More On The "Mild Recession"

The Conference Board Of Canada talks down the Canadian economy. Tsk, tsk:

Conference Board issues grim outlook

Canadian economy will shrink more than it previously thought, says the Ottawa-based think tank

CALGARY — The Conference Board of Canada laid out a grim outlook for employment in 2009 and 2010 on Monday, saying the Canadian economy “fell off a cliff” in the first three months of this year.

Pedro Antunes, the board's director of national and provincial forecasts, told a Calgary conference Monday that unemployment will steadily rise this year and peak at 9.5 per cent in the middle of 2010.

The Ottawa-based think tank estimates Canada's economy shrank by 7 per cent in the first quarter, Mr. Antunes told reporters.

When To Go?

Today's Hill Times piece on the looming Conservative attack ads also includes some discussion about election timing. The attack ads are slated to begin this summer, as the Conservatives pour over Ignatieff's past (as an aside, do the Cons really want to rehash old opinions, given the buffet of quotes from Harper, wherein he's pretty much bashed everything about this country, not to mention adding weight to the "hidden agenda" meme?). A surprise to know one, and the timing is really the perfect opportunity for the Conservatives to try and "define" Harper.

I suspect the Liberals will fight back, but given the mood of the country, I'm not sure a pissing match serves anybody's interests, so we must be careful in our response. I would argue, any retort merely highlights the Conservatives pre-occupation with partisan nonsense during a economic meltdown, rather than the typical negative ad counter. In that way, we present a negative frame, focus attention to the misguided priorities, without rolling in the muck. Any response must undercut the Conservatives attacks, while simultaneously maintaining the high ground, a sense that the Liberals have their priorities in order.

The article also debates the merits of a June election call versus the fall. I was a supporter of a an early election, but more and more I appreciate the merits of waiting. When one adds up the pros and cons, each period entertained brings a conflicted ledger. More time allows the Liberals to achieve optimal readiness on a host of fronts, but we don't operate in isolation and these looming attack ads are one example of the counter. Plug in the uncertainty, relating to where the economy is headed, whether Harper can argue the "worst is behind us" come fall, and it's an even more complex decision.

I'm curious where people fall on election timing, whether we should wait or ramp up now for a quick call after the convention. I thought I'd put up a poll and welcome feedback, because I don't think it's an simple calculation:

Words That Will Haunt Flaherty

Leave It Alone

Jeff already has an excellent breakdown as to why any amendments which effectively introduce quotas are counter-productive. Just to add my two cents, any amendment which sanctions artificial influence or disproportionate weight makes OMOV a practical failure. To give any subset within the Liberal ranks a pre-determined, calculated influence over the selection would mean that OMOV is nothing more than a bastardized farce.

You can understand the sentiment, and much of what the YL argue is true, in terms of the good work, a progressive voice, etc. However, that is really irrelevant to the principle within the OMOV concept, and there are plenty of remedies available to offset the perceived erosion of influence. If the YL are the vibrant, mobilizing force that they claim (and I agree), then this system merely requires a retool of sorts, which if successful will maintain the influence. Introducing a quote denotes weakness, that the voice of the YL requires help to be heard. In one sense, that's an insulting sentiment.

OMOV only undermines the voice of Liberal youth if they are incapable of maintaining a large membership, if they lack the organizational skill to attract new members. Under this system, the YL are only handicapped if they currently enjoy manufactured support. If anything, this new system can be empowering, because if the YL is what people claim, it should have no problem maintaining its "say" in any selection. If the Liberal Party can't attract more youth into the fold, then that lack of appeal should be reflected in OMOV, because then the party expression is really an accurate read on the makeup of the grassroots. I see the need for quotas as a defeatist attitude, that completely undermines the spirit of the initiative. If the YL are marginalized under this system, it's "fair" qualities will be nothing more than a testament to inherent weakness. If that fragility is real, then one has to wonder why the wanting subset deserves a uneven voice.

If this amendment to OMOV passes, then the final product resembles nothing of the sort and renders the terminology useless. Why bother, if we essentially create tiers of Liberals, inequalities and distortions?

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

If this was golf, Flaherty might want to ask for a mulligan:


“Relatively speaking this is a mild economic recession"



Canada loses a record number of jobs in January 2009

Canada trade deficit biggest on record

Budget adds 57 billion to swelling deficit

Carney sees record drop in Canada's GDP

Canada faces worst recession since 1980s

Canada retail sales post biggest monthly drop in 15 years

etc, etc...

I'd hate to see what constitutes a severe recession in Flaherty's world. Calling GritGirl?

On "Alternatives"

It's become a common refrain in Parliament, the Conservatives complaining that the "opposition", namely the Liberals, have failed to provide an alternative, detailed policy position on how to deal with the economy. Today's Hebert column picks up on that theme, although in a broader sense. I confess, I would like to see more meat to the bone, so we could get a better sense of where the Liberals are going. However, some broad strokes aside, it's almost amusing to follow the Conservatives logic to its rightful conclusion.

Last time I checked, the Conservatives are the government. If I have my history right, no opposition party has ever offered expansive detail, to the extent that their ideas parallel the position of the government of the day, in terms of substance. What the Conservatives are really saying, we need your help to govern, we lack ideas and the opposition is obligated to fill the void. The complaint is actually a recognition of incompetence, and if the Conservatives really believe the rhetoric, then they should simply resign and offer to let the Liberals govern, Ignatieff become Prime Minister.

The simple fact of the matter, in our parliamentary tradition, the onus is NOT on the official opposition to guide the government. Ignatieff has been quite vague to date(although a four month reign allows for some latitude), but that doesn't translate to legitimate criticism, in terms of acting as though Prime Minister. It's a nonsensical demand, the government asking the Liberals what they want them to do on the economy. When the parties face the voters, then we must provide a clear, detailed alternative, and we will have the debate, the contrast. To hold the view that the Liberals are derelict by not releasing an economic red book NOW, is an unrealistic demand, not to mention a dishonest protrayal of the opposition role in our parliamentary system.

If the Liberals flesh out their direction, I see it more as an attempt to define ourselves to the public. It really is nothing more than a theoretical presentation, based on the IF, should we become government. The Conservatives are arguing a practical application, and in so doing, all they project is a sense that they are incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities. Why anyone would support the "alternative" criticism as legitimate escapes me. Not only is it bad strategy at the moment, it's also a unrealistic expectation, given our current system. Do your "job" Conservatives, and we'll do ours, as it always has been, as the current PM did when he was in opposition, as his predecessors did before.

Bigger Rooms?

The last thing you want in terms of political optics, is a half empty room for an event. It's for that reason, that operatives tend to book conservatively. However, there has been one reoccurring theme since Ignatieff took the helm, that of "packed", "overflow", "waiting lists", everywhere he appears, with no exception that I can find.

Last night's Liberal fundraiser was no different:

Ignatieff Liberals were elated that more than 1,100 Liberals – more than half of them paying $1,000 for elite party membership and a chance to hobnob with the leader at a pre-dinner cocktail party – packed the room, with another 100 on the waiting list.

The tally for last night is estimated at over ONE MILLION. To put that figure into perspective, in one day, the Liberals have raised more for the 2nd quarter of this year, than they did the entire period last year. The fact we raised so much is even more impressive (if that's possible), when you consider another six figures was waiting to get in, if not for space limitation.

By all accounts, first quarter fundraising was up considerably. It would appear the second quarter is starting nicely. Attack away bottom feeders...

What Were You Thinking?

Stephen Harper, comments after his photo-op with "Canadian" soccer star Owen Hargreaves:

“Owen Hargreaves is one of Canada’s most famous and accomplished international athletes,” Harper said in a release. “Given soccer’s massive worldwide appeal, it is certainly refreshing to note that one of the world’s brightest stars is Canadian. … Thank you, Owen, for all you have done to shine the international spotlight on Canadian soccer.”

Yes, thank you Owen for SNUBBING the Canadian soccer team, even though we BEGGED you to play for your country, instead choosing to play for ENGLAND. Given the fact the Conservatives have ads in the can, crticizing Ignatieff for excelling on the world stage, becoming a "national treasure" abroad, it's almost comical to see Harper so desperate for a photo-op at the G20, that he praises a guy who turned his back on his country. Don't get me wrong, Canada isn't exactly a soccer hotbed, but the only "spotlight" Hargreaves has put on our country, is that it's not worth playing for. Clearly, an offside moment for the Prime Minister.

I Believe It Does "Call Into Question What Our Troops Are Doing"

It really is the fundamental philosophical underpinning, to justify our presence in Afghanistan. Actually, it's quite hard to find any defence of the mission that invariably doesn't move to a discussion of women's rights, girls in schools. Women's rights are essentially the signature rationalization for a continued presence, and I confess part of my logic to defend why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. Despite the death toll, all the hardships, this issue was somewhat of a counter balance, no matter your view it spoke to the complexity at hand.

I'll defer to this question by NDP MP Dawn Black, because it sums it up nicely:

"The government has said over and over again that the underpinning of this mission was to defend women's rights and to provide education for girls," Black said. "Mr. Speaker, after all the sacrifices, after all that Canadian families have put on the line, could this really end up being what we're fighting for in Afghanistan?"

What we are seeing now is so offensive, it really deserves a total re-think of this mission. Never mind 2011, what's the point in 2009, if this is where Afghanistan is headed? State sanctioned rape, with a dash of legislated slavery is the antithesis of everything we supposedly "fight" for, our moral impetus. I understand that everyone is outraged, and I have little doubt the enormous pressure put on the Karzai government will eventually bring a retreat, but the mere contemplation is enough to consider that continuation is futile.

Ignatieff responded with scorn, but my quibble is this assertion:

"I don’t think it calls into question what our troops are doing."

To be fair, I understand that statement, and it's important to separate this issue from the larger point. However, I actually do think this sort of development completely and utterly undermines one of the last remaining justifications for "what our troops are doing". In fact, it would appear that Afghanistan is slowly heading back to some sort of Taliban rule, that drift will erode all the supposed "gains" our presence has brought.

Nobody, particularly a public figure, wants to entertain the notion that people have died in vain, and the reasons for that lack of sober recognition are obvious. That said, it is becoming crystal clear, over these weeks and months, that our soldiers are pretty much spinning their wheels in their own blood, while the "enemy" concurrently tightens it's grip and gains measures of legitimacy. What's the point? What exactly are we doing, and is misguided patriotism clouding some hard realities?

Brain Kramp

It really has become the most amazing spectacle, that speaks to the true nature of this government. Despite a call for decorum from the Speaker, the Conservatives have been busily searching for low brow loopholes to continue their character assassinations. While the other parties applauded Milliken's new code of conduct, the Conservatives griped. So bent on their nonsensical attacks, that are utterly meaningless in the grand scheme, the Conservatives actually invested energy looking for ways around Milliken's new habit of cutting off personal attacks. I wonder if Pierre's constituents think wasting time on ways around high signal debate amounts to "getting the job done"?

Today, we witnessed another installment of the Conservative smear machine, so clever the way they snub their noses at Milliken. Well, it would appear the Speaker is just as committed to having his wishes enforced:

Tory MP warned of suspension over Ignatieff attacks

OTTAWA -- Commons Speaker Peter Milliken has threatened to suspend a Conservative MP if he continues making personal attacks against Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

Daryl Kramp received the warning after accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues.

Milliken told MPs several weeks ago that he would no longer tolerate them using members' statements, which precede question period each day, to engage in personal attacks.

He began cutting off MPs who ignored his ruling.

To avoid being silenced, Kramp and other Tory MPs have taken to issuing scathing assessments of an unidentified politician, whom they identify as Ignatieff only at the very end of their statements -- when it's too late for Milliken to cut them off.

Milliken's warning suggests he's willing to take more drastic measures to put a stop to the personal attacks.

I know the official Liberal position has been to ignore the schoolyard tactics, and I understand the logic. That said, there is also some merit to highlighting this silly dance between the Conservatives and the Speaker, in the name of gutter politics. There's a reason we haven't seen more high profile attacks directed at Ignatieff, so it might be to our benefit, demonstrating to Canadians just what this government thinks important during an economic meltdown. This has become farcical, and the Liberals might be wise to turn these attacks right back in the Conservatives face, as an example of misguided priorities and mean spirited partisan crap.

Tory Times Are Tough Times

The latest installment from GritGirl:

"There Is No Good News In This Poll For The Conservative Party"

And, the pollster isn't kidding. About the only solace for Conservatives these days, despite losing their edge over the Liberals, is that the government has maintained some advantage on the critical question of economic management. Although recent polls have shown the Ignatieff led Liberals have made a sizeable dent on which party can most effectively deal with the economy, this measure is still seen as Harper's best, and last remaining advantage. The new Leger poll provides the first sample, which gives the Liberals a distinct lead on the economic front, along with confirming recent trends in Ontario and Quebec.

On the economy, these type of numbers would translate to a devastating blow to the Conservatives credibility:

Approximately 48% of citizens said they were "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the measures adopted by the Government in these times of recession. In contrast, 40% of Canadians said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the measures taken by the Harper government. The "very satisfied" are only 6%.

When we look more in depth questions about the economy, we realize that Michael Ignatieff Stephen Harper dominates in all categories. Thus, the question, "between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, in which you trust the most to implement effective measures to address the economic crisis?" 41% of Canadians preferred the Liberal leader, against 32% the Conservative leader. Same scenario for "helping Canadian workers through economic crisis", since 41% of citizens have more confidence in Michael Ignatieff, against 33% who prefer Stephen Harper.

Previously, I've argued that an opposition party and leader are well placed, so long as they remain within striking distance of the governing party, on these type of questions. Given that Harper is the "economist", Ignatieff largely unknown in terms of detail, that we see a poll with such a wide gap in favor of the Liberals, at this stage, is frankly devastating for the government.

In terms of the horserace, we see a tight race:

Libs 35%
Cons 34%
NDP 14%

Another poll which shows faltering NDP fortunes, as well as a decided uptick for the Liberals. The regionals provide even better news, clearly the Conservatives are benefitting from regional bloat, rather than a true "tie" in terms of electoral prospects.

In Ontario, a large Liberal lead, as well as further evidence of the NDP well down:

In Ontario, where 106 seats (of 308) make it an essential battleground, the Liberal Party is now well ahead with 45% of the vote, followed by PC (35%), NDP (12% ) and the Green Party (8%). La marge d'erreur du sondage dans cette province est de 4 %. The margin of sampling error in this province is 4%.

These numbers are quite similar to last week's NANOS poll. Particularly noteworthy, if this trend for the NDP continues, vote splitting will no longer be as much of a factor for the Liberals in Ontario, making a potential seat shift all the more pronounced.

In Quebec, another poll that gives the Liberals a strong number in the 30's, although Leger gives the Bloc a higher percentage, and the Conservatives are nowhere:

Bloc 42%
Libs 33%
Cons 12%
NDP10%

This might be on the low end for the Conservatives, given other findings, but this isn't the first poll to show a barely double digit finding, so it's not outlandish.

Leger concludes that "winning conditions" exist for the Liberals under Ignatieff. Of course, it's the campaign that matters, but given the recent spate of polling, we are well placed. Those economic numbers are beyond anything one could reasonably expect, even if they are in error to some degree, it's still a discouraging brew for the government. Swallow hard.

Ignatieff Does British Columbia

From all accounts, Ignatieff is having a very successful extended tour of British Columbia. A big crowd in Kamloops, 800 people in Vancouver that added another two hundred thousand to the Liberal coffers, and a "overflow" crowd on Vancouver Island yesterday:

Ignatieff attracts overflow crowd for town-hall session

Federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff continued efforts to bolster his party’s popularity in B.C. with a town-hall meeting in Saanich Saturday that attracted an overflow crowd. It was the third stop on his B.C. tour, which targets voters outside the province’s large urban centres. On Friday he was in Squamish, and the night before, in Kamloops.

More than 300 people jammed the Spectrum Community School theatre, with chairs hastily assembled on the stage behind Ignatieff. Even then, some were forced to listen via speakers in the hallway.

Ignatieff spent an hour responding to audience questions. “It’s the way of getting close to what people are thinking,” he said in an interview with the Times Colonist before the town hall.

I read elsewhere, that when the overflow was included, there were an estimated 500 people in audience. Almost as important as the attendance, the way that attendance forces positive headlines. "Jammed" seems a recurring theme for Ignatieff, where ever he travels, and that drawing capacity denotes a party on the move, somebody to be taken seriously. Especially encouraging, Ignatieff is making dents where he has to, in many ways British Columbia will be the key in the next election. Good stuff.

Will They Go Negative Now?

We've heard talk of this internal tension amongst Conservative strategists, as it relates to going negative on Ignatieff. You know the Conservatives want to, it's their nature after all, but circumstances aren't exactly ripe for high profile partisan smears, particularly with this government's well deserved reputation. I suspect there is more debate today, with the latest Harris Decima leadership poll, that shows Ignatieff is gaining traction with Canadians.

Although Harper and Ignatieff share similar favorable ratings, Ignatieff enjoys a huge advantage in the unfavorable column. Since the last HD poll, Ignatieff is up 2% on favorability, down 6% on unfavorability, for a net gain, in terms of the all important spread of 8%. Ignatieff enjoys a positive rating from coast to coast, with the gap the largest in Quebec. As the pollster points out, these numbers are quite concerning for the Conservatives, because if the "no opinion" crowd eventually breaks at the same percentages, or even worse a 50/50 proposition, Ignatieff soars above Harper.

Harris Decima also confirms a curious dynamic we've seen manifest itself elsewhere, namely NDP supporters opinion of Ignatieff:

Michael Ignatieff has been able to make gains in favourability and reduce negative impressions, among a broader range of political constituencies, including those that identify as NDP supporters.

NDP supporters have a 47% favorable/39% unfavorable, with a relatively small 13% undecided.

Conclusion. This is the type of headline that drives the Conservative war room crazy:

"Canadians warming to Ignatieff, poll suggests"

Gong

I don't know if this is the Youtube Conservative response to "gritgirl"-the name "toryboy" suggests some attempt at a counter- but it's noteworthy for it's lameness. The quality of the video is high, but that isn't matched by the weak message. Worthy of attention, for the sheer inability to land a glove:



The talking points bring a genuine smile. A eighteen month old admittedly vague reference to a tax, a three year old mention of a dead policy and taking issue with the Senate passing a budget in RECORD time. For the Conservatives sake I really hope this isn't "black ops" response, because that assumes these are actually thought out attack lines. Sleep well "gritgirl".

Ignatieff In Kamloops

I found a few snippets from Ignatieff's appearance in Kamloops today. Apparently, it was an excellent turnout of around 400 people, in a riding that the Liberals garned a lowly 9.8% of the vote in the last election:

Hello In There

I must say, I find Harper's strategy perplexing, because he's essentially setting himself up now, to look the fool later. It isn't about talking down the economy, or demonstrating optimism, it's a matter of reading the tea leaves. These comments are just bizarre, and one has to wonder if there is something else at play:

Harper said Canada is in a period of enormous uncertainty where forecasts are changing rapidly.

His remarks came a day after the country's parliamentary budget officer said Canada's economy has deteriorated so much since Ottawa introduced its budget that more jobs have already vanished than the $40-billion stimulus package was intended to create.

Kevin Page's latest report shows an economy that plummeted in the first quarter of this year and erased most of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's projections when he tabled the budget in January.

Harper was quick to brush aside Page's claims.

"I think what Mr. Page said yesterday is not remarkable," he said. "Forecasts are going to change very rapidly in this environment."

Harper keeps using this same line, that forecasts are changing rapidly. The problem with his rationalization, EVERY forecast is changing to the DOWNSIDE. Did we miss one forecast that's revisited on the upside since the budget was released? It's as though Harper is saying the government can't reaccess because nobody is sure of the direction since the budget, too unpredictable to put any stock in. If you're "brushing aside" Page, what is the basis?

The simple fact of the matter, since Harper's budget, things have deteriorated further. There are no wild fluctuations, in the way Harper argues, it's all down, down, down, just a question of degree. One would think the government would embrace the universal opinion, instead of stubbornly clinging to outdated information. Harper has all the expert backing he requires to admit further erosion, without necessarily losing credibility. The irony, Harper is putting his credibility on the line, in being so dismissive of the new realities. I actually find it hard to entertain the possibility that Harper actually believes the government numbers, that he hasn't incorporated the freshest information.

Where's the benefit for the government, in refusing to accept a circumstance, which will invariably come back to bite them in the ass? Harper voluntarily lays the groundwork for the "out of touch" meme, and jeopardizes any sense of good management. Today was the perfect example, Harper attempting to re-announce old money, only to be peppered with the apparent disconnect between his stand and what is fast becoming "everybody else". That's the storyline that will haunt Harper, so it's hard to see the upside in not ceding any ground, particularly when it's unclear whether the government would really shoulder blame. If Harper were to embrace the changing forecasts, as evidence of fast changing events that nobody could have foreseen, I suspect he might get something of a pass. That stance can't be worse politically, than "vigorously defending" old news, that nobody is buying. Where are your allies in this argument Mr. Prime Minister?

With each new defence of outdated understandings, I have to wonder what the government is really up to, because for the life of me, I can't think of one rational answer that works.

CROP Quebec Poll

A new poll from CROP for Quebec, which looks similar to other recent numbers, and essentially unchanged from CROP's January release:

Bloc 35%
Libs 30%
Cons 18%
NDP 13%
Greens 4%

Confirmation, that the regional numbers from the national pollsters are pretty much in line with this Quebec only, large sample, poll.

Broken down regionally, in the Montreal area the Bloc and Liberals are tied(33% and 32% respectively), with the Conservatives and NDP well back in the low teens. In the Quebec City region, the Conservatives are holding their own with 32%, Bloc has 30% and the Liberals are fairly competitive at 24%. In the rest of the province, the Bloc have 38%, the Liberals 29% and the Conservatives 19%.

Ignatieff maintains a large lead over Harper on the best Prime Minister measure. Ignatieff gets 35%, with Layton at 21%, Harper a lowly 19%.

Given the pretty much static result from the last CROP poll, the Quebec numbers might be settling into a firmer dynamic. Bloc still strong, but signs of weakness. Liberals with encouraging numbers, Ignatieff a real opportunity. Conservatives down, Harper an albatross, hanging around, with little room for optimism.

Who Needs Puffins?

She's good:



And, the "Deliverance" feel is just brilliant.

Self Inflicted Wounds

I find it hard to defend the Liberals decision to let the 3 billion "slush fund" pass, given our voluntary and unprovoked rhetoric. I would classify our "climb down" over this stimulus as the first potentially major gaffe of the Ignatieff reign. I remember well, the Ignatieff scrum, full of provocative language, entirely confident in saying Harper must "walk back down the hill", there will be no "blank cheques". I also recall many of us bloggers defending our stance, dismissing any suggestion that a Dion redux was on the horizon. In the end, all the bluster looks unnecessary, the strategy questionable, the frame entirely unproductive.

In the budget aftermath, the key challenge for the Liberals is projecting this idea of a government on "probation", don't confuse letting the budget pass with complicity, a real opposition holding Harper to account. Up until this point, I've been entirely impressed, no real sense of Harper walking over the Liberals, in fact Ignatieff very much looks like the defacto Prime Minister. However, with this obvious cower, the Liberals have reminded everyone of a past pattern- threats and tough talk, to be followed by double speak and submission. I'm sorry, but a toothless motion, introduced prior the vote, which the government has already laughed off and pledged to ignore, doesn't distract from the central theme of the bully winning the day, AGAIN. This issue of false bravado is the Liberals achilles heel, we have desperately tried to shed the previous image, with great success to date, which makes this self inflicted wound all the more puzzling.

Harper began this debate with typical partisan threats. The Liberals reacted with their own line in the sand, which meant that a compromise was essential, to avoid the appearance of cowering. What amazes me, the Liberals failed to extract ANYTHING from the government, even the slightest concession to save face. No, the government didn't budge and we simply let the stimulus pass with a wimper, and weak rationalizations. It's one thing to let your opponent best you, quite another to create your own poison pill, that you will later swallow. It all begs the question- what was the point of this exercise in the first place, if our fate was pre-determined? The Liberals could have easily reacted with amusement, Harper's false confrontation, and merely stuck to our line about future accountability dates. Demanding complete transparency before the fact, set us up for failure, because we clearly weren't prepared to follow it through.

Is Harper this strong at the moment, that we don't have any leverage to extract a concession or two for support? Was there any realistic prospect of having an election, with the central point being Harper's resistance to "accountability"? I fail to see the danger, we could have garnered something in the name of credibility. I'm not suggesting lasting damage, but nobody should be surprised, when we see the next pressure point, that the media and our opponents, react with scepticism when we sabre rattle. If the strategy is to bide our time, while still looking relevant in opposition, no sense of "weak", "dithering" or the dreaded "waffler", then this whole affair undercuts our central thesis. A very confusing sequence of events...