Shorter Andrew Coyne:
Because neoliberal economic theory is infallible, you'd have to be hopelessly dogmatic to even suggest policies which don't implement it in its entirety. And no, I don't see any irony in that statement.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Election inducements
Norman Spector muses about one route to a fall federal election which I'd wondered about as well:
In any event, though, I have my doubts that the Cons would actually follow this strategy on the main vote on the throne speech.
After all, based on the structure of the vote itself (yeas before nays), the Cons would be forced to register their precise number of votes first. That would allow the Libs to have the final call as to whether or not to actually bring down the government - at least giving Dion his choice of options. And if the Libs did decide to bring down the Cons, they (and the other opposition parties) would then be able to muster their full forces for a resounding non-confidence vote, trumpet the government's lack of confidence in its own throne speech as the sole reason for the election, and spend the campaign asking why Canadians should have confidence in a party which doesn't have confidence in itself.
In contrast, if the Cons are determined to force an election, the more likely play would be to declare one of the Libs' throne speech amendments to be a matter of confidence, while refusing to telegraph in advance their own vote on the amendment.
Presumably the Libs would have to vote in force for the amendment due to the embarrassment that would result from their voting down their own proposal in order to avoid an election. And most likely, the Libs would phrase the amendment such that the other opposition parties would be unwilling to vote for it - though the Bloc and NDP would have the option of throwing a monkey wrench into the works by voting against type. (For that reason, the Libs couldn't even be sure to avoid an election by voting against their own amendment.)
If all went as expected, though, the Cons would then have the choice to precipitate an election by simply declining to vote against the amendment. And all without demonstrating any direct distaste for their own agenda.
For that matter, any number of other possibilities also exist. The Cons could declare a confidence motion on an NDP or Bloc amendment designed to be consistent with the Libs' own platform, or indeed the Cons could virtually ensure an election by outright voting down their own throne speech - with not much more apparent political cost than they'd take on by simply refusing to vote.
About all that can safely be concluded for now is that the Libs' telegraphed strategy of refusing to vote down the throne speech has opened up a virtually infinite array of possible countermaneuvers. And if the Libs continue to signal their fear of an election by hinting at ever more embarrassing maneuvers to prop up the Cons, that only increases the likelihood that the Cons will be motivated to force a trip to the polls.
No one can say for certain - perhaps not even Stephen Harper himself - whether the PM will be hitting the hustings later this month. However, if that were his preference, there's no way the opposition could thwart him: Mr. Harper need only instruct all but a handful of Conservative MPs to skip the vote on the Throne Speech.Now, Spector seems to confuse the possibility of some portion of the Libs merely sitting out the throne speech with an actual vote in support. The Cons could indeed force the Libs to either vote for the speech or face an election if they decline to show up in sufficient numbers. But contrary to what Spector suggests, the Libs could well succeed in propping up the government by voting for the speech if the Cons simply sat out the vote.
Too cynical? No doubt. But no more so than reports of Liberals hoping to avoid an election by voting in sufficient numbers for the Throne Speech, a confidence matter, while awaiting an opportune time to defeat the government. Judging from the reaction to what would be Parliament Hill's first "absent opposition," perhaps this degree of cynicism no longer falls below acceptable standards in federal politics.
In any event, though, I have my doubts that the Cons would actually follow this strategy on the main vote on the throne speech.
After all, based on the structure of the vote itself (yeas before nays), the Cons would be forced to register their precise number of votes first. That would allow the Libs to have the final call as to whether or not to actually bring down the government - at least giving Dion his choice of options. And if the Libs did decide to bring down the Cons, they (and the other opposition parties) would then be able to muster their full forces for a resounding non-confidence vote, trumpet the government's lack of confidence in its own throne speech as the sole reason for the election, and spend the campaign asking why Canadians should have confidence in a party which doesn't have confidence in itself.
In contrast, if the Cons are determined to force an election, the more likely play would be to declare one of the Libs' throne speech amendments to be a matter of confidence, while refusing to telegraph in advance their own vote on the amendment.
Presumably the Libs would have to vote in force for the amendment due to the embarrassment that would result from their voting down their own proposal in order to avoid an election. And most likely, the Libs would phrase the amendment such that the other opposition parties would be unwilling to vote for it - though the Bloc and NDP would have the option of throwing a monkey wrench into the works by voting against type. (For that reason, the Libs couldn't even be sure to avoid an election by voting against their own amendment.)
If all went as expected, though, the Cons would then have the choice to precipitate an election by simply declining to vote against the amendment. And all without demonstrating any direct distaste for their own agenda.
For that matter, any number of other possibilities also exist. The Cons could declare a confidence motion on an NDP or Bloc amendment designed to be consistent with the Libs' own platform, or indeed the Cons could virtually ensure an election by outright voting down their own throne speech - with not much more apparent political cost than they'd take on by simply refusing to vote.
About all that can safely be concluded for now is that the Libs' telegraphed strategy of refusing to vote down the throne speech has opened up a virtually infinite array of possible countermaneuvers. And if the Libs continue to signal their fear of an election by hinting at ever more embarrassing maneuvers to prop up the Cons, that only increases the likelihood that the Cons will be motivated to force a trip to the polls.
Wall: Patronage Is My Only Principle
In a well-timed follow-up to last night's post, Murray Mandryk notes that Brad Wall has finally found an issue where's willing to differentiate his party from the provincial NDP. But there's plenty of reason to doubt that Saskatchewan voters will buy into his call to beg for federal handouts:
Meanwhile, Wall is looking for a mandate to make regular appearances, hat in hand, at the federal Department of Pork, in hopes that Saskatchewan can pry out a few more federal dollars based on his ideological connections. And all in the name of presenting Saskatchewan as a proud "have" province.
What's more, it's worth noting that Wall may have missed one of the most important conditions attached to the federal infrastructure funding which he seems to want to pursue. That's right: after his party has spent the past four years trying (unsuccessfully) to shed its well-deserved reputation for wanting to axe the province's public sector, it's now entirely willing to make Saskatchewan dependent on funding which is explicitly tied to P3 schemes rather than public ownership. Which could turn the campaign into even less friendly terrain for the Sask Party.
Of course, the campaign hasn't even started yet, and it could be that other issues will turn up - assuming that Wall is willing to take another stand rather than trying the safer tactic of a full Seinfeld campaign. But his current stand has the potential not only to turn the provincial debate in the NDP's favour, but also to weaken the federal Cons in the province as their own patronage gets placed in the spotlight. Which means that Wall's effort at mutual back-scratching with the Harper government may only wind up giving both exactly what they deserve.
While Wall said the court challenge should be pursued "if there's a chance to win this case", he seemed equally critical of the NDP government for clinging to the "have-not" equalization argument.So here's the contrast between the two parties. The Calvert NDP is calling for a stable federal formula which meets the Cons' campaign promises while actually allowing the province to spend the money as it sees fit - and wants to pursue the most obvious avenue to reach that goal.
"Are we going to have the kind of leadership in the province any time soon that acts like it's leading a 'have' province and a province that intends to remain a 'have' province?" Wall asked last week.
Interestingly, Wall's talking points were near-identical to what came out of Harper's mouth: "What Saskatchewan needs is a government that will understand the challenge is to take advantage of that opportunity to become a 'have' province permanently, rather than try and come up with some formula that's going to pay equalization to have provinces, because there is no such formula," Harper said...
While reiterating he's been as frustrated as anybody with the Conservatives' broken promises, Wall said he's equally frustrated because he believes there was a better deal to be had for a "have" province outside the equalization formula, one that might have involved federal infrastructure spending in Saskatchewan or addressing off-reserve First Nations issues. Moreover, even though his past criticism of the broken Conservative promise has not gone over well in Ottawa, Wall hinted that his closer relationship with the federal Conservatives could help Saskatchewan secure an even better deal than the $800-million-a-year deal.
Meanwhile, Wall is looking for a mandate to make regular appearances, hat in hand, at the federal Department of Pork, in hopes that Saskatchewan can pry out a few more federal dollars based on his ideological connections. And all in the name of presenting Saskatchewan as a proud "have" province.
What's more, it's worth noting that Wall may have missed one of the most important conditions attached to the federal infrastructure funding which he seems to want to pursue. That's right: after his party has spent the past four years trying (unsuccessfully) to shed its well-deserved reputation for wanting to axe the province's public sector, it's now entirely willing to make Saskatchewan dependent on funding which is explicitly tied to P3 schemes rather than public ownership. Which could turn the campaign into even less friendly terrain for the Sask Party.
Of course, the campaign hasn't even started yet, and it could be that other issues will turn up - assuming that Wall is willing to take another stand rather than trying the safer tactic of a full Seinfeld campaign. But his current stand has the potential not only to turn the provincial debate in the NDP's favour, but also to weaken the federal Cons in the province as their own patronage gets placed in the spotlight. Which means that Wall's effort at mutual back-scratching with the Harper government may only wind up giving both exactly what they deserve.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
On popular opposition
Danny Williams' landslide win in Newfoundland's provincial election may not be receiving the attention it deserves on a national scale. But it isn't likely a coincidence that the premier who's attacked Stephen Harper most directly (despite sharing relatively similar ideological leanings) has managed to significantly improve his position as a result - while the one who received the most Con largesse to try to improve his electoral position, as well as the next three most Con-friendly provincial governments to face their voters, all lost ground within their provinces.
In case there was any doubt, this should provide an obvious hint as to the upside of presenting a strong challenge to the Cons' federal government - as well as an indication that Harper's supposedly deft political touch is more myth than fact. And it may not be long before Harper's own federal party is the next to learn that lesson the hard way.
In case there was any doubt, this should provide an obvious hint as to the upside of presenting a strong challenge to the Cons' federal government - as well as an indication that Harper's supposedly deft political touch is more myth than fact. And it may not be long before Harper's own federal party is the next to learn that lesson the hard way.
A deepening quagmire
The Globe and Mail reports on yet another reason to doubt Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan figures to resolve anything, as it turns out that government officials in the Kandahar region are themselves so corrupt that they can't be trusted to pay police officers.
Now, Canada's action in taking over the job of paying the police might offer a short-term boost to the area. But there's little reason to think that it'll be either logistically feasible or politically acceptable for Canada to take on an ever-growing role in governing Afghanistan in the future. Which means that between the lack of any trustworthy local government and the grim reality on security which only gets mentioned by the Cons when an opposition MP visits the area, there's ever less reason to think the Cons are being honest about the long-term prospects of the mission.
Now, Canada's action in taking over the job of paying the police might offer a short-term boost to the area. But there's little reason to think that it'll be either logistically feasible or politically acceptable for Canada to take on an ever-growing role in governing Afghanistan in the future. Which means that between the lack of any trustworthy local government and the grim reality on security which only gets mentioned by the Cons when an opposition MP visits the area, there's ever less reason to think the Cons are being honest about the long-term prospects of the mission.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Recognizing the bias
Lawrence Martin points out the media's (largely) inexplicable habit of hailing nearly everything the Cons do as sheer strategic genius, rather than paying attention to Stephen Harper's obvious failure to even hold on to his party's previous level of support:
But at the very least, it's significant that at least some prominent columnists are waking up to the free ride that Harper has received so far. And if that leads to anywhere near the scrutiny the Con government has earned, then Harper's stay in power may not last anywhere near as long as most media commentators seem willing to assume now.
Stephen Harper's disdain for the fourth estate has been well documented. His government has allowed less access than almost any before it. In his latest salvo, he is snubbing the annual press gallery dinner.Unfortunately, Martin makes exactly the same mistake that he observes elsewhere by giving Harper credit for being "crafty" in his consistent scorn for the media. Which suggests that it's going to take an awful lot of work to try to get the current narrative turned around.
But rather than hurt him, Mr. Harper - is there method in his badness? - is getting increasingly favourable media treatment. To look at the recent coverage, you would think his government is on a roll. Breathless reports follow breathless reports on how he could destroy all opponents in an election this fall.
That's not bad for a governing party stuck at 33 per cent in the polls for months, one that has fallen six or seven points since it tabled its last budget in March, one that has lost more support in that time than the Liberals or NDP, both of whose numbers have remained stable.
This is usually the kind of news that gets you booed out of town. But, in the case of Mr. Harper, the scribes are doing more cheering than jeering. They look at opinion surveys on who would make the best leader and see that he is far ahead. Given the built-in advantage a prime minister has in such a ranking, any PM who doesn't enjoy a wide spread over a relatively unknown opponent should take up lawn bowling...
If it so desired, an ornery-minded press could find much fodder for trashing the Tories: They're running all over the map on the environment file and coming up with not much; they lack clear direction on a war that has no foreseeable end; they have a small list of accomplishments; and they failed, after following a modest five-point plan in their first year, to give the country a sense of direction in their second.
But, instead of targeting the PM, the press has chosen Mr. Dion. For the most part, the Liberal Leader is well deserving of the opprobrium. But the fact remains that the Harper Conservatives have been losing the most ground in terms of public esteem.
But at the very least, it's significant that at least some prominent columnists are waking up to the free ride that Harper has received so far. And if that leads to anywhere near the scrutiny the Con government has earned, then Harper's stay in power may not last anywhere near as long as most media commentators seem willing to assume now.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Senseless
Shorter (or at least more accurate) Halls of Macadamia:
In light of the shooting of Constable Christopher John Worden, we should declare war on everything even speculated to be linked to his death, including low-income citizens, apartment complexes, and police assistance calls. But not guns, because that would be wrongly politicizing a tragedy.
In light of the shooting of Constable Christopher John Worden, we should declare war on everything even speculated to be linked to his death, including low-income citizens, apartment complexes, and police assistance calls. But not guns, because that would be wrongly politicizing a tragedy.
Introducing the Department of Pork
I posted last week about some of the glaring problems with the Cons' infrastructure plan. But in a column which received far too little attention, John Ivison points out that the Cons are deliberately diverting their already-meager funding to immediate pork projects rather than genuine infrastructure needs, going so far as to create a new planning group for that purpose:
Which isn't to say that it's a bad thing for spending decisions to be in the hands of municipalities or provinces rather than the federal government. And that goes doubly in light of what Ivision has revealed about the Cons' current spending strategy.
It would be bad enough, if perhaps more justifiable, if the Cons were merely distorting the timing of infrastructure announcements in order to receive immediate credit for future spending. But from Ivison's column, it's clear that Harper has specifically ordered that the shape of infrastructure spending will also be based on purely partisan considerations rather than actual infrastructure needs. Which raises the spectre that the Cons could soon be pouring large amounts of federal money into bridges to nowhere while more pressing needs in non-Con regions are ignored.
Of course, the new infrastructure group is far from the only example of the Cons' view that Canada's public money is nothing more than their own partisan re-election fund. Remember their general plan to divert 5% of all government spending to their own purposes in years to come, as well as specific examples such as their move to stretch the definition of environmentally-friendly cars in order to provide tax breaks on vehicles manufactured near Jim Flaherty's riding.
But it takes a special kind of chutzpah for Harper to have deliberately set up a publicly-funded body for the sole purpose of spending public funds for the Cons' political gain. And the more attention the Cons receive for having set up their Department of Pork, the more likely voters will be to conclude that the Cons can't be trusted with the power to waste Canada's public money.
(Edit: added label.)
The government is sitting on a $33-billion fund to be spent under its Buildings Canada Infrastructure Plan over the next seven years, and it hopes to leverage a further $50-billion from provincial and private-sector partners.As an aside, let's note that Ivison's numbers may not be entirely accurate based on last week's report. Instead, the $50 billion number seems on my reading to include the $33 billion coming from the federal government - and half of the $33 billion in turn is based on a transfer of gas tax revenues to municipalities, rather than actual infrastructure projects.
The problem is that Mr. Cannon has had difficulties getting projects out the door, to the great frustration of his colleagues, who want to go into an election having promised to build wharves in Saskatchewan, bridges where there are no rivers and a shiny new hockey arena in every riding...
Whatever the reason for the slow pace of project rollouts, Mr. Harper has lost patience and has moved to set up an infrastructure group within Mr. Cannon's department, led by the former head of the Conservative research bureau, Ian Harry.
This group will report regularly to the Prime Minister's Office with updates on how to spend the money "strategically" -- that is, in Conservative and marginal ridings.
Which isn't to say that it's a bad thing for spending decisions to be in the hands of municipalities or provinces rather than the federal government. And that goes doubly in light of what Ivision has revealed about the Cons' current spending strategy.
It would be bad enough, if perhaps more justifiable, if the Cons were merely distorting the timing of infrastructure announcements in order to receive immediate credit for future spending. But from Ivison's column, it's clear that Harper has specifically ordered that the shape of infrastructure spending will also be based on purely partisan considerations rather than actual infrastructure needs. Which raises the spectre that the Cons could soon be pouring large amounts of federal money into bridges to nowhere while more pressing needs in non-Con regions are ignored.
Of course, the new infrastructure group is far from the only example of the Cons' view that Canada's public money is nothing more than their own partisan re-election fund. Remember their general plan to divert 5% of all government spending to their own purposes in years to come, as well as specific examples such as their move to stretch the definition of environmentally-friendly cars in order to provide tax breaks on vehicles manufactured near Jim Flaherty's riding.
But it takes a special kind of chutzpah for Harper to have deliberately set up a publicly-funded body for the sole purpose of spending public funds for the Cons' political gain. And the more attention the Cons receive for having set up their Department of Pork, the more likely voters will be to conclude that the Cons can't be trusted with the power to waste Canada's public money.
(Edit: added label.)
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Incomplete accountability
CanWest's report that lobbyists would prefer not to have to deal with additional reporting requirements on lobbying hardly amounts to anything newsworthy. But the story does offer a useful reminder of just how much the Cons have dragged their heels on accountability now that they're the ones being held accountable:
And it's not as if there's any particular reason for delay. As noted by the article, the only real area of contention involves what kinds of contact between lobbyists and officials will be included within the regulations. But that should be a relatively issue to resolve: any choice to exclude specific types of communication would both break the Cons' initial promise to require disclosure of all lobbying, and completely undermine the purpose of ensuring that the public is able to know what lobbying activity has taken place.
Of course, it seems all too likely that the Cons aren't too concerned with either of those problems, and will instead accede to the wishes of the lobbyists themselves now that it's their own party's associates who figure to benefit most from such a move. And it'll be up to the opposition parties to make sure that neither the lobbyist issue in particular nor the rest of the Cons' broken promises on accountability are allowed to fade away entirely as the Cons attempt to change the subject.
The Federal Accountability Act, which includes a section strengthening the lobbying rules on reporting, was approved by Parliament late last year after the Conservatives, inspired by the Gomery inquiry and sponsorship scandal, made cleaning up the federal government their top promise during the 2006 election.Remember that the Accountability Act itself received royal assent before the end of 2006. Which means that the Cons have managed to spend nearly 10 months since the passage of the bill without even having a draft set of regulations ready yet.
But the Treasury Board Secretariat has been engaged in consultations with the lobbying industry ever since to draft the regulations that will bring the legislation into force.
A spokesman at Treasury Board said the regulations, which will outline what has to be reported with the lobbyist registry, are still being drafted and will eventually be presented to Treasury Board ministers for approval.
And it's not as if there's any particular reason for delay. As noted by the article, the only real area of contention involves what kinds of contact between lobbyists and officials will be included within the regulations. But that should be a relatively issue to resolve: any choice to exclude specific types of communication would both break the Cons' initial promise to require disclosure of all lobbying, and completely undermine the purpose of ensuring that the public is able to know what lobbying activity has taken place.
Of course, it seems all too likely that the Cons aren't too concerned with either of those problems, and will instead accede to the wishes of the lobbyists themselves now that it's their own party's associates who figure to benefit most from such a move. And it'll be up to the opposition parties to make sure that neither the lobbyist issue in particular nor the rest of the Cons' broken promises on accountability are allowed to fade away entirely as the Cons attempt to change the subject.
Canada's Pointy-Haired Government
Shorter Con message on the current status of Afghanistan:
Item one: Canada's combat mission is entirely justified based on improvements in security and safety.
Item two: It's irresponsible and reckless for a Canadian to even contemplate visiting Kandahar without government approval due to the strong possibility of a kidnapping or worse.
(pause)
Dammit, we forgot to add in the United Way update again.
Item one: Canada's combat mission is entirely justified based on improvements in security and safety.
Item two: It's irresponsible and reckless for a Canadian to even contemplate visiting Kandahar without government approval due to the strong possibility of a kidnapping or worse.
(pause)
Dammit, we forgot to add in the United Way update again.
Missing in inaction
Jane Taber points out that Stephane Dion hasn't yet dared to match even his own party's weak response to the Cons' throne speech posturing, choosing instead to hide for a week afterward:
But it seems more likely that Dion is unwilling to take on the responsibility of responding to the most direct challenge he's faced from Harper - which can only bode poorly for his ability to stand up to the Cons in an election campaign and beyond. And for voters who want to see the strongest possible push against Harper and his all-or-nothing neo-con stance, that means it's long past time to start looking elsewhere rather than wrongly assuming they have no better choice than the Libs.
Vowing two days after last month's by-elections rout in Quebec to "bare his soul" and let Canadians get to know him so that they may like him better, (Dion) has hardly been seen.Now, it may be that the real Dion is in fact the Invisible Man, such that Canadians really are getting the chance to see his true essence.
He has not responded to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's ultimatum this week that the opposition is either with him on the Throne Speech or against him: fish or cut bait is what Mr. Harper told his foes.
The other two party leaders, the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe and the NDP's Jack Layton, came out right after Mr. Harper's statement, saying there was little there that has changed their minds about voting against the Throne Speech.
He will not be out this weekend. Instead, he will be spending time with his family over turkey. Canadians may see him on Tuesday or Wednesday.
But it seems more likely that Dion is unwilling to take on the responsibility of responding to the most direct challenge he's faced from Harper - which can only bode poorly for his ability to stand up to the Cons in an election campaign and beyond. And for voters who want to see the strongest possible push against Harper and his all-or-nothing neo-con stance, that means it's long past time to start looking elsewhere rather than wrongly assuming they have no better choice than the Libs.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Absolutely unacceptable
Greg and John have asked the entirely legitimate question of what the Cons could possibly stand to gain from leaking a rumour that their throne speech will contain "four or five items...that will be absolutely unacceptable to the other parties".
My suspicion is that the leak has nothing at all to do with telegraphing the Cons' actual message, and everything to do with simply keeping control of public attention. After all, the media can - and all too likely will - look at the Cons' leaks this week as a hint that it'll be possible to fill column space and air time merely by reporting and speculating on a steady stream of Con leaks until the throne speech is over with. And that both strengthens the perception that the Cons are in full control of Canada's public discourse, and significantly lessens the likelihood that Conadscam or other issues will see much reporting in the meantime.
There may also be a side benefit in sending the message, as it could lead to a reaction that the Cons are more moderate than expected if the speech turns out to be less inflammatory than the leak says. But it seems entirely likely that the Cons simply want to keep anybody else from defining the scope of public discussion in the face of an impending election. And if that is their strategy, it seems to be working so far.
My suspicion is that the leak has nothing at all to do with telegraphing the Cons' actual message, and everything to do with simply keeping control of public attention. After all, the media can - and all too likely will - look at the Cons' leaks this week as a hint that it'll be possible to fill column space and air time merely by reporting and speculating on a steady stream of Con leaks until the throne speech is over with. And that both strengthens the perception that the Cons are in full control of Canada's public discourse, and significantly lessens the likelihood that Conadscam or other issues will see much reporting in the meantime.
There may also be a side benefit in sending the message, as it could lead to a reaction that the Cons are more moderate than expected if the speech turns out to be less inflammatory than the leak says. But it seems entirely likely that the Cons simply want to keep anybody else from defining the scope of public discussion in the face of an impending election. And if that is their strategy, it seems to be working so far.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Ineffective opposition
In a disappointing followup to my post from this morning, the Libs are apparently falling well short of the "halfway competent" standard needed to turn Deceivin' Stephen's brinksmanship into a serious negative for the Cons:
Based on that starting point, the opposition as a whole - and indeed each opposition party - would have the opportunity to cherry-pick its own issues within the whole which were seen as warranting an election, while being able to point to Harper's all-or-nothing ultimatum as an obvious reason why a non-confidence vote didn't result in a vote against issues where a party's interests might align with the Cons.
But that strategy would have been predicated on a quick response to frame Harper's demands appropriately - including a heavy emphasis on the "all-or-nothing" nature of the demand, along with a strong statement that neither the particular opposition party in particular nor the country as a whole agrees with all (or even most) of the Cons' agenda.
Instead, the Libs have framed Harper's demand solely to minimize their own immediate fallout by claiming they're not really under any pressure, rather than painting Harper in a way which will actually improve the odds that voters will see a need to remove the Cons from power. In doing so, they've ensured that any confidence vote will be based on a single policy matter rather than the sum of all Con weak spots - and of course they seem willing to wear the label of having kept the Cons in power by failing to show up for the throne speech. And the only apparent benefit for all that cost seems to be to buy a month or two before an election which the Libs seem to think will happen soon in any event.
Unfortunately, the Libs' seat count still makes them the opposition party most likely to be heard in the media. But from their willingness to look for excuses to prop up the Cons rather than to turn Harper's aggressiveness against him, it's all the more clear that they can't be counted on to provide effective opposition to the Cons - leaving only one national party in any position to stop the Harper agenda short of a majority.
The prime minister may have thought he was putting a gun to Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's head. But top Grit strategists suggest the move gives Dion more leeway to decide when - and over what issue - to pull the trigger on the minority Conservative government...Needless to say, the problem is that Harper's ultimatum offered exactly the kind of time which all opposition parties should have been eager to choose for an election. As I'd outlined this morning, the throne speech offered a unique opportunity to take the Cons down based their Cons' insistence on tying all of their policies together.
Harper's ploy gives Dion a chance to let the throne speech pass - by having Liberal MPs absent themselves or abstain - and wait for an issue that is more likely to play to Liberal strengths.
As one seasoned Liberal put it: "You've got to be careful not to take the bait. Pick your ground and your time."
Based on that starting point, the opposition as a whole - and indeed each opposition party - would have the opportunity to cherry-pick its own issues within the whole which were seen as warranting an election, while being able to point to Harper's all-or-nothing ultimatum as an obvious reason why a non-confidence vote didn't result in a vote against issues where a party's interests might align with the Cons.
But that strategy would have been predicated on a quick response to frame Harper's demands appropriately - including a heavy emphasis on the "all-or-nothing" nature of the demand, along with a strong statement that neither the particular opposition party in particular nor the country as a whole agrees with all (or even most) of the Cons' agenda.
Instead, the Libs have framed Harper's demand solely to minimize their own immediate fallout by claiming they're not really under any pressure, rather than painting Harper in a way which will actually improve the odds that voters will see a need to remove the Cons from power. In doing so, they've ensured that any confidence vote will be based on a single policy matter rather than the sum of all Con weak spots - and of course they seem willing to wear the label of having kept the Cons in power by failing to show up for the throne speech. And the only apparent benefit for all that cost seems to be to buy a month or two before an election which the Libs seem to think will happen soon in any event.
Unfortunately, the Libs' seat count still makes them the opposition party most likely to be heard in the media. But from their willingness to look for excuses to prop up the Cons rather than to turn Harper's aggressiveness against him, it's all the more clear that they can't be counted on to provide effective opposition to the Cons - leaving only one national party in any position to stop the Harper agenda short of a majority.
All or nothing
Yesterday, I noted that Stephen Harper's throne speech ultimatum posed plenty more risk to the Cons than the media's first reports suggested. On further review, the point needs to be strengthened: if the opposition reacts even halfway competently to Harper's message, then the ultimatum will turn into a strategic train wreck for the Cons.
While Harper's message strictly only referred to individual confidence votes, its overall thrust was clear: he's not willing to govern if he doesn't have a majority of votes in Parliament to support the Con agenda in full.
So what's the problem with that message? Rather than allowing the Cons to draw any distinctions based on their perceived strengths, it allows each opposition party to place the focus on the most problematic Con declaration as its reason for voting down the throne speech - and to place the blame squarely on Harper. The end result would be a series of bipolar issue battles - with the Cons voluntarily taking the weaker position in each.
For example, the Cons will presumably include some mention of limits on federal spending powers in order to put pressure on the Bloc. But thanks to Harper's ultimatum, Gilles Duceppe will be able to counter by saying, "Stephen Harper says we can't limit federal spending powers without also giving him a combat extension in Afghanistan. We say Stephen Harper can't dictate that all-or-nothing choice from Ottawa."
Likewise, Jack Layton will be able to point out Harper's refusal to move on accountability or electoral reform without also pursuing privatization and deep integration. And Stephane Dion can take away the Cons' momentum on tax cuts by pointing out that it's possible to offer the same without accepting Harper's inaction on the environment.
And in all cases, it'll be Harper himself who's forced the choice. Which will leave the Cons trying to explain why Canadians should have to take the parts of the Cons' agenda which they don't want in order to get the few positive ones - and highlight the ideological chasm between the Cons and the country in the process.
What's more, it'll also be possible to attack Harper's ultimatum as a broader theme. Surely it would be one of the more memorable moments of a leaders' debate for Harper to try to justify the strategy, and Layton or Dion to respond, "Obviously Mr. Harper thinks that leadership means refusing to listen to anybody's ideas but your own. That's simply wrong - and it's long past time that we had a government which shared my position."
In sum, Harper is banking on winning an election on Lib/Bloc disarray and "decisiveness", while conceding effectively every swing issue and reinforcing his own most negative traits in order to get to the polls in the first place. And while he may not be able to afford to backtrack now (see "decisiveness" on the Cons' short list of positives), Harper may have just offered the opposition parties the boost they need to boot him from office entirely.
While Harper's message strictly only referred to individual confidence votes, its overall thrust was clear: he's not willing to govern if he doesn't have a majority of votes in Parliament to support the Con agenda in full.
So what's the problem with that message? Rather than allowing the Cons to draw any distinctions based on their perceived strengths, it allows each opposition party to place the focus on the most problematic Con declaration as its reason for voting down the throne speech - and to place the blame squarely on Harper. The end result would be a series of bipolar issue battles - with the Cons voluntarily taking the weaker position in each.
For example, the Cons will presumably include some mention of limits on federal spending powers in order to put pressure on the Bloc. But thanks to Harper's ultimatum, Gilles Duceppe will be able to counter by saying, "Stephen Harper says we can't limit federal spending powers without also giving him a combat extension in Afghanistan. We say Stephen Harper can't dictate that all-or-nothing choice from Ottawa."
Likewise, Jack Layton will be able to point out Harper's refusal to move on accountability or electoral reform without also pursuing privatization and deep integration. And Stephane Dion can take away the Cons' momentum on tax cuts by pointing out that it's possible to offer the same without accepting Harper's inaction on the environment.
And in all cases, it'll be Harper himself who's forced the choice. Which will leave the Cons trying to explain why Canadians should have to take the parts of the Cons' agenda which they don't want in order to get the few positive ones - and highlight the ideological chasm between the Cons and the country in the process.
What's more, it'll also be possible to attack Harper's ultimatum as a broader theme. Surely it would be one of the more memorable moments of a leaders' debate for Harper to try to justify the strategy, and Layton or Dion to respond, "Obviously Mr. Harper thinks that leadership means refusing to listen to anybody's ideas but your own. That's simply wrong - and it's long past time that we had a government which shared my position."
In sum, Harper is banking on winning an election on Lib/Bloc disarray and "decisiveness", while conceding effectively every swing issue and reinforcing his own most negative traits in order to get to the polls in the first place. And while he may not be able to afford to backtrack now (see "decisiveness" on the Cons' short list of positives), Harper may have just offered the opposition parties the boost they need to boot him from office entirely.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Desperate measures
All too predictably, some of the Cons' usual media cheerleaders have gone out of their way to paint Deceivin's Stephen's throne speech ultimatum as having nothing but upside for the Cons (while parroting other Con spin along the way). But the reality is that Harper's move suggests some significant desperation on his part to try to press for an early election. And it's entirely possible that the Cons may wind up overplaying their hand significantly as a result.
After all, while the Cons may perceive the near future as their best opportunity to try to push for a majority, there's little indication that Canadian voters share any real desire to hand over absolute power to one party. And indeed Harper himself seemed to acknowledge that fact with his recent statements that a minority government is still the likely result of any election.
But Harper's attempt to raise the stakes appears to run directly contrary to that acknowledgement. And that could be seriously damaging to the Cons based on more than just Harper's own equivocation.
In effect, the Cons are demanding that the opposition acquiesce in their governing now as if they now had a majority. To a point, that may play well to Harper's effort to paint himself as a decisive leader. But it also figures to make Harper appear unreasonable and heavy-handed to swing voters who want to see either a counterweight to strict central rule, or some cooperation between parties.
Moreover, that impression will only be strengthened if, as seems likely, the Cons indeed load up their throne speech with poison pills to try to force the opposition to vote it down. The Cons could well succeed in precipitating an election, but only at the cost of having to defend those poison pills within the ensuing campaign. And if an election actually does turn largely on the question of whether the Cons' most extreme policy planks are in line with Canadian values, there's more chance than the Cons would want to admit that they'll end up bleeding away support during the campaign rather than pulling off their seeming plan to pull away in the polls.
Simply put, "my way or the highway" isn't a message that's likely to resonate much with Canadian voters - particularly when even Harper's confidants have to admit that Canada is not a Conservative country. And there's little reason to think that the Cons will improve their chances of a majority in a pending election by ignoring the current democratically-expressed wishes of Canadian voters in pretending they have one now.
After all, while the Cons may perceive the near future as their best opportunity to try to push for a majority, there's little indication that Canadian voters share any real desire to hand over absolute power to one party. And indeed Harper himself seemed to acknowledge that fact with his recent statements that a minority government is still the likely result of any election.
But Harper's attempt to raise the stakes appears to run directly contrary to that acknowledgement. And that could be seriously damaging to the Cons based on more than just Harper's own equivocation.
In effect, the Cons are demanding that the opposition acquiesce in their governing now as if they now had a majority. To a point, that may play well to Harper's effort to paint himself as a decisive leader. But it also figures to make Harper appear unreasonable and heavy-handed to swing voters who want to see either a counterweight to strict central rule, or some cooperation between parties.
Moreover, that impression will only be strengthened if, as seems likely, the Cons indeed load up their throne speech with poison pills to try to force the opposition to vote it down. The Cons could well succeed in precipitating an election, but only at the cost of having to defend those poison pills within the ensuing campaign. And if an election actually does turn largely on the question of whether the Cons' most extreme policy planks are in line with Canadian values, there's more chance than the Cons would want to admit that they'll end up bleeding away support during the campaign rather than pulling off their seeming plan to pull away in the polls.
Simply put, "my way or the highway" isn't a message that's likely to resonate much with Canadian voters - particularly when even Harper's confidants have to admit that Canada is not a Conservative country. And there's little reason to think that the Cons will improve their chances of a majority in a pending election by ignoring the current democratically-expressed wishes of Canadian voters in pretending they have one now.
Wishful politics
The Gazette reports on what may be the most stunning example of the Libs' disorganization yet:
What's worse for the Libs is that the release of the recommendations itself would figure to have been an effort to repair the party's image and build a bit of momentum by pointing out some future prospects. Instead, all the party's premature statement has done is to make clear that the Libs are both in utter disarray, and under the mistaken impression that they can simply appropriate the names of their wish-list candidates without even consulting them. And that can only make potential candidates less and less likely to want to tie their fortunes to those of an imploding party.
Adding to the chaos, the Quebec wing's electoral commitee, worried about losing key ridings, decided this week to recommend former heritage minister Liza Frulla be named the Liberal candidate for LaSalle-Emard, Marc Bruneau for Westmount-Ville-Marie and Brigitte Garceau for the southwest riding of Jeanne-Le Ber.Now, it's understandable to a point that the election committee might be reaching for candidates beyond its grasp - particularly as a committee accustomed to having its pick of federalist Quebeckers faces the reality of a party that's significantly less appealing to potential candidates. But it's another matter entirely to go to the media first before even discussing plans with a potential candidate.
The problem is, Frulla says nobody asked her first and she has no intention of being a candidate at this time.
"I almost died," Frulla said, after hearing the news on radio yesterday morning. She said she hasn't spoken to Dion in a year - and Dion is the person who will choose the candidate to succeed former prime minister Paul Martin in LaSalle-Emard. "No, (I'm not running). I've got a life," Frulla said.
What's worse for the Libs is that the release of the recommendations itself would figure to have been an effort to repair the party's image and build a bit of momentum by pointing out some future prospects. Instead, all the party's premature statement has done is to make clear that the Libs are both in utter disarray, and under the mistaken impression that they can simply appropriate the names of their wish-list candidates without even consulting them. And that can only make potential candidates less and less likely to want to tie their fortunes to those of an imploding party.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Leading nowhere
By all rights, Gilles Duceppe's argument in reponse to his reported departure that he's "never had a career plan" should have made him the clear favourite in the race for the least inspiring message to a party's supporters today. But credit Stephane Dion for managing to take the lead in something, as his latest exercise in shuffling deck chairs - following just days after his vote of confidence in the now-deposed Jamie Carroll - strongly suggests that the Libs are going several steps further by operating without much of a plan about anything.
Noxious emissions
Shorter Terence Corcoran:
If Canada's highest-profile corporate figures are more willing to recognize the need for action on climate change than the Con government, that only demonstrates that big business isn't sufficiently business-friendly.
If Canada's highest-profile corporate figures are more willing to recognize the need for action on climate change than the Con government, that only demonstrates that big business isn't sufficiently business-friendly.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Wells on Flanagan
I've avoided commenting directly on the recent wave of Tom Flanagan-related stories, based primarily on the view that the less attention Flanagan receives, the better off Canada's public debate will be. But Paul Wells' column is one that can't pass without a link and a comment, even if I disagree with the overarching theme.
Which is to say that for all Flanagan's talk about triangulation and incrementalism, there's little to support Wells' apparent thesis that Flanagan (and by proxy Harper) are any less ideological now than they were in their Reform days. The only difference lies in how much they're willing to hide their real beliefs in order to try to gain the trust of Canadians who wouldn't accept the Cons' long-term plans - which seems to me to be nothing more than a Machiavellian means to the same antisocial end that Harper, Flanagan and their ilk have sought all along.
That said, Wells is still worth a read in pointing out the absurdity of a government which genuinely perceives a lack of honest content as its best strategy to try to improve its popularity. And Flanagan may indeed deserve attention to the limited extent of highlighting that warped worldview in the months to come - as "even Stephen Harper's closest advisor admits that 'Canada is not...a Conservative country'" figures to hold a prominent place in the opposition's message going forward.
Which is to say that for all Flanagan's talk about triangulation and incrementalism, there's little to support Wells' apparent thesis that Flanagan (and by proxy Harper) are any less ideological now than they were in their Reform days. The only difference lies in how much they're willing to hide their real beliefs in order to try to gain the trust of Canadians who wouldn't accept the Cons' long-term plans - which seems to me to be nothing more than a Machiavellian means to the same antisocial end that Harper, Flanagan and their ilk have sought all along.
That said, Wells is still worth a read in pointing out the absurdity of a government which genuinely perceives a lack of honest content as its best strategy to try to improve its popularity. And Flanagan may indeed deserve attention to the limited extent of highlighting that warped worldview in the months to come - as "even Stephen Harper's closest advisor admits that 'Canada is not...a Conservative country'" figures to hold a prominent place in the opposition's message going forward.
Breaking through
It took far too long for the national media to pay attention to the real story behind the NDP's Outremont victory. But it looks like the Layton/Mulcair team is now shaping the story about the party's wider chances in the press outside Quebec, just as it did early in the by-election campaign to establish Mulcair as the frontrunner.
The last few days have seen two glowing columns focusing on Mulcair himself, while others have discussed the NDP's potential to capitalize on its Outremont win elsewhere in Quebec and nationally. And given the degree to which political perception tends to shape reality, the positive press can only reinforce the gains the NDP has already managed to make.
The last few days have seen two glowing columns focusing on Mulcair himself, while others have discussed the NDP's potential to capitalize on its Outremont win elsewhere in Quebec and nationally. And given the degree to which political perception tends to shape reality, the positive press can only reinforce the gains the NDP has already managed to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)