Spring Election?

Are Canada's conservatives lining up for a federal election this spring? 

Predicting such things is a bit like scrying, but there are signs that lean that way.  

First are some questionable polling numbers which show the CPC getting very close to minority government territory, even while their current leader seems about as well liked as half a worm in your apple. This combined with the NDP apparently riding high in the polls is interesting. Years ago, I realized that the conservatives in Canada only win when the NDP starts rising in the polling. (* I'm not going to spend time here on a detailed critique of Poilievre and Singh as leaders of their parties - that isn't the point of this post *)

I say that the polling numbers are questionable for a few reasons. First, the general sampling strategy for polling these days is increasingly problematic from a statistical methods perspective, and second it's getting increasingly difficult to access fundamental materials like the questions asked.  The latter issue makes it very hard to assess whether a given poll is done with "push polling" tactics or not. 

The recent election in Ontario was an interesting case of the headlines for months pushing a polling-based narrative that "the conservatives have it all sewn up, and sure enough, Doug Ford's OPCs won handily - with one of the lowest voter turnouts in years. The argument can be made that the media campaign was designed to depress the overall vote - which always favours conservatives. 

The next sign comes out of Alberta. In theory Alberta is heading into an election this spring with newly-minted Premier Danielle Smith leading the incumbent UCP. Except the UCP is far from "united", and Ms. Smiths first months in office have been plagued by a series of missteps on her part that have many wondering if she is even suitable for office at all. 

For the last couple of months, the Alberta government has been flailing about trying to pick a fight with Ottawa. First it was the so-called "sovereignty act", then it was over LNG exports, and most recently over the federal government's proposed "just transition" legislation. These "fights" are intended to tee up an easy win in Alberta for Poilievre, who will be able to simply say he will stop the feds from "blocking Alberta", and presto, the conservatives have an easy 20 odd seats. 

However, given the bizarre behaviour of Danielle Smith, a UCP victory in a spring election is anything but a sure thing at the moment. Therefore, while the UCP fosters squabbles with the incumbent LPC government federally (sucking up oxygen for real issues), a federal election would also serve as a distraction for an Alberta electorate fatigued by a constant rush of missteps and scandals on the part of a UCP that is barely holding itself together. 

So, the second sign of a potential election call is in fact the chaos in Alberta which both the UCP and CPC stand to benefit from. 

The third sign is perhaps more important - and it's the ramping up of rhetoric in conservative aligned news media. In particular, I'm poking at PostMedia here. Long a part of the conservative propaganda machine, PostMedia has been ramping up both in its content, as well as how it is promoting itself on social media like Twitter. 

A quick glance at the National Post's front page online this morning turns up 2 columns about "free speech" (mostly roiling around Jordan Peterson), two columns which are designed to whip up more moral panic over transgender people, a bunch of "the world is falling apart" articles based on Ukraine, a handful of articles implying that the Liberals are corrupt, and a few praising Doug Ford for "innovating health care" by privatizing it.  

I think you get the picture - the conservative media is now lining up to take a broadside shot at the Trudeau-led LPC, in hopes of tipping a few more votes their way. 

What's harder to read is whether there are enough votes in the opposition parties willing to topple the current government.  While the CPC and NDP might be willing, that's only 144 votes, and they need support from the BQ - and it's not at all clear to me that the BQ sees a gain in going to the polls at this time. 

Regardless, there are definite signs of a move to kick off an election this spring.  Whether it happens or not is another matter. 

No Ms. Wente ... There's More To It Than That

Apparently Margaret Wente thinks that we don't need an election.

As for scandal-mongering, Mr. Ignatieff will have to come up with something better than what he has. What he has is a bit of procedural abuse, one dopey minister and an old fool who got mixed up with a 22-year-old former escort. What he doesn’t have is a widespread pattern of abuse of power. His outrage sounds a little overdone – especially against the backdrop of current world events. Shouldn’t we be debating, say, the future of nuclear power in Canada, or the wisdom of getting entangled in a distant military action whose command structure and objectives are entirely unclear?

Nice try at deflection, Ms. Wente? Did you get that from the PMO? ... or did you forget that Harper is the man who pushed the button on Canada's participation in Libya?

As for Mr. Harper's contempt for parliament, that's been clear from the get-go. Let's not forget that it was Mr. Harper's party who produced a 200-page manual on how to disrupt committee business; it was Mr. Harper who prorogued parliament to save his political hide not once, but twice since being elected in 2006; Conservatives have been caught out lying to Canada's public some many times I've lost count; Harper's henchmen have violated the lobbying rules time and again, and the man who ran on a platform of greater accountability has done NOTHING to change the situation.

Bev Oda was the clumsy one who got caught - where there's smoke, there's fire. There's something very smelly about a government that insists on sole-sourcing a major purchase like fighter jets - who is getting bought off with what? What else has dear leader decided to bury under the covers on the basis that "Canadians don't need to know that"? ... and lastly, let's not forget the thinly disguised money laundering scheme the HarperCon$ came up with in 2006 - only criminals engage in money laundering.

... and Ms. Wente wonders why Harper's government is likely to fall tomorrow?

Harper's Politics of Division

It's always the same with the Con$ - it's "either we get a majority or the opposition will form a coalition"; "if an election is called, law reform bills will die"; call an election, and you won't get your renovation tax credit ... and on it goes.

And this whole charade underscores the problem with the Harper government in the first place. It's all about sowing division, not finding compromise. It's about absolutism, not practical government.

Harper's recent speech in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario underscores that again. Harper's salivating over the concept of a majority. Why? Because Harper has demonstrated repeatedly that he can't deal with a minority situation. This is the Prime Minister who has prorogued parliament twice when the heat got to be too much, and called a snap election last fall because he thought he could winkle a majority out of it.

The man is positively slavering over political power - and it would not be a "benign dictatorship" - Harper has shown us repeatedly that he kowtows to the extremist base in the Reform ranks of his party. Canadians should not think for a minute that Harper would do anything other than legislate a Neo/TheoCon agenda as quickly as possible.

As the Bush experience in the US has shown, that would be disastrous for Canadian citizens. Human rights would be replaced by a near police-state kind of autocracy. "Law and Order" based on fear would replace due process. Ideology would reign over law.

Harper Peeing All Over Ontario, Quebec ... etc

Remember the GST? It was brought in by the last Conservative PM we had - near the end of Brian Mulroney's tenure.

At the time, it was often referred to as the "Go Shoot a Tory" tax. Well, outside of Alberta (where political mythology has kept any form of sales tax out of our provinicial taxation regime), Harper is trying to impose a "harmonized sales tax" to unify the various PST and GST regimes. As BCL points out, it is becoming a political liability in its own right - referring to it as the "Harper Sales Tax" (oh please, can somebody use that line in a campaign ad?)

On top of that, the HarperCon$ are busy trying to play favourites with an environmental policy designed to favour oil sands development while holding Ontario and Quebec manufacturing to different and higher standards.

I'm sure that this is going to play well for the HarperCon$.

This Is Governing?

So ... it seems that the Con$ are suing Elections Canada.

Over what you ask? Turning back some half a million dollars in GST expenses that Elections Canada refunded after the 2004 and 2006 campaigns.

But the latest court battle between the governing Tories and Elections Canada may not be as self-defeating, or altruistic, as it first appears.

If successful, the cash-flush Conservatives would both increase their election campaign spending limit and ensure that their poorer Liberal opponents have to refund a similar — if not larger — six-figure sum.

A Tory win in the case could also reduce the amount by which the party exceeded its 2006 campaign spending limit should the party lose another court case with Elections Canada over the so-called “in and out” ad-buying practice.

Not only is this childish on the part of the Con$, but it should remind all of us that this is a party so bent on power that it will stoop to any tactic it can dream up. They aren't interested in governing Canada - they are only interested in power itself.

Reminds me of a lyric from an old Fleetwood Mac tune: Players only love you while they're playin'

The Con$ are players ... the public ... well ... we better ask ourselves if we will be able respect ourselves in the morning.

I only half agree...

Peter Kent in today's Globe and Mail makes some interesting points while advocating that Ignatieff should not trigger an election in 2009.

However, his argument hits a major stumbling block when he writes:

Adding political uncertainty to the mix could only worsen our economic troubles. A responsible opposition would recognize that, for the present, steadiness is more important than changing the government through the conflict of election campaigning.

Well, perhaps, but such an act on the part of a "responsible" opposition only goes as far as the the governing party acting in a responsible fashion itself - something which we have not seen Mr. Harper's party do much of.

One can hardly call Harper's 'FU Canada' in November responsible government - it was a cheap partisan play, no more, no less. Given the times, it was among the most irresponsible things he could have done.

Such a statement would not give Mr. Harper a blank cheque. Further outrages would compel the coalition to defeat the government. But short of those, it should be held accountable not through daily debate and polling, but after enough time for the people to remake their electoral assessment.

I'm sorry, but debate in the House of Commons is very much a part of how any government is held to account. We should not lose sight of this reality - especially when the HarperCon$ are showing us a government even less accountable than that of Brian Mulroney's. Accountability is not just what happens at the ballot box, Mr. Kent - it happens every day that the house sits, and sit the house must.

Now, more than ever, it is vital to Canadians that Harper be held to his original commitment to "Open, Accountable Government", not the partisan shenanigans he has been playing since 2006.

The Politics of Hope Versus The Mendacity Of Stupid

For the first time in nearly a dozen years, a campaign based on something other than sliming the opponent actually won.

I won't spend a huge amount of time on Obama's victory right now, I merely want to recognize that for a change, the Rethuglican tactics of smearing opponents with lies and attack ads failed. I can only hope this marks the end of the ugly tactics favored by Karl Rove in both the United States and Canada.

The McCain/Palin ticket followed the Rove playbook almost slavishly - Palin in particular turned me off as soon as she started opening her mouth. Much of what she said on a variety of subjects was so obviously false as to be offensive. Political campaigns should be about character and ideas, not character assassination. I was glad to see Obama's victory last night be solid (338 electoral votes to McCain's 163) - even Bush's victory in 2004 wasn't as solid.

Electoral Irresponsibility

This is something of a rant - rooted firmly in the peculiarities of Alberta's voting patterns, and the effect that has on election campaigns.

For reasons that are only marginally rooted in logic, Alberta voters in the last 25 years have overwhelmingly voted for right-wing parties. This is mostly an artifact of the late 1970s when Alberta was led by one of the most impressive premiers it has ever had, Peter Lougheed. At the time, Alberta's economy collapsed - a victim of a worldwide economic downturn, and Albertans blamed it almost universally on Pierre Trudeau's NEP.

That is mostly a historical footnote in Alberta's politics - however, it has in fact provoked a degree of voter apathy that is positively depressing. In the last provincial election, the Stelmach-led PC's achieved a landslide majority of the seats on the votes of about 20% of the eligible voters.

This last Federal election, however, was appalling. All of the parties appear to have conceded defeat to the Con$ from the start. The Conservatives were so confident in their own stranglehold on Alberta's seats that they didn't bother to campaign at all - most Conservative candidates were nowhere to be seen (often known to be out of province in fact). The local candidates for the other parties ran minimal campaigns, with a handful of signs on public property being about the extent of it. In what I can only call irony, I received campaign literature from the NDP candidate in my riding in the mail ... one day after voting day.

Even conservative voters I know are less than impressed by this past election - the arrogance of their preferred party was clear enough, that voters rewarded them with the massive margins of victory they did is just sad.

Voter apathy and blind adherence to past habits are certainly part of the problem here; but the parties themselves - Liberal, NDP, Green and others all deserve sound thumping for yielding Alberta simply by not even trying. Some of the worst MPs in the parliament are Alberta-based members of the Stephen Harper Party - members that are last on my list to deserve a 'shoo-in'. This past election, the Federal parties have done more to advance voter apathy than they have done in the last ten years.

The Liberals, NDP and Greens should realize that the only party that benefits from apathy are the NeoCon based Conservatives. If you want to unseat the Con$, you have to do it using some of the playbook tactics that gave them the foothold in Alberta in the first place - campaign constantly. Make yourself heard every time the government makes a misstep - constantly ... and when there's an election, get people knocking on doors - all of them! This past election, had any of the parties bothered to actually campaign in Alberta they could have taken a sizable chunk of the popular vote - simply for having bothered to campaign.

The Bad News First ...

Canadians returned the Stephen Harper Party to the PMO. Bad move. Very bad move, IMO.

The good news is that Quebec didn't give Harper any gains - which is the one thing that appears to have kept him out of the majority he has sought.

I expect we will see a parliament every bit as dysfunctional and rancorous as the previous parliament. The simple fact is that the HarperCon$ have no natural allies in the house, and they have gone to great lengths to isolate themselves politically. There is no sense in my mind that Harper will play for compromise - he will continue to bully his way along and in doing so will be quite destructive.

Personally, I think Dion is toast. I like the man, and I think he's more than smart enough to do the job. But, it isn't a matter of him being likable right now - it's a matter of him being able to stand toe to toe with Harper and hand Harper and his band of sneering thugs their asses back to them. (Which isn't hard to do, but requires a style that Dion simply lacks)

Shorter Stephen Harper: An Election Is No Time To Talk About Issues

It appears that Stephen Harper has decided to channel Kim Campbell.

Where Campbell is paraphrased as saying that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues.", Harper appears to have decided that an election is no time to talk to the electorate.

The Conservative Leader's staff offer several explanations. One official said it's simply a question of schedules and that they don't have enough time to scrum due to the hectic pace of the final two days. Another said that there will be “nothing to react to” over Sunday and Monday.

"Nothing to react to"? The arrogance of the Con$ and their "now you see me, now you don't" campaign far exceeds that of Trudeau or Mulroney at the height of their political careers.

... and this man wants Canadians to return him to 24 Sussex and the PMO?

Margaret Atwood slams Harper

Slam!

"Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space."

and ...

"Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful,"

I look forward to reading this: Atwood on the Election

Silence of the Con$

Aside from PMSH, finding a Conservative candidate willing to make an utterance of any sort is next to impossible. If you are in Calgary, you'd have to find them first - which likely means a trip to their campaign "war room" in Ottawa (or wherever the heck it is).

This is not acceptable democracy - but then anybody who has been paying attention will have long ago realized that democracy is not what Harper really practices.

However, at least some of the media are catching on to big daddy's muzzled campaign:

Tory candidates have obligation to share views

But then again, I can sort of see Harper's point - when you have candidates out there like Rob Anders, Maurice Vellacott, Ken Epp and no doubt plenty of others, letting them open their mouths might just horrify enough people to convince the public that they don't want to be governed by a bunch of TheoCons.

H/T: Cathie From Canada

Economics and the Ideology of Deep Integration

If you have been paying attention, there's an active movement afoot to tie Canada to the United States often called 'Deep Integration'. Think of it as Free Trade only with serious implications for Canada's sovereignty in many ways.

The HarperCon$ have been big on this for years - in fact they'd like to go a step or two further. Now, consider the current economic mess in the United States for a moment. It's not pretty, is it? So, someone explain to me Harper's utter lack of policy - or even proposals - to protect Canadians?

There's no policy there because doing anything would fly in the face of one of the tenets of Harper's ideological dogma. I'll take Dion's ideas over Harper's absenteeism on this one - even if Dion's ideas are incomplete.

Leader's Debate ... Impressions

Last night, Canada experienced its political leaders arguing with each other in English.

I won't claim I listened to all of it - the leaders' debates are seldom effective tools unless one or more of the parties has a leader that is a good debater...and none of our current leaders hold such promise.

This was a more orderly, civil debate than some I've seen in the past, but that's about all I will give it. (Was that a result of Elizabeth May sitting at the table? Hard to say)

My basic impressions of the leaders:

Harper: Two things stood out for me with Harper. One, he refused to be accountable for his government's lack of action in key areas. Two, he continued his "but ... but ... the Liberals' whinge instead of actually having a platform of policy.

Layton: This guy's so desperate for the keys to Stornoway that he spent half his time attacking Harper, and half his time sounding like he was in Harper's pocket. Creepy and greasy.

Dion: I thought he did better than I had expected for the most part. That may be a case of exceeding low expectations, I'm not sure.

Duceppe: If the man wasn't a separatist, he'd actually be a serious contender for the keys to 24 Sussex. He is by far the most articulate of the bunch and he thinks fast on his feet. Pity that his brand of politics is purely Quebec centric.

May: I'm sorry to say it, but I thought she was disappointing. Too much time setting the evidence out, not enough making her point. Perhaps next time she'll do better.

The debate itself told me a lot - fundamentally, what it boils down to is the Conservatives are running a campaign that boils down to not saying anything substantive. The party has not made its policy platform known - which given this bunch means that they know that Canadians would be horrified by it.

I won't say that I'm impressed with any of the parties at the moment - it's going to be a case of casting my vote where I'm least disgusted.

Wondering Why Conservative Candidates Are So Quiet?

The silence of the HarperCon$ has been deafening. Except for big daddy opening his mouth to pollute the air, Conservative candidates have individually been just about non-existent in Calgary. (With the possible exception of Prentice - and I suspect he's speaking only with special dispensation from his masters).

Then we get Rob Anders making comments off the record:

Rob Anders' political views are again coming under fire, as a local lawyer and humanitarian said the Calgary West Conservative told her he believes that Canadian diplomacy and humanitarian work should focus on changing outsiders' language to English and faith to Christianity.

Coming from Anders, this isn't terribly surprising - it's not like he's ever exhibited anything resembling an understanding of tact, much less diplomacy.

"If anybody in the world saw or heard that the MP in my riding was saying that he thought humanitarian agencies should go out and change religions, I am at personal risk and so are the volunteers that get on the plane and go do this work," said Kennedy-Glans, founder of Calgary-based Bridges Social Development.

Which is precisely the point that we should be thinking about - statements like Anders' will reverberate when they become public. The consequences for others could be quite serious - especially if they are in countries that are sensitive to the notion of 'Christian Crusade'.

In an interview Tuesday, Anders said her accusations misconstrue his position, noting he's regularly donated his time and money to helping Tibetan organizations, which practice a different religion and speak a foreign language.

The classic "but some of my best friends are ..." defense. It still doesn't change the underlying bigotry and arrogance of the statements.

Dear Voters:

If a Harper-led majority worries you today, what makes you think "it won't be so bad"?

It's not like Harper doesn't have a track record of deceit and hypocrisy since 2006 - if that doesn't make you uneasy, it should. I still don't think he's being up front with Canadians about his agenda - the squirming base of theo-cons in that party speak otherwise, as does his explicit support of Ken Epp's terminally dishonest bill C-484.

If your heart is telling you that a Harper majority is a worry, then listen to it, and vote accordingly.

Ken Chapman has some interesting comments on Harper on his blog.

Feeling Like You're Being Taken For Granted?

Do you live in Calgary? Wondered what happened to the election that is supposed to be going on?

Well, chances are, your riding is one of the ridings the HarperCon$ think is "safe" - so most of the incumbents are off running about campaigning anywhere but in Alberta. It was headline news when Jim Prentice actually spent a day or two campaigning in his Calgary riding.

Other conservative campaigns largely seem to consist of billboard signs put on public property, and the candidate is mysteriously invisible - whether we are talking about the media or at all-candidate's forums. In fact, finding a Conservative candidate in Calgary these days is almost as difficult as finding hen's teeth.

Now, in this regard, Alberta voters have themselves to blame. By not holding some of the worst excuses for MPs to account for their lack of availability, non-responsiveness and secrecy, they have handed Harper's band the arrogance that we see exhibited in Alberta's ridings. These clowns think they are entitled to their seats. They aren't, and nor should Alberta's voters be so complacent about handing any of these people a renewed contract this election. - Especially when they cannot be bothered to make themselves present in their own ridings during an election!

By no means does this let the opposition parties off the hook. The Liberals, NDP and Green Party have all dropped the ball in Calgary. Instead of fighting for every vote they can get, the opposition parties seem to have conceded Alberta as a whole to the HarperCon$. There are an amazing number of votes available in Alberta - but whoever wants them is going to have to struggle for each and every one of them. That means finding quality candidates, grooming them over multiple elections and being visible not just at election time, but between elections. There are a lot of Albertans who will vote for something other than a HarperCon, if you can convince them that you exist as something other than a zephyr at election time.

Of Debates and Conspiracy

Okay, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will be in the leader's debate this election.

In spite of the fact that the Greens haven't elected any MPs to seats, they have run numbers in the 5-8% range in the last two elections - more than enough base support to demonstrate that there is a significant amount of interest in what they have to say.

There have been many times in the past when the NDP in particular has been polling down in that same range. Which is one of the reasons I take exception to the argument that 'only people who have a chance of becoming PM should be in the debate' that has been put forward. This is a spurious argument, IMO, because it suggests that only two leaders should ever be in these debates - the incumbent PM and the Leader of the Opposition. (Historically, I don't think that the 'third party' leaders have ever prevailed on election day)

But, what really bothers me about this whole affair is the way that Harper and Layton have been moving in virtual lock-step with each other on this:

The broadcasters changed course after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated earlier Wednesday that they no longer oppose May's participation in the debates on Oct. 1 and Oct. 2.

... and just a few days ago, we have this:

In arguing against May's inclusion, the Tories and NDP cited a deal she struck with Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective Nova Scotia and Quebec ridings.

It strikes me that Msrs. Harper and Layton are cut from the same Machiavellian cloth - it's all about personal gain for them, not about making Canada a better place to live.

So, Harper's Running On His Record

Someone tell him his player's broken. All I hear everytime he opens his yap is "B-B-B-Bu-Bu-Bu-But The Liberals".

Coming from a leader who authorized his party's "In-and-Out" rape of the taxpayer last election, I'd suggest Mr. Harper hasn't got a lot of credibility in the ethics department himself.

So Much For The High Road

Yesterday, we heard Stephen Harper bemoaning how he thought this was going to be a nasty acrimonious campaign filled with attacks, and this morning, we find that's exactly what he's doing.

Lovely. He wants Canadians to let him govern, and his idea of campaigning starts off with slagging his opponent. About all that tells me is that the HarperCon$ ran out of script about six months into their mandate and they haven't come up with any new ideas.

I suppose the other take on it is that his record in government is so devoid of any real accomplishments that he hasn't got much else to run on.