“Am I going to get blamed for this?”

Lisa Raitt seems to have a preoccupation with appearances. Today, we learn more about the Jim Prentice angle, and it's noteworthy not because she calls the wind energy group "whiny" and again shows concern for her career, but because it reveals something about this government's environmental priorities:

Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Now that this priority discussion is in the public record, I think Canadians would like to know what Mr. Prentice has to say. Apparently, something is afoot, because Prentice won't talk, always a sign with this government that something substantive lies underneath:

Mr. Prentice's office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister's office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Ooooh, they'll end media availability, if someone dares ask Prentice a question about his file. The nerve of some people.

Harris Decima Poll

A new release from Harris Decima, which provides a very positive trend in Ontario's 905 region for the Liberals. Apart from that confirmation, which was sort of self-evident given recent polling for Ontario, this poll is more of the same:

On a national basis, voter intentions give the Liberals 35 per cent, the Conservatives 31, the NDP 15, the Bloc nine and the Greens eight.

No regionals yet, although HD gives the Liberals a "double digit" lead in Ontario.

This poll from HD is similar to their last offering, and it's similar to other pollster findings. It appears we are settling in here at the moment, a slight Liberal lead nationally, barely outside of margin of error. A more noteworthy advantage when you factor in the regionals, Quebec looks to be firming up as a true dynamic, as does Ontario.

I'll post the regionals when they come out...

Silly Me

I have to stop projecting my own sense of what constitutes an acceptable response. Yesterday, resignation or not, I fully expected Raitt to rise prior to QP and offer some sort of apology. When that didn't happen, I thought we would surely see something during the back and forth. CBC's Susan Bonner commented after QP that the opposition seemed "caught off guard" by the Conservatives posture (I sensed that too). Not only did the Conservatives not find it necessary to offer anything contrite, they had the gall to turn it around on the opposition as though they in the wrong.

It really is amazing to see how the Conservatives react to controversy. The inability to contemplate a humble response, or see the need for some type of verbal revision is striking. People were caught off guard, because they made some basic assumptions about decency. I guess the cardinal rule was forgotten, when these guys get cornered, they get aggressive, they ignore the heart of the discussion and turn to some diversion that puts others on the defensive. There's a smugness to it all that is really distasteful, but hardly surprising I suppose. Silly me for thinking otherwise.

UPDATE

Raitt decided to apologize today. Doing this yesterday is one thing, doing it now, after the PMO has heard the outrage, well... I take her words as sincere, the timing, not so much. It's a sweater vest day in the PMO.

What Others Are Saying

While Lisa Raitt questions Leona Aglukkaq's competence, it's interesting to note what people with a partisan slant have to say about the Minister and her abilities:

But rather than earning scorn from her political opponents for ducking for cover, Aglukkaq is receiving praise.

"I think she's done a terrific job," said Carolyn Bennett, the Liberal health critic and herself a doctor.

"Politics is politics and public health is public health. I'm really impressed that she knows where that line is."


"For a rookie minister, she's on top of this file and she's responded very effectively," said NDP Health Critic Wasylycia-Leis. "She's probably one of the better rookie MPs in the House."

Pretty sad, when your political opponents can demonstrate the ability to offer a fair judgement, while a Conservative colleague and her sidekick talk behind her back.

Status Quo

A new Strategic Counsel poll, which is essentially the same as their last sample:

Liberals: 34 per cent (-1)
Conservatives: 30 per cent (no change)
NDP: 16 per cent (no change)
Greens: 11 per cent (no change)
Bloc Quebecois: 9 per cent (no change)

Another narrow Liberal lead, that looks more attractive once you drill down into the regionals. A solid lead in Ontario, and a worrying number for the NDP:

Libs 44%
Cons 35%
Greens 11%
NDP 10%

Both the main parties are up slightly, the NDP have dropped 5%, now polling fourth behind the Greens. I'm not sure I buy the fourth place percentage, but it's still a bad number for the NDP, who continually poll well below their 2008 totals. All the pollsters now seem to give the Liberals a lead, within the same range, which could be even more pronounced if potential vote splitting wanes.

In Quebec, the familar storyline, Grits and Bloc jockeying for first, Conservatives poised to lose virtually everything:

Bloc 37%
Libs 35%
Greens 11%
Cons 9%
NDP 8%

Another single digit finding for the Conservatives, another poor showing for the NDP, Quebec increasingly looks like a two horse race. Donolo says the "Quebec numbers are now solid".

The Conservatives still maintain a healthy lead in the west, the NDP rebounding somewhat. What is interesting, the Conservatives stand at 41%, which is 12% lower than the 2008 election.

Done!

Nothing says resignation like turning terminal illness into a career opportunity. As someone who has lost someone to cancer, and is in the process of losing someone else to cancer as we speak, Raitt's comments can't be glossed over, no damage control, no bullshit from the PMO. Almost everyone I know has been touched, to some degree, by this incessant disease. This terrible fact won't allow excuses, and won't excuse looking at something so serious as "sexy" and good on the resume.

Lisa Raitt is DONE! Just get it over with, show some class and RESIGN. It's over, and if you decide to hold on, I'll be cheering with red in my eye as we go for the jugular. Get Raitt the hell out of there.

Good Hire

Good Hire:

The minister of natural resources is probably looking for some divine intervention these days.

Last week she barely held onto her cabinet job, while her press secretary wasn't so lucky. Jasmine MacDonnell had to resign after a binder of secret documents was left behind in a national newsroom.

Now, the minister, Lisa Raitt, has hired STEVE OUTHOUSE to help fill MacDonnell's shoes.

Probably a wise decision, because Raitt's career is headed for the shitter.

More About The Messenger

A pretty clear indication, that not only are the attacks NOT working, but they're actually HURTING the Conservative cause. The Nanos poll shows, when it comes to these ads, they say more about the messenger:

Effectiveness of Ads Question: Would you say the ads were effective, somewhat effective, somewhat ineffective or ineffective? [Recall Only]

Effective 20%
Somewhat effective 15%
Somewhat ineffective 8%
Ineffective 53%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Ignatieff Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of Michael Ignatieff? [Recall only]

Positive 14%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 45%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 22%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Conservative Party Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of the Conservatives who paid for the ad? [Recall only]

Positive 7%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 20%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 53%
Unsure 6%

Important to note, that almost 40% of Canadians haven't seen the ads, which is another indication of overall effectiveness.

I heard Nik Nanos on the radio this morning, and his basic thesis was really no resonance outside of hardcore Conservative supporters and anti-American NDP supporters. In other words, even if Conservatives want to point to a "marginal" net negative for Ignatieff, it gets lost in the audience it's having an effect. Liberals don't care what the Conservative base thinks, nor a certain segment of NDP support, the target is the soft support that can potentially move votes, and these ads overwhelming fail.

Nanos doesn't directly this point, but when you add up the slightly negative, negative numbers for Ignatieff, you find 34%. The rest are neutral or positive, so having 1/3 see any measure of negative impact is pretty irrelevant, once you factor in party support numbers, once you consider kneejerk reactions from demographics hostile to Liberals in general. Objectively, it's a nothing number, although Nanos uses the term "marginal".

What isn't marginal, the negative reaction to the Conservatives running these ads. Even their own supporters recognize that these ads reinforce the Conservatives baggage, namely that of hyper-partisan, prone to nastiness government. Nanos finds the ads overwhelming "reflect poorly" on the government, adding up the positive/negative reaction, we see a decisive -55 score for the Conservatives. I've argued from the outset, that after the prorogue debacle Harper's political capital is spent on the partisan front. Whatever gain the Conservatives hoped to achieve from these ads would be offset by CEMENTING their own achilles heel. Nanos, and others for that matter, seem to confirm this belief, it's a net loss for the Conservatives. As Nik himself pointed out today, it's never considered a successful ad campaign when you alienate more than you attract.

The bottom line conclusion:

The Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals. The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact.

The only remaining question, the "long term" argument. Mostly a Conservative apologist talking point at the moment, to deflect from the FAILURE of these ads to resonate, one must still consider. People like to use the Dion example, but there is one thing to consider and I believe this vital moving forward. Attack ads can work if the target plays into the narrative. It is a fair question to ask if the Dion ads would have worked, if not for the Liberals continually volunteering evidence to suggest the "weak" tag was accurate. The ads needed real world manifestation to be effective, they weren't effective just because they aired. Everything about the Liberals screamed weakness, whatever your measure, so the connection was made, the attack was reinforced. It is for that reason, that people should be careful using the Dion template and extrapolating from there. If Ignatieff, in the next few years months acts like an elitist, with no understanding of Canada, then these ads could have a impact over time. I'm not particularly worried on that front, the Conservatives would be best to find another attack angle if they must. What is clear, Stephen Harper just spent 5-6 million so he could firm up opinion that yes, he really is a CAD. Bravo Sir.

Scraping Bottom

The companion piece to "Favorite MP's", a list of our representatives that are prone to display the worst traits, generally lowering the level of discourse:

Conservatives


As a student in history, I'm quite confident that Stephen Harper will go down as the most divisive, hyper-partisan Prime Minister in Canada's history. It all starts at the top, all the nonsense before QP, all the obstructions in Committee, all the ridiculous robo responses of surrogates, Stephen Harper is without question the WORST. The level of discourse will rise immediately after Harper is defeated, addition by subtraction.





Quite simply, Pierre Poilievre is a perpetual GOOF. No matter the forum, has the unique ability to interject completely unrelated information, with the sole focus on smearing opponents. I've actually never heard Pierre engaged in a high signal debate, it always degrades to the lowest level. An embarrassment at every turn, one would like to think high minded Conservatives would agree.




The master of bombast, a heckler who stands alone, John Baird always makes it personal. One of the most laughable appearances I've seen recently, John Baird taking to the airwaves to defend Pierre's "tar baby" crack, lamenting the "gotcha politics" we seen in todays Ottawa. Talk about a live in a glass house moment, Baird
represents all that is wrong with partisan politics.

Liberals



Denis Coderre is prone to exaggeration, rarely able to make a coherent argument without interjecting something off color. When he rises in Parliament, you can almost hear the moans, as everyone wonders what over the top rhetoric is to come.



I've never been a fan, and while he doesn't share some of the other notables penchant for gutter politics, I always have a hard time believing anything that comes out his mouth. Volpe's seems phony, a career politician who's been in Ottawa too long. As far as I'm concerned, the Liberals should have turfed him after his scandalous leadership run.




Jim Karygiannis is a loudmouth. Jimmy K's CLASSLESS performance when Dion was already ready to step down really showed his true colors. Prides himself on being a "straight shooter", I think that's just a cover to rationalize RUDE.

NDP




Somebody who might need some anger management, get Thomas Mulclair excited and we enter the unglued zone. A really smart chap, but another politician who can't just make a strong argument for it's own sake, forever looking for the partisan shot. If anyone noticed Mulclair going ballistic during the Raitt QP this week, they might have seen his NDP colleagues squirming in their seats, barely applauding when he was done. Mulclair has been a huge disappointment since coming to Ottawa, and watching him makes me think Charest is glad he's gone.





Whenever a "scandal" breaks, nobody is more sanctimonous and indignant than Pat Martin. There always seems to be a nasty edge to any of Martin's commentary, in Committee he's a grandstander of biblical proportions.



I'm going to give Jack Layton an honorable mention, because he does display class and grace on occasion and he is a genuine advocate most of the times. However, sometimes Jack is so transparent in his arguments, forever looking for the edge, and alot of the times missing the real target as a result. I think Jack just knows the game to well now, and sometimes his valid arguments get lost in his partisan calculations.

Favorite MP's

Paul Wells column, which laments the state of discourse in Ottawa. Wells makes one assertion, which gets lost in the "madness", and it's largely true:

This doesn’t get said often enough, but your members of Parliament are good people. They are decent men and women who upend quiet lives, endure the indignity of electoral campaigns, leave their loved ones at home and jet weekly to Ottawa. They bring big hearts and steady purpose. They want nothing better than to help their constituents.

On the "good people" front, I'd thought I throw out a few names of MP's that I see as sincere, genuine, representing all the best attributes we desire from our elected officials.

NDP:


Paul Dewar is quite adept at making his arguments, without turning any discussion into a "scoring political points" affair. Always on issue, always demonstrating class, Dewar seems to have his priorities straight. I would peg Dewar as "the" star within the NDP caucus.



Nathan Cullen can throw some elbows, but rather than political posturing, you always get the sense it's more about defending core beliefs. Cullen comes across as tireless, and he is always well versed on any topic. On the environment, Cullen is probably the best MP in Parliament, always sifting through the spin to make accurate arguments, factually based and honest.




Libby Davies seems the perfect character for NDP House Leader. Whenever she makes an appearance, Davies generally comes across as dedicated to getting things done, moving things forward and trying to find common ground. Her tone is disarming, and while the nature of the job demands partisanship, Davies looks like somebody who wants to roll up their sleeves and get to work.


LIBERAL


Quite simply, the conscience of the Liberal Party. Some would argue that Gerard Kennedy has made some questionable political moves, but I think that really speaks to putting principle above self interest. I heart Gerard Kennedy, he's in it for all the right reasons.





If I had to describe Martha Hall Findlay in one word it would "refreshing". Martha speaks in plain language, she cuts through the bull, but she's a smart cookie. Very effective in focusing on the real issues that matter, rather than parroting party spin.




If we measure things in terms of respect, then Bob Rae has no peer. People will note a curious anomaly in Parliament, when Bob Rae rises to ask a question or speak, the catcalls and background noise evaporates, the room turns silent and people actually listen.


CONSERVATIVES



Although nuttier than a Snickers bar, Stockwell Day has afforded himself quite well since the Conservatives took power. Day is always serious and he tends to argue the government position without reverting to partisanship. Day is a sincere advocate, and his demeanor is all the more noteworthy, given the company he keeps.




Michael Chong would be a prominent player in this government, but he's been handicapped by not towing the party line, when it conflicts with his principles. Chong has been punished in the past, but I've always been impressed with him in Committee, trying to find resolutions rather than grandstanding.



One of the few Conservative MP's I can listen to, because he comes by his views honestly and he tries to keep any debate high signal. I don't have to agree to recognize a certain amount of integrity.


Any other suggestions welcome...

Just Rising

The new NANOS poll puts Liberal national support at the highest level we've seen from any pollster since Harper took office. Not exactly a sign of attack ad effectiveness, it looks more and more like the 6 million dollar smear campaign is a BUST. Yesterday, I saw uber hack Tim Powers on television, telling us all to watch for the new poll that he was apparently privy too, he seemed confident. Tim must have got his numbers backwards, poor thing:

Libs 37.2%
Cons 31.8%
NDP 15.7%
Greens 7.4%

Not a huge change from the last NANOS poll, a 3.8% national gap is now 5.4%, but the trend continues. NANOS also shows a new pollster high water mark for the Liberals in Quebec, now ahead of the Bloc:

Libs 38%
Blocs 35%
NDP 13%
Cons 12%

The Liberals have a solid lead in Ontario, the gap comparable to other findings:

Libs 42%
Cons 34%
NDP 14%
Greens 10%

The last NANOS poll only showed a 4% gap, now 8%. You can make a timid argument that Ontario is trending back to the Liberals, although the requisite caution is in order.

NANOS has the Liberals up everywhere, with the exception of the "west". That said, it's also encouraging to see polling in the 30's for this region, because it suggests some strength outside of Alberta and Sask.

NANOS also asks voters what they think about a summer election. In a shocking finding, we see very little support for going to the polls. Whether the Liberals should heed the overwhelming sentiment against an election call is a debatable point.

Given the regional breakdowns and national gap, these type of numbers would translate into a solid Liberal minority. As the post attack ad polls come in, Conservatives are reduced to the argument that you must wait a few months before drawing any conclusions. Personally, while I understand that these ads can have a cumulative effect over time, it's a pretty weak retort at this point. Fact is, when you unleash the largest non-election advertising buy in history, on par with a full election expenditure, one would expect to see some evidence by now. The "you just wait" argument looks more wishful thinking than anything.

Conservatives Hit New Low In Quebec

The first time any pollster has given the Conservatives 8% in Quebec, running LAST in the province. The number might be on the low side of reality, but it shows just how far the Conservatives have fallen. Ipsos puts the Liberals back ahead nationally:

Liberals 36% (33%)
Conservatives 33% (35%)
NDP 12% (14%)
Greens 9% (8%)

Ontario volatility explains the change, and it's noteworthy that two polls ago, Ipsos had the exact same national spread as they do now. In the last Ipsos poll, the Conservatives appeared to rebound in Ontario, this latest one puts the Liberals back with a solid lead. When the last Ipsos poll showed a swing, I posited that the Dhalla controversy might have hurt the Liberals (something which EKOS seemed to confirm in their three week poll). The latest numbers revert back to the trend prior to that rough week, a return to real issues seems to help the Liberals:

Liberals 41% (37%)
Conservatives 34% (39%)
NDP 14% (12%)

Ipsos shows the Liberals with a healthy lead in Atlantic Canada, a positive trend in the Prairies. Ipsos gives the Conservatives a wide margin in British Columbia.

This is clearly a blip, but Ipsos pegs the Greens third in Quebec:

Bloc 38%
Liberals 37%
Greens 10%
NDP 8%
Conservatives 8%

The Liberals numbers keep edging up in Quebec. Tonight, I read a pile on piece, with the Bloc, Cons and NDP all going after the Liberals in Quebec (first they ignore you, then they...). Two recent polls have put the Conservatives at 9%, but this is the first 8%. I would say "dead to Quebec" is probably around 12-14%.

The big question moving forward is whether Ontario really firms up for anyone. The Liberals are generally ahead, their top end numbers hit for periods suggests real big pickup possibilities, but that's a fluid argument.

Another poll out tomorrow apparently...

Naked Politics

Much discussion about Bill C-15, wherein the Liberals will support mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. Susan Delacourt peruses the online reaction, calling it a "Liberal Revolt". I won't rehash all the sound reasons for opposing our stance, but just a few comments on what is really going on here.

I'll make one basic assumption, the Liberals DON'T really support this measure. In fact, if left to our own devices, Liberals wouldn't even entertain the concept as a credible option to deal with drug crime. It's pretty obvious, the impetus to support is a pure political calculation, based on the misguided notion that we must neutralize the crime issue.

I'm disappointed in Ignatieff, but if one is being honest here, this "approach" has been present for a few years now, as Liberals continually bend and contort reacting to Conservative wedge politics. The government has never had the facts on their side, with almost all the crime legislation they've introduced since they took office. It's not different in this instance, little empirical support for C-15. It's actually embarrassing how little real justification the government can muster.

The entire premise of the Conservative agenda, exploit unsubstantiated fear within the public, use the disconnect between perception and reality to appear tough on crime, and in so doing paint your opponent as weak. Whenever the government gets in any sort of trouble, they beat the crime drum, whether it be for fundraising, shoring up their base, or trying to score points against the Liberals. The Liberals have always had the benefits of statistics, facts on the ground, concrete international examples, but in one sense it's a losing argument because on this issue perception IS reality. Don't tell me crime is diminishing, don't tell me that this initiative or that will be ineffective, don't tell me the Conservative agenda won't work, with the public your almost screwed as soon as you show dissent. I'm sure the Conservatives honestly believe much of what they propose, their ideological bent blindly guiding the agenda. However, the issues around crime take such prominence because tactically it's a wedge issue that they can exploit.

The Liberals are trying to nullify, trying to keep up their "creds" on crime, sound policy an afterthought. That's the bottom line, this latest example so transparent, I don't think I could stand to listen to any rationalization. I'm not necessarily outraged, because really it's all just another chapter in a reaccuring theme- the Conservatives have us SPOOKED on crime and we're always on the defensive, trying to improve the optics. People have made the conclusion, a mentality that has permeated Liberal ranks WELL before Ignatieff took the helm, that we have to counter the Conservative frame, because it's a winner for them with the public. Principle is sacrificed for a naked political calculus. Shocking I know...

The Right Pitch

Besides apparently raking in $600000 tonight, at a very successful fundraiser, Ignatieff's speech was pretty spot on from my perspective. Of course, the piece I read comes with the "woo Quebec nationalists" angle, but really in this speech, and in his earlier comments today, Ignatieff actually argues from a firm Liberal tradition. This isn't Mulroney or Harper playing footsie, this is Ignatieff stating unequivocally "no new powers for Quebec", the country is already decentralized, the federation works, lets get on with it.

At first blush, Ignatieff opens up the kneejerk response from seperatists, another rigid, centrist Liberal that will deny Quebecers aspirations. However, it's where Ignatieff moves from the traditional Liberal terrain that could have appeal beyond hardcore federalists:

“In the last election, Quebeckers protested against the right-wing government of Stephen Harper, and many Quebeckers voted for the Bloc Québécois,” he said in a fundraising speech last night. “Quebeckers protested, but Stephen Harper is still there.”

The option, Mr. Ignatieff said, is for Quebeckers to help the Liberals return to power. In exchange, he said, the Liberals will ensure that Quebeckers get a real taste of power.

“The best Canada possible is a Canada inspired by Quebec. The best Canada possible is a Canada with Quebeckers in power,” he said

In an interview before the speech, Mr. Ignatieff said he will increase the number of first ministers' conferences if he becomes Prime Minister, and work toward increasing interprovincial trade. But he insisted he will not offer major jurisdictional shifts to win over Quebec.

“I certainly don't have a constitutional package in my back pocket, and I don't think Canadians or Quebeckers expect me to,” he said. “Let's make the federation work as a practical, operational, day-to-day matter, above all on working together to get us out of the economic crisis.”

The Liberals are manipulating the unhappiness with the Harper government to their advantage, while simultaneously asking soft Bloc support what their vote really achieved. There is a underlying, compelling rationale to the argument that it's better to have some influence on the levers of power, rather than sitting on the sidelines perpetually marginalized. It's about giving Quebecers a voice in government, and it's said without the folly of expecting a new paradigm. Ignatieff is arguing we have the tools already, so the alternative is to make Canada work, within that protect, respect and recognize Quebec's unique standing within, or thumb your nose and revel in your idle purity. Where Ignatieff can pull off this argument, is if he's seen as sincere. There's a real sense that Ignatieff has some measure of intrigue with Quebecers, and while opponents will try and undermine, he still has a relatively attentive audience to get out our perspective.

I have to say, I like the way our approach to Quebec is fleshing out, there's a lot of potential. What I find most attractive, Ignatieff isn't prostituting a core Liberal position with this "woo", unless of course a vocal, engaged Quebec voice at the federal table is considered counterproductive.

Obsess Much Gilles?

I heard the Bloc are sending out flyers attacking Ignatieff, so I thought I would venture over to their party website. Wow, looks like Gilles and the Bloc are pretty obsessed with Ignatieff, he's EVERYWHERE:




Not much mention of Harper strangely enough...

UPDATE:

Apparently I'm not the only one who felt compelled to visit their website today.

The Conservatives Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

It's sort of amusing that Conservatives are now reduced to warning Liberals against entertaining a vote of non conidence. Stephen Taylor gives Liberals some friendly advice, detailing why we might want to think again. In so doing, the defensive posture actually speaks to why the Liberals really should entertain. I found this passage particularly noteworthy:

Strategically, going to an election in July wouldn’t be ideal for Mr. Ignatieff as a $5-6 million Conservative pre-writ ad buy defining the Liberal leader would be much more effective if the Conservative messaging is fresh in the minds of Canadians.

There's another way of interpretating this logic. The fact your opponent has recently found it necessary to unleash the largest non-election attack ad expenditure in Canadian history, confirms that the situation is quite desperate and you're generally worried. It's also fascinating, that Taylor argues the "fresh" angle, when for the last two weeks, Conservatives have responded to the initial blowback against these ads, evidence of virtually no immediate impact, with the retort that people should take the "long view"- these ads are such, that there true impact can only be measured after many months of "framing". Now, Liberals should worry about the wildly successful short term impacts. Alright then, duly noted.

In a strange way, the more Conservatives warn us why we need to avoid a non confidence, the more I'm inclined to believe the timing deserves further consideration.

What Happened To Tough Guy?

If you google "Harper threatens election", you'll be bombarded by so many manufactured tough guy routines, it's simply staggering. As a matter of fact, it's hard to think of any pivotal moment since he became Prime Minister where Harper hasn't intimated going to the voters. With that in mind, it's particularly amusing to listen to the guy who ditched his own mandated fixed election date, fabricated a crisis when Parliament wasn't even sitting, now argue that Canadians have had "enough" with elections. I'm not sure who would win an election, although I fancy our chances, but one thing is certainly clear, Stephen Harper doesn't fancy his:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper "strongly advised" Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Wednesday against bringing down the Conservative government.

"I've had three elections in four years," Harper told reporters in Quebec City. "I think that's more than enough for the Canadian public. I don't meet anyone … of any political persuasion who wants to spend the summer fighting an election."

The country doesn't need the "political stability" an election would trigger just as it begins to emerge from a recession, Harper said.

"So you can certainly count on this government being against any kind of election in the near future. I would strongly advise the Opposition of the same thing."

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that Harper was in British Columbia threatening the opposition, something about going to the voters? Wasn't it a few weeks prior to that, where Harper said he was ready to go to Canadians over something or other? Now, all of sudden, when Harper has finally realized that his opponent is formidable, he can't bully his way anymore, he's suddenly found salvation. Canadians have never wanted an election, and they never have EVERY time you've threatened one in the past. So PLEASE spare us all this nonsensical routine, that insults our most basic comprehension.

Here's the bottom line, with the new "strongly" advising Stephen Harper, he sees himself as a LOSER. The new posture isn't Harper's organic predisposition, he only reverts to it when he sees it all slipping away. When he was faced with a coalition he caved, because he had no choice, but Harper's natural state is to be aggressive, to sabre rattle, to appear resolved and strong. More than the polls, Liberal optimism, the most telling evidence that the math looks really bad for the Conservatives, the sombre conclusions they've voluntarily made, as they try at avoid an election at all costs.

Stephen Harper has used the election threat to his advantage time and again. It's really been his chief club to get legislation passed, to force his agenda. Quite interesting now, to watch Harper without his former bravado as he now reacts to something which appears more compelling than anything he could return in kind. It's sort of like watching the transformation of a bully, when the other kid just completed a growth spurt and now has a swagger of his own.

Rae Defends Raitt

With all the drama surrounding Raitt and the secret documents, Bob Rae offers the embattled Minister a lifeline:

"One plausible explanation is maybe she thought CTV was a branch of the government, I can't explain it"

Said with a wry smile and a telling glance, Rae takes a pointed jab at Conservative TeleVision.

On a more serious note, what others are saying about Minister's accountability and missing government documents:

"It obviously was not done on purpose. It was a mistake. But it doesn't matter. It was clearly done and that has to be treated appropriately. There are precedents and this obviously is a warning to all Ministers."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Macleans.ca, May 26 2008



"Mr. Bernier has learned and informed me that he left classified government documents in a non-secure location. This is a serious error. The minister has accepted his responsibilities in offering to resign."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CTV News, May 26 2008



"This is about one thing, and that is a failure to uphold expected standards on government documents. It is a very serious mistake regardless of who the minister is."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CBC Radio's World Report, May 27 2008



"We certainly take adequate care to ensure that they are not disclosed, and that they are not left behind somewhere, and unfortunately, the minister broke those rules."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Global National, May 27 2008



"Mr. Speaker, the rules governing classified documents are always serious. That is why, when the minister became aware of the situation, he told me and tendered his resignation, which I accepted."



"Ministers are always responsible for the protection of classified documents. The minister admitted his mistake in this matter and resigned his post. That is why I accepted his resignation. The former minister did the honourable thing by resigning."



"The minister admitted that he failed to protect classified documents. That is why he offered his resignation and why I accepted it."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 2, 2008



"The former minister of foreign affairs informed me about the problem with the documents on Monday and offered his resignation, and that is why I accepted it."



"The former foreign affairs minister admitted that he left classified documents in unsecured premises. That is the reason why he tendered his resignation and I accepted it."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 3, 2008



"We know the reason the former minister of foreign affairs offered me his resignation was because of his own actions. He left classified documents in an inappropriate and unsecured location. He offered to resign and I accepted his resignation."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 18, 2008

Sounds pretty cut and dry, according to Mr. Harper.

Getting Frisky

I first read, then heard, Ignatieff's scrum today. Measured and serious, not really a opportunistic tone, but more a rational reasoning as to why the Liberals find themselves exploring all options. What I find striking, this isn't transparent bluster, there will be serious deliberation.

Part of this is surely a byproduct of the real latitude the Liberals enjoy. The overwhelming odds, no matter the decision there will be no election, but there are no guarantees. If I can be blunt, this can all be described quite succinctly- the Liberals are saying "fuck it". We're the opposition, we don't have any faith in this government, almost everywhere you turn, there's a stench. If we go to an election, we go to an election, not necessarily the want that others are trying to paint but fear of possibility no longer an overarching concern. Ignatieff wasn't playing safe today, and clearly people are feeling frisky:

Question: Will you be moving a motion of non-confidence before the summer break and will you also be supporting the Main Estimates, voting for the Main Estimates (off microphone)?

Michael Ignatieff: I don’t want an election. Canadians don’t want an election. But here’s where I am. I’m trying to make Parliament work with a government that every day is displaying more flagrant examples of incompetence. We’ve got a major medical crisis with the isotopes. They’ve got no plan. We’ve got, Toronto Dominion Bank just announced that the deficit over five years will be, wait for this, $168 billion. That’s the biggest number anybody has ever heard of. The public finances of this country are not under control. Right? Third, we’ve got an unemployment crisis with unemployment surging across the country. We’ve got Premier Campbell, we’ve got Brad Wall, we’ve got Premier McGuinty saying let’s do something about a national standard for EI. I’m not fancy about how we do it, but let’s do it. Right? We’ve got stimulus that needs to get out the door and only 6% of the stimulus has actually reached the country in the middle of the construction season.


So look, I want to make Parliament work. Canadians don’t want an election. I don’t want an election, but we have a problem, a serious problem about this government’s confidence, and I’m getting to the answer, next week, next week they have their second report card. Right? And as I said at the beginning of this, we’re holding these guys on probation. We’ll look at the data when we get it and we will make a serene and clear decision probably in the middle of next week. Thank you.

Outcome notwithstanding, for someone who's been embarrassed time and time again in the past as we scurried in the shadows, I'm enjoying the spine.

Shocking!

In a stunning report, TD bank concludes Jim Flaherty can't add. Suffice it to say, the revelation is simply shocking:

TD questions Ottawa's surplus forecast‏

The federal government will miss its projected return to surplus by a whopping margin, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank wrote Tuesday.

OTTAWA -- The federal government will run a cumulative deficit of roughly $162-billion over five years, or nearly double what Ottawa projected in its most recent budget, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank said Tuesday. As a result, the government will be nowhere near a return to surplus in 2013-14, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in his January budget. According to the TD forecast, Ottawa will record a $19-billion deficit that fiscal year, as opposed to an anticipated $700-million surplus. The only way the budget gets back to balance in 2013-14 is if Ottawa freezes program spending growth after fiscal 2012-13, at which time TD expects the economy to fully rebound from the current downturn.

Deficits are to continue up to 2013-14, with a $19.4-billion shortfall, which is expected to amount to 1.1% of nominal GDP. That means $162-billion of deficits for a five-year period ending March 31, 2014, compared to the $83-billion anticipated during the same timeframe in the budget.

What's another 80 billion, especially when you won't own up to it, until FORCED by the calendar.

These type of numbers, and TD argues this fact, mean the government either has to map out a massive cost cutting exercise and/or raise the spectre of TAX INCREASES. I would argue that the party that comes to grip with simple realities and formulates mature policies, will be best placed come the next election. These are sobering numbers, and one can't expect to be seen as credible if people hold onto unrealistic recovery scenarios.