expectation should be that we will have a persisting unemployment problem well into 2010. Our economy will be recovering. We will see some moderate growth in 2010 but the employment numbers will lag the recovery in the real economy.”

Now, it might well be accurate to say that employment numbers would be expected to lag compared to other variables such as nominal GDP numbers. But Flaherty's statement is telling in going far beyond a comparison between different economic indicators.

Rather than recognizing that the availability of employment is even a factor in Canada's economic well-being, Flaherty has let slip that he sees it as entirely disconnected from the health of the "real economy". Which should provide a strong hint as to how little prospect there is that Flaherty's policies will be focused on anything but finding new bubbles to inflate for the purpose of generating gaudy growth rates - no matter how little resemblance the results may bear to the realities facing large numbers of Canadians.

On popular positions

There's still an open question as to how the NDP can turn current warm-and-fuzzies into more substantive support when it's actually time to go to the polls. But in the wake of today's Harris-Decima poll (warning: PDF), it's difficult to reach any conclusion but that the NDP has been the big winner so far in this fall's Parliamentary maneuverings:

Nationally, Jack Layton’s position is the most popular, supported by almost 3-in-4 Canadians. Nationally, 72% supported Mr. Layton’s position that the NDP will support the government for as long as it takes for EI legislation to become law and the new money distributed, including 18% who strongly supported this position. This position has broad appeal nationwide with no less than 66% in any region indicating they support his position on the matter. Among New Democrats, 81% are supportive of this position, while 13% are opposed. The position of the NDP leader is also supported by 70% of Liberals and 78% of Conservatives.

Gilles Duceppe’s position is well-supported in Quebec and among BQ supporters. In Quebec, 70% of respondents support Mr. Duceppe’s position, while 20% are opposed. Among his own supporters, his support jumps further with 86% of BQ voters supporting his position, and 14% opposing it.

Nationally, 31% of respondents either strongly support (11%) or support (20%) Mr. Ignatieff’s position that he no longer has confidence in the government and would no longer support it. 57% are opposed to this position, including 24% who are strongly opposed to it. Mr. Ignatieff’s position is most popular in Quebec, where 40% support it, and least popular on the Prairies, where 64% are opposed. Unsurprisingly, his position is more popular among Liberals than other voting groups, with 54% of Liberals supporting his position and 39% opposing it. However, this split is by far the lowest support any Opposition leader received among their own supporters.

In fact, the commentary actually seems to understate the gap in support for the leaders' positions. Layton's stance isn't just more popular with his own party than Ignatieff's, it's actually favoured by Liberal supporters compared to what Ignatieff has on offer - and by a fairly noteworthy gap (70%-54%).

And equally remarkably, Layton's stance that the NDP will avoid toppling the Cons in order to pass EI reforms is more popular in Quebec (77% support) than Gilles Duceppe's position that he "he may or may not support the government solely on the basis of whether the legislation to be voted on helped Quebec or not" (70% support).

Again, there's still a significant question as to how the NDP can best build on its current position. And it of course shouldn't be forgotten that Michael Ignatieff managed to secure some momentary public support as well when he was the one acting on the basis of avoiding an election. But for now it looks undeniable that the NDP's move get improved EI legislation passed has been a huge win in terms of public opinion - and the NDP surely prefers the question of how best to build on its successes to the Libs' position of actively debating whether it's time to panic.

On narrowing perspectives

There's been plenty of talk about the content-sharing agreement between the CBC and the National Post. But as problematic as it is for the CBC to be outsourcing any of its content, I'm surprised there doesn't seem to have been any discussion of exactly what it is that the CBC is farming out - and what that figures to mean for those who see media diversity as an important priority:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Post today announced an agreement which will allow both organizations to share content across their respective media platforms. The agreement is effective immediately.

CBC.ca will run daily financial stories and podcasts from the Financial Post in CBC’s online Money section, and The National Post will run daily sports stories in the sports section of nationalpost.com and periodically in the sports section of the newspaper. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Now, I'd think there's little room for dispute that most media outlets have a self-interested perspective when it comes to discussion of financial and economic matters. As major corporate entities themselves, they have every incentive to present reporting and commentary that affirm their own nature and serve the interests of their corporate owners - even if the effect is purely unintentional. (And of course it should be mentioned that the National Post tends to be a particularly noteworthy offender on that front.)

In contrast, the CBC is the only national media outlet which can combine both the capacity and reach to investigate and report on financial issues across the country, and an internal structure which gives it a different perspective on such issues - even if it too is bound to be sensitive to the interests of corporate advertisers. Which makes it a serious concern if the CBC is about to amplify the views of just another corporate media outlet rather than continuing to offer its own take. And the problem is equally obvious whether one actually prefers the CBC's theoretical position to that of the corporate media, or merely recognizes enough value in media diversity to view it as a plus for both types of perspectives to be presented.

Mind you, the deal's announcement doesn't say specifically that the CBC is actually planning to cut back on its own financial reporting. But it would only make sense that to the extent it plans to populate its own Money section with content from the National Post, the CBC will end up reducing its own reporting efforts. Which means that while the one media outlet capable of remedying that problem instead directs its attention toward reporting on sports (where there's surely far less reason for concern about presenting multiple perspectives as a matter of citizen information), Canadians will have effectively nothing but corporate voices to listen to in a major area of public interest.

On news dumps

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that these two stories both managed to surface in exactly the same Friday news cycle, leaving no time for any particular research or response before the weekend:

- Brad Wall's old boss Grant Devine was awarded the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, presumably for his breathtaking achievements in the fields of deficit-accumulating and economic mismanagement. The majority of the advisory body responsible for the choice would have been selected personally by Wall in 2008 (given the previous pattern of appointments in 1996 and 2002 and the three-year term which applies to the position) - but as best I can tell, he didn't bother publicizing even the fact that he'd actually made the appointments, much less the names of those who are now responsible for choosing Devine.

- Brad Wall's old boss Grant Devine has stepped down from the board of the still-disputed Saskatchewan PC trust fund. And in the process, the man who was just honoured by a Wall-appointed committee took the opportunity to endorse Wall's government and suggest that the money which would otherwise be used to revive his old party should be diverted toward a new wingnut welfare program.

Nope, nothing smells the least bit off about this arrangement. And it's still entirely unfair to point out that there might be some problematic links between the Devine government which decimated the province in the '80s and the Wall government which is following in its footsteps.

Musical interlude

Skydiggers - What Do You See?

On telling responses

It's definitely for the best that the misuse of federal resources to fund-raise for Con MP and Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt is going to be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. But it's worth noting what could be done in the meantime to ensure the Cons don't wrongly benefit from even what they acknowledge to have been improper - and what it might mean that they seem to be deflecting instead.

After all, it would seem to be a fairly easy step to determine exactly how many of the attendees at Raitt's fund-raiser appeared in response to Janet MacDonald's e-mail, and ensure that the Cons return or at least set aside the funds raised through the Port Authority. But if they're not willing to take even that type of basic action to avoid benefiting from wrongdoing, might it signal that the Cons aren't swimming in quite as much spare cash as they'd like to claim?

Messages received

While we're on the subject of public input from concerned Saskatchewan citizens, it's worth noting that there still seems to be some information available for public release from this summer's uranium consultation process. While Dan Perrins' report referenced thousands of submissions (most of them against nuclear development), it appears that only a few dozen organizational submissions along with full meeting recordings and notes have been released in full. And as far as I can tell, that leaves hundreds of written and electronic submissions getting included only in Perrins' statistical analysis rather than being made available for public debate.

So it's worth asking: is there any plan in the works to make the balance of the submissions public (with personal information removed of course) to ensure that all of the ideas counted by Perrins are also available for public review? And if not, might a FOIP request be in order?

A chance to be heard

For anybody interested in appearing before the Standing Committee on Crown and Central Agencies to talk about Saskatchewan's energy strategy, the witness guide is here (warning: PDF), and the deadline to let the committee know you're interested in speaking at the round of hearings from the 6th to the 19th is noon today. So now would be the time to make a request if you haven't already.

Unfortunately, the process doesn't provide any guarantee that any particular witness will be heard by the committee, which will put together its own witness list based on the requests it receives. But this still looks to be one of the few ways in which the Wall government will ever hear from anybody outside its corporate bubble - so I'll encourage anybody interested to make that known.

Particularly idle musings on today's confidence vote

1. On its own terms, the Liberal motion specified that they had "lost" confidence in the government, such that it would not accurately describe the position of a party which never had confidence in the Harper Cons to begin with. Discuss.

2. Over/under on the first declaration that the NDP's voting "present" means that it's imitating Barack Obama: 9:21 PM EST.

On pre-emption

Speaking of Lib deflection and projection, Brian Topp nicely pre-empts any attempt to tar the NDP with the "Toronto-run/top-down" criticisms being levelled at Michael Ignatieff by pointing out Jack Layton's diverse inner circle and focus on consultation. But is it enough to point out something as easily ignored as reality to a party which is mirroring many of Stephen Harper's principles and tactics? Stay tuned...

Heads up

This morning's post on the possibility that Stephen Harper might be able to parlay Lib MPs jumping ship into a majority without another election was intended to be a "where the puck is going" type of analysis rather than a description of where matters likely stand now. But in keeping with the hockey analogy, let's point out where the nearest goon figures to be during the course of the play.

The moment any names of Lib MPs actually considering crossing the floor become public, watch for a "little birdie" to leak the rumour that Olivia Chow is planning to join the Cons (presumably egged on by the "Mulcair people"), and at least a half-dozen of the less-canny/more-dishonest Lib bloggers to discuss how this proves it's really the NDP that's in trouble.

Municipal roundup

The final lists of nominated candidates for next month's municipal elections are in from Regina and Saskatoon. And there are a few interesting notes based on the last set of contestants to enter the field.

In Regina, the mayoralty race will once again feature three candidates, as Linda White has joined the race against Pat Fiacco and Jim Elliott. It remains to be seen whether either of the challengers will be able to develop much traction, but it's certainly for the best to have a few different perspectives on the city's direction.

Meanwhile, there were also a few noteworthy developments in the council races:

- In Ward 8, Donna Standingready is mostly emphasizing her strong work resume with the provincial government and the First Nations Family Support Centre in challenging Michael O'Donnell. But she also brings a long history of involvement in the Saskatchewan NDP which made her one of Dwain Lingenfelter's named leadership endorsers.

- In Ward 10, the already-crowded race featuring incumbent Jerry Flegel and Chris Szarka now also includes Michael Cassona, whose resume includes the presidency of the Regina Multicultural Association among other community involvement.

- The Ward 1 race won't be quite as crowded as the one in 2006, but both Shawn Kuster and Andy Asherbranner look to be mounting noteworthy challenges to incumbent Louis Browne.

As a whole, the election will feature only two acclamations for Council positions, meaning that Regina voters will have plenty of opportunity to chart the city's course. Candidate bios for the mayoralty, council, and public and separate school board races are available on the City's website.

Likewise in Saskatoon, there looks to be a fairly strong set of races overall: the three acclaimed council positions are balanced out in part by multi-challenger races in Wards 2, 8 and 10, while Lenore Swystun's official entry into the mayoralty race will make her one of four challengers to Don Atchison.

In sum, it looks like we're in for a lively month of municipal campaigning. But we'll have to stay tuned to find out what that will mean for the direction of Saskatchewan's two largest cities in the long run.

On retention strategies

I’ll mostly leave it to others to discuss the merits of Don Martin’s advice for Michael Ignatieff. But it’s worth using Martin’s column as a reminder that there’s more than one path from the status quo to a Harper majority – and the Libs’ current state of disarray may only help to produce that result.

Here are the relevant pieces from Martin:

Fire Denis Coderre

The former Quebec lieutenant did more than mere subordination when he quit in a huff at being overruled in a Montreal riding nomination fight. When he summoned media to blast his leader’s Toronto preference, he precipitated a family feud and handed the Bloc Québécois an invitation to attack the Liberals as a poor fit with Quebec interests. Having watched Prime Minister Stephen Harper ditch a candidate this week for merely stating the obvious — elect a Conservative if you want stimulus megabucks in your riding — Mr. Ignatieff must show similar spine and get rid of an MP who became a traitor to his party’s hopes. If he wants to be a particularly evil genius, he could simply refuse to sign Mr. Coderre’s nomination papers, thus denying him the right to run as a Liberal. It’s drastic, but necessary, action.
…
Bond with caucus

This is a very speculative rumble, but at least two MPs have mused in private about crossing the floor to join the Conservatives. Others complain their leader is deaf to their input and trivializes their value. Given that the Conservatives are no longer markedly different from the Liberals in fiscal or social policy, Mr. Ignatieff might be more caring of his caucus lest his MPs start looking for another party leader who can do better.

Now, the connection between these two items should be obvious when one considers the current party standings in the House of Commons. At the moment, the Cons’ 143 seats leave them 12 short of a nominal majority in the House.

But that number is somewhat misleading for two reasons. First, with Lib Peter Milliken serving as Speaker (removing his vote from the picture in most cases and obliging him to vote to preserve the status quo in the event of a tie), the Cons effectively gain a relative vote compared to the opposition. And second, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier independent MP Andre Arthur was effectively made an honorary Con as Harper elected not to run a candidate against him – and usually votes the part.

What’s more, the upcoming set of by-elections is likely to see at least one more Con elected, as Bill Casey’s resignation leaves Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley likely to return to its usual party leanings. And it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that another seat might wind up in Con hands.

Now, as long as the party standings leave the Cons 12 seats short of a true majority, the prospect of flipping enough current MPs to bridge that number of seats looks relatively remote. And even a position 8-9 seats short of a functional majority - with no apparent momentum toward getting MPs to switch sides - may make for a sufficiently daunting gap to keep Harper focused on adding to his caucus through elections rather than through floor-crossing.

But if Ignatieff were to expel Coderre from the Libs, it’s difficult to imagine that either Coderre or Harper would have too many scruples about a switch to the Cons. And if a Coderre party switch were followed by two more Libs also gravitating toward power – reducing the majority gap to 5-6 seats while setting a precedent for others who might consider jumping – then the cost/benefit analysis involved in trying to entice existing MPs might look far more appealing both to Harper and to the opposition MPs who might be interested (presumably consisting of power-seeking Libs and right-wing Bloc MPs).

So what does that mean for the Libs’ strategy at the moment? For one thing, they’d be well advised to support Don Davies’ anti-floor-crossing bill if only to increase the pressure on their own MPs to stay loyal.

From a party management standpoint, though, Ignatieff has to worry not only about keeping his party generally satisfied with his leadership, but also with keeping his individual MPs from finding their way over to the Cons as a matter of personal interest. In Coderre’s case, that presumably means trying to be conciliatory rather than responding to his petulance in kind; in the case of caucus members who might be tempted to jump to the Cons even without being expelled first, that requires making a compelling argument as to why individual MPs who may have been enticed to get involved in politics due primarily to the promise of power should stick around opposition benches rather than seeking what Harper might have on offer. And if Ignatieff fails in those tasks, then all the ad campaigns in the world won’t help stop Harper from reaching majority status.

The jury is out

I'm in full agreement with NBC Dipper that the NDP's latest ad figures to strike a chord with a substantial chunk of the general public. And I'll add that it makes perfect sense as an extension of the Darrell Dexter strategy of appearing mature and above the fray compared to one's opponents.

But while it's never a bad thing to build positive associations among those who are relatively far removed from politics (and the "on your side" message can easily enough be adapted to a more adversarial stance come election time), it remains to be seen whether the message will resonate anywhere near as much with Canadians who are inclined to support the NDP based on their seeing the problems with Canada's political system going beyond Harper and Ignatieff needing to "get down to work". And unless the NDP actually does expect either an election in the near future (whether or not based on the HST as a poison pill) or a massive number of otherwise-uninterested Canadians to open up their wallets to the appeal, I'd have to wonder whether its attention would be better focused on rallying and adding to its base than joining the arms race for warm-and-fuzzies.

On disparate treatment

A couple of weeks ago, the McGuinty government tried to pressure the mutual fund industry into backing the HST by threatening to inform the province about the harmful effect of investment fees. But I don't believe anybody else noted how bizarre it was that nobody seemed to be pointing out how problematic it would be for the province to be sitting on such information in the first place.

Now, it looks like the mutual fund industry and McGuinty's Libs are on the verge of a deal: they're currently talking about exempting the industry from the HST, which would presumably lead to the industry then backing the tax which they previously opposed.

So the industry gets a sweetheart deal exempting it from the rules which apply to the rest of the province, plus presumably some assurance that a damaging message won't get released.

The McGuinty government eliminates one of the voices opposing the HST.

And the citizens of Ontario get...no disclosure of the work their government has done on the costs of investment fees, one less voice on their side in trying to fight against a closed-door decision to make their lives more expensive, and one less industry paying the bill if the HST does come to pass.

Anybody else sense that something's not quite right about this arrangement?

Update: Let's note that Greg has already posted about the possible exemption. But I'd think the sequence of events looks an awful lot worse when the seemingly-withdrawn threat of full disclosure about the effect of investment fees is included in the mix.

Edit: fixed wording.

On public interests

Apparently Brad Wall's gang of merry corporate lackeys isn't the only Western government which has been forced to concede that the supposed benefits of contracting public services out to the private sector are purely a mirage. Indeed, Gordon Campbell's government is now in-sourcing project funding and program administration alike due to the simple fact that it's more efficient than the privatized alternative:

The Campbell administration's devotion to the virtues of privatizing and contracting-out government services seems to have been wavering lately. For example, in February, The Surrey Leader's Jeff Nagel paraphrased Partnerships British Columbia chief executive officer Larry Blain as saying "switching from private to public borrowing" for the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion project will save $200 million in financing costs. Ministries have also been asked to keep their professional services contracts to a minimum. And here's another example: during estimates debate last week, Forests and Range Minister Pat Bell said the government's Forests for Tomorrow program - which was being administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP - has been taken in-house, saving $200,000.

Of course, that isn't stopping both Wall and Campbell from trying to tie the hands of future governments in putting the public interest over private profit motives. But surely the fact that both are recognizing the folly of doing just that when they're responsible for the results should be the first step in reversing the trend of pushing public activity into the private sector.

On disharmony

As we await the terms of B.C.'s impending HST agreement, it's worth noting as well that some of the provisions of the preliminary deals seem to have received relatively little attention beyond last week's musings from Dalton McGuinty.

To give some indication as to how harmonization figures to complicate the relationships between provincial and federal governments, Ontario's preliminary agreement includes:
- a requirement that Ontario not raise or lower its sales tax rate for two years;
- a provision allowing for sales tax rebates on a limited amount of the sales tax base;
- a provision allowing Ontario to limit business purchase rebates on provincial sales taxes on a "select list of items" for up to five years, with a three-year phaseout period after that;
- a requirement that the federal government secure Ontario's agreement before reducing the GST so as to affect Ontario's sales tax revenues by more than 1%, or compensate Ontario for its failure to do so.

The first point worth noting is the number of moving parts and complexities involved in harmonizing the taxes which should make the public all the more skeptical of any claims of administrative efficiencies. But more interesting in the long run is the ability of each level of government to hamstring the other's actions.

For any province, the agreement effectively ties its hands to the extent the federal government wishes to make radical changes to the GST's structure which don't adversely affect its revenue base.

By way of example, let's say the Harper Cons were to decide that the current tax system isn't quite regressive enough for their liking and that the GST should be applied to basic groceries. At that point, Ontario would have effectively no recourse against the fact that its 8% provincial tax would be applied to the same items as well. At best, it would be able to set up a rebate within the 5% limit to make use of the sales tax administration system, then try to set up countervailing programs on its own - but in the absence of any remaining structure to actually deal with sales tax at the point of sale, that would be at best an inexact and costly effort which would basically require re-establishing exactly the type of unit which the HST is supposed to eliminate.

In contrast, the province is somewhat protected against any reductions by the 1% of revenue rule. But that would still allow for a steady erosion of provincial income without any compensation if a federal government plans to cut away as much of the tax base as it can without hitting that trigger point - and for the next two years at least, the province wouldn't even have the ability to raise its own tax level to compensate, potentially giving the Harper government significant ability to add to provincial deficits.

At the same time, though, the rule also creates a substantial disincentive for the federal government to carry out any reduction for specific types of goods which might reach the 1% threshold. So ideas such as, let's say, removing the GST from family essentials would potentially become unworkable for a federal government which would not only lose tax revenue of its own but also have to pay provinces to carry out the effort.

So the ultimate effect of harmonization is to make it more difficult for either level of government to take into account the needs of its constituents. And while that may be just fine in the view of the likes of Harper, McGuinty and Campbell, there's plenty of reason for Canadians to be all the more unhappy with the HST scheme.

On deadlines

I'm sure neither level of government will be rushing to make a public show of it given that the public is thoroughly outraged over the HST. But the agreement signed by Deficit Jim Flaherty and his B.C. counterpart in red ink Colin Hansen establishes today as the date by which British Columbia and the federal government were supposed to sign a final HST implementation agreement - so it'll be worth seeing whether either of them is willing to own up to having signed such an agreement, not to mention what it might include. (And that goes doubly given some of the unanswered questions about Ontario's deal which I'll discuss shortly.)

On inefficiencies

If we needed any more evidence that privatization and budget-slashing are just two sides of the same anti-government coin and that both are being pursued with no regard for the public interest, Brad Wall has provided it in truly comic form.

Having set up a P3 secretariat earlier this year without any apparent reason other than their ideological commitment to outsourcing profits, the Sask Party has apparently reached the conclusion that the province doesn't have enough potential corporate giveaways to keep such an entity occupied. At which point they took an operation which they created without considering whether it served any useful purpose - and converted it into an "efficiency secretariat".

Mind you, I'd hate to miss out on the opportunity to offer a constructive suggestion. So let's help the new unit out with a first source of government efficiencies: "don't waste our money on useless projects like P3 secretariats".

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Clearing the path

I suspect we may have just stumbled onto one way to getting Saskatchewanians interested in politics again. But is it possible that Chris Szarka is really only blocking for Stu Foord in Ward 9?

On reputations

I've wondered for quite some time whether anybody has actually paid attention to the NDP's track record of outworking its political opponents. But apparently the list includes Aaron Wherry for one:

But here is Mr. Kennedy now, looking into things, doing research, adding and subtracting large numbers, carrying the one and generally making it his job to hold the government to account on a daily basis. And such is the current state of things that such stuff has seemed no less than revolutionary. Indeed, if you weren’t paying sufficient attention, you might assume Mr. Kennedy was a member of the NDP caucus.

On global impact

Two decades of inaction on climate change from Lib and Con governments alike sure have put Canada on the map internationally:

Last Monday afternoon, standing outside the Houses of Parliament in London in Parliament square, I held my cell phone aloft with a hundred other protesters, taking part in a “climate flash mob,” a seemingly spontaneous but pre-arranged protest against the British government’s inaction on climate change. Everyone was there to flood MPs with phone calls demanding a fair and effective treaty at Copenhagen this December.

Nearby a man stood, holding an upside-down Canadian flag.

“Sorry to bother you—but why are you holding the Canadian flag upside down?” I asked, a little timidly (I figured with my accent he might clock my Canuck identity and tell me off).

“Flying a flag upside down is the internationally recognized symbol of distress,” he answered. “We are facing a climate emergency—and there is no better symbol for that than the nation of Canada.”

Given that Canada has higher per capita greenhouse gas emissions than any other G8 nation, and was branded the “Colossal Fossil” at climate talks in Poznan, Poland, last year for blocking efforts to arrive at an effective treaty on climate change, I couldn’t argue with him.

On coercion

Dr. Dawg's post on Gary Goodyear's attempt to pressure the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) into pulling funding for a conference on the Middle East is definitely worth a read.

But it's worth noting that what Goodyear apparently did may actually be worse in some ways than those in the other incidents mentioned by Dr. Dawg. As ugly as the actions of Maurice Duplessis (in denying a liquor license to a restauranteur based on his support for Jehovah's Witnesses in several legal proceedings) and Lawrence Cannon (in declaring that he's entitled to withhold consular services based solely on his personal whims) may have been, they seem somewhat different in that they represent efforts to reach final judgment on matters involving private citizens (albeit by ministerial fiat).

In contrast, Goodyear looks to have gone a step further by actually using his arbitrary exercise of discretion to try to blackmail an independent public agency into his preferred course of action. From my standpoint, that roughly mirrors the difference between theft (of rights rather than property) and extortion - in that the latter involved a coercive effect on the other party's actions as well as a loss of what's taken. And while both are obviously serious issues, the latter seems far more likely to create a self-perpetuating cycle of abuse.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

On Planet Liberal

Leftdog notes that the Libs' troubles lately have been met with a series of attacks on Jack Layton and the NDP - and indeed the blog response noted by Leftdog looks to be only a relatively mild example. But it's worth offering a reminder as to why that's the Libs' knee-jerk response.

It's never too hard to figure out what the Libs' primary strategy is in opposition: relying on the assumption that they're the country's "natural governing party", they bide their time waiting for the party in power to self-destruct, and plan to pounce when there's a perceived opportunity to emerge on top in a two-party race.

But the NDP's growth has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan, as the Libs have recognized the potential for another party to present itself as a governing alternative. And knowing that they probably don't have the strength to win a political fight against the Cons, the Libs have thus concluded that their best bet in the short term is to try to sandbag the NDP so as to cling to second place - even if that means helping out the Cons.

Of course, the most vivid example came during the course of the 2008 campaign. There, a Lib party which didn't trust its leader enough to inform him as to how the campaign was going (and which was in the process of ramping down its campaign as a whole) managed to make the effort to send Bob Rae into Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar - the Libs' weakest riding in the entire province, where they held little prospect of improving on their 12% share of the vote from 2006.

In fact, the Libs dropped to fourth place behind the Greens in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. But presumably thanks in part to Rae's visit, their candidate did manage to siphon off just enough support to elect Con Kelly Block over the NDP's Nettie Wiebe. Which would seem to have been the goal all along, even if it brought the Cons one seat closer to a majority.

As a general rule, the Rae principle seems to have been a fairly common theme whenever the Libs have faced problems: when in trouble, attack the NDP in hopes of clinging to second-party status, even if it means strengthening the Cons' hand.

Of course, there's one notable exception to the rule: the Libs' response to the Cons' 2008 fiscal update, where Stephane Dion had the nerve to conclude that his party was better off working with and validating the NDP than allowing itself to be steamrollered by Stephen Harper. And it's that moment of cooperation - not the worst election showing ever for his party - which caused the Libs to decide that they couldn't bear to leave Dion in a leadership role for a minute longer.

So in answer to Leftdog's question, it's fairly obvious why the Libs think it's a "good strategy" to respond to adversity by projecting their problems onto the NDP, or otherwise doing more to attack the fourth party in Parliament than the government they claim to oppose. But the more important question is whether progressive Canadians share the view that the Libs' standing as the default alternative is more important than what happens under Con government. And if not, then it's long past time to recognize that the Libs' party structure is a barrier to better government rather than a means to achieve it.

(Edit: fixed typo, wording.)

On disorganization

Following up on the question of what Denis Coderre's resignation will mean, I doubt the Libs will particularly mourn the loss of his cousin and the few other operatives who also quit today. But if his star candidate recruits start fleeing as well (as Natalie Le Prohon is apparently considering), that could signal a distinct lack of confidence in the Libs' organizing capacity without Coderre in charge - which in turn could become a self-fulfilling prophecy in a hurry.

Out of order

It's difficult to disagree entirely with the view that Denis Coderre's resignation as Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant could theoretically help the Libs in the long run, both in taking Coderre himself out of the spotlight and in potentially eliminating altogether the concept that a single power broken would be appointed to single-handedly choose candidates for the entire province of Quebec.

But there would still seem to be some open questions in the shorter term as to just how much of the Libs' already-limited Quebec machine might be taken out of play (or turned against the Libs) now that Coderre has announced his intention to take his ball and go home in about the most damaging way possible. And considering that Michael Ignatieff is the second Lib leader in a row to conclude both that the lieutenant position was a necessary one and that Coderre was a preferred choice for the job, one would have to figure either that Coderre has some significant organizational heft which he can withdraw from the party, or that the Libs' judgment about their own Quebec operation has been even worse than would seem to be the case from the outside.