And he might even come out the biggest winner in the end.
The reason he cannot lose is because his job is not up for grabs. He is safely ensconced in the White House for another two years.
The reason he might win is the Republicans taking back one or both chambers of Congress would provide a foil for the President in the coming years. Remember folks, President Clinton enjoyed his greated successes when Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
The reason of course is the Republicans would no longer just be the Opposition bitching about what the Democrats were doing but they would actually have their hands of some of the levers of power in the United States government. The blame for the problems of the country would no longer be solely placed at the feet of the President and the Democrats. The Republicans would have to share that blame and as history has shown in that situation the sitting President usually has the advantage.
I doubt President Obama is hoping the Democrats lose control of Congress in November but I imagine he is not losing any sleep over that prospect either.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Limits of the Politics of Anger
At any given time the electorate if pissed off about something. That is just the nature of politics, it is the root cause of partisanship and it is the reason why negative advertizing works.
For a politician to be successful they need to be able to tap into that anger. That is the reason why Mr. Ford won his election in Toronto. I followed that election and it was obvious that a significant number of the citizens of Toronto were very angry. At what? Take your pick. It was just a general anger but Mr. Ford did manage to tap into it very effectively.
There is, however, an inherent trap in coming to power on a wave of anger. That trap is two fold. Politicians who win by this means have great expectations placed upon them. If they are unable to meet those expectations the anger that gave them power quickly turns on them. As well, if the politician meets these expectations the anger cools somewhat and those who were angry begin to think clearly and examine what the consequences of the actions of the politicians they put into power and it is often the case that they do not like what they see.
There are many examples of the first part but I will name two.
Larry O'Brien was the Rob Ford candidate in Ottawa four years ago. He was the political outsider railing against the political establishment and tapping into the general anger of the people of Ottawa to the former administration. Although not as bombastic as Mr. Ford he made many of the same promises that Mr. Ford made this time around. Of course, Mr. O'Brien could not keep those promises and the results of the October 25 election speaks for themselves.
The Chretien Liberals came to power on a wave of anger against the GST. Although Jean Chretien never stated that he would get rid of the tax leading up to his victory he did not try to dissuade any Canadian who believed that he would, and there were alot of them. Of course, the Liberals did not repeal the GST and that was a big contributor to Mr. Chretien having his majority reduced from 20+ seats to 5 in 1997 and he would have lost alot more if it were not for the division of the political right handing him virtually every seat in Ontario.
Incidentally, that should be a story Mr. Hudak should take to heart over the next few months.
There are many examples of the second trap as well but I will name one.
Mike Harris rise to power was fueled by anger against Bob Rae. He made all sorts of promises that resonated with the voters on Ontario and they elected him. He did keep his promises and Ontarians gave him a second mandate but the original anger that put him in power faded and Ontarians became more aware of the cost of his promises, with Walkerton being the most dramatic. The result was alot of "buyers' remorse" amongst those who supported him and that resulted in Mr. Harris leaving half way through his second mandate and a massive loss for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in the subsequent elections.
Tapping into the anger of the electorate is very important requirement if politicians wants to enjoy political success. However, if that is the sole basis of their success they will find that it will be short lived. Anger will not sustain a government for the long-term.
For a politician to be successful they need to be able to tap into that anger. That is the reason why Mr. Ford won his election in Toronto. I followed that election and it was obvious that a significant number of the citizens of Toronto were very angry. At what? Take your pick. It was just a general anger but Mr. Ford did manage to tap into it very effectively.
There is, however, an inherent trap in coming to power on a wave of anger. That trap is two fold. Politicians who win by this means have great expectations placed upon them. If they are unable to meet those expectations the anger that gave them power quickly turns on them. As well, if the politician meets these expectations the anger cools somewhat and those who were angry begin to think clearly and examine what the consequences of the actions of the politicians they put into power and it is often the case that they do not like what they see.
There are many examples of the first part but I will name two.
Larry O'Brien was the Rob Ford candidate in Ottawa four years ago. He was the political outsider railing against the political establishment and tapping into the general anger of the people of Ottawa to the former administration. Although not as bombastic as Mr. Ford he made many of the same promises that Mr. Ford made this time around. Of course, Mr. O'Brien could not keep those promises and the results of the October 25 election speaks for themselves.
The Chretien Liberals came to power on a wave of anger against the GST. Although Jean Chretien never stated that he would get rid of the tax leading up to his victory he did not try to dissuade any Canadian who believed that he would, and there were alot of them. Of course, the Liberals did not repeal the GST and that was a big contributor to Mr. Chretien having his majority reduced from 20+ seats to 5 in 1997 and he would have lost alot more if it were not for the division of the political right handing him virtually every seat in Ontario.
Incidentally, that should be a story Mr. Hudak should take to heart over the next few months.
There are many examples of the second trap as well but I will name one.
Mike Harris rise to power was fueled by anger against Bob Rae. He made all sorts of promises that resonated with the voters on Ontario and they elected him. He did keep his promises and Ontarians gave him a second mandate but the original anger that put him in power faded and Ontarians became more aware of the cost of his promises, with Walkerton being the most dramatic. The result was alot of "buyers' remorse" amongst those who supported him and that resulted in Mr. Harris leaving half way through his second mandate and a massive loss for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives in the subsequent elections.
Tapping into the anger of the electorate is very important requirement if politicians wants to enjoy political success. However, if that is the sole basis of their success they will find that it will be short lived. Anger will not sustain a government for the long-term.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Backfire
The vote on the gun registry last night was a major loss for the Conservatives and it has made abolishing the gun registry in the future much more difficult.
It is true, as many Conservative defenders have pointed out today, the loss will probably assist the Conservatives in their fund-raising and it will energize their base somewhat. However, those defenders are missing or at least failing to acknowledge the big political downside of last night’s vote. I will address that in a minute.
The really interesting thing about last night’s vote is it has probably guaranteed the survival of the registry for the foreseeable future. It should be around for a long time.
For about a decade the Conservatives have had the advantage in the debate about the registry because they could always point to the AG report about the cost overruns in building it and then claim is was expensive waste of money. That has changed. Proponents of the registry have been able to credibly refute that claim by demonstrating that it costs very little to maintain the registry and more importantly that it is considered to be a vital tool by law enforcement. As well, the statements by the Ecole Polytechnique survivors leading up to the vote has reminded a lot of Canadians of why the registry was created in the first place. Those considerations will not be forgotten by Canadians and opponents of the registry will find them hard to overcome. Finally, Parliament has spoken. For all but the most ardent opponents of the registry the issue is resolved. Like SSM and abortion, revisiting this issue would not be a popular move amongst the electorate. Certainly Canadians are not embracing the registry but they are not clamouring for its dismantling either. They are probably satisfied with the outcome of the vote and would like to put the issue to bed. Incidentally, if the vote had gone the other way they would feel the same way and any party which proposed resurrecting the registry would be met with disapproval.
From a political standpoint we need to call a spade a spade. The Conservatives lost a key vote at the beginning of a Parliamentary session after what they would consider to be a summer-from-Hell. Anybody that believes that will not have an impact on their political fortunes going forward is dreaming.
As well, Mr. Harper’s statements after the vote will not help him. I realize he had to make them to assuage is base. However, those statements will not help him beyond that base and they could actually hurt him. The much documented supporters of the registry (eg. Quebecers) will not be happy with such statements and Mr. Harper would be hard pressed to win an election let alone a majority without these registry supporters. Mr. Harper really is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Abolishing the registry is not a winning ballot question in most of the country so he needs to change the channel quickly but he will also have to deal with some in his base that will demand he make this an election issue. It will be interesting to see if he can square that circle.
Another consideration is what the vote did to his opponents. After a successful summer tour the Liberals followed it up with a demonstration of severe unity on this vote. Every Liberal member showed up and every Liberal member voted with the Party. The punditry in this country will ignore that fact of course but it will not be lost on Liberal partisans. This summer and early fall has allowed Liberals to feel good about themselves again and that cannot be good news for the Conservatives.
On top of that the NDP completely flubbed this vote and that has weakened them. The only way Conservatives can win elections in this country is by having the NDP siphon off enough votes from the Liberals to allow the Conservatives to win. If the NDP wanes the Conservatives lose.
At the time it must have seemed like a good idea to the Conservatives to attempt to kill the registry by means of a Private Members Bill. Kill the registry and avoid too much political blowback in the process, its win-win. Unfortunately for them the exact opposite has happened. The debate and the concluding vote have actually made killing the registry much more difficult and in the process the political fortunes of the Conservatives have been harmed. I cannot believe any Conservative can be happy with that outcome.
It is true, as many Conservative defenders have pointed out today, the loss will probably assist the Conservatives in their fund-raising and it will energize their base somewhat. However, those defenders are missing or at least failing to acknowledge the big political downside of last night’s vote. I will address that in a minute.
The really interesting thing about last night’s vote is it has probably guaranteed the survival of the registry for the foreseeable future. It should be around for a long time.
For about a decade the Conservatives have had the advantage in the debate about the registry because they could always point to the AG report about the cost overruns in building it and then claim is was expensive waste of money. That has changed. Proponents of the registry have been able to credibly refute that claim by demonstrating that it costs very little to maintain the registry and more importantly that it is considered to be a vital tool by law enforcement. As well, the statements by the Ecole Polytechnique survivors leading up to the vote has reminded a lot of Canadians of why the registry was created in the first place. Those considerations will not be forgotten by Canadians and opponents of the registry will find them hard to overcome. Finally, Parliament has spoken. For all but the most ardent opponents of the registry the issue is resolved. Like SSM and abortion, revisiting this issue would not be a popular move amongst the electorate. Certainly Canadians are not embracing the registry but they are not clamouring for its dismantling either. They are probably satisfied with the outcome of the vote and would like to put the issue to bed. Incidentally, if the vote had gone the other way they would feel the same way and any party which proposed resurrecting the registry would be met with disapproval.
From a political standpoint we need to call a spade a spade. The Conservatives lost a key vote at the beginning of a Parliamentary session after what they would consider to be a summer-from-Hell. Anybody that believes that will not have an impact on their political fortunes going forward is dreaming.
As well, Mr. Harper’s statements after the vote will not help him. I realize he had to make them to assuage is base. However, those statements will not help him beyond that base and they could actually hurt him. The much documented supporters of the registry (eg. Quebecers) will not be happy with such statements and Mr. Harper would be hard pressed to win an election let alone a majority without these registry supporters. Mr. Harper really is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Abolishing the registry is not a winning ballot question in most of the country so he needs to change the channel quickly but he will also have to deal with some in his base that will demand he make this an election issue. It will be interesting to see if he can square that circle.
Another consideration is what the vote did to his opponents. After a successful summer tour the Liberals followed it up with a demonstration of severe unity on this vote. Every Liberal member showed up and every Liberal member voted with the Party. The punditry in this country will ignore that fact of course but it will not be lost on Liberal partisans. This summer and early fall has allowed Liberals to feel good about themselves again and that cannot be good news for the Conservatives.
On top of that the NDP completely flubbed this vote and that has weakened them. The only way Conservatives can win elections in this country is by having the NDP siphon off enough votes from the Liberals to allow the Conservatives to win. If the NDP wanes the Conservatives lose.
At the time it must have seemed like a good idea to the Conservatives to attempt to kill the registry by means of a Private Members Bill. Kill the registry and avoid too much political blowback in the process, its win-win. Unfortunately for them the exact opposite has happened. The debate and the concluding vote have actually made killing the registry much more difficult and in the process the political fortunes of the Conservatives have been harmed. I cannot believe any Conservative can be happy with that outcome.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Somebody please check the temperature in Hell
I actually agree with Maxime Bernier on his statements about not using taxpayers funds for a new hockey arena in Quebec City.
Incidentally, I also do not believe governments should finance similar projects in other cities. If these projects are financially viable those pushing them should have no problems finding private investors.
If they are having difficulties doing so that should be a sign.
Incidentally, I also do not believe governments should finance similar projects in other cities. If these projects are financially viable those pushing them should have no problems finding private investors.
If they are having difficulties doing so that should be a sign.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
I don't think Stephen Harper cares any more
The recent decisions to replace some high profile dissenters within the government bureaucracy and the word out today that the Harper government may not yet be finished doing so is very curious behaviour for a man who wants to retain power.
After a summer of controversy that has totally derailed your plans to hold a Fall election and caused serious harm to Conservative support, the last thing you would want to do is to create more controversy or to give what was once a friendly media more reason to take you to task. (When you have a columnist from the Conservative Party's in-house newspaper calling you a liar over your statements about the replacement of the Gun Registry head you know you have lost the media.)
Stephen Harper and his government are vulnerable and they know it. It all began with the first prorogation and it has just increased from there. That decision put a majority government permanently out of reach for the Harper government but it was not fatal. However, that event did begin a pattern where this government has been mired in controversy for most of its second term. That culminated in the Census decison and the reaction to it, which I am certain took the Conservatives completely by surprise and which Stephen Harper might believe was the tipping point for his government. I am certain they are further surprised by the quiet competence the Liberals have shown with the Liberal Express. If the Liberals can do the same during a real election campaign against a tired and old government the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
I have always believed that the first proroguation of Parliament was the beginning of the end of the Harper government and that they would never win another election. It would appear that Stephen Harper now agrees with me.
He has seen the writing on the wall. He knows he will be a former head of government very soon and that there is very little that he can do about it so he is now doing whatever he can to implement the imfamous "hidden agenda" and/or hamstring the Liberals when they take power.
After a summer of controversy that has totally derailed your plans to hold a Fall election and caused serious harm to Conservative support, the last thing you would want to do is to create more controversy or to give what was once a friendly media more reason to take you to task. (When you have a columnist from the Conservative Party's in-house newspaper calling you a liar over your statements about the replacement of the Gun Registry head you know you have lost the media.)
Stephen Harper and his government are vulnerable and they know it. It all began with the first prorogation and it has just increased from there. That decision put a majority government permanently out of reach for the Harper government but it was not fatal. However, that event did begin a pattern where this government has been mired in controversy for most of its second term. That culminated in the Census decison and the reaction to it, which I am certain took the Conservatives completely by surprise and which Stephen Harper might believe was the tipping point for his government. I am certain they are further surprised by the quiet competence the Liberals have shown with the Liberal Express. If the Liberals can do the same during a real election campaign against a tired and old government the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
I have always believed that the first proroguation of Parliament was the beginning of the end of the Harper government and that they would never win another election. It would appear that Stephen Harper now agrees with me.
He has seen the writing on the wall. He knows he will be a former head of government very soon and that there is very little that he can do about it so he is now doing whatever he can to implement the imfamous "hidden agenda" and/or hamstring the Liberals when they take power.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Polled by EKOS
For the first time in my life I received a telephone call from a polling firm asking me about my political preferences. I have been surveyed many times about my favourite toothpaste or radio station but never have I ever been called for a political poll.
It was an automated poll. The system asked me questions and I pressed buttons on my phone to answer.
It was a short poll, only nine questions, of which, five were the standard demographic questions.
The poll asked one question each on whether I thought the country and Ontario were heading in the right or wrong direction.
Then it asked me who I would support if an election were held in Canada and Ontario.
Interesting that they asked the direction questions first. The answers to those questions could influence how someone answers the subsequent party support questions.
Having designed surveys and polls in the past my choice would have been to put the party support questions first. It would make analysis of the estimates from those questions much simpler and reliable. Done the other way I cannot really determine the level of influence the direction questions would have on the party support questions so any analysis of the party support estimates would be much less reliable.
Not that it matters any more as I have been out of that business for almost a decade but I still have an interest in how these companies design their polls.
It was an interesting 3 minutes.
It was an automated poll. The system asked me questions and I pressed buttons on my phone to answer.
It was a short poll, only nine questions, of which, five were the standard demographic questions.
The poll asked one question each on whether I thought the country and Ontario were heading in the right or wrong direction.
Then it asked me who I would support if an election were held in Canada and Ontario.
Interesting that they asked the direction questions first. The answers to those questions could influence how someone answers the subsequent party support questions.
Having designed surveys and polls in the past my choice would have been to put the party support questions first. It would make analysis of the estimates from those questions much simpler and reliable. Done the other way I cannot really determine the level of influence the direction questions would have on the party support questions so any analysis of the party support estimates would be much less reliable.
Not that it matters any more as I have been out of that business for almost a decade but I still have an interest in how these companies design their polls.
It was an interesting 3 minutes.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Piling on the straw, part 2
A few days ago I stated in this space that the Census controversy would probably not hurt the Conservatives too much on its own.
With the release of the e-mail exchanges between Tony Clement and StatsCan that could change. This is written proof that the Conservatives lied and then attempted to use StatsCan to cover-up that lie.
If the media decides to pursue this angle in this latest development the Conservatives could find themselves hurt badly by this controversy. These e-mail exchanges could make this whole controversy about the credibility of this government instead of the merits of why they made the decision.
For the past six weeks we have heard mostly about the reasons why the long-form Census should be retained and it is apparent that the Conservatives have taken a hit. If the next week sees the focus switch from the esoteric statistical issues from the first six weeks to issues of Conservative credibility that hit will be much harder.
My only question is will the media pursue this angle? We will have to wait and see.
With the release of the e-mail exchanges between Tony Clement and StatsCan that could change. This is written proof that the Conservatives lied and then attempted to use StatsCan to cover-up that lie.
If the media decides to pursue this angle in this latest development the Conservatives could find themselves hurt badly by this controversy. These e-mail exchanges could make this whole controversy about the credibility of this government instead of the merits of why they made the decision.
For the past six weeks we have heard mostly about the reasons why the long-form Census should be retained and it is apparent that the Conservatives have taken a hit. If the next week sees the focus switch from the esoteric statistical issues from the first six weeks to issues of Conservative credibility that hit will be much harder.
My only question is will the media pursue this angle? We will have to wait and see.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Is the other shoe dropping?
The word out on the economic front today is American productivity is dropping, and the Canadian housing market is cooling off, which I can attest to as there are two houses on my street that have been up for sale for weeks without even a hint of a sale. This is just more bad economic news to go along announcements of other bad economic news in the past weeks.
The underlying factors that caused the 2008 recession have not gone away. They were only covered up by the trillions of dollars in stimulus funding governments threw at the world economy back then. It is almost a certainty that the problems that caused the recession will rear their ugly heads again once the stimulus funding runs its course. It is just a question of how serious would be their impacts on the world economy.
There have been increasing signs that the world economy is heading towards another economic slowdown. It still remains to be seen whether it will be a full blown recession or just reduced economic growth.
The underlying factors that caused the 2008 recession have not gone away. They were only covered up by the trillions of dollars in stimulus funding governments threw at the world economy back then. It is almost a certainty that the problems that caused the recession will rear their ugly heads again once the stimulus funding runs its course. It is just a question of how serious would be their impacts on the world economy.
There have been increasing signs that the world economy is heading towards another economic slowdown. It still remains to be seen whether it will be a full blown recession or just reduced economic growth.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Piling on the straw
It has been over six weeks since the Harper government made their announcement about the long-form census and the controversy is still rumbling along.
I find that amazing. Really, it is the census. I cannot think of much else the government does that could be less controversial. I certainly cannot think of much else that most Canadians would not give a second thought to, even on Census Day. After all, it is just one of those little things we all have to do once in a while.
So let's give the Conservatives credit. They managed to take something as innocuous as the Census and turn it into a full blown political crisis for them.
So will it hurt the Conservatives?
In and of itself, no. However, this is just one more controversy for this government which seems to have been mired in nothing but controversy since their re-election in 2008. Really, can anybody remember a time since then when they have not been trying to put out some kind of fire? Hell, sometimes they are trying to put out more than one at the same time as we witnessed during the detainee document controversy and the concurrent Guergis controversy.
I can guarantee that these non-stop controversies are having a negative impact on the Conservative fortunes and that when they go a controversy too far that negative impact will be politically fatal.
This government was on borrowed time before the Census long-form fiasco and it has just brought them that much closer to the end of their time in government.
I find that amazing. Really, it is the census. I cannot think of much else the government does that could be less controversial. I certainly cannot think of much else that most Canadians would not give a second thought to, even on Census Day. After all, it is just one of those little things we all have to do once in a while.
So let's give the Conservatives credit. They managed to take something as innocuous as the Census and turn it into a full blown political crisis for them.
So will it hurt the Conservatives?
In and of itself, no. However, this is just one more controversy for this government which seems to have been mired in nothing but controversy since their re-election in 2008. Really, can anybody remember a time since then when they have not been trying to put out some kind of fire? Hell, sometimes they are trying to put out more than one at the same time as we witnessed during the detainee document controversy and the concurrent Guergis controversy.
I can guarantee that these non-stop controversies are having a negative impact on the Conservative fortunes and that when they go a controversy too far that negative impact will be politically fatal.
This government was on borrowed time before the Census long-form fiasco and it has just brought them that much closer to the end of their time in government.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Now that is what I am talking about
It hit the news yesterday that an environmental group is taking direct aim at Alberta and urging Americans to rethink any plans they may have in visiting Alberta because of the Oil Sands.
I have seen the billboards and I have seen the video and they are one-sided and full of half-truths. In short this group is engaged in propogating propaganda to Americans about the Alberta and the Oil Sands.
Good on them.
It was really quite amusing this morning to see the Alberta Premier complain about the inaccuracies of the message from this group. He actually sounded like a progressive when they respond to inaccuracies and blatant lies told by the political right. It was quite the role reversal considering his own advertizing campaign expounding the Oil Sands is unadulterated propaganda.
I have argued in this space before that progressives have to begin using these kind of tactics if they want to advance their agendas and their causes in the face of fierce opposition from the political right. The political right on this continent developed and perfected the concept of "truthiness" and they have used it to good effect to advance their causes and agendas. They are still using it.
I read a story today about a tea-bagger group in Iowa putting up billboards that put Obama between Hitler and Lenin. It was an obvious attempt draw parallels between the three men. After cries of outrage they did pull it down and made a mea culpa but the fact they even conceived of and then paid for such advertizing speaks volumes.
Propaganda works. It has always been so. The political right on this continent has figured that out and they have used it to good effect. It is heartening to see that some groups from the progressive side of the political spectrum seems to have figured that out as well.
It is unfortunate that we have to go down this path where debate will essentially become nothing more than competing propaganda campaigns but this is a reality as one of the successes of the right has been the general discrediting of intellectuals and intellectual thought. If progressives are going to rebuild that credibility they are going first going to have to push back the political right and discredit some of its "truthiness". Once that happens progressives can then reassert truth into debates.
This advertizing campaign by the environmental group is a start. I only hope that other progressive organizations follow their example and begin to play the political game to win instead of playing it to be fair.
I have seen the billboards and I have seen the video and they are one-sided and full of half-truths. In short this group is engaged in propogating propaganda to Americans about the Alberta and the Oil Sands.
Good on them.
It was really quite amusing this morning to see the Alberta Premier complain about the inaccuracies of the message from this group. He actually sounded like a progressive when they respond to inaccuracies and blatant lies told by the political right. It was quite the role reversal considering his own advertizing campaign expounding the Oil Sands is unadulterated propaganda.
I have argued in this space before that progressives have to begin using these kind of tactics if they want to advance their agendas and their causes in the face of fierce opposition from the political right. The political right on this continent developed and perfected the concept of "truthiness" and they have used it to good effect to advance their causes and agendas. They are still using it.
I read a story today about a tea-bagger group in Iowa putting up billboards that put Obama between Hitler and Lenin. It was an obvious attempt draw parallels between the three men. After cries of outrage they did pull it down and made a mea culpa but the fact they even conceived of and then paid for such advertizing speaks volumes.
Propaganda works. It has always been so. The political right on this continent has figured that out and they have used it to good effect. It is heartening to see that some groups from the progressive side of the political spectrum seems to have figured that out as well.
It is unfortunate that we have to go down this path where debate will essentially become nothing more than competing propaganda campaigns but this is a reality as one of the successes of the right has been the general discrediting of intellectuals and intellectual thought. If progressives are going to rebuild that credibility they are going first going to have to push back the political right and discredit some of its "truthiness". Once that happens progressives can then reassert truth into debates.
This advertizing campaign by the environmental group is a start. I only hope that other progressive organizations follow their example and begin to play the political game to win instead of playing it to be fair.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
2B or not 2B
While it is heartening to see the reaction of many to the bone headed decision of the Harper Government to eliminate the long form of the Census it is not so much to see who the reaction is coming from.
It is universally coming from academics, experts, bureaucrats and the media, those folks the Conservatives label the "liberal elite".
I can guarantee that the bleatings of this group is falling upon deaf ears and in fact I would not be surprised if the Conservatives make statements, in the near future, to the effect that they are defending Canadians from intrusiveness of the liberal elites in Canada. My guess, it will come in the form of a request for financial support from the party faithful before the expected fall election.
That would cause the anti-intellectual, knuckle dragging mouth breathers that infest the Conservative Party to shout out a lusty "Ya", while writing cheques, while the rest of the Canadian public would shrug and turn back to their BBQs and the users of the Census long-form data would be left to find the data they need to do their work elsewhere.
Part of the problem for the critics of this decision is they are again using long-winded dissertations on the importance of the data. Certainly, everything they say is based in fact but the Conservatives do not care about facts and Canadians are too busy enjoying their summer to really pay attention.
What the critics have to do is grab the attention of Canadians by showing them how this decision will effect them at personal level. They need to do it in a short and punchy way that allows for the short attention spans of the typical voter.
There are dozens of programs, at all levels of government, that involve writing cheques to Canadians and that use this data in their administration. The critics should identify each and every one of them and make the statement:
"If you receive cheques from any of these programs the decision by the Harper Government on the Census could reduce the amount of that cheque or whether you receive it at all".
Certainly that would be a broad statement but as I have stated in this space before the critics of this government have to stop playing fair and start playing to win. If that means using propaganda then so be it.
Certainly the Conservatives would deny this statement but we all know that the nature of politics is the accusation always receives more play and bigger headlines than the subsequent denial.
This is a party and a government that believes any kind of compromise or conciliation is a form of weakness so this decision is final. However, that does not mean that the critics of this decision cannot make the government regret it.
It is universally coming from academics, experts, bureaucrats and the media, those folks the Conservatives label the "liberal elite".
I can guarantee that the bleatings of this group is falling upon deaf ears and in fact I would not be surprised if the Conservatives make statements, in the near future, to the effect that they are defending Canadians from intrusiveness of the liberal elites in Canada. My guess, it will come in the form of a request for financial support from the party faithful before the expected fall election.
That would cause the anti-intellectual, knuckle dragging mouth breathers that infest the Conservative Party to shout out a lusty "Ya", while writing cheques, while the rest of the Canadian public would shrug and turn back to their BBQs and the users of the Census long-form data would be left to find the data they need to do their work elsewhere.
Part of the problem for the critics of this decision is they are again using long-winded dissertations on the importance of the data. Certainly, everything they say is based in fact but the Conservatives do not care about facts and Canadians are too busy enjoying their summer to really pay attention.
What the critics have to do is grab the attention of Canadians by showing them how this decision will effect them at personal level. They need to do it in a short and punchy way that allows for the short attention spans of the typical voter.
There are dozens of programs, at all levels of government, that involve writing cheques to Canadians and that use this data in their administration. The critics should identify each and every one of them and make the statement:
"If you receive cheques from any of these programs the decision by the Harper Government on the Census could reduce the amount of that cheque or whether you receive it at all".
Certainly that would be a broad statement but as I have stated in this space before the critics of this government have to stop playing fair and start playing to win. If that means using propaganda then so be it.
Certainly the Conservatives would deny this statement but we all know that the nature of politics is the accusation always receives more play and bigger headlines than the subsequent denial.
This is a party and a government that believes any kind of compromise or conciliation is a form of weakness so this decision is final. However, that does not mean that the critics of this decision cannot make the government regret it.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Liberal Majority Government by 2015, at the latest
Governments have life-spans.
At the federal level in this country that life-span is generally 8 years and/or two consecutive elections. It is very rare for a government to last more than eight years or for a government to win more than two successive elections. That is why Jean Chrétien’s feat of winning three straight majority governments and governing for 11 straight years is considered such an extraordinary political achievement.
As the life of a government progresses it is inevitable that Canadians begin looking for a change. That desire usually begins to manifest itself around year 6 of the life of the government or soon after they win a second straight mandate. The Conservatives have won two back-to-back mandates and they have been in government for 5-and-a-half years and we are beginning to see that desire for change. From their polling numbers being in the low 30s to the media reaction to the Fake Lake, which would have been ignored by them two years ago, there are signs that the desire for change is slowly but surely building. The Conservatives are already on borrowed time.
So, how will we get to a Liberal majority by the middle of this decade? Assuming there is an election this fall, as many believe, the following five scenarios are the likeliest outcomes.
1a) Liberal Minority government: If the Liberals win the government in the fall Stephen Harper is gone from politics and all of a sudden it is the Conservatives that would be in disarray. They would be the Official Opposition Party suffering through questions of leadership, dealing with fundraising issues as donations become fragmented between the various leadership candidates, and dealing with questions about party unity as a leadership race inevitably opens up rifts between the candidates and their various camps within the party. These problems would not be resolved and the new leader would not have enough time to get his act together in time for the next election which would probably be 18-24 months after the 2010 election.
We also cannot forget about the possibility that the loss of the-discipline-of-power might cause a rift to develop along the old Tory/Reform Party fault line within that party which would highlight and amplify any questions about party unity and could do long-term damage to the Conservatives.
This scenario could also see the replacement of one or more of the other federal party leaders, which would break the current political logjam and leave Michael Ignatieff as one of the “seasoned” federal leaders going into the election after the next one.
We cannot forget some of the questionable funding decisions from the stimulus program and the G-20 summit that would probably come out during that period and there might even be some revelations from the Afghan detainee documents.
Finally, the media would fall over itself to curry favour with the new government. The corporate bosses that run our MSM are always looking for something from the government and being overly critical of the party in power is not conducive to successful lobbying efforts. So we would see a much more positive media environment for the Liberals while a not so good one for the Conservatives.
Combine all of the above and it is very likely that we would see a Liberal majority government after the election following the next one, probably in 2011 or 2012.
1b) Conservative minority government and Stephen Harper resigns as leader of the Conservatives: In this situation the Conservatives would be going through the process described in 1a) plus attempting to govern at the same time. That never works. It just provides voters with more incentive to make a change.
I am making no assumptions about how Stephen Harper leaves his job (ie. Is he pushed?) but it would have an impact on Conservative fortunes during a subsequent election.
The new leader would also have to deal with the Harper record, which could include some rather damning reports from the AG when she reports on the stimulus and G-20 spending.
1c) Conservative minority government and Stephen Harper stays on: The Conservatives would be saddled with the problem they face now but more magnified. They would be in the same position that Paul Martin found himself in after the 2004 election. They would be in government but Canadians would grow increasingly disenchanted with them and Stephen Harper so that at the next opportunity they would make a change.
Again, I am making no assumptions about how Stephen Harper hangs on to his job or how firm his hold would be on it.
Finally, if Stephen Harper reacts to any AG reports critical of the stimulus and G-20 spending as he usually responds to criticism he will just be reinforcing the desire for change.
For both 1b and 1c we would see a change in the media narrative as it becomes somewhat more positive to the Liberals and somewhat more negative to the Conservatives. The corporate bosses of our MSM would not want to offend the Conservatives too much but they would also want to make some inroads with the Liberals as it would be apparent to them that a change of government is inevitable and imminent.
The likely result of the next election after 2010 for 1b and 1c is a Liberal victory, likely by a very large margin. That election would probably occur in late 2011 or early 2012.
2) Liberal majority government: In this situation the Liberals beat my assumption by 5 years and not much more needs to be said.
3) Conservative majority government: This situation would provide the Liberals with the opportunity to renew itself without the constant pressure of being ready for an election. They would be able to fundraise, develop policy, renew the party and, if they desire, change leaders in a more orderly manner. As an added bonus, the prospect of not even being able to compete for power for another four years would cause all of the current crop of hangers on and hacks to leave the party. Most of these people are only involved because they believe they will be rewarded with lucrative jobs when the Liberals win the government so they would desert because very few of them would want to put their careers on hold for four years.
As for the Conservatives, by the time the next election comes along in 2014 they would be beyond stale and the desire for change would be quite high. This is assuming having unshackled power does not bring out the baser instincts of the Conservatives and/or Stephen Harper does something to keep them under control. If this assumption is incorrect then that desire for change becomes very intense which would probably increase the margin of victory for the Liberals in 2014 and potentially greatly damage the Conservative Brand. As well, this government acts in a dictatorial manner in a minority situation so it can only be imagined how it would act with a majority. Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney ran their governments in that fashion and you just need to look at what happened to them and their governments after their last elections to see how that would turn out for the Conservatives.
In all probability Stephen Harper would leave at some point during a majority mandate forcing the Conservatives to choose a new leader before the 2014 election. That would leave a new leader trying to defend the record of his predecessor and leading an old government. You only need to look at the fate of Ernie Eves, Paul Martin, Kim Campbell and John Turner to see what usually happens in those situations.
For all of these scenarios I do not make any assumptions about unforeseen events, such a natural disasters, economic downturns or economic upturns. These kinds of events could have an impact but that impact would only delay or accelerate the inevitable it would change it.
We will see the end of the political limbo that we have been living under for the past half decade or so after the next election. At that point the Liberals will be on the road to forming a majority government before the middle of this decade.
At the federal level in this country that life-span is generally 8 years and/or two consecutive elections. It is very rare for a government to last more than eight years or for a government to win more than two successive elections. That is why Jean Chrétien’s feat of winning three straight majority governments and governing for 11 straight years is considered such an extraordinary political achievement.
As the life of a government progresses it is inevitable that Canadians begin looking for a change. That desire usually begins to manifest itself around year 6 of the life of the government or soon after they win a second straight mandate. The Conservatives have won two back-to-back mandates and they have been in government for 5-and-a-half years and we are beginning to see that desire for change. From their polling numbers being in the low 30s to the media reaction to the Fake Lake, which would have been ignored by them two years ago, there are signs that the desire for change is slowly but surely building. The Conservatives are already on borrowed time.
So, how will we get to a Liberal majority by the middle of this decade? Assuming there is an election this fall, as many believe, the following five scenarios are the likeliest outcomes.
1a) Liberal Minority government: If the Liberals win the government in the fall Stephen Harper is gone from politics and all of a sudden it is the Conservatives that would be in disarray. They would be the Official Opposition Party suffering through questions of leadership, dealing with fundraising issues as donations become fragmented between the various leadership candidates, and dealing with questions about party unity as a leadership race inevitably opens up rifts between the candidates and their various camps within the party. These problems would not be resolved and the new leader would not have enough time to get his act together in time for the next election which would probably be 18-24 months after the 2010 election.
We also cannot forget about the possibility that the loss of the-discipline-of-power might cause a rift to develop along the old Tory/Reform Party fault line within that party which would highlight and amplify any questions about party unity and could do long-term damage to the Conservatives.
This scenario could also see the replacement of one or more of the other federal party leaders, which would break the current political logjam and leave Michael Ignatieff as one of the “seasoned” federal leaders going into the election after the next one.
We cannot forget some of the questionable funding decisions from the stimulus program and the G-20 summit that would probably come out during that period and there might even be some revelations from the Afghan detainee documents.
Finally, the media would fall over itself to curry favour with the new government. The corporate bosses that run our MSM are always looking for something from the government and being overly critical of the party in power is not conducive to successful lobbying efforts. So we would see a much more positive media environment for the Liberals while a not so good one for the Conservatives.
Combine all of the above and it is very likely that we would see a Liberal majority government after the election following the next one, probably in 2011 or 2012.
1b) Conservative minority government and Stephen Harper resigns as leader of the Conservatives: In this situation the Conservatives would be going through the process described in 1a) plus attempting to govern at the same time. That never works. It just provides voters with more incentive to make a change.
I am making no assumptions about how Stephen Harper leaves his job (ie. Is he pushed?) but it would have an impact on Conservative fortunes during a subsequent election.
The new leader would also have to deal with the Harper record, which could include some rather damning reports from the AG when she reports on the stimulus and G-20 spending.
1c) Conservative minority government and Stephen Harper stays on: The Conservatives would be saddled with the problem they face now but more magnified. They would be in the same position that Paul Martin found himself in after the 2004 election. They would be in government but Canadians would grow increasingly disenchanted with them and Stephen Harper so that at the next opportunity they would make a change.
Again, I am making no assumptions about how Stephen Harper hangs on to his job or how firm his hold would be on it.
Finally, if Stephen Harper reacts to any AG reports critical of the stimulus and G-20 spending as he usually responds to criticism he will just be reinforcing the desire for change.
For both 1b and 1c we would see a change in the media narrative as it becomes somewhat more positive to the Liberals and somewhat more negative to the Conservatives. The corporate bosses of our MSM would not want to offend the Conservatives too much but they would also want to make some inroads with the Liberals as it would be apparent to them that a change of government is inevitable and imminent.
The likely result of the next election after 2010 for 1b and 1c is a Liberal victory, likely by a very large margin. That election would probably occur in late 2011 or early 2012.
2) Liberal majority government: In this situation the Liberals beat my assumption by 5 years and not much more needs to be said.
3) Conservative majority government: This situation would provide the Liberals with the opportunity to renew itself without the constant pressure of being ready for an election. They would be able to fundraise, develop policy, renew the party and, if they desire, change leaders in a more orderly manner. As an added bonus, the prospect of not even being able to compete for power for another four years would cause all of the current crop of hangers on and hacks to leave the party. Most of these people are only involved because they believe they will be rewarded with lucrative jobs when the Liberals win the government so they would desert because very few of them would want to put their careers on hold for four years.
As for the Conservatives, by the time the next election comes along in 2014 they would be beyond stale and the desire for change would be quite high. This is assuming having unshackled power does not bring out the baser instincts of the Conservatives and/or Stephen Harper does something to keep them under control. If this assumption is incorrect then that desire for change becomes very intense which would probably increase the margin of victory for the Liberals in 2014 and potentially greatly damage the Conservative Brand. As well, this government acts in a dictatorial manner in a minority situation so it can only be imagined how it would act with a majority. Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney ran their governments in that fashion and you just need to look at what happened to them and their governments after their last elections to see how that would turn out for the Conservatives.
In all probability Stephen Harper would leave at some point during a majority mandate forcing the Conservatives to choose a new leader before the 2014 election. That would leave a new leader trying to defend the record of his predecessor and leading an old government. You only need to look at the fate of Ernie Eves, Paul Martin, Kim Campbell and John Turner to see what usually happens in those situations.
For all of these scenarios I do not make any assumptions about unforeseen events, such a natural disasters, economic downturns or economic upturns. These kinds of events could have an impact but that impact would only delay or accelerate the inevitable it would change it.
We will see the end of the political limbo that we have been living under for the past half decade or so after the next election. At that point the Liberals will be on the road to forming a majority government before the middle of this decade.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Earthquake Question
Considering an earthquake hit Toronto was a tsunami warning issued for the Fake Lake?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Perspective please
Two issues seem to have some Liberals a little miffed at the Liberal Party. The first is the Afghan detainee documents deal and the other is the foreign policy positions outlined by Mr. Ignatieff.
To the first point if this whole exercise was about Parliamentary supremacy then the Opposition has succeeded in making it so. The government actually argued that they were not required to release these documents to Parliament. They have been forced to reverse that position completely as a result of Parliament, in the persons of Opposition MPs, asserting that Parliament is supreme.
If this whole exercise was just a political gambit then I could see why some people would be a little upset with the agreement. After all, we will probably not see the quick release of these documents as a result of this agreement. Then again that was never going to happen anyway as the wheels of our Parliamentary system have never been known to turn quickly.
The principle of Parliamentary supremacy has been defended with this deal. If that is your main concern in this issue you should find this agreement satisfactory. If your main concern is using this issue as a weapon against the Conservatives then I guess you have reason to be upset.
As to the second issue I have to agree that I am not completely happy with all of the foreign policy positions outlined by Mr. Ignatieff but as a whole it is a damn sight better than the foreign policy being pursued by the current government. Since this is just a proposal it is not written in stone and it can be changed as circumstances dictate going forward, particularly when the Liberals become the governing party.
To the first point if this whole exercise was about Parliamentary supremacy then the Opposition has succeeded in making it so. The government actually argued that they were not required to release these documents to Parliament. They have been forced to reverse that position completely as a result of Parliament, in the persons of Opposition MPs, asserting that Parliament is supreme.
If this whole exercise was just a political gambit then I could see why some people would be a little upset with the agreement. After all, we will probably not see the quick release of these documents as a result of this agreement. Then again that was never going to happen anyway as the wheels of our Parliamentary system have never been known to turn quickly.
The principle of Parliamentary supremacy has been defended with this deal. If that is your main concern in this issue you should find this agreement satisfactory. If your main concern is using this issue as a weapon against the Conservatives then I guess you have reason to be upset.
As to the second issue I have to agree that I am not completely happy with all of the foreign policy positions outlined by Mr. Ignatieff but as a whole it is a damn sight better than the foreign policy being pursued by the current government. Since this is just a proposal it is not written in stone and it can be changed as circumstances dictate going forward, particularly when the Liberals become the governing party.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Fox News North, whatever
I feel no need to worry about such a channel up here in Canada.
Looking down South, it has the genuine article but all of its efforts could not prevent the Republicans from being crushed in the 2008 election. They lost the Presidency, the House and the Senate despite Fox News' best efforts.
Looking in Canada, the current MSM has been carrying Stephen Harper's water for over half a decade and he still has not been able to close the deal with Canadians. Hell, he actually seems to be regressing.
What "success" the Sun papers have had has been the result of the fact they are easy and quick to read while riding the bus to work. Hell, I have even picked up a discarded copy from time to time to read the sports section. That will not translate in a TV news station.
The National Post is the self-professed Conservative newspaper in this country and it is losing money hand over fist. So much so that it might be purchased by the Toronto Star. (The irony is delicious)
In short, from a political partisan standpoint Fox North will probably not change the political landscape in this country and it will probably be as financially successful as the Sun papers and the National Post.
I have better things to worry about besides this.
Looking down South, it has the genuine article but all of its efforts could not prevent the Republicans from being crushed in the 2008 election. They lost the Presidency, the House and the Senate despite Fox News' best efforts.
Looking in Canada, the current MSM has been carrying Stephen Harper's water for over half a decade and he still has not been able to close the deal with Canadians. Hell, he actually seems to be regressing.
What "success" the Sun papers have had has been the result of the fact they are easy and quick to read while riding the bus to work. Hell, I have even picked up a discarded copy from time to time to read the sports section. That will not translate in a TV news station.
The National Post is the self-professed Conservative newspaper in this country and it is losing money hand over fist. So much so that it might be purchased by the Toronto Star. (The irony is delicious)
In short, from a political partisan standpoint Fox North will probably not change the political landscape in this country and it will probably be as financially successful as the Sun papers and the National Post.
I have better things to worry about besides this.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Mr. Ignatieff, ignore the noise and focus
Modern politics seems to conspire to distract political parties from what is important. It is a function of a media that gave up reporting the news in favour of infotainment a long time ago and the fact most modern politicians are so bereft of ideas that they have to resort to hyper-partisanship to appear relevant.
Mr. Ignatieff you need to rise above all of this.
It is a reality that most people vote against something as opposed to voting for something. That is why negative advertizing works and that is the root cause of partisanship. If it were the other way around our Parliament would be a hotbed of debate about different ideas on how to make the lives of Canadians better instead of the juvenile crap we see there now.
However, despite this reality a political party still needs to be able to present ideas and, dare I say it, vision to really enjoy success. That is one reason why the Conservatives have never won a majority government. They have figured out the "vote against" reflex of the average voter but they have not been able to take it to the next level because they are a complete failure on the "vision" front.
The Conservatives have been presenting you with all sorts of ammunition for you to begin convincing Canadians that they need to vote against these clowns. I do not believe they have gone one week since Parliament resumed where they have not been defending some kind of bonehead decision, the Fake Lake being the latest in a long line. You and I both know that these are the kinds of things that plant the seed in the electorate that will germinate into a desire for change over time or during an election campaign.
However, you need to do more. You need to present a vision or at least an election theme. The campaigns of seemingly random election promises are not working. They have not worked for the Liberals in the last three elections and they have only been marginally more successful for the Conservatives.
You do not need to present individual policy proposal yet. The ground is not ready for that anyway. When the time comes you will need to present these proposals in the context of an overarching theme if you are to take increasing anger at the Conservatives and turn it to Liberal advantage.
Last Fall, when you gave your non-confidence speech in the House of Commons, you articulated just such a theme. I blogged back then that the theme you talked about was a proven winner in this country and I urged you to follow through on it. I am quite disappointed that you did not, however it is not too late.
You have a summer BBQ season coming up so you should spend that entire period talking about your vision. At every event talk to Canadians about how you believe government can be an agent of good in the lives of Canadians, using topical examples such as the oil spill in the Gulf to demonstrate your point. Talk about your vision for Canada and where you would like it to be in the next 5 to 10 years and beyond. In short, establish the broad objectives of a Liberal government under you so that when you begin to present individual policy proposals during the next election Canadians can put them into some context and see how they would achieve the objectives you have outlined.
The Conservative have been planting the seeds of their own defeat since Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament the first time. They will be ripe for the taking during the next election so you need to prepare Canadians to accept the idea of a Liberal government. Letting the Conservatives self-destruct will go along way in doing that but if you really want to seal the deal you will need to provide them with an alternative that they can like.
You only have the summer to do that so I would suggest you focus on that and not worry about the rest of the political noise out there right now.
Mr. Ignatieff you need to rise above all of this.
It is a reality that most people vote against something as opposed to voting for something. That is why negative advertizing works and that is the root cause of partisanship. If it were the other way around our Parliament would be a hotbed of debate about different ideas on how to make the lives of Canadians better instead of the juvenile crap we see there now.
However, despite this reality a political party still needs to be able to present ideas and, dare I say it, vision to really enjoy success. That is one reason why the Conservatives have never won a majority government. They have figured out the "vote against" reflex of the average voter but they have not been able to take it to the next level because they are a complete failure on the "vision" front.
The Conservatives have been presenting you with all sorts of ammunition for you to begin convincing Canadians that they need to vote against these clowns. I do not believe they have gone one week since Parliament resumed where they have not been defending some kind of bonehead decision, the Fake Lake being the latest in a long line. You and I both know that these are the kinds of things that plant the seed in the electorate that will germinate into a desire for change over time or during an election campaign.
However, you need to do more. You need to present a vision or at least an election theme. The campaigns of seemingly random election promises are not working. They have not worked for the Liberals in the last three elections and they have only been marginally more successful for the Conservatives.
You do not need to present individual policy proposal yet. The ground is not ready for that anyway. When the time comes you will need to present these proposals in the context of an overarching theme if you are to take increasing anger at the Conservatives and turn it to Liberal advantage.
Last Fall, when you gave your non-confidence speech in the House of Commons, you articulated just such a theme. I blogged back then that the theme you talked about was a proven winner in this country and I urged you to follow through on it. I am quite disappointed that you did not, however it is not too late.
You have a summer BBQ season coming up so you should spend that entire period talking about your vision. At every event talk to Canadians about how you believe government can be an agent of good in the lives of Canadians, using topical examples such as the oil spill in the Gulf to demonstrate your point. Talk about your vision for Canada and where you would like it to be in the next 5 to 10 years and beyond. In short, establish the broad objectives of a Liberal government under you so that when you begin to present individual policy proposals during the next election Canadians can put them into some context and see how they would achieve the objectives you have outlined.
The Conservative have been planting the seeds of their own defeat since Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament the first time. They will be ripe for the taking during the next election so you need to prepare Canadians to accept the idea of a Liberal government. Letting the Conservatives self-destruct will go along way in doing that but if you really want to seal the deal you will need to provide them with an alternative that they can like.
You only have the summer to do that so I would suggest you focus on that and not worry about the rest of the political noise out there right now.
Look past the next election
One thing about all of this merger talk is it is motivated solely by short-term considerations.
However, if you look past the next election there is no political logic to the NDP joining the Liberals and the idea of a merged Liberal/NDP Party should scare the shit out of the Conseratives. Such a situation would eliminate the NDP from the federal political scene and ensure the Liberals are the dominent party in this country for the foreseeable future.
As I stated in my previous blog the Liberals have dominated the Canadian federal political scene for more than half a century despite the centre-left being divided between two parties. The simple fact of Canadian politics is the progressive habit runs deep and there has not been any signs that it is changing.
So, imagine what would happen in the Canadian political scene if there were only two political parties, one a conservative party the other a liberal party. Liberal dominance would be virtually guaranteed.
I know many would dispute that assertion but just look at the last 60 years. In all but two cases the Conservatives only won government because the NDP siphoned off enough votes from the Liberals to hand them victory. The two exceptions are the first election of the Chief and the 1984 election. However, you only need to look at the 1988 Free Trade election to see what I am talking about. The Conservatives won that election with 43% of the vote. That leaves the remainder voting against them. Fortunately, the NDP took enough of that 57% away from the Liberals to deny them government. Just imagine if that election would have been fought between just the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. Joe Clark's experience really sheds a light on that dynamic. Then there is Stephen Harper who has only won his minorities because Jack Layton has managed to increase his seat count in Parliament to the detriment of the Liberals. Again, imagine if the NDP did not exist.
Of course, you cannot just add up the Liberal popular vote and the NDP popular vote and think that they would mesh perfectly. Some Liberals would go to the Conservatives, but not that many, and some Dippers would refuse to join the new party but enough of them would put power over principle to make the new party the dominent party on the federal scene.
I am certain that some NDP supporters would disagree with my assertion that the NDP would be eliminated but you only need to look at the two "partners" in the proposed merger. Despite its current problems the Liberals are bigger, better financed and they have the better party apparatus than the NDP. We only need to look at the "merger" between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance to see what happens to the smaller party in such a situation. A merger between the Liberals and the NDP would be a takeover and nothing else. The NDP and its ideals would cease to exist on the federal scene, much like old time Toryism has disappeared from federal politics.
Looking past the short-term a political merger between the Liberals and the NDP makes no sense from an NDP point-of-view. It would be political suicide for them. That is why you can probably believe Jack Layton when he states that he does not want to merge the two parties.
As for Conservatives you had better pray that it does not come to pass if you are entertaining any ideas of becoming a more competative political party in the 21st century.
For the Liberals, such a merger would be advantageous to you in the longer-term but not so much in the short-term. I would wager a sizable chunk of money that you will be enjoying majority government status by the middle of this decade without a merger so you have no real need to make it happen at present. Who knows, once the dynamic I described in my previous post re-asserts itself, and the NDP is struggling to maintain official party status, maybe then discussions can be opened up to take over the NDP.
However, if you look past the next election there is no political logic to the NDP joining the Liberals and the idea of a merged Liberal/NDP Party should scare the shit out of the Conseratives. Such a situation would eliminate the NDP from the federal political scene and ensure the Liberals are the dominent party in this country for the foreseeable future.
As I stated in my previous blog the Liberals have dominated the Canadian federal political scene for more than half a century despite the centre-left being divided between two parties. The simple fact of Canadian politics is the progressive habit runs deep and there has not been any signs that it is changing.
So, imagine what would happen in the Canadian political scene if there were only two political parties, one a conservative party the other a liberal party. Liberal dominance would be virtually guaranteed.
I know many would dispute that assertion but just look at the last 60 years. In all but two cases the Conservatives only won government because the NDP siphoned off enough votes from the Liberals to hand them victory. The two exceptions are the first election of the Chief and the 1984 election. However, you only need to look at the 1988 Free Trade election to see what I am talking about. The Conservatives won that election with 43% of the vote. That leaves the remainder voting against them. Fortunately, the NDP took enough of that 57% away from the Liberals to deny them government. Just imagine if that election would have been fought between just the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. Joe Clark's experience really sheds a light on that dynamic. Then there is Stephen Harper who has only won his minorities because Jack Layton has managed to increase his seat count in Parliament to the detriment of the Liberals. Again, imagine if the NDP did not exist.
Of course, you cannot just add up the Liberal popular vote and the NDP popular vote and think that they would mesh perfectly. Some Liberals would go to the Conservatives, but not that many, and some Dippers would refuse to join the new party but enough of them would put power over principle to make the new party the dominent party on the federal scene.
I am certain that some NDP supporters would disagree with my assertion that the NDP would be eliminated but you only need to look at the two "partners" in the proposed merger. Despite its current problems the Liberals are bigger, better financed and they have the better party apparatus than the NDP. We only need to look at the "merger" between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance to see what happens to the smaller party in such a situation. A merger between the Liberals and the NDP would be a takeover and nothing else. The NDP and its ideals would cease to exist on the federal scene, much like old time Toryism has disappeared from federal politics.
Looking past the short-term a political merger between the Liberals and the NDP makes no sense from an NDP point-of-view. It would be political suicide for them. That is why you can probably believe Jack Layton when he states that he does not want to merge the two parties.
As for Conservatives you had better pray that it does not come to pass if you are entertaining any ideas of becoming a more competative political party in the 21st century.
For the Liberals, such a merger would be advantageous to you in the longer-term but not so much in the short-term. I would wager a sizable chunk of money that you will be enjoying majority government status by the middle of this decade without a merger so you have no real need to make it happen at present. Who knows, once the dynamic I described in my previous post re-asserts itself, and the NDP is struggling to maintain official party status, maybe then discussions can be opened up to take over the NDP.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Why would any Liberal suggest a deal with the NDP right now?
The short answer is fear. They believe it is the only way to defeat Stephen Harper. The logic of those making this suggestion is the centre-left is divided so it needs to be united in order to take on the big bad Conservatives.
The biggest hole in that logic is the centre-left in this country has been divided for over 60 years. With the exception of the 1990s, the centre-right in this country has had only one party to represent it for the last 6 decades yet in those 60 years the Liberals have dominated the Canadian federal political scene.
You see, the pattern in this country for the past 60 years is the Liberals govern, often for long stretches at a time. As usually happens, with long standing governments, they get tired, they run out of ideas and the electorate decides it is time for a change. At that point Liberal support tends to bleed to the NDP in sufficient numbers that the a conservative party forms a government. Then when Canadians grow tired of that government those that lent their votes to the NDP go back to the Liberals, often in very big numbers. In short, Canadians believe there are only two parties that can be trusted to govern. The Liberals and their conservative alternative.
We have seen no evidence that this pattern has changed. Yes some would point to the polls indicating that Jack Layton is the most popular federal leader right now but one thing about respondents to polls is they know that they can answer the question any way the like without consequences. No government has fallen and no party ever formed a government based on a poll from Nanos, Ekos, Strategic Council, et al.
It is only the ballot box, where the decision of a voter has profound consequences, where we should be looking and it you look there it is as plain as Stephen Harper's hair style that the decades old voting pattern is still alive. Despite Adscam, the Liberals came in second in the 2006 election and despite the worst showing of the Liberal Party since 1984 the Liberals still have double the seats of the NDP after the 2008 election.
The spanner in the works is the Bloc. It is a big enough force in Quebec to be a problem. However, twice in this decade it looked like their grip on Quebec was loosening only to have the two big parties give them another lease on life. The Liberals did it with Adscam in 2006 and the Conservatives did it with their policy proposal of locking up 14 year olds and attacking the arts in 2008. Long standing stalwarts of the seperatist movement have called into question the whole concept so if the Liberals can exploit that and provide Quebecers a reason to vote Liberal again they should be able to whither the Bloc.
The other argument is Canadians are becoming more conservative. Again the ballot box proves that argument wrong.
A third argument is Conservative voters are more motivated while progressive voters have washed their hands of politics. Again, the ballot box prove that argument wrong and when Canadians finally decide to rid themselves of the Conservative government they will come out to vote to do so. It is funny, whenever Canadians become motivated to get rid of a government voter turnout goes up. We saw that with Brian Mulroney's, Jean Chretien's and Stephen Harper's first election victories.
There is no reason for the Liberals to make a deal with the NDP right now. The current Conservative government has passed its best before date. There is a malaise in the electorate right now that will change into a desire for change. Once that happens many voter who deserted the Liberals will come back to them. Liberals should be patient and not let fear cloud their judgement or make them do something that would be counter-productive in the extreme.
If after the next election the Liberals are in a position to form a government and they need help from another party to do so then seeking that help from the NDP should be an option. Until then just focus on being an effective opposition and winning the next election.
The biggest hole in that logic is the centre-left in this country has been divided for over 60 years. With the exception of the 1990s, the centre-right in this country has had only one party to represent it for the last 6 decades yet in those 60 years the Liberals have dominated the Canadian federal political scene.
You see, the pattern in this country for the past 60 years is the Liberals govern, often for long stretches at a time. As usually happens, with long standing governments, they get tired, they run out of ideas and the electorate decides it is time for a change. At that point Liberal support tends to bleed to the NDP in sufficient numbers that the a conservative party forms a government. Then when Canadians grow tired of that government those that lent their votes to the NDP go back to the Liberals, often in very big numbers. In short, Canadians believe there are only two parties that can be trusted to govern. The Liberals and their conservative alternative.
We have seen no evidence that this pattern has changed. Yes some would point to the polls indicating that Jack Layton is the most popular federal leader right now but one thing about respondents to polls is they know that they can answer the question any way the like without consequences. No government has fallen and no party ever formed a government based on a poll from Nanos, Ekos, Strategic Council, et al.
It is only the ballot box, where the decision of a voter has profound consequences, where we should be looking and it you look there it is as plain as Stephen Harper's hair style that the decades old voting pattern is still alive. Despite Adscam, the Liberals came in second in the 2006 election and despite the worst showing of the Liberal Party since 1984 the Liberals still have double the seats of the NDP after the 2008 election.
The spanner in the works is the Bloc. It is a big enough force in Quebec to be a problem. However, twice in this decade it looked like their grip on Quebec was loosening only to have the two big parties give them another lease on life. The Liberals did it with Adscam in 2006 and the Conservatives did it with their policy proposal of locking up 14 year olds and attacking the arts in 2008. Long standing stalwarts of the seperatist movement have called into question the whole concept so if the Liberals can exploit that and provide Quebecers a reason to vote Liberal again they should be able to whither the Bloc.
The other argument is Canadians are becoming more conservative. Again the ballot box proves that argument wrong.
A third argument is Conservative voters are more motivated while progressive voters have washed their hands of politics. Again, the ballot box prove that argument wrong and when Canadians finally decide to rid themselves of the Conservative government they will come out to vote to do so. It is funny, whenever Canadians become motivated to get rid of a government voter turnout goes up. We saw that with Brian Mulroney's, Jean Chretien's and Stephen Harper's first election victories.
There is no reason for the Liberals to make a deal with the NDP right now. The current Conservative government has passed its best before date. There is a malaise in the electorate right now that will change into a desire for change. Once that happens many voter who deserted the Liberals will come back to them. Liberals should be patient and not let fear cloud their judgement or make them do something that would be counter-productive in the extreme.
If after the next election the Liberals are in a position to form a government and they need help from another party to do so then seeking that help from the NDP should be an option. Until then just focus on being an effective opposition and winning the next election.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Do the Liberals have a hidden agenda?
There has been a fair amount of complaining about the Liberals and the fact they have not bothered to release even a part of their election platform and that they do not stand for anything. Many are saying this is the reason why the Liberals are not doing so well in the polls.
We, of course, have seen this before. Leading up to the 2006 election Stephen Harper talked about nothing but Adscam and absolutely refused to talk about anything else. At the time it was assumed that the reason for this was he had a hidden agenda. So that must be the reason for the Liberals reluctance to release any policy.
So, what is that hidden agenda? Do they have one?
Or are we just seeing again that it sucks to be the Official Opposition in this country?
We, of course, have seen this before. Leading up to the 2006 election Stephen Harper talked about nothing but Adscam and absolutely refused to talk about anything else. At the time it was assumed that the reason for this was he had a hidden agenda. So that must be the reason for the Liberals reluctance to release any policy.
So, what is that hidden agenda? Do they have one?
Or are we just seeing again that it sucks to be the Official Opposition in this country?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Some Thoughts
I have been way too busy to blog in depth about what has been going on these days so I thought I would just summarize some of them.
The polls: As many have noticed the polls have not been giving any of the three national parties any love. There does seem to be a general malaise amongst the electorate.
Although this is not good news for any party right now it is the Conservatives that should be the most worried about it. It does not take long for this kind of malaise to morph into a desire for change. Once that happens there is not much the government can do to stop it and Mr. Harper's own experience should tell him that once that does take root even an Opposition Leader who has been largely written off can win an election.
The Conservatives know this as demonstrated by my second point.
The Conservative capitulation on the Afghan detainee documents: No media have characterized the deal as such but considering the lengths the government went to prevent their release, the statements, a month ago, by senior Conservative officials about calling an election before they would release them and the fact that the government agreed to each and every major demand by the Opposition would indicate they completely surrendered on this issue.
They are afraid of an election and I only hope the Opposition are aware of that fact and begin to use it to their advantage.
Abortion: This particular Djinni has been let out of the bottle and the Conservatives have been trying to stuff it back in ever since.
It still boggles my mind that the great chess master actually let it out. The Conservatives have been playing with fire for over a year by throwing red meat at their base while risking alienating the broader electorate in the process. They have more or less escaped each one of these instances without damaging themselves too much but their luck cannot hold indefinitely and they might have just run out of it this time.
I still question why the Conservatives feel the need to keep shoring up their base. I have stated in this space before that I believe they see something happening within their base that frightens them and this latest episode just reinforces that belief.
Auditor General wanting to audit Member's expences: To what end?
Sorry folks but I am going to have to disagree with the consensus.
It is very common for senior public servants to build empires and our AG has shown herself as being very adept at doing so. This is just more of her empire building and it should be nipped in the bud. There are much greater issues with how this government spends our tax dollars that should be investigated before looking at how individual Members spend their 200K a year office budgets.
The Stanley Cup playoffs: Go Habs Go!
The elections in Britain: Interesting result but it has no bearing on our politics in Canada. It is a different political culture with different values and different personalities. Our form of government may be based on theirs but that is as far as the similarities go.
As well, any similarities that are pointed out about their situation and the ones here miss the mark. For this election the Brits were actually in the same spot we were in 2006. A government that had been in power for a long time, a great desire for change amongst the electorate, but a distrust of the change presented by the only viable alternative to the government. So, the electorate opted for change but they also opted to keep the new government on a tight leash.
That is the limit of any similarities however because the winner of their election decided to enter into a formal agreement with one of its opponents as opposed to trying to govern alone. Once the British Conservatives made that agreement they and the governance of Britain started down a much different path than the ones we have been on for the last four years.
The polls: As many have noticed the polls have not been giving any of the three national parties any love. There does seem to be a general malaise amongst the electorate.
Although this is not good news for any party right now it is the Conservatives that should be the most worried about it. It does not take long for this kind of malaise to morph into a desire for change. Once that happens there is not much the government can do to stop it and Mr. Harper's own experience should tell him that once that does take root even an Opposition Leader who has been largely written off can win an election.
The Conservatives know this as demonstrated by my second point.
The Conservative capitulation on the Afghan detainee documents: No media have characterized the deal as such but considering the lengths the government went to prevent their release, the statements, a month ago, by senior Conservative officials about calling an election before they would release them and the fact that the government agreed to each and every major demand by the Opposition would indicate they completely surrendered on this issue.
They are afraid of an election and I only hope the Opposition are aware of that fact and begin to use it to their advantage.
Abortion: This particular Djinni has been let out of the bottle and the Conservatives have been trying to stuff it back in ever since.
It still boggles my mind that the great chess master actually let it out. The Conservatives have been playing with fire for over a year by throwing red meat at their base while risking alienating the broader electorate in the process. They have more or less escaped each one of these instances without damaging themselves too much but their luck cannot hold indefinitely and they might have just run out of it this time.
I still question why the Conservatives feel the need to keep shoring up their base. I have stated in this space before that I believe they see something happening within their base that frightens them and this latest episode just reinforces that belief.
Auditor General wanting to audit Member's expences: To what end?
Sorry folks but I am going to have to disagree with the consensus.
It is very common for senior public servants to build empires and our AG has shown herself as being very adept at doing so. This is just more of her empire building and it should be nipped in the bud. There are much greater issues with how this government spends our tax dollars that should be investigated before looking at how individual Members spend their 200K a year office budgets.
The Stanley Cup playoffs: Go Habs Go!
The elections in Britain: Interesting result but it has no bearing on our politics in Canada. It is a different political culture with different values and different personalities. Our form of government may be based on theirs but that is as far as the similarities go.
As well, any similarities that are pointed out about their situation and the ones here miss the mark. For this election the Brits were actually in the same spot we were in 2006. A government that had been in power for a long time, a great desire for change amongst the electorate, but a distrust of the change presented by the only viable alternative to the government. So, the electorate opted for change but they also opted to keep the new government on a tight leash.
That is the limit of any similarities however because the winner of their election decided to enter into a formal agreement with one of its opponents as opposed to trying to govern alone. Once the British Conservatives made that agreement they and the governance of Britain started down a much different path than the ones we have been on for the last four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)