Bad Liberals?

The post throne speech spin gave us a clear signal of Harper's intention to paint the Liberals as bitter obstructionists, who would rather play politics than participate in the new parliament. While the NDP and Bloc spoke of compromise, the Liberals took the occasion to challenge the government and re-affirm the notion that the loyal opposition, is alive and well. Harper's interview with Mike Duffy illustrated his perspective on the opposition:

"I think two of the three opposition parties are interested in making the parliament work."

You could feel Harper's underlying disdain for the Liberals with this quote:

"The biggest concern I have is that, here you have the Liberal Party making all these warlike noises. There against this, there against that. They'll bring down the government. We all know, everyone one of us, everyone of you in the media know that if there is any one of the four parties that could not fight an election today it's the Liberal Party of Canada. So I think to take that negative an approach, right from the outset doesn't speak very well for the party and I don't think it will be taken well by Canadians."

Interesting, that in the last minority parliament Stephen Harper made the following quotes within 24 hours of the Liberals throne speech:

"The Liberal party can't expect to walk in and simply propose its own program that only one-third of Canadians supported and expect that everybody's going to vote for it."

'Ultimately the government's own attitude and actions will determine whether this Parliament will be able to serve Canadians as they deserve and expect, or end prematurely."

If memory serves, Harper immediately demanded amendments to the throne speech. You can find a myriad of quotes and occasions where Harper threatened to topple the government. How did such hostility foster a climate that best served Canadians interests? So, when Harper spouts off about the negative Liberals, I say- take a seat, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Let's not forget, this is a fragile minority by any historical definition, not a mandate for the "Harper Revolution". Harper is correct in pointing out that the Liberals aren't really in a position to bring down the government, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a majority by default. Layton and Duceppe are engaging in their own political calculus when they appear conciliatory. The Liberal stance appears to be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the precarious position of this weak minority. I expect the Liberals to do their job and hold Harper accountable. If that involves an obstructionist tone, so be it, Canadians desperately need the check. The only danger for the Liberals is that they not allow Harper to frame their dissent and give Canadians a negative impression of their role. I suggest whenever Harper does as he did with the Duffy interview, the Liberals welcome the media to look at Harper's past views on opposition in a minority parliament- the hypocrisy is striking.

Can You "Control" The Message?

There is no question that the Conservatives have calculated that a well oiled propaganda campaign can usurp a free media and shape the debate. Harper's approach represents an unprecedented attempt to define the parameters of presentation. On the surface, given the new information age, with nanosecond dissemination, it would seem Harper is destined to fail. Couple this fact with the unprovoked alienation of the media messenger and you would think you have a recipe for disaster. The question really boils down to whether the media is essentially reactionary, as Harper cbviously concludes, or proactive and independent.

Despite the constant whining from conservatives about the "liberal media", a close inspection of the last election reveals a media relegated to offering up Conservative talking points, with little critical backlash. Pictures of Harper beside an automobile with the GST logo behind him made for powerful imagery. Sure, the talking heads could debate the merits of the plan, but the overriding theme sent to voters was clear and largely unchallenged. In essence, Harper demonstrated that a clear policy offered by a messenger always on message is a mighty force that uses media as facilitator. In contrast, the Liberals lacked a clear direction, which allowed for "wandering" by an always restless media. Harper manipulated the media, and I doubt they were even aware of their benign posture.

Fast forward to today, with the largely anti-climatic throne speech. Harper's obsession with his five priorities has effectively framed the debate on terms he has chosen. Crafted to illustrate a decisive, focused government who will keep its promises, the media will simply ape the rhetoric, with some tertiary discussion that the general public will largely ignore. This fact suggests that Harper is right to demand message control over his ministers and staff, in effect leaving nothing for chance with the unknown. The Conservatives are so bold as to openly speak of a perpetual election campaign, with all the policies targeted towards the goal of a majority. Governing is seen as simply a tool to present a palatable image for future fights.

The only flaw in the Harper approach is the simplistic arrogance that assumes that they have complete control. The opposition will have its own propaganda campaign to derail the tight message and this will provide cover for a critical media. There is also the inevitability of "surprises". There will be issues that arise, outside of Harper's agenda, that will force the Conservatives outside of their pre-determined comfort zone and allow for forceful counter. This instance is where the scorned media can be pro-active and set its own agenda, rather than report on what the government wishes to divulge. Harper's reaction to the ethics probe serves as one example of how an unforeseen event can rattle the monolith. I hope we see a lot of unforeseen events, otherwise this government may well manipulate the agenda to such a degree that a future majority is a definite possibility.

The Evil Weed

Harper's announcement today, that no, he would not re-introduce the Liberals tepid marijuana legislation is one of two things. Either Harper is revealing his backward social agenda that is not reflective of the vast majority of Canadians, or he is sacrificing the issue to appease the Bush administration. The Liberals marijuana bill was hardly progressive, in fact it lagged behind public opinion:

- 57% of respondents effectively backed legalization of the herb. Those persons said that persons caught with small amounts of marijuana should be "left alone."

-only 8% of Canadians support sending pot smokers to jail

- 32% favor a scheme of tickets and fines rather than a criminal conviction. That minority position is the one embraced by Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin

"A clear majority of Canadians believe that individuals who possess small quantities of marijuana for personal use should be left alone," said SES president Nikita James Nanos...

Law enforcement spends upwards of 400 million dollars per year to enforce our cannabis laws. I find it curious that Harper chose to make this announcement while at the same time arguing for more cops on the street to tackle serious crime. If resources weren't wasted on an issue Canadians clearly have accepted, then surely this would allow police officers more time to spend on real criminals. Harper also spoke of a spike in organized crime, which has flourished through the illegality of marijuana. You could fund more police resources with a taxation plan on marijuana, another measure which Canadians favor.

I am not surprised that a hard right government can't bring itself to accept legalization, despite the "we the people" rhetoric that Harper spews. However, I do believe there is some truth in this statement:

"I think there's enormous pressure from the United States and I think Stephen Harper wants to mend fences with George Bush, and is quite willing to give up this issue," Young told CTV Newsnet.

As I have argued before, it is easy to improve relations when you adopt the other side's viewpoint. Is the role of the Canadian government to reflect the wishes of its populus, or appease a foreign government? Bush has already made it clear that ID cards are coming, minuteman are already patrolling the Canadian border, what to we gain from stepping back on marijuana? Harper is out of touch, or Bush's eager ally, or more probably a bit of both.

Harper Leaves An Opening

It is simply astounding to hear the Conservatives openly talk about their five priorities as the foundation for a future majority. Instead of governing for the good of country, priority is given to policies that have perceived political advantage, in effect neutering the opposition. Both the GST cut and the child care payoff have superficial appeal with a disinterested electorate. Who could argue against greater accountability and lower wait times? Everybody hates pedophiles and knife-wielding hoods, right?

I must give the Conservatives credit, their agenda illustrates a masterful manipulation that effectively boxes in the opposition. Harper seems intent on offering the goodies, then asking Canadians for further mandate, with the results to warrant another term. The opposition will be hard pressed to find the defining issue that they can point to in order to show the much feared "hidden agenda". The obvious question for a supposed skeptical media, why is this government so preoccupied with attaining a majority? What are the other policies that require absolute control to implement?

Harper's comments on the constitution may well provide the opening the opposition needs to counter this public relations assault. When I read Harper's declaration that the constitution must be altered, I never saw his comments as they relate to this parliament. The nature of a minority, and the inherent limited timeframe, suggest no mandate or circumstance where Harper can effectively enter the constitutional arena. However, I believe Harper was speaking to the longterm agenda, in other words the post-majority mandate. Canadians would be quite curious to know, in some detail, what exactly Harper sees for a future Canadian federation. Harper has offered tidbits, most notably the elected Senate and the "federal incursions" rhetoric, but little detail.

I would suggest, despite his election, Canadians outside of the old Reform base, remain highly suspicious of a Harper led constitutional process. Is it time for the Liberal Party to re-enter the constitutional arena with their own vision? Are we content to have a constitution with Quebec on the outside forever, while the country slowly lingers away due to inaction? The Liberals have largely ignored the outstanding issues, partly out of fear and partly out of practicality. However, the wounds fester, uncertainty becomes commonplace and the issues don't go away. Harper's willingness to talk constitution provides the Liberals with the opportunity to re-emerge as Canada's party. If Liberals can articulate a new direction, that speaks to Quebec as an equal, then Harper will be revealed. Maybe the country can't survive another round of constitutional talks, but maybe it can't survive without it. If the Liberals champion their own version of "renewed federalism", Harper's true direction may be exposed and they will have their issue for the next campaign. It's time to be bold and in turn reveal the real themes behind the packaged Prime Minister.

Why I Fear Harper

I came across this article this morning:

Stephen Harper is saying he's ready to go where no prime minister in more than a decade has dared to tread into Canada's constitutional minefield.

In an interview aired yesterday on CBC Radio's political program, "The House," Harper surprisingly said he'd be willing to reopen the constitutional debate.

"Ultimately, there will have to be constitutional changes, not just to accommodate Quebec but also to accommodate demands we have from the West and from other parts of the country and from the population of Canada," Harper said.

The Prime Minister, who said he would approach it "cautiously," said he thinks Canadians are demanding "that our constitution be renewed and that it be updated and that it be modernized and that it be democratic; that we have, for example, a Parliament where everyone's elected."

If there is one area that Harper has the potential to do the most lasting damage, it is his approach to federalism. I have argued before that Harper approaches federalism with the narrowness of a Premier's perspective. What a dangerous situation for Canada to have potential constitutional talks, with a federal leader who continually demonstrates open disdain for the federal role. Forget the facts that clearly show the transfer of power and money to the provinces over the years, Harper holds the view that we must stop "federal incursions" into provincial jurisdictions.

The drift towards regionalism has one counter, the federal government. The provinces always demand more, as they should in representing their constituency. The role of the federal government is too blanket the provincial perspective with overriding principles that project a symmetry that fosters union. With Harper, Canada now lacks the "check" on provincial aspiration. The word "centrist" is taboo, but that stance is essential for the federal counter. There needs to be a tension in our federal system that keeps all parties honest.

I fear Harper will use Quebec's unique status as nation within a nation to further devolve the role of the federal government. Other provinces, particularly Alberta, have used Quebec to prop up their own agenda, even though the argument clearly lacks the social characteristics of Quebec. Harper seems bent on approaching federalism from the old Reform perspective, which is narrow and short-sighted. Harper's superficial Senate reforms will eventually necessitate provincial consultation, which may provide the opening for constitutional talks on a wider scale. We will then have the bizarre situation where a provincial Premier will have to step forward to argue for Canada, clearly Harper favors devolution.

Ironic that Harper argues against "American bashing" for political purposes, yet has no opinion on the federal bashing that has become civic duty in some regions of our own country. I favor a strong central government, with adequate concessions to ensure a vibrant, self-sustaining Quebec society, because I believe the human condition is advanced when we come together and rise above superficial differences. Canada is unique in the world, in that it can project the way forward through the experiment of union amongst the most diverse population. I fear Stephen Harper lacks the vision to see the opportunity, instead fixating on any policy that will ensure a future majority, forget the long-term consequence.

As a side note, I agree that we need constitutional reform, desperately in fact. However, we can't afford talks with this perspective at the helm, we must wait until we have a Prime Minister, not the eleventh Premier.

Our Relations With The Bush Administration

There seems to be a recurring theme coming from Conservative circles, that being we must repair our relationship with our southern neighbors. Any criticism of Harper's "outreach" to the Bush administration is countered with a criticism of past Liberal governments. What I find particularly distressing is the revisionist history people engage in to incorrectly place the blame for deterioration on our officials.

The problems we have had with the Bush administration are not isolated to Canada. I would argue that the Bush administration represents the most diplomatically bereft regime in America's history. There is no compromise, no search for common ground, merely unilateral action through a narrow black and white view. The American administration has scuttled a litany of international agreements, in turn alienating many in the world community. The American government has such disdain for internationalism that it found it necessary to send a UN ambassador to the the United Nations, that is on record advocating its destruction. Despite the will of the world, the Americans forged ahead with their reckless aggression in Iraq, ignoring compromise initiatives from countries like Canada. Pick an issue, and you will find a complete inability to play well with others.

Within this context, I find it remarkable that Conservatives think Harper's approach will pay dividends. Does anyone believe the softwood controversy is a function of the Liberals "divisive" posture? Most analysts agree, that if the Conservatives do find a solution, they will owe much of the leg work to the past government. Yes, there were tensions with the Bush administration, however it is disingenuous to suggest that the relationship was completely dysfunctional. I would frame the relationship as such, a government trying to find a way to deal with a tone deaf ideologue that lacked the "social skills" required for diplomacy.

Will Harper have better relations with the Bush administration? A resounding yes, simply as a function of Harper's preference for mimicking the American agenda. It is pretty easy to find agreement, when you essentially mirror the other parties view. This reality says nothing about effective leadership, only that we now have a government that is the "ideological twin" of the Bush administration. Canadians have little time for the Bush administration, increasingly Americans hold the same view. Berating our past governments for failure to deal with a belligerent bully is unfair criticism.

Which countries does the Bush administration get along with? Great Britain is America's closest ally at present. Has this "cozy" relationship allowed Blair the opportunity to influence the Bush administration? You will remember the frequent engagements on global warming, with Blair constantly pushing Bush on climate control. What does Tony Blair have to show for his efforts after years of effort- Bush has finally admitted that global warming exists (quite a coup). Nothing concrete, in fact many measures that go backward on the environment. My point, getting close to Bush doesn't guarantee results, in fact it means little in the overall scheme. For those that see a new era in American/Canadian relationships, they in fact see the Americanization of Canadian politics, because the other side will never move from its primitive outlook. The real opportunity for a changed relationship, that articulates the necessary compromises and good will, could possibly come in 2008. Before that time, common ground will be a by-product of simply adopting the American view. Harper seems eager to duplicate the Bush administration, so relations will probably improve.

Liberal Leadership Poll

New Decima Poll out that concludes the top four Ignatieff, Brison, Rae and Stronach(who decided the frontrunners?) have relatively equal chances to connect with voters. Most of this poll is essentially useless, except for this tidbit:

The survey did find some small differences among the four top contenders. For instance, Mr. Rae was the least popular among diehard Liberal voters, with only 77 per cent saying they'd stick with the party under his leadership.

That compares to 84 per cent under either Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Brison and 80 per cent under Ms. Stronach's leadership.

But the poll found Mr. Rae could lure away the most NDP voters (40 per cent) while Mr. Brison and Mr. Ignatieff could lure away the most Conservative voters (31 per cent each). At 25 per cent, Ms. Stronach was the least popular among those planning to vote Tory.

One argument I have heard to prop up Stronach's leadership bid is that she would shave off some Tory supporters. Stronach lags behind with Liberal faithful, but more importantly she has a noticeable gap with Conservatives. I think these discrepancies are a function of the fact that Stronach is a relatively "known" quantity, with the accompanying high negatives.

Rae appealing to NDP voters supports the argument that the party can afford to move to the left and still remain relevant. Rae's appeal also confronts the conventional wisdom that NDP supporters will never forgive him. Too early to say much about polls, especially one that omits Kennedy and Dryden.

The Problem With Ignatieff

Last night I watched the re-broadcast of Michael Ignatieff's "vision" speech. As usual Ignatieff was impressive, demonstrating his eloquence and forward thinking. I thought he showed a remarkable understanding of the Canadian experiment, as well as the challenges ahead. His presence in the Liberal leadership is a definite asset and I have no doubt he would be an exceptional leader. I don't agree with all of Ignatieff's stances, but it is isn't a requirement that people mirror my opinions to earn my support.

However, yesterday's speech serves as a microcosm of the potential problems for Ignatieff as he moves forward. I fear that Ignatieff's "message" may be overshadowed by his substantial paper trail. During the Q and A session after Ignatieff's speech, the questions illustrated the shortcomings. The first question surrounded the much discussed torture issue, with hooded protesters to boot. The next question concerned Ignatieff's use of the Balkans in reference to the Quebec question. Then a question on Iraq, with the usual criticisms. A question on residency, one on taking Alberta's oil revenues. All of the questions were answered, some of the rebuttal was impressive. The problem lies not in the answers, but the fact that all these issues will invariably haunt Ignatieff throughout this leadership process. It is realistic to wonder if Ignatieff will be able to effectively articulate his vision or is he destined to react to perpetual damage control.

The media loves controversy. Ignatieff's past provides easy fodder, which shows no signs of waning. Much of the criticism is unfair and represents selective editing. However, the fact remains that the baggage serves as a cloud over an otherwise amazing man. I am not saying I would not support Ignatieff because I would and may. What I am saying is I hesitate because I wonder if the Liberal interests are not best served through selecting a leader with a relative clean slate. Yesterday highlighted all that is right with Michael Ignatieff, but unfortunately it also revealed the pitfalls.

Body Bags Will Promote Canada

CTV did a story on the Harper government's new initiative to inform Americans that yes, Canada is an ally in the "war on terra". The Conservatives are spending 18 thousand dollars on a marketing campaign that places ads at strategic subway stations in America, educating people about Canada's role. Apparently, Americans have no idea that we are now the vanguard in Afghanistan, not to mention all the bi-lateral security arrangements. A small pitance to promote Canada, wouldn't you agree?

I would argue that the Conservatives are wasting money because we have an even more powerful tool at our disposal- dead soldiers. Nothing grabs headlines and brings awareness like caskets. Take yesterday for example, now that is priceless free advertising. Look at all the p u b l i c i t y from just one death. If all the predictions of a very active insurgency this summer prove true, Canada can look forward to continued coverage across the world. So my advice to Stephen Harper's propaganda campaign, don't worry the world is beginning to see that we are engaged in the war on terror. Give the 18 grand to the soldier's family instead, at least it might do some good.

UPDATE

Apparently, there is some misunderstanding about the point of this post. Andrew at Bound by Gravity links here with this:

Some bloggers take sick glee in the suffering of others: this article is particularly tasteless

I am not taking glee in suffering, but I do take offense at our government wasting time and resources to educate Americans. With our new role in Afghanistan, and a media pre-occupied with violence, Canada's role will become known through death- that is just a plain fact. What is really tasteless is the Harper government's need to promote our "suffering" to score political points with the Americans. I apologize if my post was hyper snarky and in turn belittled the death of someone.So there is no confusion, I supported the mission in Afghanistan and have great respect for our servicepeople.

Harper/Bush: "Cut From The Same Cloth"

Several bloggers, including myself, have detailed Harper's strategy of approaching every issue with vote potential in mind. Gerard Kennedy has called the Conservatives agenda a "marketing" strategy, offering palatable policies to curry favor from the electorate. The short-sighted goal of attaining a majority betrays the long-term best interests of the country.

With this philosophy in mind, it is curious that Harper chooses to engage in such a high-profile "outreach" with the Bush administration. In Canada, there are few things as unpopular as the government to the south:

The poll also found that 69 per cent of Canadians believe Mr. Bush's election was a bad thing, compared with 58 per cent who thought the same way right after he was given a second term. By contrast, 19 per cent think his election was positive, down seven points from November of 2004...

The survey, for example, found that in Quebec, 81 per cent of those surveyed thought Mr. Bush's re-election was a bad thing. The poll also found that 70 per cent agreed with the statement that, although they value the United States and its citizens, they disagree fundamentally with the government.

With public sentiment in mind, Harper hardly benefits from comments such as these:

The trip also sent a message to Washington, according to John Hulsman, an analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

''That was to show the cavalry is back in town, that they're not going to be anti-American,'' he said. ``Harper, like Bush, has a black-and-white, good-and-evil view of the world -- they're cut from the same cloth...''

''If George Bush can't get along with Stephen Harper, he can't get along with any world leader,'' said David Taras, a political science professor at the University of Calgary. ``They're ideological cousins, if not twins.''

Politically speaking, the last thing Stephen Harper needs is the perception that he ideologically similar to an essentially "radical" Bush regime, particularly in Quebec where anti-Bush sentiment is strongest. This policy will serve as an achilles heel that the opposition can capitalize on. Given, Harper's priority of offering political goodies to win votes, he may want to reconsider his "closer" ties with Bush. Harper's strategy is even more confusing, given the current climate in America, where elected Republicans have found it necessary to distance themselves from Bush if they hope for re-election this fall. In aligning closely with Bush, Harper reveals the mirage that he is a moderate and the opposition should exploit the contradiction.

Kennedy's Run: A Function of the Blogs?

Gerard Kennedy looks certain to run for the Liberal leadership. I wonder if his campaign may represent the first time the Canadian blogosphere has made a practical impact on the political landscape. We have seen high profile bloggers call for email campaigns to court Kennedy. A litany of posts that laud Kennedy's credentials and potential. In general, a buzz is created as the mainstream media picks up on the blogs, writes articles, which in turn inspire more posts. When we hear Kennedy speak of the "groundswell" of support that is driving him to run, is this not an acknowledgment that the online community has impacted his decision.

I think it fair to say, had it not been for the blogosphere, Kennedy would probably not be running. I hesitate in overstating the importance of blogs on the "real" world, because in many cases the influence is overstated. The perfect example of this phenomenon is the American DailyKos. It was sad to watch frontpage posters fall into depression because John Roberts was approved by the Senate. People actually believed that their posts would derail his nomination, in effect there was this delusion of self-importance that went beyond reality. This is not to say that DailyKos is not influencial, only that its reach is not as extensive as the hype would suggest. However, in the case of Gerard Kennedy, I would argue that the blogs have made their mark and that influence may well drive Kennedy to success at the convention.

The one worry about Kennedy is that he is a relative unknown outside of Ontario, partially within it for that matter. However, again the internet has the capacity to usurp the traditional constraints of name recognition because the networking allows the word to spread. I firmly believe that Gerard Kennedy is the Howard Dean of Canadian politics, that bloggers can shape the landscape. Would Kennedy have run anyways? I guess we will never know, but my instincts tell me that he represents a watershed moment for the online's relevance.

Harper Faltering in Quebec?

Given Harper's obsession with winning more votes in Quebec, the latest batch of relatively bad press should give him pause:

Harper's staunch defence of Canada's offensive combat operations in Afghanistan has raised eyebrows in Quebec, as have the government's lukewarm stance on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the failure to deliver on a promise to help fund a cash-strapped public zoo in Quebec City, and the decision to scrap a daycare deal that was to bring $806 million to the province over the next five years.

And now the government's tough new communications strategy is drawing fire in a province where the Tories are desperate to make gains.

I have always believed that, despite the cynicism of "renewed" federalism, Harper would always face an uphill battle in Quebec because the Conservatives right-wing agenda is not a natural fit with the province. Delegating more power to Quebec is clearly attractive, but Quebec is generally a progressive society, naturally at odds with Harper's philosophy. It is for this reason, that the Liberal Party still enjoys an opportunity to re-emerge in the province if it gets it's act together.

This fact doesn't detract from the simple reality that Harper has made extensive gains in the province. The Conservatives have placed a premium on developing an effective Quebec organization for the next election. However, no matter the hopes, this leopard can't change its spots and for that reason there will always be a chasm. If the Liberals can develop a new approach to federalism, beyond the tired policy of largely ignoring concerns, then Quebec remains future fertile ground.

As an aside, there was one quote in the linked story from Harper that I found interesting:

"To hear the Liberals talk, you'd think they're still entitled to be in power. You'd think that the recent election in which 70 per cent of Canadian voters called for change had never occurred or if it did occur people should vote again and get it right," he said.

Harper plays with the numbers, but fails to mention the fact that 64 per cent of Canadian voters don't support his "change".

Paul Martin Still PM?

I was watching CTV's news coverage, and they had a fascinating video clip of White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan at today's briefing. When asked about the upcoming Cancun Summit, involving Canada, the United States and Mexico, McLellan made mention of the Canadian Prime Minister. Apparently, the American administration didn't get the memo about Canada's election, McLellan twice referred to "Prime Minister Martin" attending Cancun. McLellan also referred to the "one Canadian" hostage released in Iraq- one, two, whatever, lets not split hairs.

McLellan's ignorance is particularly striking, given our new Prime Minister's fascination with all things Bush administration. How embarrassing to have a Canadian Prime Minister so enthralled with an administration that isn't aware he actually exists. McLellan's gaff was probably just a slip of the tongue, but it also reveals how Canada is largely an irrelevant player in the American lexicon. Anyways, I really hope Martin takes Bush to task over softwood lumber and the passport controversy.

Kennedy Nails It

The Toronto Star has a story, detailing Gerard Kennedy's strategy for the Liberal Party. Kennedy makes this comment about the Conservatives, which illustrates a keen understanding of the Conservatives "soft underbelly":

Kennedy, who is expected to launch his campaign next month, insisted that Harper's Tories do not have a monopoly on fresh ideas for Canada.

"My feeling is, as savvy as Mr. Harper is seeming to be following the marketing route and so on, there's a cynical part about that that leaves a very big opening for the Liberal party if it can get its act together," he said.

Kennedy correctly likens the Conservative agenda to a marketing campaign. What is particularly interesting, is the fact Kennedy recognizes that policy is not crafted from philosophy, but manipulation of the electorate. Liberals can compete with "renewed federalism" in Quebec because, despite the outreach, the policy is an attempt to appease, secure votes and not a moral imperative. Translation, the Tories don't give a rat's ass about Quebecers aspirations, but do care about securing their votes.

Kennedy sees an opening, because if the Liberals can project a ethical, coherent philosophy it will dwarf the slick, vote targeted Tory program. In essence, a real agenda always trumps smoke and mirrors. I firmly believe that Harper's agenda is a soulless concoction of calming measures, that shows no consideration for long-term consequence. The only vision- how to secure a future majority? The entire Conservative program centered around the idea of gaining power and now it is obsessed with holding and expanding it. This is why the Harper agenda is so dangerous, it will make decisions that directly relate to self-interest, rather than the greater good. Kennedy sees opportunity to exploit uber political manipulation with a real agenda.

Kennedy also demonstrates his bold approach through his refusal to cede the west to Harper:

The Manitoba-born Kennedy, who lived in Western Canada for 26 years, spent last weekend meeting with Liberal organizers in Alberta and British Columbia.

"There isn't any reason why we can't have a Liberal proposition that comes out of Alberta and comes out of B.C.," he said, warning against abandoning the West to Prime Minister Stephan Harper's Conservatives.

"They feel alienated and in some ways they should because they haven't been part of the base. They're not regions to be added on to, they are Canada — just like Ontario is."

Granted, Liberals chances in Alberta are realistically small, but the fact that Kennedy wishes to engage is the first step in re-establishing a real presence. This is leadership, this is vision and it belies a sense of country. The more I hear from Kennedy, the more I get the sense that he appreciates the situation and understands the way to counter the foe.

Harper's Biggest Blunder to Date

What are the Conservatives thinking, with this transparent assault on free media? Another day, another story outlining the new draconian measures imposed on the media, by a government bent on message control:

Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles.

The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper's office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access.

In outlining a series of new measures restricting media access, Harper is in effect digging his own grave. Instead of quiet reform, Harper seems bent on confrontation and alienation. Has the PMO heard of the word nuance? There is an underlying arrogance afoot, articulated already, in striking fashion, when Harper was challenged by Shapiro. This self-inflicted conflict brewing with the media belies an over-confidence, wherein a few men have deluded themselves into thinking they can dictate the agenda in a free country.

Many have already argued about the futility of trying to control the media. Message manipulation has been tried before, although not quite so publicly, and failed miserably. There are the comparisons to the Bush administration, where Harper clearly gets his inspiration(he is doing wonderfully in the polls isn't he?), although the Bush clampdown was far more subtle and covert. The Harper approach is unnecessarily in-your-face, to an institution that actually allows you to get your message out.

There is already lots of revisionist thinking about the last election. Harper ran a great campaign, stayed on message and spoke around the media. While there may be a some truth to the above, the media essentially enabled Harper. Harper had a relatively easy ride this past election. The media was soft on Harper, maybe as a result of the opinion that they were unnecessarily harsh during the prior election. My point, you can have all the slogans and messages you want, but you need a faciliator. You especially need the media when not in campaign mode, where paid media is even less of a factor.

Harper's director of communications Sandra Buckler demonstrates the lack of understanding, with this flippant comment about the scorned media:

"I don't think the average Canadian cares as long as they know their government is being well run."

And how does the average Canadian know anything? If the media gets its hackles up, and begins to feel the alienation as one, Harper will get bogged down no matter what the intentions. This entire issue is foolishness and in the end only hurts the Conservatives, while we undoubtedly still get the real scoop. In this age of new media, nano-second dissemination, how can you expect to manipulate the message entirely? The Conservatives were always allowed some "management" of message, simply as a function of the system. Why inflame tensions, make enemies, when you will ultimately accomplish little?

Here is an example- the Afghanistan trip. Scripted by Harper, meant to convey an air of leadership and resolve. Pretty pictures, shaking hands and instilling pride. The media responds to the Harper initiative, essentially benign, no tough questions. Mission, largely accomplished. Now, what about that visit after six months of friction and acrimony? Would the media roll over, or would they become combative and push the images? Whatever the answer, why chance negative coverage with horrible public relations. Harper has demonstrated his tin ear again, isolating himself within some warped sense that he controls all. I suggest the Conservatives will be in for a rude awakening as they deal with a media scorned. This blunder will keep on giving and giving.

Do Liberals Need "Vision"?

Ottawa Citizen's Susan Riley argues against the Liberals need for vision:

Contrary to received wisdom, the Liberal party does not need to re-invent itself, return to first principles, or articulate a clear vision. Visions are for saints, mystics and senior managers who, these days, are required to waste countless potentially productive hours drafting “mission” statements — bland expressions of good will and noble intent that are widely circulated and utterly ignored.

The Liberal party doesn’t need a “mission” statement, either. It needs to defeat the Harper Conservatives before they inflict serious damage on the economy, the nation’s social fabric, international reputation or domestic unity

I agree, the Liberals need to defeat Harper before his leaves a lasting impression. The trouble with Riley's logic is she rails against introspection, but doesn't provide an alternative. In fact, Riley actually provides the argument that makes re-inventing essential:

What Liberals must realize is that Harper is no more likely to defeat himself than he was willing to collude in his own failure in the last election. Waiting for him to self-destruct can no longer be the Liberals’ main strategy.

You have two options in a campaign, provide a clear platform or run against your opponent. Riley acknowledges that it is folly to fashion a policy that relies on Harper self-destructing. That leaves a positive platform, which necessitates a vision.

Tom Axworthy's slam on past Liberal policies is a great first salvo in the transformation. Who is kidding who, if it weren't for latent apprehension about Harper, the Liberals would have faced Kim Campbell like failure. The fact there are many Liberals left standings is irrelevant in calculating the gravity of the situation. You could argue that complete electoral annihilation would have been an even better scenario. Then, we wouldn't have the added "mending fences" angle, the entire Liberal bureaucracy would have been turfed and a new era easily attained.

The Liberals need vision in spades. Right now if someone asked, what does the Liberal Party stand for, I doubt you could give an easy answer. Could you say the same about the NDP or the Conservatives? That says it all, Riley is dead wrong.

Emerson Protests Come to Ottawa

The Emerson scandal is revealing all kinds of fascinating and creative ways to highlight dissent. This is a great idea:

David Emerson will be the target of an aerial protest over Parliament Hill next month...

A Vancouver-Kingsway resident has hired a small aircraft and pilot out of Toronto to fly over Ottawa as Parliament opens April 4, towing a banner with a message for Emerson.

That message will read "David Emerson Call Home", in 1.5-metre-high letters along a 40-metre banner.

The plane won't fly directly above the Parliament buildings, but will be close for MPs to see it as they arrive for the speech from the throne, said organizer Manuel Pereda.

Those lawn signs are a hit:

Meantime, protests continue elsewhere in the riding. Nine teams hit the streets Saturday, filling requests from homeowners for lawn signs that read De-elect David Emerson.

About 600 signs have been posted in the riding since last weekend. There is a backlog of 180 requests.

Chalmers said they are thinking of ordering additional signs to follow up on an initial order of 1,000.

No matter the outcome, what a terrific statement on the will of the people to be heard.

Least Objectionable Key to Liberal Leadership

Yesterday, Ahab's Whale had an interesting entry, arguing why Ken Dryden may emerge as the frontrunner for the Liberal leadership. The jist of the logic centers around Dryden as the consensus "second choice":

As everyone's potential second choice, Dryden will likely position himself in later ballots as the safer of the relative option, given that the other wannabe candidates all seem to be asking the party to take some measure of risk. For a party looking to emerge united from the convention, the argument will no doubt prove appealing.

Today, I read a mainstream story that puppets the Dryden angle:

Indeed, with no runaway frontrunner, victory is more likely to go to the least disliked candidate than to the most loved....

Siegel thinks the process works to the advantage of his preferred candidate, former minister and onetime hockey great Ken Dryden.

With his ponderous speaking style and imperfect French, the earnest Dryden is not every Liberal's first choice. But he's not seen as having been part of the Martin-Chretien civil war that fractured the party and he's given credit for finally delivering, in only 18 months, on a 12-year Liberal promise to create a national child care program.

"He's universally well-regarded, he's got all kinds of attractions and no negatives that would keep people from supporting him," says Siegel.

Amazing, that eight months out there is already speculation on how a second and third ballot will play out. I agree that Dryden is well placed to emerge as a consensus candidate, although I think Kennedy has equal opportunity. People like Stronach, and possibly Rae, are divisive forces that may lack the necessary room to grow at such an open convention. This convention is setting itself up to be a complicated affair, with lots of surprises.

Feingold Goes To Iraq

Senator Russ Feingold made his second visit to Iraq, alongside perpetual hawk Senator John McCain. I was curious to see what Feingold would say, because it is common practice for politicians to be overly diplomatic while abroad. Not surprisingly, Feingold didn't shy away and offered these comments to reporters:

Feingold said he believed "a large troop presence has a tendency to fuel the insurgency because they can make the incorrect and unfair claim that the U.S. is here to occupy the country."

"I think that it's very possible that the sectarian differences are inflamed by the fact that U.S. troops are here," he continued, adding that their long-term presence "may well be destabilizing, not stabilizing."

Feingold has been making this argument since late last summer, at the time he was vilified. It is important to hear Feingold make these remarks while in Iraq, with the Arab world watching. Feingold offered one other nugget to counter the Bush arguments for continued occupation:

Feingold said he was dismayed not to hear any of the military commanders he met with mention al-Qaeda as a source of the problems in Iraq. The Bush administration and U.S. officials here often point to the radical group as a major source of instability in the country.

"There seems to be a disconnect between the rhetoric in Washington about what this is all about and what we hear here," Feingold said.

Feingold accurately downplays the role of foreign fighters with Al Qaeda connections. In so doing, the emphasis is back to the main source of instability, the homegrown insurgency. I'm sure Feingold will take some heat back home for his candid comments, but someone has to push the envelope. I am so sick of watching Democrats offer timid criticisms and empty rhetoric when visiting Iraq. Finally, someone dares to challenge the administration, while in the midst of the military he commands.

Scrap GST Cut: Sales Tax Expert

Everybody hates the GST, and Stephen Harper is using this sentiment to curry favor without actually helping Canadians. Sales tax expert David Robertson weighs in and shows who really benefits from the GST cut:

According to a new study of the promised one percentage point cut to the GST, some of the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed tax break – which will total an estimated $32 billion over five years – are banks and other financial institutions ($2.6 billion); doctors, dentists and other health professionals ($650 million); and landlords ($970 million).

Other unexpected beneficiaries include hospitals, colleges and universities – nearly $1.3 billion over five years, according to the study. (Hmmm, wonder if they'll consider reducing tuition fees?)

All told, about 17 per cent of Ottawa's GST revenue comes from specific companies and public sector organizations that, unlike most businesses, are unable to pass along all their input costs for a GST exemption.

The Liberal tax cut was aimed at lower income Canadians, but the Conservatives have argued their GST cut is equally helpful. Robertson disagrees:

As he points out, cutting the lowest marginal income tax rate by one per cent and increasing the basic personal exemption, as the Liberals did, is worth $320 a year to most taxpayers.

To get the same bang for your buck with a one percentage point GST cut, you would have to spend at least $32,000 each year on goods and services other than rent or mortgage payments, groceries, prescriptions drugs, tuition, child care, insurance, loan payments and investments, all of which are GST exempt.

Another study has found that the GST cut will cost Ottawa 5.2 billion in lost revenue, substantially more than the 4.5 billion dollar Tory calculation. Are Canadians prepared to entertain deficit spending so that banks can pay less? The problem for the opposition is that the Conservative's GST cut is all about appearance, while the arguments against are more complicated to convey. It is difficult to make the case against cutting a dreaded tax without giving the Conservative's ammunition. Just like the Conservative's childcare plan, the solution is to manipulate the electorate into thinking Tories want to put more money in your pocket.

Despite the fact that the GST cut clearly favors the rich (strange how all Conservative policies tend to slant this way), this battle is one of impressions and in that regard it may be hard to stop. Personally, I have already heard several people speak highly of the GST cut, under the false impression that it is a real tax cut. It will be interesting to see if the opposition is willing to mount a strong challenge to the GST cut and risk public backlash. I would highlight the bank scenario because Canadians are well aware that these institutions are least deserving of further tax cuts.