The New Democrats have been reinvigorated under the leadership of Jack Layton. After Monday, they may well challenge the Liberals as the principal national standard-bearer for the roughly two voters in three who disagree fundamentally with the course charted by the Harper Conservatives. Progressive voters should give them their support on Monday.
...
New Democrats have shown at the provincial level that once in office they can square their social conscience with fiscal responsibility. They are the party of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow — pragmatists with a vision and a heart. Now that a much more significant role beckons at the federal level they must accept the challenge of developing that approach nationally as well.
...
Elections are about the future, and the Liberals have not made a persuasive case for themselves as the alternative in 2011.
Fortunately, this time there is a real choice. Voters who believe Canada should aspire to something greater than the crabbed, narrow vision offered by the Harper Conservatives should look to Jack Layton and the New Democrats on Monday.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
On endorsements
Like their personal counterparts, I'd generally classify newspaper endorsements as relatively inconsequential except to the extent they differ substantially from what one would expect. Which means that while the predictable effort by most of the corporate media to circle the wagons around the Harper Cons doesn't mean much, the Star's endorsement of the NDP is the one worth taking more seriously:
Friday, April 29, 2011
Musical interlude
Let's make a positive appeal from an NDP supporter into the last musical interlude of the election campaign.
Geoffrey Stone - Anthem for the NDP
[Update: Fixed link.]
Geoffrey Stone - Anthem for the NDP
[Update: Fixed link.]
On distractions
Lest anyone try to make too much of Fox News North's desperate plea for attention, I'll guess that the direct effects woun't figure to be all that strong in either direction. Yes, the story actually fits nicely with the NDP's call to fix politics as they stand, but I'd expect that to roughly balance out the intended effect of smearing Jack Layton.
That said, though, the indirect effect looks to be far more important.
With the Cons having taken their time even beginning to answer the possibility that the NDP might be able to form government, their closest media ally has now ensured that their choice of anti-NDP messages will be receive limited discussion as election day approaches. Which doesn't necessarily mean the NDP will benefit in the end - but may mean that we shouldn't expect much to change from the support levels and trends already in place today.
That said, though, the indirect effect looks to be far more important.
With the Cons having taken their time even beginning to answer the possibility that the NDP might be able to form government, their closest media ally has now ensured that their choice of anti-NDP messages will be receive limited discussion as election day approaches. Which doesn't necessarily mean the NDP will benefit in the end - but may mean that we shouldn't expect much to change from the support levels and trends already in place today.
Friday Afternoon Links
Miscellaneous material to end your week.
- Toby Sanger puts the NDP's track record as Canada's most responsible party in balancing budgets into handy chart form.
- Anna Jarvis offers her case for the NDP:
- Toby Sanger puts the NDP's track record as Canada's most responsible party in balancing budgets into handy chart form.
- Anna Jarvis offers her case for the NDP:
Jack Layton and the NDP have earned their opportunity. Layton, who heads the latest leadership survey measuring vision, trust and competence, appears genuinely passionate about his social democratic beliefs. He has connected with Canadians across the spectrum and reinvigorated voters. He started this campaign after cancer and hip surgery. As usual, the race was framed as between the Conservatives and Liberals. But Layton persevered.- Meanwhile, Susan Riley sees the possibility of replacing the Harper Cons as the start of a new opportunity for growth in Canadian politics:
People were told to vote strategically. He said vote for whoever you want.
Coalitions? He said he'll work with whomever Canadians elect.
I like the NDP plan to end tax cuts for large corporations (whose profits don't always stay in Canada and whose CEOs make obscene salaries) and instead use the money for tax breaks for small businesses. The party has at least identified health care issues such as home care, long-term care and prescription drug costs. It's the only party with a firm plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions. It's offering much more for pensions. Layton is already doing what nobody else has: bringing Quebecers into the fold.
...
(Con Jeff) Watson delivered a lot of money to this region (or the Conservatives did to shore up his seat). But despite "delusions of grandeur," according to observers, he's not likely to get even a minor portfolio. He'll always be a backbencher.
Put me down for an alternative.
it will not start raining frogs if Layton has more influence in a postelection Parliament. It is nonsense to suggest he would embrace environmental measures if they would bankrupt the economy and even more absurd to suggest that the watchful, cautious Michael Ignatieff would start raising taxes willy-nilly.- Finally, no Lib swoon would be complete without some public infighting. And for all their other failings, Jane Taber and John Ibbitson at least provide that:
Here is what could change, though, at least for non-Conservatives: the big dark cloud that hangs over federal politics might lift with Harper's departure.
A Liberal/NDP coalition -admittedly still a less likely outcome than another Conservative government -would bring confusion, but might also inject much-needed optimism in public life, and, we can only hope, more co-operation.
Whatever happens, spring is a good time to clean house. And the first thing to go should be those outdated myths, distortions of history that obscure any vision of a happier future.
But as Liberals try to refocus in these last crucial days, the infighting is beginning with some senior Liberals blaming a disconnect between the leader and his national campaign team.
They blame the polling – arguing that it misdiagnosed the concerns and attitudes of voters.
But pollster Michael Marzolini said “it’s news to me.”
“How do they think I have misdiagnosed? The only thing I failed to predict was Layton’s debate performance – and that kind of prediction isn’t my job.”
Others are blaming the flurry of confusing messages.
A senior Liberal complained, for example, that while the party’s health-care ads were being run on television, Mr. Ignatieff was talking about “rising up” and calling the Tories anti-democratic. He was repeatedly blown off message and seemed to come up with new themes almost daily, from concern-for-democracy to health care to wasted spending on the G8 and G20 summits. This confused voters.
...
(S)o far, the Liberals are not yet directly blaming Mr. Ignatieff – there is a view that he has done an admirable job. The blaming may come on Tuesday, however, if the polls are correct.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted material for your Friday reading.
- The latest in great polling news: EKOS has the NDP building on its previous support levels, making 30% nationally and 40% in Quebec into the new normal. Nanos suggests the highest NDP vote share yet at 31%, with the possibility of moving much higher if the party can break a statistical tie with the Libs in Ontario. And CROP has the NDP winning multiple seats from the Cons' Quebec base in Quebec City, and even reaching a dead heat in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding where Josee Verner has previously won up to 58% of the vote.
- Chris Cobb offers an explanation for the NDP's orange crush:
- Meanwhile, John Geddes highlights an Innovative Research poll to the effect that the NDP has done nothing but bolster its standing both on individual issues and on general appeal to the middle class:
- And finally, as many others have noted, Peter Russell goes much further in condemning the Harper Cons for their belief that Parliamentary crime pays:
[Edit: Added Nanos result.]
- The latest in great polling news: EKOS has the NDP building on its previous support levels, making 30% nationally and 40% in Quebec into the new normal. Nanos suggests the highest NDP vote share yet at 31%, with the possibility of moving much higher if the party can break a statistical tie with the Libs in Ontario. And CROP has the NDP winning multiple seats from the Cons' Quebec base in Quebec City, and even reaching a dead heat in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding where Josee Verner has previously won up to 58% of the vote.
- Chris Cobb offers an explanation for the NDP's orange crush:
(T)he pundits all underestimated the Tao of Jack and his Walking Stick — the crutch that has become a Churchillian-like symbol brandished with increased frequency in Layton's public battles against his political enemies.- All of which helps to explain why it's being noted that the Cons can't beat the NDP on personality. (Though the Cons' efforts to avoid demonstrating any may have something to do with that as well.)
...
"He struck an emotional chord just by the way he faced up to his setbacks and went about his work. He appeared in the House of Commons after his hip surgery and showed he was a fighter. People developed an emotional relationship with him that wasn't there before."
...
Crucially, added Gauthier, the walking stick has helped Layton differentiate himself from other leaders, especially Stephen Harper.
"In many ways, he has become the foil to Harper," he said. "His body language is different, his appearance is different, and his voice and language is different.
"You have one leader (Layton) reaching into crowds and talking to people versus another whose handlers have barricaded him. The contrast in image between the two is quite remarkable."
- Meanwhile, John Geddes highlights an Innovative Research poll to the effect that the NDP has done nothing but bolster its standing both on individual issues and on general appeal to the middle class:
Early in the election, 31 per cent rated the Conservatives “somewhat better” or “much better” for the middle class, 25 per cent preferred the Liberals, and 23 per cent the NDP. By the Easter long weekend, the Tories were down slightly to 29 per cent, the Liberals off about five points to 20 per cent, and Layton’s NDP up a very substantial 10 point to 33 per cent—vaulting into top spot.- The Star offers a pre-endorsement of its own, rightly concluding that the Cons shouldn't receive another term in government.
...
On impressions of Layton’s underlying attributes, Quebecers also seem to have warmed to him the most. On which leader they associate with “strong leadership,” Layton’s score rose to 31 per cent in Quebec from 14 per cent near the start of the campaign. In the rest of Canada, the climb was to 22 per cent from 14 per cent. Similarly, Layton’s image on attributes like “having the best plan” and “caring about people like me” rose smartly in Canada as a whole, but more markedly in Quebec.
When it came to probing voter attitudes on specific issues, the NDP made big gains during the campaign on protecting the middle class—a major thrust of Latyon’s stump-speech rhetoric and his party’s TV ads—and on understanding the needs of “people like me,” maintaining high ethical standards, and health care.
- And finally, as many others have noted, Peter Russell goes much further in condemning the Harper Cons for their belief that Parliamentary crime pays:
[Edit: Added Nanos result.]
On consistency
Jim Flaherty, speaking as Canada's Minister of Finance, declares that low interest rates are to be preferred, or that interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Response from commentators to the fact that a politician is commenting on the Bank of Canada's monetary policy: zero.
Jack Layton, speaking as a leader in an election campaign, suggests that interest rates ought to stay low while confirming that he won't interfere with the Bank of Canada's discretion. Response from commentators: "ZOMG!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! GET THE SHOTGUN SHELLS AND EMERGENCY RATIONS AND MEET ME IN THE DIEFENBUNKER!!!".
Not that we should expect anything different.
[Edit: fixed label.]
Jack Layton, speaking as a leader in an election campaign, suggests that interest rates ought to stay low while confirming that he won't interfere with the Bank of Canada's discretion. Response from commentators: "ZOMG!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! GET THE SHOTGUN SHELLS AND EMERGENCY RATIONS AND MEET ME IN THE DIEFENBUNKER!!!".
Not that we should expect anything different.
[Edit: fixed label.]
On dilemmas
No, it isn't much of a surprise that the Cons are desperate enough to have based their campaign's closing argument on a single false tweet.
But it'll be especially interesting to see what happens now that the calls they're directing to Jack Mintz aren't producing the desired outcome. Will this be the point where they finally have no choice but to admit to having been wrong? Or will they once again double down on repeating what they know to be incorrect - even as it only highlights the dishonest and delusional politics so many Canadians are eager to replace?
But it'll be especially interesting to see what happens now that the calls they're directing to Jack Mintz aren't producing the desired outcome. Will this be the point where they finally have no choice but to admit to having been wrong? Or will they once again double down on repeating what they know to be incorrect - even as it only highlights the dishonest and delusional politics so many Canadians are eager to replace?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday Evening Links
Assorted content for your end-of-week reading.
- Harris-Decima is the latest pollster to confirm the NDP's momentum, this time with a poll carrying responses from over a week ago which nonetheless places the NDP at 30% and gaining on the Cons.
- Alison takes Patrick Muttart's dismissal from the Harper campaign as a much-needed opportunity to point out the links between Muttart and the Cons' U.S. Republican cousins.
- Paul Wells highlights some of the lasting impacts we can expect from the NDP's surge:
- Finally, "Steve Shutt" on Babble raises an idea which could tell us in a hurry whether the Libs will work on replacing or joining Stephen Harper next week:
- Harris-Decima is the latest pollster to confirm the NDP's momentum, this time with a poll carrying responses from over a week ago which nonetheless places the NDP at 30% and gaining on the Cons.
- Alison takes Patrick Muttart's dismissal from the Harper campaign as a much-needed opportunity to point out the links between Muttart and the Cons' U.S. Republican cousins.
- Paul Wells highlights some of the lasting impacts we can expect from the NDP's surge:
The rise of Jack Layton’s NDP was the story of the campaign’s fourth week. At this writing I have no way to guess whether the NDP will keep rising, or fade away as it has done more than once before. But at any rate, the Layton phenomenon is hardly the only way Canadian voters have stubbornly refused to stick to their assigned role. Conversations are breaking out all over, honest-to-goodness debates, and all the campaign pros in all the war rooms won’t be able to herd us back into our tidy demographic stables again.- Meanwhile, Rick Mercer's brilliant campaign summary includes this damning tidbit on the Harper Cons' duplicity:
...
Layton is not perfect. His ideas for the country will leave many unpersuaded. But he rises because he at least acts like a guy who would rather fix problems than fix blame. Even if he fades in the stretch, something permanent will remain. A whole country has remembered that it does not like to be told what it may talk about and how it may react. And when a country gets its back up the way this one has, it will not go back to sleepy predictability any time soon.
To get a feel for the Harper campaign you only need a few hours. The differences from one event to the other are minuscule. In English Canada they start each event by singing “O Canada,” and Stephen Harper tells the crowd he’s proud to lead a party that starts every event this way no matter where they are in the country. In Quebec they skip this part and they hide the Canadian flags in the plane.Mercer also wonders whether the leader's tour is nothing more than an anachronism - which makes it particularly interesting to note that the NDP has pushed ahead with a full-on tour as part of its successful campaign even though there may have been reason to expect otherwise.
- Finally, "Steve Shutt" on Babble raises an idea which could tell us in a hurry whether the Libs will work on replacing or joining Stephen Harper next week:
I'm wondering how best to get pledges from the Liberals who might survive to not pull a David Emerson, the former Martin Liberal from Vancouver, who between E-Day and the cabinet swearing in had a conversion from the Liberal banner he was elected under to the Harper Conservatives, who were now the one's in charge.
I think it would need to focus on the wide policy differences between the Tories and the Liberals (at least on paper both Jack and Iggy had, until the surge hit, pointed to the commonality between Liberal and NDP platforms) so that voters know that they don't have to worry about voting for the "red" door and getting their MP walking through the "blue" door.
On party interests
Scott Reid is probably right in describing what he thinks the Libs' strategy is driving at as our election campaign draws to a close. But let's take a step back and ask what it says about the party's desperation:
If, in an election where there was a close race between the Libs and Cons for government, the NDP had ever ended a campaign by declaring that voters should ignore policy, principle, leadership and strategy alike, and vote simply based on a desire to preserve their party's brand...
How well would that have gone over as a direct appeal?
And perhaps more importantly, how savagely would it have been shredded by a Lib party declaring that it proved the NDP wasn't interested in stopping a mutual opponent?
In effect, Reid's analysis looks to be the next stage of the Libs' culture of entitlement. Having failed in their effort to dictate that nobody else could stop the Harper Cons, they're now asking that voters put on hold every real consideration at play in the current election campaign - every prospect of replacing the Harper Cons with a better government - solely for the benefit of a party which has shown it can't win support on the merits.
Now, one might point to cases where a relatively similar message has fallen flat (anybody else hearing an echo of Ujjal Dosanjh's plea to at least allow for some B.C. opposition in 2001?). But Reid's pitch looks to be even less justifiable, since he's trying to make the case in an election whose outcome is actually in doubt.
If there's any saving grace for the Libs, it's that enough Canadians may have tuned them out that the message isn't certain to reach all of the voters who may yet vote Lib out of habit. But if "save the furniture" is now the Libs' public appeal rather than merely their internal rallying cry, then there's reason to think there are plenty more votes for the NDP to win as the campaign reaches an end.
The least conventional ballot question in Canadian history is taking shape: Do you care about the Liberal party's future?Leaving aside Reid's own personal stake in the Libs, let's turn the question around.
...
Harper and Layton may discover that many others dislike the idea of overlooking an institution that offers a reliably sensible and centrist option.
They may learn that Canadians are none too eager to reduce future national debates to twin poles of extreme opinion.
They may find that in the quiet of the ballot box, there are many voters who decide they value the Liberal party and will vote to preserve its ability to positively influence their future. Just as it has their past.
If, in an election where there was a close race between the Libs and Cons for government, the NDP had ever ended a campaign by declaring that voters should ignore policy, principle, leadership and strategy alike, and vote simply based on a desire to preserve their party's brand...
How well would that have gone over as a direct appeal?
And perhaps more importantly, how savagely would it have been shredded by a Lib party declaring that it proved the NDP wasn't interested in stopping a mutual opponent?
In effect, Reid's analysis looks to be the next stage of the Libs' culture of entitlement. Having failed in their effort to dictate that nobody else could stop the Harper Cons, they're now asking that voters put on hold every real consideration at play in the current election campaign - every prospect of replacing the Harper Cons with a better government - solely for the benefit of a party which has shown it can't win support on the merits.
Now, one might point to cases where a relatively similar message has fallen flat (anybody else hearing an echo of Ujjal Dosanjh's plea to at least allow for some B.C. opposition in 2001?). But Reid's pitch looks to be even less justifiable, since he's trying to make the case in an election whose outcome is actually in doubt.
If there's any saving grace for the Libs, it's that enough Canadians may have tuned them out that the message isn't certain to reach all of the voters who may yet vote Lib out of habit. But if "save the furniture" is now the Libs' public appeal rather than merely their internal rallying cry, then there's reason to think there are plenty more votes for the NDP to win as the campaign reaches an end.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Yes, it's noteworthy enough that Jack Layton is surging ahead as Canada's first choice for Prime Minister. But perhaps the most stunning news is that the first of those polls comes from Ipsos-Reid - the pollster which regularly places Conservative support (and one would think by association Stephen Harper's) higher than any other. And if even the most Con-friendly of polls is showing Layton ahead, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of the Cons getting any good news as the campaign winds down.
- Meanwhile, the party polling is looking no less promising for the NDP.
- John Duffy notes why the NDP's gains don't figure to be ending anytime soon:
- And Bell also passes along Liam McHugh-Russell's end-of-campaign prediction:
- Stephen Whitworth expresses some restrained displeasure with the Globe and Mail's train wreck of a Con endorsement.
- And finally, Les Perreaux debunks the efforts of political opponents and media alike to make an issue of the NDP's potential wave of new MPs.
- Yes, it's noteworthy enough that Jack Layton is surging ahead as Canada's first choice for Prime Minister. But perhaps the most stunning news is that the first of those polls comes from Ipsos-Reid - the pollster which regularly places Conservative support (and one would think by association Stephen Harper's) higher than any other. And if even the most Con-friendly of polls is showing Layton ahead, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of the Cons getting any good news as the campaign winds down.
- Meanwhile, the party polling is looking no less promising for the NDP.
- John Duffy notes why the NDP's gains don't figure to be ending anytime soon:
There is no reason to believe...that this has to come to a halt. Fact: various polls are now showing the NDP eating not only into the Liberal vote (as in Ontario) but also into the Conservative vote pretty much everywhere outside the prairies. Analysis is catching up. Fact: the NDP surge is showing no sign of abating. Fact: The NDP has a great, upbeat "closer"-style spot on television right now, while the other parties have ads that are not resonating. Fact: The Conservative response, which would probably be impressive, is nowhere to be seen, plus they just lost one of their best strategy guys at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, the Liberals are starting to fall off the coverage radar. Fact: earned media campaign coverage is about to go dark for the Royal Wedding and the final weekend.- Douglas Bell rightly points out that the NDP's surge is based at least as much on the party's appeal to Canadian values as to any protest vote.
...
I am seriously starting to wonder whether some sort of massive genie hasn't been let out of the bottle here. Mr. Harper has framed the campaign and its run-up as an anti-politics exercise. Putting words in the PM's mouth, I described his core pitch as being, "The heck with these elections we've all come to hate. Vote for a Harper majority and all this political crap gets out of your hair for four years." What appears to be happening here is that the anti-politics appeal has found its audience, and it's expression is "the heck with Harper and Ignatieff." The response seems not to have taken the form of Liberal voters sourly staying home and throwing the election to the Conservatives. Rather, it appears the anti-politician mood that the Prime Minister stoked has created an immense opening for Mr. Layton's positive, uplifting, take-a-chance-on-me offering.
- And Bell also passes along Liam McHugh-Russell's end-of-campaign prediction:
I told you two weeks ago that the NDP would need just a glimmer of hope to finally take off, and now they've gotten it. They're finally heading toward their ceiling and that ceiling is high indeed: 130 per cent the height of the Conservatives or the Liberals. You want a seat count? NDP 115, Conservatives 110; Liberals 65; Bloc 18. In the end, politics is possible and suddenly, so are these results. Me, I am still rooting for the NDP because I believe they're serious about us having the Canada we already have, except better. But it's also very exciting that the result we do get five days from now will be determined by the question I said mattered when this whole thing started: whether Canadians believe it's possible for them to have the government they want. And it seems increasingly like they can – and that they will.- Armine Yalnizyan offers a reminder of the Cons' choice to gut the long-form census - and points out the wide range of Canadians affected by their inexplicable disregard for thorough and accurate census data.
- Stephen Whitworth expresses some restrained displeasure with the Globe and Mail's train wreck of a Con endorsement.
- And finally, Les Perreaux debunks the efforts of political opponents and media alike to make an issue of the NDP's potential wave of new MPs.
There's the panic
Yes, it was probably inevitable that the Cons would notice that something was happening outside their campaign bubble and feel a need to lash out at it. But the timing and effect couldn't be worse for Stephen Harper and the Cons.
For all the talk about how campaigns can shift at the last minute, two of the most recent examples (the Cons' late-campaign swoons in 2004 and 2006) also serve as evidence of something else: when Harper ad-libs in trying to seal a campaign, he can be his own worst enemy. And there's plenty of reason to think that's happening one more time - with potentially even more significant consequences.
After all, Harper has spent the entire campaign trying to stay above or outside the fray, effectively portraying any discussion with or about other parties as being beneath him. But with Harper taking the lead role in attacking Layton now, he's giving up any pretense of appearing prime ministerial just at the point where he faces the most serious challenge for the position. (See Wells' Rule of Politics #4 as to why that's particularly dangerous.)
What's more, Harper's choice of attacks also looks to be counterintuitive (to be generous). In effect, Harper is challenging Layton on trust just as all indications suggest that Layton is opening up a wide lead on that point. And with Harper already seen as relatively untrustworthy, he may only cast more doubt on himself by forcing a collision with the positive impression Canadians have formed of Layton.
Of course, one can make the case that Harper didn't have a choice: it's probably too late to develop a brand-new ad campaign to have somebody else serve as the point person in attacking Layton, and the NDP surge certainly demanded that the Cons do something. But Harper's choice of responses may only end up confirming the public's impression that he's a major part of the problem that needs fixing.
For all the talk about how campaigns can shift at the last minute, two of the most recent examples (the Cons' late-campaign swoons in 2004 and 2006) also serve as evidence of something else: when Harper ad-libs in trying to seal a campaign, he can be his own worst enemy. And there's plenty of reason to think that's happening one more time - with potentially even more significant consequences.
After all, Harper has spent the entire campaign trying to stay above or outside the fray, effectively portraying any discussion with or about other parties as being beneath him. But with Harper taking the lead role in attacking Layton now, he's giving up any pretense of appearing prime ministerial just at the point where he faces the most serious challenge for the position. (See Wells' Rule of Politics #4 as to why that's particularly dangerous.)
What's more, Harper's choice of attacks also looks to be counterintuitive (to be generous). In effect, Harper is challenging Layton on trust just as all indications suggest that Layton is opening up a wide lead on that point. And with Harper already seen as relatively untrustworthy, he may only cast more doubt on himself by forcing a collision with the positive impression Canadians have formed of Layton.
Of course, one can make the case that Harper didn't have a choice: it's probably too late to develop a brand-new ad campaign to have somebody else serve as the point person in attacking Layton, and the NDP surge certainly demanded that the Cons do something. But Harper's choice of responses may only end up confirming the public's impression that he's a major part of the problem that needs fixing.
New column day
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Open questions
Now that the NDP is reaching levels of popular support that make a change in government look highly plausible, it's about time to double back to some of the more serious questions about what Stephen Harper might seek to do to stay in power after an election that doesn't go his way.
If he's determined to cling to power and continues to believe that he can get away with absolutely any level of damage to Canada's democratic system that suits his purposes, Harper holds plenty of cards regardless of how Monday's vote actually turns out. He'll technically remain Prime Minister either until he resigns to create a vacancy in the office, or until a non-confidence vote is held. He can put off the latter possibility by refusing to allow Parliament to sit for up to twelve months from the date of the previous dissolution. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure what the remedy would be if Harper were to breach even that minimal requirement.) And even if he allows a new government to be sworn in, he can prevent it from passing any legislation by continuing to whip his majority in the Senate.
So while I wouldn't expect an answer from Harper anytime soon, now would seem to be the time to start asking some pointed questions about what will happen if the election results aren't to the Cons' liking.
First, will Harper resign as Prime Minister if his party fails to secure the largest number of seats in the House of Commons? (Actually, this would seem to be something less than a clear requirement to the extent there's some prospect of his finding support among other parties - but if the answer is "no", then based on Harper's rhetoric about the most seats being the measure of victory then it makes for the first clear indication that all bets are off as to what he'll do to stay in power.)
Second, will Harper summon Parliament to meet at some point before the last possible moment - and allow it to vote on his Throne Speech - even if the likely result is a non-confidence vote against his government?
Third, does Harper plan to comply with the instructions of the Governor General rather than threatening to take a case "to the people" if his attempts to shut down democratic voting mechanisms are overruled?
And finally, if another government takes power, will Harper order his Senators to allow it to pass legislation which receives the approval of the House of Commons?
Needless to say, in any remotely functional democracy the answer should be a clear "yes" to the latter three questions. But there's plenty of reason for concern that Harper will see matters differently.
Update: Turns out I'm not the only one asking these types of questions, and Tom Flanagan offers some theories in response to John Duffy:
[Edit: fixed wording.]
If he's determined to cling to power and continues to believe that he can get away with absolutely any level of damage to Canada's democratic system that suits his purposes, Harper holds plenty of cards regardless of how Monday's vote actually turns out. He'll technically remain Prime Minister either until he resigns to create a vacancy in the office, or until a non-confidence vote is held. He can put off the latter possibility by refusing to allow Parliament to sit for up to twelve months from the date of the previous dissolution. (Indeed, I'm not entirely sure what the remedy would be if Harper were to breach even that minimal requirement.) And even if he allows a new government to be sworn in, he can prevent it from passing any legislation by continuing to whip his majority in the Senate.
So while I wouldn't expect an answer from Harper anytime soon, now would seem to be the time to start asking some pointed questions about what will happen if the election results aren't to the Cons' liking.
First, will Harper resign as Prime Minister if his party fails to secure the largest number of seats in the House of Commons? (Actually, this would seem to be something less than a clear requirement to the extent there's some prospect of his finding support among other parties - but if the answer is "no", then based on Harper's rhetoric about the most seats being the measure of victory then it makes for the first clear indication that all bets are off as to what he'll do to stay in power.)
Second, will Harper summon Parliament to meet at some point before the last possible moment - and allow it to vote on his Throne Speech - even if the likely result is a non-confidence vote against his government?
Third, does Harper plan to comply with the instructions of the Governor General rather than threatening to take a case "to the people" if his attempts to shut down democratic voting mechanisms are overruled?
And finally, if another government takes power, will Harper order his Senators to allow it to pass legislation which receives the approval of the House of Commons?
Needless to say, in any remotely functional democracy the answer should be a clear "yes" to the latter three questions. But there's plenty of reason for concern that Harper will see matters differently.
Update: Turns out I'm not the only one asking these types of questions, and Tom Flanagan offers some theories in response to John Duffy:
If a single party wins more seats than the Conservatives, I think Mr. Harper, based on his statements, will announce his resignation as prime minister. If the Conservatives win a plurality but not a majority, he will carry on as prime minister and try to bring in a budget fairly quickly. If he is defeated in the House, he could (1) offer his resignation as Prime Minister to the Governor General, thereby allowing the latter to ask the leader of the Opposition to form a government; (2) resign as PM and also as party leader, opening up the possibility that the Governor General might ask an interim Conservative leader chosen by caucus to form a government; (3) ask for another election, as Mackenzie King did in 1926. If the GG refused that request, I imagine Mr. Harper would then resign as King did, and the GG would try to find someone else to form a government. I don't foresee anyone challenging the GG's authority with an appeal to the Queen, or ruling by decree. I don't think we will reenact “State of Siege.”Needless to say I'd hope he's right. But until Harper himself starts answering, there's still reason to wonder whether Flanagan is being optimistic based on the Harper he knew rather than the one who's already shut down Parliament once to avoid losing power.
[Edit: fixed wording.]
Wednesday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- David Coletto of Abacus Data offers his theory for the NDP's surge in Quebec which has since spread to the rest of the country:
- It shouldn't come as much surprise. But since I haven't yet seen anybody put the factors together, let's note how the regular polling as to which party is most trusted on health care may largely miss the point as to what position will actually sway votes:
- Dan Gardner points out that there's no reason why a minority government can't function under reasonable leadership - making the Cons' desperate plea for a majority into more of an admission of their own failings than a reasonable argument:
- David Coletto of Abacus Data offers his theory for the NDP's surge in Quebec which has since spread to the rest of the country:
Has all the talk about coalitions at the start of the campaign actually laid a foundation for NDP growth in Quebec?- Toby Sanger notes that fair taxation of Canada'a financial sector could generate upwards of $10 billion per year in extra revenue - which would seem to make for a rather compelling contrast against the service cuts on offer from the Harper Cons.
The BQ has clearly stated it won’t join in a formal coalition with any other parties. And no party has said it would want BQ members in cabinet. Perhaps Quebec voters have decided that although the BQ has done a good job at representing Quebec in the past, it really can’t prevent a Stephen Harper majority. In fact, voters may have figured out that by electing NDP MPs they can actually prevent a Harper minority – by giving the NDP enough seats in Quebec to form a working arrangement with the Liberals elected outside of Quebec.
Fewer BQ seats in Parliament means that the math becomes more palatable for Canadians because the real problem with coalitions was not the principle of a coalition but the idea of separatists holding a government hostage.
...
We found that in Quebec, when given the choice between a Conservative minority government and a coalition or agreement between the Liberals and NDP, 57% of Quebec respondents preferred a coalition while 29% preferred a Conservative minority. 14% were unsure.
An Angus Reid poll released today found that 61% of Quebec respondents believed that “The Conservative government has performed poorly, and does not deserve to form a government after the next election” – the highest percentage in Canada.
So what we may be seeing in Quebec, and the data backs up this argument, is that Quebecers have realized that they can prevent another Conservative government not by voting BQ, but by voting NDP. If this is true, what we could be witnessing is a collective decision to vote strategically from a large part of a provincial electorate.
- It shouldn't come as much surprise. But since I haven't yet seen anybody put the factors together, let's note how the regular polling as to which party is most trusted on health care may largely miss the point as to what position will actually sway votes:
Twenty-seven per cent of voters ranked the economy and job creation as the most important election issue, compared to 18 per cent who placed health care as the most important issue and 18 per cent who put government ethics and accountability at the top of the list, the survey suggests.Given that the Cons are actively affirming their support for private health service delivery, that finding would seem to confirm that there's virtually no overlap between the relatively high number of voters listing the Cons as their first choice on health care (about 30 per cent in the polls linked above) and the voters who are actually motivated by the issue - while the NDP's position as the strongest advocate for public delivery has the potential to deliver a large number of votes.
...
Of the voters who ranked health care as the most important issue, 87 per cent of the survey respondents said they were in favour of supporting medicare rather than having more privatization of medical care and services. Although Ottawa transfers billions of dollars annually to provincial governments for health care, the provinces have jurisdiction over delivery of health services.
Preference for supporting medicare over having more privatization was highest in the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. Fully 98 per cent of respondents in both regions said they want to support medicare over more privatization. In Ontario, of the medicare supporters who said the issue is the most important in the campaign, 90 per cent favoured medicare support over more privatization.
- Dan Gardner points out that there's no reason why a minority government can't function under reasonable leadership - making the Cons' desperate plea for a majority into more of an admission of their own failings than a reasonable argument:
In the last Conservative budget, the gap between what the NDP asked for its support and what the Conservatives offered was tiny and so a new Conservative minority could make modest concessions to the NDP, pass the budget, and get on with governing. But Harper has already said his government will re-introduce the budget without changes, which suggests this simple bit of negotiation and compromise won’t happen. And we will get the instability the prime minister predicted.- Finally, there's a new leader in race for the dubious honour of "most bizarre campaign coverage from a major media outlet": Tamsin McMahon's article which not only wastes readers' time with the question, "does the federal NDP actually want to be in power?", but manages to answer with something close to a "no".
Why? It’s not a defect inherent in minority government. Nor is it that the big three parties have irreconcilable visions and policies. In fact, the substantive disagreements between the parties are as small or smaller than they’ve ever been in modern times.
No, the problem is the leader.
Stephen Harper gambled everything on winning a majority. Now, after swearing that anything less would cause earth to shudder and sky to weep, it would be personally calamitous if a Conservative minority government functioned smoothly. Harper said there would be instability, damn it. And he will make sure of it.
They write letters
And if they aren't contributing to an NDP-led government, I heartily endorse the prospect that the Libs' top figures have plenty of time to keep right on writing open letters by this time next week.
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Gilles Duceppe never saw it coming. Stephen Harper won't admit it's happening. But the NDP's surge to within striking distance of forming government is getting confirmed by poll after poll.
[Update: After poll.]
[Update II: After poll.]
- Naturally, Sun Media buries the results in a story about party mergers. But in case there's any doubt whether Canadians want Stephen Harper to plunge the country into a do-over election if he doesn't get the majority he's demanding, Canadians are saying otherwise even in an alternative based on the most Con-friendly framing possible:
- James Bow chimes in on why the media's treatment of the NDP's newcomers to the political scene is off base:
- Finally, Aaron Wherry nicely sums up the basic precondition for supporting the Harper Conservatives:
- Gilles Duceppe never saw it coming. Stephen Harper won't admit it's happening. But the NDP's surge to within striking distance of forming government is getting confirmed by poll after poll.
[Update: After poll.]
[Update II: After poll.]
- Naturally, Sun Media buries the results in a story about party mergers. But in case there's any doubt whether Canadians want Stephen Harper to plunge the country into a do-over election if he doesn't get the majority he's demanding, Canadians are saying otherwise even in an alternative based on the most Con-friendly framing possible:
If Conservative Leader Stephen Harper doesn't get the majority he's yearning for and the opposition parties gang up to replace him, the poll suggests 40% of Canadians would support a coalition government with the support of the Bloc.Needless to say, the number of respondents supporting a coalition would figure to go even higher if (as seems entirely possible) the Bloc's support isn't needed. [Update: See e.g. the response to EKOS' less-slanted question.] Which means that the Cons would seem to have little choice but to pull out all the stops now - unless they have another plan to cling to power.
But 28% would want another federal election, while 30% were non-committal.
- James Bow chimes in on why the media's treatment of the NDP's newcomers to the political scene is off base:
(L)et me run two reads of this by you, and see what you think of each one:- It's great news to see a surge in turnout at the advance polls. But while I don't buy some of the absurd spin about it reflecting only campaign workers, I do have to wonder whether it reflects a conscious effort to turn out support early which might not be reflected in final voting numbers.
Read One: NDP candidate works at a campus bar and has taken a vacation mid-campaign in Las Vegas.
Read Two: A single-mother working to raise her child, put her name forward as an NDP candidate knowing she would probably lose, booked an extra cheap vacation in Las Vegas weeks before the election was called and could not cancel the ticket.
Tell me: doesn’t read one sound a heck of a lot more sinister to you? Care to guess what certain media pundits and more than a few partisans chose to run with?
...
For today, I think it’s unfortunate that the media have chosen to report Ms. Brosseau’s situation in the most sinister way possible. It may make for good copy, but it does a disservice to dedicated individuals like Ms. Brosseau who believe enough in democracy to step forward and fight a campaign they believe they cannot win.
- Finally, Aaron Wherry nicely sums up the basic precondition for supporting the Harper Conservatives:
Stephen Harper seems to ask only that you disregard—or remain entirely unaware of—recent events, and bow in total deference to what he is saying to you now.
Never mind that two and a half years ago he had Parliament dissolved, flouting his own government’s apparently flimsy attempt to limit a Prime Minister’s ability to do so. Never mind that after that election—as a recession set in—he had Parliament prorogued so he might avoid defeat on an imminent confidence vote. Never mind that a year after that he had Parliament prorogued again—this time so he could have more time to have his picture taken watching hockey games with Wayne Gretzky—and that Canada was thus left without a functioning House of Commons for nearly three months as it proceeded with the aforementioned and still-fragile recovery.
Never mind that he is here now, campaigning for re-election, because last month his government became the first in the history of British democracy to be found in contempt of the House of Commons.
For all of these reasons and various other examples as well, Mr. Harper is often accused of abusing the institutions of Parliament, of disrespecting the formal levers of our democracy and of holding the House of Commons in disdain. And so here he stands in front of his fellow citizens and professes that there is no other place he’d rather be. It is as if he is taunting his detractors. Daring them to call him on it. Mocking their outrage.
He is not creating alternate realities, he is simply daring enough to breeze past any assertion of reality which does not serve his purposes. He is looking you in the eye, shrugging and moving on. He is entirely undaunted by his own record of words and actions.
On posturing
Sure, there have been a couple of responses already to corporate Canada's efforts to tell scary stories about a possible NDP government. But let's add one more to the list which seems to me to highlight how the NDP's cooperative approach to politics leaves absolutely no room for such fearmongering.
Over two years ago, word came out that the NDP was fact reaching out to Canada's financial sector in the course of developing its economic policies - and impressing a number of the people it consulted along the way:
And what's more, the above story came out in early January 2009, at a time when a coalition government including the NDP was still a real possibility. So one can't explain the difference between the message sent then and the fearmongering we're seeing now as being based on some sudden realization that the NDP might be close to power.
Which would seem to signal that any alarmism about what an NDP government might mean for the economy is more in the realm of utter fabrication than serious concern. Instead, the real problem for at least some interest groups seems to be that that the NDP's thoughtful policies might well catch on - and that serves as all the more reason for voters to be encouraged by the opportunity for change.
Over two years ago, word came out that the NDP was fact reaching out to Canada's financial sector in the course of developing its economic policies - and impressing a number of the people it consulted along the way:
(T)he NDP caucus has been calling on external advisors and allocating more resources to strengthening its research on financial policy.That's right: over a period of several years, the NDP has been talking with both outside experts and the financial sector - winning accolades for being "pragmatic" in its discussions generally, and having a position that was "thoughtful and backed up by good research" even where there was disagreement over the best possible policies.
"There as been an effort to expand the capacity of the caucus," says an aide, who points to meetings with outside economists such as Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada...
"I think you can see in Mulcair a fairly pragmatic approach to our issues. It is probably a more effective approach. I think he is on to something," says one bank lobbyist.
One former lobbyist still active on Bay Street says during meetings with senior party figures they had consistently shown themselves to be "thoughtful and backed up by good research, though we didn't always agree."
And what's more, the above story came out in early January 2009, at a time when a coalition government including the NDP was still a real possibility. So one can't explain the difference between the message sent then and the fearmongering we're seeing now as being based on some sudden realization that the NDP might be close to power.
Which would seem to signal that any alarmism about what an NDP government might mean for the economy is more in the realm of utter fabrication than serious concern. Instead, the real problem for at least some interest groups seems to be that that the NDP's thoughtful policies might well catch on - and that serves as all the more reason for voters to be encouraged by the opportunity for change.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Subtle
Canada's corporate sector is officially launching CASH Care to try to wrest control over our health sector from anybody who doesn't put profits first. This might be just the right time to have the party that fought for universal health care in charge to fight back the tide.
On clean campaigns
Sure, the NDP's opponents are salivating over what isn't yet known about the party's candidates and potential MPs in Quebec. But let's put that argument based on a lack of evidence into perspective.
After all, we're currently stuck with a micro-managing Prime Minister whose level of control putatively extends as far as running background checks on individuals entering his party's rallies. Yet his party's campaign has been derailed in just the last couple of days by revelations that they've appointed a fanatic who rants about "black shirts" and the "SS" to a gun advisory committee, their happy acceptance of campaign support from a dangerous offender and Paul Bernardo admirer, and the knowledge that a star candidate has been repudiated by her own family while gladly accepting an endorsement from one of the country's most notorious terrorist financiers. And that's to say nothing of the scandal-ridden staffers who have made regular appearances on the campaign trail.
Meanwhile, from the party which is expected to crumble under scrutiny, the closest there is to that type of story is...idle speculation from other parties' spinmeisters.
Lest there be any doubt, I'm not a huge fan of gotcha politics in any event. But for anybody making a remotely rational comparison between the NDP and its rivals in this campaign, it's Jack Layton and company who have done the best job of avoiding any impropriety or perception thereof.
After all, we're currently stuck with a micro-managing Prime Minister whose level of control putatively extends as far as running background checks on individuals entering his party's rallies. Yet his party's campaign has been derailed in just the last couple of days by revelations that they've appointed a fanatic who rants about "black shirts" and the "SS" to a gun advisory committee, their happy acceptance of campaign support from a dangerous offender and Paul Bernardo admirer, and the knowledge that a star candidate has been repudiated by her own family while gladly accepting an endorsement from one of the country's most notorious terrorist financiers. And that's to say nothing of the scandal-ridden staffers who have made regular appearances on the campaign trail.
Meanwhile, from the party which is expected to crumble under scrutiny, the closest there is to that type of story is...idle speculation from other parties' spinmeisters.
Lest there be any doubt, I'm not a huge fan of gotcha politics in any event. But for anybody making a remotely rational comparison between the NDP and its rivals in this campaign, it's Jack Layton and company who have done the best job of avoiding any impropriety or perception thereof.
Tuesday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- Yes, the top story in EKOS' polling update is that the NDP's vote has stabilized in a solid second place nationally. But while not much has changed from the weekend's results, let's note that there is one interesting difference: the NDP managed to pick up even more ground in possible second-choice support, giving it a stunning 54.4% of voters rating the party as their first or second choice.
And based on the campaign so far, there's little reason to think that at least a few more of those potential supporters won't turn into actual ones by election day. (Needless to say, this includes the brouhaha over potentially revisiting Canada's constitution at some point in the future - which was apparently never seen as a big enough deal to interfere with Stephen Harper's path to power.)
- Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson explains why the NDP may have managed to catch its opponents by surprise:
- Yes, the top story in EKOS' polling update is that the NDP's vote has stabilized in a solid second place nationally. But while not much has changed from the weekend's results, let's note that there is one interesting difference: the NDP managed to pick up even more ground in possible second-choice support, giving it a stunning 54.4% of voters rating the party as their first or second choice.
And based on the campaign so far, there's little reason to think that at least a few more of those potential supporters won't turn into actual ones by election day. (Needless to say, this includes the brouhaha over potentially revisiting Canada's constitution at some point in the future - which was apparently never seen as a big enough deal to interfere with Stephen Harper's path to power.)
- Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson explains why the NDP may have managed to catch its opponents by surprise:
(I)n my view a lot of people who aren't normally consumed with politics are looking at the NDP with fresh eyes, as it occupies centre stage in the last days of this election campaign. What do they perceive?- The Star rightly notes that a non-vote effectively serves as a vote for both the status quo and vote suppression, both of which play entirely into the Cons' hands:
First, a leader with a passionate, friendly, easy manner. A guy who knows his way around a Tim Hortons and looks like he would draw a crowd to his table over a double-double.
They’d hear him say politics has too much mud-slinging and not enough progress on things that count for average folks. They’d listen to him go on about wanting to work with other people and parties, about hiring more doctors and nurses, “rewarding job creators,” “strengthening your pension” and “making your life a little more affordable.” The language is not that of class warfare, and the goals don’t sound weirdly utopian. These voters might compare Mr. Layton’s pitch with the urgings of Stephen Harper to avoid a coalition, to cut taxes, to strengthen law and order. Or the entreaties of Michael Ignatieff to rise up in defense of our democracy. The NDP themes might well compare favourably, as far as themes go.
This time, too, apathy is likely to amount to a vote by default for the Conservatives. That’s because large numbers of disengaged and alienated voters lean to Jack Layton’s New Democrats or to the Liberals. Those who opt not to vote risk becoming enablers of the Conservative victory that Harper claims is in the bag.- But fortunately, there's little reason to think the Cons will get what they're after. And in the latest sign of desperation, Saskatchewan's Cons have followed up on their vacant house strategy with a short-lived attempt to use Saskatchewan's legislative buildings as a billboard.
After five years of hyperpartisan, divisive minority government, the last thing Canadians need is to end up with a Tory majority by default because people couldn’t be bothered to turn out. As Harper himself observed on the weekend, “voters are never supposed to give absolute trust to anybody.”
...
The Conservatives don’t deserve to coast home again on a wave of voter apathy. Canadians should rouse themselves on Monday to cast judgment on Harper’s governance since 2006, and on the opposition parties’ competing visions. The country’s future is worth that much.
On broken links
So far, the Cons have stayed remarkably quiet about the NDP's national surge, following up on their first weak response with a single ad attacking the NDP only as a secondary part of the usual "higher taxes" line against the Ignatieff Libs. But while the Libs' responses look to have failed mostly because they come out of nowhere, the biggest problem for the Cons may be that their attack on the NDP is so similar to an existing message linked to the Libs.
Obviously the Cons are well aware that an attack needs some time to sink in, and that it only figures to work if voters link a particular leader they might be considering to the attack when they vote. (Otherwise, their years of direct shots at the Libs' leaders would figure to have been a waste of money.)
But having so deliberately branded Michael Ignatieff with the "higher taxes" label over a period of years in the general public, the Cons figure to have an awfully tough time suddenly transferring that same label to Layton in the last week of the campaign. Which may reflect another area where the Cons' bubble might have caused them to miss what's happening in the country at large: while they've used the "higher taxes line as a talking point dealing with the NDP in what might be seen as inside-baseball conversations in Parliament and on talk shows, they haven't done anything to reach a broader audience.
And what's more, the job is made all the more difficult by the fact that they're still trying to include Ignatieff in their ads, serving only to dilute the message even more. Which means that the chances of the Cons being able to suddenly attach a negative to a leader whose reputation has been carefully built over nearly a decade look to be rather slim.
Of course, the Cons are presumably hoping that some combination of "coalition" messaging and general visual association between Layton and Ignatieff will be enough to make the charge stick. But there's a real possibility that the Cons have indeed been too cute by half in hoping that relentless attacks on the Libs would clear the field entirely - and we're just now starting to see panic set in on their side as well now that the orange wave is submerging their hopes for a majority.
Obviously the Cons are well aware that an attack needs some time to sink in, and that it only figures to work if voters link a particular leader they might be considering to the attack when they vote. (Otherwise, their years of direct shots at the Libs' leaders would figure to have been a waste of money.)
But having so deliberately branded Michael Ignatieff with the "higher taxes" label over a period of years in the general public, the Cons figure to have an awfully tough time suddenly transferring that same label to Layton in the last week of the campaign. Which may reflect another area where the Cons' bubble might have caused them to miss what's happening in the country at large: while they've used the "higher taxes line as a talking point dealing with the NDP in what might be seen as inside-baseball conversations in Parliament and on talk shows, they haven't done anything to reach a broader audience.
And what's more, the job is made all the more difficult by the fact that they're still trying to include Ignatieff in their ads, serving only to dilute the message even more. Which means that the chances of the Cons being able to suddenly attach a negative to a leader whose reputation has been carefully built over nearly a decade look to be rather slim.
Of course, the Cons are presumably hoping that some combination of "coalition" messaging and general visual association between Layton and Ignatieff will be enough to make the charge stick. But there's a real possibility that the Cons have indeed been too cute by half in hoping that relentless attacks on the Libs would clear the field entirely - and we're just now starting to see panic set in on their side as well now that the orange wave is submerging their hopes for a majority.
Scrambling
Call it a crazy hunch, but I'm guessing this is another rather bad sign for the Libs:
First, there's the fact that the Libs - who have bragged for ages about how they're so much better organized with Michael Ignatieff and Peter Donolo in charge than under previous structures - have officially reached the point of having to throw out the playbook they'd developed before the campaign. Instead, they're truly "making it up as they go along" for lack of any plan to deal with how the campaign has developed.
But perhaps more interestingly, it makes clear that the Libs don't see a get-out-the-vote message as a winner for them anymore - highlighting the fact that to the extent anybody new is going to be drawn into the election campaign, it's the NDP that figures to benefit.
When the campaign began last month, the Liberals had prepared a strategy to roll out their ads in four phases – the first was to introduce Mr. Ignatieff, the rookie leader, to Canadians; the second phase was to promote the platform. The party launched a couple of attack ads in the third phase. Phase four was to be aimed at trying to get out the vote – it seems now, however, the Liberals have abandoned that plan as they drive toward May 2.Which is telling in a couple of ways.
First, there's the fact that the Libs - who have bragged for ages about how they're so much better organized with Michael Ignatieff and Peter Donolo in charge than under previous structures - have officially reached the point of having to throw out the playbook they'd developed before the campaign. Instead, they're truly "making it up as they go along" for lack of any plan to deal with how the campaign has developed.
But perhaps more interestingly, it makes clear that the Libs don't see a get-out-the-vote message as a winner for them anymore - highlighting the fact that to the extent anybody new is going to be drawn into the election campaign, it's the NDP that figures to benefit.
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- The NDP has unveiled another positive ad to keep up its momentum over the last week of the federal election campaign:
- And in case we needed a reminder why a more honest and positive brand of politics would be such a radical departure from what we have now, the first appointee to the Cons' Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is saying publicly that the office was a wasteful and politically-motivated sham.
- Likewise, it may be news that yet another of the Cons' environmental plans is designed to be as expensive and ineffective as possible. But there's no reason to be the least bit surprised based on their track record.
- And one more to file under "what needs changing", as the latest reality check on the cost of F-35s looks mostly to confirm what should already have been obvious about the Cons' unwillingness to acknowledge what a new fleet of sole-sourced fighter jets would cost.
- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan points out how the Cons' tax slashing has been pitched as being directed at the middle class even while its benefits are felt almost exclusively at the top:
- The NDP has unveiled another positive ad to keep up its momentum over the last week of the federal election campaign:
- And in case we needed a reminder why a more honest and positive brand of politics would be such a radical departure from what we have now, the first appointee to the Cons' Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is saying publicly that the office was a wasteful and politically-motivated sham.
- Likewise, it may be news that yet another of the Cons' environmental plans is designed to be as expensive and ineffective as possible. But there's no reason to be the least bit surprised based on their track record.
- And one more to file under "what needs changing", as the latest reality check on the cost of F-35s looks mostly to confirm what should already have been obvious about the Cons' unwillingness to acknowledge what a new fleet of sole-sourced fighter jets would cost.
- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan points out how the Cons' tax slashing has been pitched as being directed at the middle class even while its benefits are felt almost exclusively at the top:
Where’s the real middle? There are many ways to measure it, but let’s keep it simple: the dead centre of the income distribution -median income. Half of Canadian households have more, and half of Canadian households make do with less. In 2008, median after-tax household income of Canadians was $48,500 ($55,000 before taxes).
...
Both the Liberals and the NDP address poverty and decry growing income inequality. Harper’s Conservatives do not. They all claim to introduce measures to ease pressures on average families, but Harper’s proposals actually worsen income disparities and do almost nothing of substance for those truly in the middle.
Take income splitting for young families -a promise that comes with a $2.5-billion price tag. The Harper team touts average savings of $1,300 per family. But a 2006 Library of Parliament assessment showed only 8% trickles down to half of Canada’s young families, those with incomes under $60,000. Most goes to the rich, nothing goes to the poorest -single parents have no incomes to split. (One in five families raising children are headed by single parents. They have the highest poverty rate of any group in Canada.)
It’s the same with elderly benefits. Harper promises modest improvements to Guaranteed Income Supplements, worth $300-million. But his pension splitting scheme, introduced in 2007, costs the public purse over $920-million. The elderly living on incomes under $30,000 get 6% of that. They make up 40% of seniors’ households. None gets to the poorest seniors, mostly women living alone.
Then there’s the Tax Free Savings Account. Introduced in January 2009 -at the height of the recession, when every other govern-ment across the globe was trying to stimulate spending, not saving. Harper now promises to double the maximum contribution, from $5,000 to $10,000.
It’s pitched as something that’s good for everyone, with a whopping price-tag of over $6-billion a year upon full implementation. But in 2008, before the recession hit, half of Canadians made less than $25,400 after tax. Try taking $10,000 out of that. But their incomes, along with those of every other Canadian, are enhanced by the public health care, public transit and other public services (clean water, bridges and roads, education and more) that taxes support.
On choices
A couple of Lib stalwarts are already starting the conversation about what that party figures to do if faced with the choice of supporting either the Cons or the NDP as Canada's government. And without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we definitely shouldn't take for granted that the Libs will support an NDP effort to replace Harper - though there's one easy step the NDP can take to significantly swing their decision.
To start off with, I don't think there's much doubt that at least part of the Libs' braintrust will insist on sticking to its current plan of doing nothing to suggest the NDP might be of use to anybody based on the hope that it'll go away on its own.
To the extent the Libs are more concerned about their party brand than their ability to accomplish anything useful in public life, there's at least some argument to be made for that view. And I'd fully expect the Cons to take up that message at every available opportunity to the extent they don't want to give an inch on either policy or cabinet posts.
Of course, that list of non-negotiable items from the Cons hints at the options available to the NDP. But the Libs figure to be a relatively difficult party to win over in terms of policy.
Yes, some Lib MPs will genuinely want to see a progressive alternative replace the Harper Cons, and an NDP government would likely be willing to implement some of the Libs' core platform planks if that's the price of their support. But I'm not sure anybody thinks the Libs as a whole are so attached to any policies as to make those the deciding factor.
But that leaves the area where there's the most room for discussion.
After all, the Libs' late-campaign attack on the NDP has included an attempt to paint their own experience as a major selling point. And that leaves the door open for Jack Layton to say that while he fully intends to follow through on changing Ottawa, he'll be glad to see the Libs use their experience for the good of the country under a coalition government.
That may make for a rather compelling opportunity not just for Michael Ignatieff himself, but also for the Bob Raes, John McCallums and Carolyn Bennetts of the party who surely figured they'd be headed for senior cabinet posts rather than third-party status. And younger Lib members who haven't yet had a chance to serve as parliamentary secretaries might also see more of an opportunity than they'd ever receive as long as the Harper Cons are in power.
So if yesterday's EKOS results reflect where the campaign is going, I'd fully expect the battle among the Libs to be less an issue of red versus blue, and more a question of strategists versus MPs (to say nothing of a substantial part of the party's base). And considering what the strategists have accomplished in the last four election cycles, the Libs would be well advised to be skeptical that they should carry the day this time.
To start off with, I don't think there's much doubt that at least part of the Libs' braintrust will insist on sticking to its current plan of doing nothing to suggest the NDP might be of use to anybody based on the hope that it'll go away on its own.
To the extent the Libs are more concerned about their party brand than their ability to accomplish anything useful in public life, there's at least some argument to be made for that view. And I'd fully expect the Cons to take up that message at every available opportunity to the extent they don't want to give an inch on either policy or cabinet posts.
Of course, that list of non-negotiable items from the Cons hints at the options available to the NDP. But the Libs figure to be a relatively difficult party to win over in terms of policy.
Yes, some Lib MPs will genuinely want to see a progressive alternative replace the Harper Cons, and an NDP government would likely be willing to implement some of the Libs' core platform planks if that's the price of their support. But I'm not sure anybody thinks the Libs as a whole are so attached to any policies as to make those the deciding factor.
But that leaves the area where there's the most room for discussion.
After all, the Libs' late-campaign attack on the NDP has included an attempt to paint their own experience as a major selling point. And that leaves the door open for Jack Layton to say that while he fully intends to follow through on changing Ottawa, he'll be glad to see the Libs use their experience for the good of the country under a coalition government.
That may make for a rather compelling opportunity not just for Michael Ignatieff himself, but also for the Bob Raes, John McCallums and Carolyn Bennetts of the party who surely figured they'd be headed for senior cabinet posts rather than third-party status. And younger Lib members who haven't yet had a chance to serve as parliamentary secretaries might also see more of an opportunity than they'd ever receive as long as the Harper Cons are in power.
So if yesterday's EKOS results reflect where the campaign is going, I'd fully expect the battle among the Libs to be less an issue of red versus blue, and more a question of strategists versus MPs (to say nothing of a substantial part of the party's base). And considering what the strategists have accomplished in the last four election cycles, the Libs would be well advised to be skeptical that they should carry the day this time.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Coming together
Sure, it's great enough news that EKOS' latest shows the NDP all alone in second place, and with the most potential for growth of any party in terms of second-choice support. (Which in turn fits with the other polls released today showing the NDP in at worst a dead heat for second place.)
But perhaps the most striking news is the lowest showing for the Cons in any poll I can recall seeing this election campaign. With Harper polling at only 33.7% and sinking, the NDP looks to be well within striking distance of first place with plenty of time left in the campaign. And that means that the sometimes-divergent goals of stopping a Harper majority, replacing the Cons outright, and voting on principle all figure to lead to the exact same end result as the campaign enters its home stretch.
But perhaps the most striking news is the lowest showing for the Cons in any poll I can recall seeing this election campaign. With Harper polling at only 33.7% and sinking, the NDP looks to be well within striking distance of first place with plenty of time left in the campaign. And that means that the sometimes-divergent goals of stopping a Harper majority, replacing the Cons outright, and voting on principle all figure to lead to the exact same end result as the campaign enters its home stretch.
Monday Afternoon Links
Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.
- Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the main effect of the NDP's surge looks to be to bring our political system more in line with the values of Canadians:
- I suppose it shouldn't come as much surprise that the closest anybody has come to criticizing the NDP's answers to questions on its platform is to suggest that it would somehow be better off pretending that it doesn't matter whether policy proposals are affordable. But Boris points out that the NDP's stance really amounts to nothing more than treating Canadian voters like responsible adults - which makes for a particularly nice contrast after the Cons' 2008 "never a recession! never a deficit" nonsense.
- Finally, David Climenhaga notes that the CBC ranks near the top of the list of Canadian institutions which figure to be on the chopping block - and that at least one Con backbencher who reliably sticks to the party line is making that explicit on the campaign trail.
- Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the main effect of the NDP's surge looks to be to bring our political system more in line with the values of Canadians:
If the NDP surge is real, it may represent the breaking of an historic contradiction in Canadian politics. One of the largely unspoken features of Canadian political culture is the gap between the majority's stated social and community values and their voting patterns. The CBC's fatally flawed Vote Compass notwithstanding (it's virtually impossible to get a result suggesting your values line up with the NDP), years of polling and focus groups suggest that if there was a direct line between voting and values, the NDP would win every election, hands down.- Meanwhile, Ian Capstick has some simple suggestions to make sure the NDP wave keeps rising until election day.
Even though the NDP is skittish when it comes to talking about tax increases (rightfully anticipating a firestorm of media attacks), the fact is Canadians say they would support tax increases if they could be assured the money would be spent on things they want. And the things they want are, of course, essentially the list of things the NDP has always run on: Medicare, affordable post-secondary education, generous social assistance, human rights, genuine EI, eliminating poverty. You know the list -- if you are part of the 70 per cent majority, it is your list, too.
- I suppose it shouldn't come as much surprise that the closest anybody has come to criticizing the NDP's answers to questions on its platform is to suggest that it would somehow be better off pretending that it doesn't matter whether policy proposals are affordable. But Boris points out that the NDP's stance really amounts to nothing more than treating Canadian voters like responsible adults - which makes for a particularly nice contrast after the Cons' 2008 "never a recession! never a deficit" nonsense.
- Finally, David Climenhaga notes that the CBC ranks near the top of the list of Canadian institutions which figure to be on the chopping block - and that at least one Con backbencher who reliably sticks to the party line is making that explicit on the campaign trail.
On last gasps
I'll give the Libs this much: at the very least their latest attempt to counter the NDP's national surge might make a bit more sense than their previous one. But that's only true if one assumes that they see their numbers diving and the NDP's soaring as the campaign reaches its conclusion.
After all, as John Ibbitson notes, the latest ad doesn't make a lick of sense in trying to tie the NDP and Cons together in terms of policy. But that leaves one area where one might try to find a perceived uniformity of interest between the two. And the Libs are quite explicit about what they see as being the major similarity: both voted to bring down Paul Martin's Lib government in 2005.
Now, for anybody looking at the situation remotely reasonably that criticism doesn't figure to get very far. After all, it was thoroughly debunked from the beginning, and figures to be less and less relevant to most voters as Canada's political debate has moved in different directions since then.
But there's one group of voters which does figure to be motivated by an appeal to the Libs' continuing sense of entitlement to have held office at all times even since their 2006 election defeat. The ad will speak directly to the Libs' inner core, which may well have carried a grudge for over five years which can now give rise to some amount of additional motivation once it's activated through an election ad.
Here's the catch, though. While it works well on a purely tribal basis for stalwart Lib supporters, the ad also serves to exclude anybody who's so much as considered the possibility that the Libs shouldn't expect to be Canada's default government. And yet the Libs are using a broadcast medium which will put the ad in front of those voters in addition to the base they're seeking to reach.
Which looks to me like a signal that the Libs see a real possibility that a Layton wave will wipe them out across the country - and are thus pulling out all the stops to try to keep the top tier of party diehards in the fold, even at the expense of looking both insulting and incoherent to swing voters. And if the Libs are indeed in such dire straits that they need to advertise to reach their strongest supporters, then there figures to be a strong chance that the NDP can pull enough softer support away to present a serious challenge to Stephen Harper's stay in power.
After all, as John Ibbitson notes, the latest ad doesn't make a lick of sense in trying to tie the NDP and Cons together in terms of policy. But that leaves one area where one might try to find a perceived uniformity of interest between the two. And the Libs are quite explicit about what they see as being the major similarity: both voted to bring down Paul Martin's Lib government in 2005.
Now, for anybody looking at the situation remotely reasonably that criticism doesn't figure to get very far. After all, it was thoroughly debunked from the beginning, and figures to be less and less relevant to most voters as Canada's political debate has moved in different directions since then.
But there's one group of voters which does figure to be motivated by an appeal to the Libs' continuing sense of entitlement to have held office at all times even since their 2006 election defeat. The ad will speak directly to the Libs' inner core, which may well have carried a grudge for over five years which can now give rise to some amount of additional motivation once it's activated through an election ad.
Here's the catch, though. While it works well on a purely tribal basis for stalwart Lib supporters, the ad also serves to exclude anybody who's so much as considered the possibility that the Libs shouldn't expect to be Canada's default government. And yet the Libs are using a broadcast medium which will put the ad in front of those voters in addition to the base they're seeking to reach.
Which looks to me like a signal that the Libs see a real possibility that a Layton wave will wipe them out across the country - and are thus pulling out all the stops to try to keep the top tier of party diehards in the fold, even at the expense of looking both insulting and incoherent to swing voters. And if the Libs are indeed in such dire straits that they need to advertise to reach their strongest supporters, then there figures to be a strong chance that the NDP can pull enough softer support away to present a serious challenge to Stephen Harper's stay in power.
Monday Morning Links
Content goes here.
- Brian Topp sums up the choices facing Canadian voters as the election campaign winds down to its final week:
- And finally, Erin points out why the Cons' wanton tax slashing figures to do plenty of damage on the provincial level in addition to limiting the ability of the federal government to act:
- Brian Topp sums up the choices facing Canadian voters as the election campaign winds down to its final week:
Anything can happen in politics. But what we may be in for in the last week of this campaign is the unusual sight of three leaders – Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, and Mr. Duceppe – focused on attacking the NDP.- James Laxer notes the absurdity of Stephen Harper trying to run on national unity even as he deliberately inflames regional tensions:
And the increasingly familiar sight of Jack Layton shrugging off these attacks, and offering Canadians something they are clearly looking for – some hope, some optimism, some unity, some relief from angry and divisive politics.
A choice between three angry, threatened men and a relaxed, smiling, positive national leader – in some ways, the only real national leader running in this election.
As I was saying a few weeks ago, this might just work out surprisingly well.
Now we’ve seen everything---Stephen Harper, who only a few years ago counseled Albertans to build “firewalls” around their province to protect it from Canada, has proclaimed himself the indispensable champion of national unity. Without him at the helm of a majority government, this one-time quasi-Alberta separatist would have us believe there will be no one to protect the country from a new round of sovereignist upheaval in Quebec.- Miss Vicky fact-checks Kathleen Petty's attempt to paint a national childcare program as unaffordable.
In fact, I’d be surprised if Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois didn't regard a Harper majority government as one of the essential “winning conditions” for a sovereignty referendum should she succeed in becoming premier of Quebec in the next provincial election.
...
Nothing would fire up the engines of the aging Quebec sovereignists more than a Harper majority. They would make the case that Harper’s Canada is remote from Quebec and everything the Quebecois aspire to.
...
The truly hopeful development in Quebec during this election campaign has been the stunning rise in Jack Layton’s standing in the province.
For six federal election campaigns in a row, the Bloc Quebecois has been dominant in Quebec. Now the Quebecois are turning in huge numbers to the NDP, embracing a progressive federalist party that could give them a voice in governing the country. Layton’s breakthrough in Quebec has the potential to change the landscape of Canadian politics.
- And finally, Erin points out why the Cons' wanton tax slashing figures to do plenty of damage on the provincial level in addition to limiting the ability of the federal government to act:
Provincial income tax generally applies to income as defined by federal tax rules. Shifting income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket or into a TFSA reduces both federal and provincial revenues.
It would be constitutionally possible, but practically difficult, for provinces to disallow income splitting for provincial tax purposes or to tax investment gains realized inside TFSAs. Provincial governments would not be obliged to create provincial credits for fitness and arts spending eligible for the promised federal credits. However, provinces set a precedent of doing so with the children’s fitness credit.
...
The additional cost of doubling the (TFSA) threshold would be below $3 billion because fewer people could afford to contribute $10,000. However, the three Conservative promises could easily punch a $5-billion hole in the federal budget.
How much would they cost the provinces? Provincial income tax generates about two-thirds as much revenue as federal income tax.
Top marginal rates are especially important for income splitting and TFSAs, which disproportionately benefit high-income Canadians. Outside of Quebec, top provincial tax rates are about half of the top federal rate.
The upshot is that federal Conservative promises could easily reduce combined provincial tax revenues by between $2 billion and $3 billion per year.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
On clarity
Shorter Globe and Mail:
We consider it important to ensure that Canadian voters lack any left-wing options. Stay tuned for our much-anticipated judgment as to how far right is just right enough!
We consider it important to ensure that Canadian voters lack any left-wing options. Stay tuned for our much-anticipated judgment as to how far right is just right enough!
Sunday Afternoon Links
Content goes here.
- I haven't dealt with the Libs' latest bloviations about the gun registry since it looks to represent just one more attempt to distract from the issues Canadians really care about in an effort to find an elusive wedge against the NDP. But Matt Gurney nicely highlights the anti-democratic nature of the Libs' position:
- Meanwhile, the Libs have been caught on tape with their own attempt to make sure other parties aren't able to get their message to voters.
- Finally, Points of Information leaks some of the ads you can expect as the campaign draws to a close.
- I haven't dealt with the Libs' latest bloviations about the gun registry since it looks to represent just one more attempt to distract from the issues Canadians really care about in an effort to find an elusive wedge against the NDP. But Matt Gurney nicely highlights the anti-democratic nature of the Libs' position:
The long-gun registry vote, held late last September, was a nailbiter. A private member’s bill put forward by a Tory MP was very, very close to dismantling the (registry). The bill had earned the support of several Liberal and NDP MPs, mostly from rural ridings where the registry is deeply unpopular. Ignatieff ordered a whipped vote — he forced his MPs to vote as he wished them to or else face internal discipline. Layton permitted an open vote, and lobbied his MPs aggressively to vote the way he wanted them to. It worked. The registry survived by two votes.- While the top-line results are typically receiving the most attention, perhaps the most telling part of Nanos' latest leadership polling is the utter failure of the Libs' attacks on the competence of Jack Layton and the NDP:
...
Layton has the right...to advocate for what policies he will. In taking a stand and persuading his MPs to vote with him, without threatening punishment for those who disagreed, the NDP leader showed true leadership and honoured Parliamentary tradition, where private member bills are settled by a free vote.
The private members bill was really a government bill by any other name, so the opposition has a fair point when they claimed that the Tories were abusing Parliamentary procedure to achieve partisan aims. But they weren’t alone in their maneuverings. The Liberals, by whipping the vote along party lines, broke with Parliamentary tradition and forced their members to vote against the wishes of their constituents. And yet they accuse Layton of being unprincipled on gun control.
Yet more proof that for the Liberals, the only principled vote is one that returns them to power.
On the issue of competence the leaders' scores on April 23 were: (Change from April 21 in brackets.)- While the Cons' embarrassing effort to shout down any inconvenient questioning surely reflects on the crowd which participated, it's particularly worth highlighting who it was that gave the orders - and who chose not to do anything about it:
* Stephen Harper: 38.7% (+6)
* Jack Layton: 22.3% (+2.7)
* Michael Ignatieff: 11.2% (-5)
* Elizabeth May: 2.4% (-0.5)
* Gilles Duceppe: 4.6% (-0.9)
A reporter tried to press Mr. Harper on, this asking whether he “really believed” that Ms. Young would not know Mr. Malik, who’s been in the public spotlight for decades due to scrutiny on him after the 1985 airplane bombing that claimed 329 lives.Which is to say that the fault lies less with the crowd than if it had simply been a spontaneous outcry. Instead, it was Harper and his staff who went out of their way with an apparent strategy to shout down any tough questions - and that responsibility is particularly clear given Harper's failure to let Milewski do his job.
But the Conservative Leader refused to answer this follow-up query, waiting as the crowd at the Coptic Christian Centre in Mississauga applauded and cheered him for about 60 seconds.
It’s the first time a Conservative crowd has purposely drowned out a reporter’s question of Mr. Harper during the 41st election campaign.
Encouraging were Tory staffers including Marc-André Plouffe, who before the campaign started was a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s Office.
- Meanwhile, the Libs have been caught on tape with their own attempt to make sure other parties aren't able to get their message to voters.
- Finally, Points of Information leaks some of the ads you can expect as the campaign draws to a close.
On ready responses
Aside from the thoroughly ineffective spin from competing political parties, the other factor that's seen as having any potential to derail the NDP's national surge is the increased scrutiny on the party's platform. But Jack Layton took exactly the questions we'd expect to see on that point from Macleans' editors and writers - and it's hard to see anything in the answers that does anything other than confirm that the NDP is offering a responsible option for change:
Q. Part of the way you say you’d pay for the new spending in your platform is by cracking down on offshore tax avoidance. You say that will eventually net the government $3 billion a year. But Canada and other countries have been trying for years to prevent this sort of illegal tax dodging. What makes you think you can make big progress fast?
A. By being determined and by putting in resources into the Canada Revenue Agency, which is had its resources cut as opposed to increased. If the CRA was a business, any CEO would be saying, look at the rate of return. Why aren’t we exploiting that business opportunity? Well you’re dealing with the rich and powerful, and maybe that’s an issue. That’s not an issue for me. I think that we should be trying to recover those funds and I think if it were done aggressively we could achieve those kind of targets.
We’ve also said, however, that in our platform, spending proposals need to be always analyzed against the fiscal capacity at the moment. That comes from the great traditions of Tommy Douglas administrations, Roy Romanow administrations. We’ve taken the same approach to it, and we’re taken modest steps, I think you probably may agree, compared to some past NDP platforms. We’re talking modest, practical steps when it comes to these different policy areas.
Q. So you’re if you weren’t able to get those revenue streams you wouldn’t do the spending.
A. That is precisely how we constructed our platform.
Q. Do you anticipate any reduction in business investment as a result of raising corporate tax rates?
A. It’s difficult to know. I know there’s predictions of doom and gloom by some, but our view is that we have to keep our tax rate competitive with the US, but it does not make sense to go dramatically go below where the Americans are.
Q. But do you model in any reduction in investment?
A. We anticipate that there could be some protests, maybe that would translate into some changes. But I believe that is counterbalanced by some of our platform, for example, calling an investment on investment in infrastructure in cities. And when you look at decisions to locate head offices, and to locate economic activities, the corporate tax rate is by no means the only economic marker. Quality of life, infrastructure, transportation capacity, all of these kind of things. If you’ve got good and affordable housing, then a place becomes more attractive. It’s getting the right mix really of policies, and I think we don’t have that right mix when it comes to Stephen Harper.
Q. As part of your promise to set up a cap and trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions, you book $3.6 billion in revenues this year, 2011-12, coming from the sale of carbon emission rights. How could you possibly get a cap and trade system up so fast?
A. It would be tough, it would take some real determination, but we haven’t had anything like the determination that’s needed. We saw some real determination in some U.S. states, things were made to happen relatively quickly. In fact, there’s a system up and functioning with some American states that we could hook up to. Those discussions were well under way but we had zero enthusiasm, to put it mildly, from our national government. I think things could be made to happen a lot more quickly.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Easter reading.
- We seem to have officially shifted from having commentators merely pointing out the NDP's surge, to making an effort to explain it. And David Goutor looks to have part of the answer:
- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter is rather more annoyed that the NDP is gaining momentum. But he too offers a plausible explanation as to why it's happening:
- As per usual, there's every reason for caution about reading too much into vote projections based on uncertain inputs and assumptions. But the Project Democracy numbers pointed out by Paul Dechene suggest there's a real chance to paint most of Regina orange next week.
- Finally, Douglas Bell offers his take on strategic voting in response to a Lib supporter whose actual ideas look to be a far better fit for the NDP:
- We seem to have officially shifted from having commentators merely pointing out the NDP's surge, to making an effort to explain it. And David Goutor looks to have part of the answer:
Another old refrain is that the NDP is benefitting from finally dropping its past socialist rhetoric and adopting more moderate positions. This argument might be credible if there was any sign that voters have stopped seeing the NDP as a left-of-centre party. But the reality is the opposite — Layton and the NDP are in many ways the best known commodities in the election.And one can extend the analysis a few steps further in noting why the other parties haven't done so well. The Cons may be trying to take back the title of the party most opposed to government action, but they've thoroughly muddied up that message by also trying to take credit at the local level for stimulus spending. And the Libs seem to have run as far as they could from their platform and supposed principles under Stephane Dion - ensuring that voters would have little idea what they claim to stand for, and even less reason to believe whatever consistent message they can decipher.
This points to a much more compelling explanation of the NDP’s success: Layton is getting rewarded for being so comfortable with what his party stands for and what he has to offer Canadians.
...
In one sense, the NDP’s rise can hardly be a surprise, as polls have consistently shown that a large chunk of the population supports many of the party’s policies, especially regarding social programs. It is no accident that the NDP’s rise has occurred just as issues like health care gained more public attention.
It’s also logical that Layton’s biggest gains have been in Canada’s most left-leaning province, Quebec. Indeed, if there is one long-term NDP strategy that is paying off, it is Layton’s effort to establish his party as a social democratic alternative to the Bloc for francophone voters in Quebec.
Of course, a new twist in this unpredictable campaign could turn voters in another direction. And a new wave of contrived hysteria about the threat of NDP socialism is likely on the way. But until voting day, and indeed for future elections, there is a valuable lesson from the NDP’s big surge in 2011: falling back on established values is not a bad way to get ahead.
- Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter is rather more annoyed that the NDP is gaining momentum. But he too offers a plausible explanation as to why it's happening:
There is no doubt in my mind why the NDP have so far been the big movers in the federal election campaign: Alone among the parties, the New Democrats have offered a positive vision for the country if they were to win the May 2 vote. I may not like their vision (and I don't)...But at least Jack Layton and his crew have managed to raise themselves above the name-calling and mudslinging - no matter how briefly - and give voters a reason to choose their party that doesn't involve only scare tactics about the threat posed by their opponents.- Patrick Brethour points out another area where the Libs' attacks on the NDP make absolutely no sense:
...
(T)he NDP's blend of green (environmental) and red (social-democratic) policies is at least a real vision for the country, whether or not you share that vision. And in an election almost devoid of vision, it's little wonder that the brightest light is attracting the most interest.
The problem for the Liberals (in criticizing the NDP's cap-and-trade plan) is this: They envision having their own cap-and-trade system, functioning long before 2015, not much later than the NDP. Within a year, two years at the most, the Liberal program would be operating, according to Liberal environment critic Gerard Kennedy.Though in fairness to the Libs, they do have ample experience in claiming (however implausibly) that their arbitrary choice of two months' difference in timing makes for the lone explanation as to how programs promised for upwards of a decade were never delivered.
“We’d have a bit of a hurry-up agenda,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview in the opening week of the campaign, adding that a Liberal government would convene a first ministers’ meeting that included climate change issues in this calendar year.
“We do believe that it’s possible to do within a year or two, to have something up and running,” he said.
...
The Liberals seek to split an exceedingly slender hair: The tax-loving, unrealistic NDP would move within 10 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs.
But the fiscally responsible, thrifty Liberals would take 12 to 24 months to set up a carbon trading system and use whatever funds it generates to pay for green programs. Two months, evidently, is the difference between a fiscal apocalypse, and responsible government.
Perhaps the Liberal war room can divine the difference; it’s doubtful that Canadian voters can manage the feat.
- As per usual, there's every reason for caution about reading too much into vote projections based on uncertain inputs and assumptions. But the Project Democracy numbers pointed out by Paul Dechene suggest there's a real chance to paint most of Regina orange next week.
- Finally, Douglas Bell offers his take on strategic voting in response to a Lib supporter whose actual ideas look to be a far better fit for the NDP:
And while he sat there spinning , I thought “I love this guy.” I thought that because he believes that the Charter actually matters and he believes that the G20 crackdown was bullshit and he believes a guaranteed annual income is the natural outcome of a just society and he believes a lot of the same stuff I believe. Plus he’s not a cynical bastard like a lot of other people in politics.
But this time, as much as I’ve pimped for the coalition and as much as I believe a Tory majority would be a disaster, I want to disagree with my friend. This time I want to vote NDP because it’s the right goddamn thing to do; because they ran the best campaign and because maybe just maybe politics isn’t about this campaign or the next campaign but the one after that.
Harmonic convergence
It's never been much of a secret that the HST has been at the centre of the NDP's message to defeat Harper Cons in British Columbia. But with the party having just released a new ad on the subject, it's worth noting that for all the frustration over the tax itself, the greatest impact of any discussion of the HST may be to turn the tide against the Cons on their choice of ballot question.
Keep in mind that the decision to impose the HST was made after an election campaign where Gordon Campbell ran as a steady-hand economic manager, promising no nasty surprises for the province while trying to portray the alternative as too risky to justify public support. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, it took approximately .5 nanoseconds for Campbell to decide that his majority in the Legislature meant all previous promises - including his commitment not to impose an HST - were inoperative. And so B.C. was plunged into the political chaos and public outrage that's marked the last two years.
Now, Harper is trying to win a majority off of exactly the same message that proved so dishonest and destructive the last time B.C. voters heard and accepted it. And reminding voters about the HST serves two strong purposes in helping to avoid that outcome: not only does it direct anger over the HST itself toward one of the parties responsible, but it also serves as Exhibit A as to why it's dangerous to hand a majority mandate to a government which has proven that it can't be trusted.
Keep in mind that the decision to impose the HST was made after an election campaign where Gordon Campbell ran as a steady-hand economic manager, promising no nasty surprises for the province while trying to portray the alternative as too risky to justify public support. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, it took approximately .5 nanoseconds for Campbell to decide that his majority in the Legislature meant all previous promises - including his commitment not to impose an HST - were inoperative. And so B.C. was plunged into the political chaos and public outrage that's marked the last two years.
Now, Harper is trying to win a majority off of exactly the same message that proved so dishonest and destructive the last time B.C. voters heard and accepted it. And reminding voters about the HST serves two strong purposes in helping to avoid that outcome: not only does it direct anger over the HST itself toward one of the parties responsible, but it also serves as Exhibit A as to why it's dangerous to hand a majority mandate to a government which has proven that it can't be trusted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)