You Sir, Have No Peer

I guess the only question that matters, can Harper get away with it? In terms of sheer gall, Harper's dizzying spin on the climate change file is almost without precedent. You're reading it, but you can't actually believe he's saying it, and you wonder how it's possible anybody could swallow it. Steve:

Obama's climate policy a positive change, Harper says

Barack Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions, Stephen Harper says.

...the Prime Minister insisted that Canada's climate-change policy has been hamstrung by the inaction of its largest trading partner.

“In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” Mr. Harper said in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.

“I think quite frankly the fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement.”

If you were to ask any international delegation in the world, which country they would consider Bush's best ally within the climate change debate, Canada's name would come up every time, almost immediately. Canada has been such a "laggard" we've actually achieved the unfathomable, collecting more dinosaur awards in Bali than brother Bush. We're the country of "inspirational" targets, we're the one's who have changed the time lines, the baselines, talked of "intensity", that's "made in Canada".

The fact this character has the audacity to snuggle up to Obama, as though he's waited in the wings, finally, finally a dance partner, represents a new threshold in pure, unmitigated bullshit. You sir, have no peer. Stephen Harper actually believes he can move from Bush's sidekick saboteur to Obama's policy twin and nobody will notice. This nonsense is a test, it's a fundamental point, because if Harper is allowed to expouse this line, along with his surrogates (Prentice today, just simply amazed at how close the two countries really are on global warming), then it's true- you can do and say anything, repetition becomes reality. What Harper is saying, the whole argument, it's simply offensive, these clowns should be blushing when they utter the words.

Reality Check

Quite a bit of coverage, surrounding just how much time Ignatieff will get with Obama. Is it 15 minutes, 20 minutes, less or more? That the focus is on this topic is quite silly, but I had a hunch that some Conservatives would twist it into an attack on Ignatieff. So, I decided to take a rare visit over to the cesspool, and sure enough:

Iggy The Spoiled Child


Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sounding like a spoiled little child, is apparently upset that his meeting tomorrow with US President Barack Obama will only be 15 minutes in length...

Iggy sounds a lot like a child complaining to his mother that his bigger brother got a slightly larger piece of cake after dinner...

I wonder if it every dawns on these people, that the ONLY reason this is even an issue is because that hyper-partisan, SCHMUCK of a Prime Minister we have can't just be an adult and give the opposition leader his fair due. NOBODY would even mention Ignatieff's "time", if not for the crap from the PMO. Period.

Kory Teneycke, defending the schedule:

"This is not inconsistent with how past (presidential visits) were organized," he said.

"You try to minimize the movements. When you're moving the motorcade around - all 50 cars - you're going to burn up a lot of time."

Trying to minimize movements? Seems to me, you don't need the motorcade for Ignatieff to visit with Obama on Parliament Hill, when he's ALREADY there. Instead the Conservatives dump Iggy in the backroom of a hanger, maybe Rae can take a quick snap with his cell to prove the event actually occurred.

There's only one "child" here, who has no class, a constant embarrassment, everything he touches becomes a strategic maze of absurdity.

Back Off JT

I read HUD's post, relating to a robo call from Justin Trudeau. Yesterday, I received the same call, and agree Trudeau is a capable spokesperson, that delivers a certain sincerity.

Anyways, a while ago I was lucky enough to receive a SECOND call from Justin, how special I felt. I confess, I did hang up half way through, we've been here before Justin. Well guess what happened about ten minutes ago? You guessed it, JT on the horn for a THIRD time. Robo call error, or man crush?

What a SMALL Man

Only Stephen Harper could manage to turn a important visit by Obama into a statement on petty politics and manipulation. God forbid the GG should be allowed to greet Obama, in front of the cameras. How outlandish, that the oppostion leader should meet Obama in a diplomatic setting. Simply ridiculous to acknowledge that Canadians might want a mere glance or two. The PMO has micro-managed this visit, to the point that they've turned it into a selfish farce.

Yesterday, it was amusing to see Harper speak of the visit, almost giddy at the prospects. You can't blame the PMO for wanting to maximize the benefits to their advantage, that's a natural political reaction. However, the controlling nature to ensure than only HE is the center of the attention, leaves a bad taste and in turn Harper has managed to undermine the positives. The PMO's pathetic attempts to point out the comparisons between the two men (surprised Kory didn't mention that both men stand erect and eat breakfast too) denotes a callous opportunism.

A "working" visit, without the ceremony is fine, given the times, you want to convey a serious, business-like feel. That the visit has become so tightly ccntrolled, to the point of ANAL paranoia, once again provides another disappointing example of Stephen Harper's smallness.

Martin Half Right

Don Martin column today, which mostly posits the folly of Ignatieff "wooing" the west:

But somebody forgot to share those dire stats with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who seems to relish banging his head on the western wall no matter how painfully poor the prospects of winning seats...

The guy has been to western Canada twice since his coronation two months ago, pledging to give voice to regional concerns as if they were his own...

“The best way to overcome Western alienation, in my view, is to get a few more Liberals in the House of Commons in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation,” he told supporters in Saskatoon.

That’s still got to be a dream, if not a delusion, which is why it’s a curious strategy for a Liberal leader to focus on the West when, to paraphrase former premier Ralph Klein, he would be better off hunting where the ducks are.

The only glimmer, and a small one at that:

It’s not entirely hopeless, one supposes...

Martin's piece is right, the Liberals are nowhere in western Canadian and:

...to suggest there’s an Iggy mania in the making takes a vivid imagination.

The Liberal brand is a political anathema almost everywhere on the Prairies. It will take more than a few leader trips and mea culpas before The West wants in on any scheme that could toss the Conservatives out.

Where Martin is entirely off base, assuming that any Liberal of sound mind actually entertains a western wave. Martin sets the bar higher than even the most optimist would suggest. In my mind, and I suspect the Liberal braintrust, Ignatieff is merely trying to get the Liberals back in the conversation, which translates into a few seats at BEST, under optimal circumstances. Don't confuse building up from our low of 2008 as a testament to wild desires, nobody's that naive.

Is it really out of the question, for the Liberals to double their seat total in the next election, grab one or two, here and there on the prairies? It's not like that's never happened before, so outlandish to be nonsensical. Way, way back in 2004, the Liberals had 14 seats (14 in 2006 as well), and the vote breakdown for the four western province was as follows(2008 vote percentage in brackets):

British Columbia 28.6%(19.3%)
Alberta 22%(11.4%)
Saskatchewan 27.2%(14.9%)
Manitoba 33.2%(19.1%)

Martin seems to think Liberals want to paint the west red, but really the goals are far more realistic, entirely doable. A few more seats, more regional representation than the present extinction. That's what Ignatieff is up to, in my view, so no need for the head scratching at the "woo", everyone is well grounded. Small steps, which are achievable and sober.

"We Are Lost Right Now": Ignatieff on Afghanistan

Probably the most plain language we've heard, and something which needs more examination, Ignatieff on Afghanistan:

"To be frank, we are currently lost in Afghanistan. I support the mission, but I think we are lost right now. We need to find a new strategy and I think Canada can offer a legitimate contribution," he said.

The debate on Afghanistan has been largely non-existent, basically nothing more than a discussion on the 2011 end of military operations. It's as if Canada is merely playing out the clock, and nobody is putting forth any strategic re-think in the intermediary. Canada will just plod along with it's NATO partners, even though the evidence mounts that the operation is a destined to fail, by any measure.

I don't want to elevate what Ignatieff said, but a recognition of being "lost" is a starting point and I would encourage the Liberals to concentrate on 2009 and 2010, what the policy should be, rather than constantly referring to a position two years out, which does nothing for the NOW.

The Conservatives seem content to debate the "future of NATO", the same old line that more input is needed from our partners, if we are to succeed. That emphasis assumes there is a solution at hand, we just need better participation and commitment. However, that policy endorses status quo tactics, merely a question of degree.

Admitting failure is half the battle to understanding plausible solutions. Rather than talk of end dates, it's about time we heard a debate about whether we're just spinning our wheels until then. If one determines that we are "lost", then they need to offer an alternative vision, and if that isn't conceivable under this international regime, then we can legitimately reconsider our commitment.

I'll be curious to see, now that Ignatieff is getting his internal footing, if he articulates a path which distances the Liberals from a mere endorsement of the 2011 end of operations, as though that's the only consideration. I want to hear what is the "new strategy", because after you admit being "lost", it's incumbent to clearly define a way forward, otherwise you're simply irresponsible.

God's Speed Mike

If you're like me, then you've been on pins and needles awaiting the conclusion of the Michael Phelps saga. I hadn't heard anything for a few hours(weird), which only heightened the unease, but awesome word today, on every news outlet imaginable, across the world- Michael Phelps can remain a member of society. I just hope now that Mike, if I can call him that, gets the help he needs and puts his shattered world back together. A young man and a bong, concerning, shocking and so rare, but at least nobody died in the end.

Anyways, CTV found it compelling enough to put up a poll on the question, so have your say too. God's speed, for a troubled soul, and a big "what up" for the intense media coverage of such a relevant event in the 21st century, that impacts us all.

Coalition Baggage As Weak Attack Line

Last week, in response to a possible Conservative attack line against Ignatieff, using the coalition option to fear monger, I posited this hypothetical response:

"If they raise the spectre of national unity, attempting to fire up their western base, they actually play into Ignatieff'sspan> hand. Part of the rationale, in avoiding the coalition option, was entirely a consideration on national unity, Ignatieff can tell western Canadians that his stance was partially a recognition of western alienation, the belief that the coalition didn't enjoy support across the country. Ignatieff can make the argument, using the coalition, to demonstrate that he is receptive to western sentiment, and he sacrificed a real opportunity for power, because he recognized the "mood". Rather than an albatross, I think Ignatieff can pivot and turn his decision into an example that he is "listening" to the views of all Canadians, personal ambition is secondary to responsibility. If Ignatieff takes western Canada for granted, if the Liberals are primarily an eastern-centric entity, then why didn't he move forward and install himself as PM? The Ignatieff decision, the facts, actually shows a sensitivity to western sentiments, rather than the craven opportunism the Conservatives will argue. The entire coalition debate is a testament to Ignatieff's desire to bring Canadians together, to be a force for unity, part of his grand vision for the country."

Ignatieff, in an interview yesterday in Regina here:

Ignatieff also said it was the West's strong feelings about the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, that contributed to his decision not to continue to pursue it.

"You are after all looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Ignatieff. "I want to be someone who unites the country and that includes the West."

As the Conservatives argue, you can't change the coalition facts, letters and what not. Those facts work for Ignatieff, not against, so if our opponents want to raise the issue, the above sends a unequivocal, FACTUALLY based message. Turn it around, because rather than an attack on western want, Ignatieff's coalition "record" articulates his capacity to incorporate western sentiment into his decision making.

Thinking JUNE

If you weigh all the strategic considerations, you can make a strong argument that June is the optimal time for the Liberals to force an election. There's a downside to every scenario, for the Liberals a sense that time is on our side, the more we have to improve fundraising and readiness, the better. It's quite true, it takes time to "rebuild" a party, particularly in areas of the country where the Liberals organization and appeal is currently weak. I'm afraid that sense will lead many to look to the fall "probation" update, as the earliest possible window for forcing an election. I would submit, that what the Liberals may gain on the readiness front could be offset by other factors that could erode the longer we wait.

Ignatieff is riding a pleasant wave, emerging from the budget/coalition debate in a strong position. Ignatieff has positioned himself as a believable PM in waiting, the Liberals have a credibility they haven't had in years, a fickle media generally on side. I see nothing on the near horizon to fundamentally change this dynamic, no bigger tests immediately apparent, than the one's just concluded. Given the primary focus on a cratering economy, which will surely continue through the spring, Ignatieff merely has to stay out of the way, and let events dictate.

I can't remember seeing the Harper team look so unbalanced and in flux. Internal issues, the frame of "strategic genius" now a distant memory, sagging fortunes, principles abandoned, coupled with governing during this economic mess, the Conservatives seem entirely vulnerable. However, to assume this condition is permanent fails to acknowledge the ability of your opponent to adapt. Politics are forever fluid, and with an unknown economic future, there is a risk for the Liberals thinking they can simply bide their time and pounce whenever they choose. If some of the forecasts are correct, the economic numbers may start to flatline, even hints of recovery come the fall, which will surely put some wind in the Conservative sails, a sense that they're coming out the other side. If the Harper government is allowed to hit bottom, and then be able to point to indicators showing the worst is over, that reality is dangerous for the Liberals. Things don't have to be "rosy", they merely have to convey some confidence that it's about to get better. The markets are notorious for being ahead of the economic curve, if there is light piercing the gloom, we could well see some optimism and this will affect the media coverage. Waiting until the fall, is a risky proposition, because nobody really knows where we'll be, so you couple economic uncertainty, with giving your opponent ample time to retool, and you might see an opportunity passed.

June is attractive because you are fairly certain that the economy will be in the "ditch", any campaign rife with poor data, a circumstance which guarantees the government is on the defensive. The Liberals have successfully distanced themselves from the budget, and these "probation" updates provide opportunity to bring the Conservatives down. However, these updates are a double-edged sword, because while they allow control, they also have the capacity to forfeit culpability. Letting the Conservatives live on in March is a given, the budget barely out the door, nobody will expect the Liberals to move, and nobody will really blame them for that decision. Currently, the NDP attacks on the Liberals, this idea of a Con/Lib alliance are feeble and remote, mainstream thought doesn't really entertain the concept, the media largely ignores as nothing more than politics. That said, should the Liberals keep allowing the Conservatives a "pass" on the updates, there is the possibility that these attacks gain steam, because Liberal criticism is eroded with every rubber stamp, on subsequent judgements. March is a given, June is somewhat more intriguing, that is where the narrative can change and we start to "wear" the Conservative budget, or at least we absolve part of the responsibility.

Electorally, the Liberals desperately need to improve their fortunes in British Columbia. Unless the Liberal convention is a historical anomaly, Ignatieff will get a bounce out of the love-in, and it just happens that this event allows a terrific opportunity to showcase the party in a key region. This convention provides a vehicle to sell the Liberal message and Ignatieff's stature will surely rise. The fact it occurs in May, just prior to the June update, means the Liberals could well be riding a wave, some serious momentum.

Parliament isn't in session during the summer, which means if the Liberals did choose to move in June, they can make the argument that this action doesn't impede ability to deal with the economy. An election during the "pause" can be framed as responsible- we can't support the government anymore, we're on the wrong path, a summer election is the best time, if we must have any "uncertainty". I'm not sure that's a powerful argument, but it may help appease a public who wants no part of any election, at anytime for that matter.

I suspect fundraising is on the uptick, we already have some evidence and soundbites to show that things are improving. It will take quite some time for the Liberals to compete with the Conservatives, in terms of money and organization, waiting for that moment seems a far away goal. While the downside of June might be optimal "readiness", one needs to counter-balance that facet with the other issues at play, many of which clearly work to our advantage, many of which might be temporary. When you have your opponent somewhat demoralized, so consumed with merely keeping afloat, coupled with relative "good times" for yourself, it doesn't really get much better than that in politics, and you would be wise to pounce, because the moment may be fleeting.

Busy Guy

The latest cover for Maclean's:



Earlier I made note of Ignatieff's three day tour of Quebec next week. Apparently, the new Liberal leader is a very, very busy man, today and tomorrow in Saskatchewan:

The Liberal party must embrace Western Canada instead of running against it, says Michael Ignatieff, who is making his first visit to Saskatchewan this weekend as leader of the federal Liberals.

Ignatieff told a brunch crowd of about 400 people in Saskatoon on Saturday that the party must work hard to win more seats, and more respect, in the West.

"Sometimes we've fallen prey to the temptation to run against the West, you know, to run against Alberta, to run against the Saskatchewan energy sector. This is not the way to go," he said.

"The western economy is the beating heart of Canadian progress in the future. This is where the action is. And, if this is where the action is economically, then we have to be there too.

Goodale introduced Ignatieff with the traditional "the next prime minister of Canada," igniting a rally of whoops and hollers.

Ignatieff took off his blazer, rolled up his sleeves and answered questions before posing for photos and signing autographs like a political rock star.

Tomorrow in Regina, then Monday to Wednesday in Quebec, taking full advantage of the break in Ottawa, and a good way to keep up momentum.

The really interesting part, Ignatieff is saying the same thing to the "west", that he's said in the "east", a fact which speaks to conviction rather than simple pandering. Talking up Alberta in Quebec really serves no political purpose, but I must say I'm getting quite excited about Ignatieff's "vision" for Canada. At a time when Canada desperately needs someone who can reconfigure the old dynamics and offer a progressive view of the federation for the future, Ignatieff gives reason for optimism. Small steps, a mountain of work to do, but glimmers and a sense the commitment is real.

Ignatieff Quebec Tour

Ignatieff is slated to do a three day tour of Quebec next week, including a tantilizing "wooing" of popular Trois-Rivières mayor Yves Lévesque to run under the Liberal banner. Ignatieff will also travel to Quebec City to meet with mayor Régis Labeaume :

Taking advantage of favorable polls, the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, will undertake a tour of great seduction for three days in Quebec next week.

Mr. Ignatieff will leave Ottawa next week to visit Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Tuesday in the Montreal area Wednesday, according to information obtained by La Presse. The Liberal leader will return to Ottawa Thursday to meet with U.S. President, Barack Obama, who makes his first official visit to Canada.

And, a contrast in style that Liberals should start highlighting at every turn, Ignatieff won't play "peek a boo", unlike our supposed "leader":

" Ignatieff attaches great importance to Quebec. And he believes that one of the best ways to be on the lookout for regional issues is to meet with municipal officials. You must listen to them", said one Liberal strategist

In each of the stops, Mr Ignatieff will be available to the media to answer their questions. "Unlike Mr. Harper, which remains locked in an ivory tower, Mr. Ignatieff will move throughout the parliamentary break to meet with local stakeholders and will make available to the media," said Liberal strategist.

The Liberals finished at distant third in Trois Rivieres, if they could ever convince Lévesque to run for the Liberals, it's would be a tremendous coup. You may remember, Lévesque accused the Conservatives of partisan punishment, withholding funding because the seat went to the Bloc in the last election. Even the mire rumors are a good sign for the Liberals under Ignatieff, a sign of potential appeal.

A visit to Quebec City, a meeting with the mayor, also conveys positive optics, and getting in front of microphones whenever you have the chance, should heighten the focus.

If there is any latent resistance to the Liberal position on the budget, this visit should afford Ignatieff an opportunity to move past and create some fresh buzz. Good stuff.

Weasel

Stephen Harper Oct 23 2007:

"Clearly, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who knows that he makes such allegations in this chamber under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and encourage him to have the courage of his convictions," Harper said. "If he believes what he said, he should make these accusations outside the chamber where those whom he is libelling and slandering have recourse to the courts to hold him responsible."

That was then, this is now:

"Mr. Poilievre slipped out a back door and avoided reporters waiting to speak to him."

More "Kitchen Table" Feedback

I guess maybe it is a good idea to read the budget before you take a "principled" position against it:

Make It Stop

The Ignatieff love affair continues, and you know it's real when NP's John Ivison joins in. Ivison has a few more internals from NANOS, including Ignatieff's "coat tails", but the thrust of the piece is a party united and upbeat:

the Messiah-like arrival of Michael Ignatieff seems to have reduced the appetite for rebellious mischief to record lows...

In the meantime, the Liberal team around Mr. Ignatieff is over-joyed at the progress made since he became leader. “It feels like 1993 all over again,” said one veteran, referring to the period before Jean Chrétien became Prime Minister. MPs say the mood in the party is the best it has been in six or seven years.

There are few signs of internal division, even among Liberals who supported other candidates in past leadership campaigns.

But no-one should be in any doubt - Iggy is this year’s model. In a matter of weeks, he has succeeded in building what he calls a “culture of belief” in a fractious, if desperate, Liberal Party. The suggestion from the new Nanos polls is that he is piquing interest right across the country. “He should be cautiously optimistic but not doing a victory lap just yet,” said Mr. Nanos.

Cautiously optimistic indeed Mr. Nanos. Moments in time...

Nanos also finds, what we already know, Ignatieff did well during the budget debate:

with 35% of those surveyed saying his performance was good or very good, compared to 14% who thought he did poorly. Stephen Harper was also given pass marks for his handling of the budget, with 40% thinking he did well or very well, compared to 24% who thought he did badly.

On the importance of the leader, Ignatieff, at the moment, would have the advantage over Harper:

But there was less encouraging news for Mr. Harper when respondents were asked whether leaders would have a positive or negative impact on local party candidates. Thirty-eight per cent thought Mr. Ignatieff would have a positive effect, against just 19% who believed he would be a negative influence. He recorded positive numbers in every region of the country.

By contrast, while 37% felt positively about Mr. Harper, 32% felt negatively, with much of the ill-will concentrated in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

“That’s a problem,” said Nik Nanos. “If you were developing an election stratey in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, you would run on the local candidate, not the leader. Michael Ignatieff has coat-tails across the country.”

You can't expect hostile media to remain friendly, but when you see pieces like the above, it's a statement on objective respect. The new swagger Liberals have is undeniable, projecting confidence, all oars rowing together, and even the most slanted, once and while must take notice. Couple that, with the most amazingly lame attempt to cobble together a feeble attack line against Ignatieff, and you know these are positive days for the Liberals.

And, I have no doubt of this from Ivison:

The clever money is on the Conservatives going on the offensive at the first sign of economic recovery.

No signs yet, haven't even touched bottom. In the meantime, Ignatieff is framing himself, before the Conservatives try to do it for him. I'm thinking June should be seriously considered as the election prepardness goal.

What A Joke

Remember all those hard hitting GHG "regulations" that the Conservatives pledged to bring forward A YEAR AGO ? Remember, just prior to the last election, when pressed on the regulation delays, the government said they would wait until after the election?:

But asked about the indirect costs to consumers of the Tory plan to regulate emissions, Mr. Kenney said that calculation will have to wait until later this fall, when the regulations are published.

Environment Minister John Baird later told The Canadian Press that the regulations will not be published during an election campaign.

Regulations to be published in the fall? I was simply dumbfounded that, during the last election, the Conservatives were allowed to take shots at other party plan's for GHG's, without presenting their own plan. That aside, the government intimated that the regulations were almost complete, after a wide consultation process.

Today, we get the latest round of crap from Jim Prentice, who has basically admitted the government has nothing, and needs directions from foreigners, for it's "Made In Canada" plan:

Prentice, who was appearing before the committee to defend his department's need for about $36 million in additional funds, said the government needed more time to consult with industry and the provinces.

More time?

Good question:

"We've gone from 'Made in Canada' to delayed in Canada and made in the USA. Where is your plan for the three-and-a-half years you've been in government?" asked Ottawa Liberal MP David McGuinty.

It's only been 1115 days since this government came into office, and all we have to date is "more time" needed. What a joke.

Toss Up

Three polls this week, all show a statistical tie, NANO brings the latest numbers. The good news for the Liberals, further evidence that Ontario is trending back and Ignatieff is very well positioned, relative to Harper. The poll also supports other findings, showing that Layton has taken a hit, in the budget aftermath.

The horserace numbers are virtually identical to the last NANO poll:

Cons 34%
Libs 33%
NDP 16%
Bloc 10%
Greens 7%

The only change of note, a 3% drop for the NDP.

Although the national numbers are virtually the same, there is some variation in the regionals. Volatility in Quebec, with the Bloc gaining, the Libs coming back to earth, but still well ahead of the Conservatives:

Bloc 38% (plus 9%)
Libs 28% (minus 11%)
Cons 16% (minus 1%)
NDP 14% (unchanged)

I read the above as a combination of the budget and the Bloc convention, but it's also a statement to fluidity. However, it does appear the Conservatives have serious problems in Quebec, all the polls show very low numbers, which leaves room for Ignatieff to truly take the mantle of the federalist option. The Liberals may have taken a temporary hit, but if that still leaves us above our election total, it's a good sign. I'm not particularly worried about the Bloc bounce, Ignatieff has opportunity, and it will all demand on how he performs, what kind of coherent message he develops to "sell" the Liberals in Quebec.

The counter-balance to lower Quebec numbers, an uptick in Ontario. We are starting to see a trend, taking all the polls into consideration, wherein the Liberals are taking the lead, in some cases a sizeable one. NANOS has a tidy 9% lead now for the Liberals:

Libs 43% (up 4%)
Cons 34% (down 1%)
NDP 16% (down 1%)
Greens 11% (down 2%)

These numbers represent a 9% gain for the Liberals since the election, a 5% fall for the Conservatives. NANOS isn't the only one to show the Liberals now in the 40's, if these hold, it represents a big swing in seat totals.

Atlantic Canada always brings high margin of error, but given the universal agreement of all the polling, it's a pretty safe bet to say the Liberals are doing quite well.

In the "west", the only thing of note, the Liberals have opened up a considerable gap over the NDP for second place, which may be a reflection of the coalition fallout.

What is particularly encouraging for the Liberals, Ignatieff is doing very well. Harper still maintains a lead, but the name of the game for any opposition leader, just look a credible alternative. This poll, coupled with other findings, confirms that Ignatieff is a serious challenge to Harper. Some of this uptick for the Liberals is probably the "not-Dion" factor, but given the relatively positive coverage, with impressive volume to boot, part of it is probably a reflection of Ignatieff himself. Harper's numbers are largely static, slight erosion, but on all measures Ignatieff is credible.

NANOS also reinforces a clear trend, seen elsewhere, Layton is taking a hit. Particularly concerning for the NDP, Layton has always enjoyed personal popularity, the combination of a perceived weak Liberal leader gone, coupled with his own problems, have left Layton a distant third. For the Liberals, a lesser stature for Layton could be critical, because it means the predictable "in bed" with the Conservatives, the NDP the "real opposition" might not resonate as in the past, some evidence that Layton might be getting tuned out in the discussion.

It will be interesting to see, moving forward, if anyone can break out, or if stalemate is the new reality. These numbers probably translate to a slim Liberal minority, but really we seem to be in "too close to call" terrority, which I would submit is a good circumstance, considering where we were just a few months ago.

The Worm Has Turned

If anyone would have told you three months ago that the Liberals would now appear relatively more stable than the Conservatives, you would have rightfully scoffed at the mere suggestion. It's almost amazing on one level, reading more glowing stories about the impressive Ignatieff team taking shape, while at the same time a mood of doom and gloom hangs over the once-respected Conservative machine.

It's all about optics, and clearly the Liberals are starting to get the upper hand on the Conservatives. Harper does seem down, the Conservatives bravado evaporating and a real sense that the government isn't on steady ground. All this talk of the inner circle regrouping only feeds a sense of vulnerability and weakness.

On the other hand, I can't count how many times I've heard media reporters, even unlikely sources, commenting on the impressive team that Ignatieff is assembling. A real measure of respect, for a perceived formidable group, it's clear that part of this honeymoon is a result of the appearance of talent and competence. Liberals no all too well, that the media "senses" weakness, so if they are buying into the seasoned and capable team narrative, it will serve us well moving forward. That reverence is only helped, when compared with the government side, their "exodus" and regroup supports our relative strength. And, it's not just the media, in some respect, I think the Conservatives are spooked, looking at the strengthened opponent.



The important thing moving forward for Ignatieff, an almost "no news is good news" posture, wherein the Liberals simply convey a sense of purpose, a team hitting it's stride, professional and focused. The media's gaze has clearly turned to Harper, tired of beating up on Dion for two years, no longer given a pass, the hunter is the hunted. Ignatieff has to avoid self-inflicted wounds, stay above the fray and keep looking like a PM in waiting. Present a united party, with a common purpose, while Harper is under the microscope, people now looking for any further evidence to suggest failing fortunes. There's a new carcass on the plains, and the fickle are circling.

Of course, everything could change on a dime in an instant, so this is no time to be over-confident or complacent. Merely, a recognition of this moment in time, which clearly shows, the worm has turned.

Greens Ahead In Quebec!

One of the more bizarre regionals numbers I've seen, the new Strategic Counsel(h/t Mike) shows the Greens surging to first place in Quebec. I'm surprised SC would publish that result, something is clearly wrong with the Bloc and Green score (now you know what 19/20 times means):

Greens 26%
Libs 24%
Bloc 22%
Cons 17%
NDP 12%

To all my Green friends, enjoy the moment.

The national numbers are more good news for the Liberals:

Libs 33%
Cons 32%
NDP 17%

People will note, the Quebec regionals do show fairly consistent scores for the above parties, relative to the last poll, so that tends to make the national numbers believable. Liberals up 4%, Conservatives down 4%, NDP down 1% since January, numbers that are strikingly similar to today's Decima poll.

I still haven't seen the Decima Ontario numbers, but given the nationals and their Quebec numbers, it safe to assume they have the Liberals regaining the lead in Ontario. Strategic Counsel shows the Grits opening up a commanding lead in Ontario:

Libs 43%
Cons 28%
NDP 20%

Liberals up 6%, Conservatives down 13%, NDP up 4% since January. Margin of error is low, but even with some variation, you can't argue with the trend. I suspect the economy really souring, coupled with the stench of the coalition gone, Ignatieff performing well, voters in Ontario are finding it easier to move their support.

Liberals are also rebounding out "west" to 24% (up 6%), which is probably due to better support in British Columbia. I was reading a column from Vancouver today, which argued that the Liberals had opportunities in the province, and ditching the coalition was the first step. We'll see.

An 8% swing in national support is a big shift. Further evidence that's it's actually the Liberals and Ignatieff that have emerged from the budget drama in the best shape. Bottomline, both polls today translate to a Liberal minority. And, maybe a Green official opposition. I like the sounds of that actually :)

UPDATE

A couple comments from Donolo, which have been echoed elsewhere:

"It's not surprising, given the Liberals have a new leader who seems to have avoided some of the mishaps and traps that were laid for him and that his predecessor stepped in."

Donolo said that Ignatieff has benefited from dismantling the Liberal-NDP coalition, which was to be supported by the Bloc Quebecois and was deeply unpopular with many Canadians.

"He managed to position Liberal support for the budget without looking like they had been co-opted by the government," said Donolo.

Donolo noted that the Grit's political maneuver has created the impression that Ignatieff "is calling the shots, as opposed to Mr. Harper pushing him around."

Liberals On The Move

Encouraging horserace numbers, Ignatieff getting high marks, the new Harris Decima poll is all good for the Liberals:

The poll also suggests Conservatives and Liberals are statistically tied, with 33 per cent and 31 per cent support respectively, well ahead of the NDP at 15 per cent, the Greens at 10 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at 10 per cent.

Within the margin of error, a statistical tie. Another poor showing for the NDP, and although we don't have the regionals, the Bloc is clearly formidable in Quebec.

The leadership numbers tell a striking story. Ignatieff's negatives are quite low, partially a result of his relative "unknown" status, but still a clear indication that he's had a very good introductory period as leader. Partisanship aside, I've always believed that Layton has handled recent events poorly, and this poll confirms a seismic shift in public sentiment for the NDP leader:

Indeed, Ignatieff was the only national leader to score a net positive rating, with 43 per cent of respondents saying they had a favourable impression of him versus 32 per cent who had an unfavourable opinion.

Harper was viewed favourably by 43 per cent and unfavourably by 49 per cent, relatively unchanged since last October's election.

Layton was seen positively by 37 per cent and negatively by 49 per cent of respondents, almost a complete reversal since the election campaign when the NDP leader was the most favourably viewed national leader.

I've never seen any finding as bad as this one for Layton, it would appear people are tiring of the predictable act. Lesser stature also means the NDP assault on the Liberals is more likely to be seen as posturing, rather than principle. Many people concluded that Layton was "the big loser" in the budget debate, this poll reaffirms that perspective. From most popular, to least popular, hard to fluff that off.

Harper's numbers have actually remained steady, but this poll reflects a 5% drop in support for the Conservatives since the election. The Liberals are up 5%, the drag of the coalition gone, Ignatieff is clearly helping the cause.

I'll post the regionals when they're released :)

UPDATE:
Good news on the "growth" front for Ignatieff:

More importantly, the leadership favourability numbers suggest theLiberals under Ignatieff have more growth potential than their rivals.

Ignatieff was viewed more positively than negatively all across the country, except Alberta, and across all age and gender groups. While he was most favourably viewed among Liberal voters (70 per cent), 33 per cent of Conservatives, 44 per cent of New Democrats, 32 per cent of Bloquistes and 38 per cent of Greens said they too had a positive impression of the Liberal leader. By contrast, Harper was viewed favourably by 90 per cent of Conservatives but only 27 per cent of Liberals, 22 per cent of New Democrats, 14 per cent of Bloc supporters and 30 per cent of Greens.

Has Harper Ever Been "Grilled"?

Ignatieff's town hall last night, was described as "Grit leader grilled in Orillia" by a local paper. It wasn't a negative piece, but the title attests to Ignatieff being put through his paces by voters, for almost 2 hours. Conservatives, Greens, probably a plant or two, all comers. Ignatieff has done a few of these, as did his Liberal predecessor Dion, unscripted responses to unknown questions. President Obama did one, just this morning. It really is a great vehicle to engage political leaders, direct dialogue with the voters, a bit of risk in a soundbite world.

I was thinking of Stephen Harper, the man who claims to be in tune with the "Tim Horton's crowd", the hockey dad, he who represents "ordinary" Canadians. The polar opposite of the ivory tower Liberals, a grassroots leader who prides himself on a common touch approach to government. If all the bullshit we hear is true, why is that Stephen Harper doesn't speak directly WITH Canadians? During the election, Harper rejected a CBC interview that included questions from Canadians, only agreeing to appear if he could control the content. As a matter of fact, I can't think of ONE instance that Stephen Harper has been a part of any forum, wherein he has real input from voters.

I haven't seen any columns asking the question, or drawing the comparison, but it's a striking one. Why is Stephen Harper afraid to face the Canadian people? Why is Harper so afraid, that not only will he not schedule any interaction, but he'll go so far, as to threaten to bow out of any appearance that doesn't allow him COMPLETE message control? Has anyone ever seen one voter approach Stephen Harper and ask a question? How can you claim to represent the "Tim Horton's" crowd, when you won't dare enter the establishment? The aloof professor has no problem wading into the crowd, no issue being put on the hot seat, facing the people, matter of fact seems downright comfortable.

Has Harper ever been "grilled"?

Losing Hearts And Minds

A survey of Afghans confirms that NATO is losing support, Afghans feel less safe, the Taliban have grown stronger and support for more troops is waning:

-the proportion of Afghans rating their security positively dipped to 55 percent from 72 percent in 2005

-32 percent said the U.S. and coalition forces are performing well, down from 68 percent in 2005. And fewer than half, 42 percent, have confidence in coalition forces to provide security in their areas.

-More also blame the country's current travails on the United States, NATO or Afghan government than on the Taliban (36 to 27 percent), but the Taliban is viewed as a greater threat for the future.

-Fewer now say the U.S. or NATO forces have a strong presence in their areas, 34 percent now compared with 57 percent in 2006.

-73% believe Ignatieff was right to support the budget

- Few are hoping for the promised increase in troop levels, however, 44 percent said they want a decrease in the number of foreign forces in the country; 18 percent want an increase.

-More blame U.S. and coalition forces for poor targeting than blame the Taliban for keeping assets among civilians (41 to 28 percent); 27 percent said both sides shared the blame.

-For the first time, more Afghans have a unfavorable impression of the United States(83% favorable in 2005, 47% now)

-Taliban presence-But 22 percent say it has at least some support in their area, and this soars to 57 percent in the Southwest overall, including 64 percent in its home base, Kandahar. That’s up sharply from 44percent in the Southwest last year, and up from 41 percent in Kandahar.

Complete pdf here.

Run Free Kevin, Run Free

Too much media attention? Shouldn't be allowed to release "unilateral" reports? Kevin Page needs to be reigned in? I confess, Carolyn Bennett's musing on our budget officer are bizarre:

Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who last week warned that Ottawa's projections for climbing out of deficit within half a decade may be too optimistic and said the government's $40-billion stimulus package may have a smaller and less effective impact than billed, is garnering too much media attention and shouldn't be allowed to release his sensational reports unilaterally, says Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett.

Moreover, Ms. Bennett told The Hill Times that she's concerned with the tone of the massive media attention regarding Mr. Page's office budget and the public disagreement with the Library of Parliament chief librarian William Young, and said she believes it damages the institution of Parliament and the respect of the Speakers of the House and Senate.

The only reason that Kevin Page is "garnering media attention" is because he seems the only person in Ottawa that is giving Canadians the real numbers. Thank-god for Kevin Page, because without him, Deficit Jim would still be getting away with his shell game routine. As a matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a more valuable public servant, acting in the public's interest. That Bennett finds it necessary to take issue with Page, at this moment in time, is simply astounding.

I do understand some confusion about Page's role, the limitations, possible concern about how he's dealt with his own budget, but to criticize his public presence as though counter-productive really makes me wonder what's the real story with Bennett. I can't make sense of this perspective:

That wouldn't be in the best interest of some Parliamentarians who might ask for a study, get the results from the Parliamentary budget officer and then want to release it, say a month later with all the stakeholders and be able to actually make their point in the best possible way. If the Parliamentary budget officer sees himself as truly independent, then he would believe that he could release it whenever he wants to, as opposed to the wishes of the Parliamentarian or the Parliamentary committee that had commissioned the study," said Ms. Bennett.

Does Bennett mean the government of the day might delay certain findings, say like the expense of the Afghanistan mission, because of the optics during an election? What is the danger of someone releasing data independently, and why should Parliamentarian's be concerned about optimal presentation. Seems to me, if people are genuine, then you have nothing to fear from Kevin Page, as a matter of fact, he'll be there to support your assertions.

In my mind, during the past few months, Kevin Page stands for "accountability". Without Page, we would all be more confused by the confabulation, mixed signals and dicey math. Page has effectively moved the government, brought clarity to Flaherty's mirage. In addition, Page seems to be ahead of the government, when it comes to projections, you can't understate his value to the public. Rather than worrying about reigning Page in, Bennett should be looking at why there is such a disconnect between a non-partisan economic assessment and the one present by the Department of Finance. If Page is getting attention, it's because of that disconnect, a mere overlap of government facts and figures, nobody would notice, that's the issue, not the "attention". Run free Kevin, and the opposition should be doing EVERYTHING in it's power to ensure he CAN.

Separated At Birth?

I caught Coldplay's Grammy performance tonight. Noticed the talented lads were sporting a new look:



A reference only a parent would understand (you don't want to know):



Must be their Sgt Pepper period.

Disclaimer- I do like the band, the first one I mean.

On "Mild" Recessions And Quick Turnarounds

Sometimes a simple representation tells you all you need to know, when it comes to understanding the circumstance. For anyone who still clings to the notion that the current economic downturn will be short lived, or relatively "mild" in comparison to past recessions, this graph of the situation in American tells a chilling tale:


To put it into a domestic perspective, the Canadian economy has shed more jobs, per capita, than the Americans in the last three months.

Coalition Baggage

Janke "articulates" a very probable line of attack the Conservatives will use in the next election. Apart from the fact the post reads like someone who's played way too much RISK, this is the main thrust:

Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, has a problem. He can't rewrite the past. He did sign the coalition letter that went to the Governor General, and has spoken favourably of the coalition - this will all come back to haunt him.

Not really a revelation, we already know that if the Conservatives were defeated, and we had an election, the coalition would be the primary attack line, they've made that obvious. If, the strategy still holds true for a future election, I would suggest it's probably a weak one at best, because the counters are powerful.

The most compelling argument, is entirely based on "the past". Conservatives seem to be clinging to Ignatieff's signature on the coalition letter. That is a fact, which Ignatieff can't deny. True enough, but there are other facts, which tend to swamp the argument. The truth of the matter, Ignatieff rejected the coalition option, despite the fact it was there for the taking, almost universal agreement amongst constitutional scholars, that he had his chance to become Prime Minister. If Ignatieff were truly part of the conspiracy to usurp the results of the last election, as Conservatives will argue, and if he presents a real threat to revive a coalition in the future, then WHY didn't he do so when the opportunity presented himself? If it's all about a power grab, a deal with socialists and separatists, then it doesn't quite jive with the practical application. In FACT, Ignatieff resisted the "power grab", he didn't take the option staring him the face, so positing the "coalition threat" really flys in the face of reality.

The most common narrative we've heard, as it relates to Ignatieff and the coalition, he was always "cool" to the idea. That view has been expressed ad nauseum, to the point of concrete truth. If the Conservatives think that irrational howls, attempting to paint Ignatieff as vehicle for a future coalition will find resonance, then they misread sentiment. If they raise the spectre of national unity, attempting to fire up their western base, they actually play into Ignatieff's hand. Part of the rationale, in avoiding the coalition option, was entirely a consideration on national unity, Ignatieff can tell western Canadians that his stance was partially a recognition of western alienation, the belief that the coalition didn't enjoy support across the country. Ignatieff can make the argument, using the coalition, to demonstrate that he is receptive to western sentiment, and he sacrificed a real opportunity for power, because he recognized the "mood". Rather than an albatross, I think Ignatieff can pivot and turn his decision into an example that he is "listening" to the views of all Canadians, personal ambition is secondary to responsibility. If Ignatieff takes western Canada for granted, if the Liberals are primarily an eastern-centric entity, then why didn't he move forward and install himself as PM? The Ignatieff decision, the facts, actually shows a sensitivity to western sentiments, rather than the craven opportunism the Conservatives will argue. The entire coalition debate is a testament to Ignatieff's desire to bring Canadians together, to be a force for unity, part of his grand vision for the country.

Stephen Harper has signed some "dubious" letters in the past, with separatists and socialists, but the real issue is the final manifestation. Ignatieff was forever "cool", he is not synonymous with the "three headed monster", in fact he's seen as the vehicle that disentangled the Liberals from the coalition. Nobody disputes that, and the letter is secondary to the events that followed. Ignatieff had a clear opportunity, nothing standing in his way, two years of government guaranteed, Harper turfed, it was all RIGHT THERE. When the Conservatives fear monger, Ignatieff has history on his side and he can turn the argument around. We don't need to entertain theoreticals, we already have the reality that played itself out, and that "fact" leaves the Conservative argument decidedly weak. I understand why the Conservatives will resort to fear mongering, after all they've sold their soul and they stand for NOTHING, but if the coalition is the centerpiece of the next "battle", I'd say you've picked the wrong target, because this guy has plenty of ammunition, and it just happens to be based on irrefutable practical evidence. Good luck.

Declawed, For Now...

I know many were nervous, that the new Liberal leader would be subjected to the same Conservative assault, as his predecessor. That view didn't incorporate a simple fact- this isn't 2006, the Liberals would surely adapt and respond much more forcefully, mindful of the lessons learned. Apart from lessons learned, I didn't see a Dion redux, because the political climate is such, the Conservatives simply can't go negative, in any high profile way. After the hyper-partisanship displayed in November, the Conservatives desperately need to appear serious, their entire focus on the economy, any overt attacks against rivals, only feeds a negative perception- a mean spirited, partisan driven entity, that doesn't have it's priorities straight. Wasting energy, attacking the opposition, would rightly be seen for what it was, and I have little doubt that strategy would backfire in a big way, the Conservatives would harm themselves, far more than their target.

It would appear, the Conservatives have reconciled themselves to the fact that attack ads aren't in the cards:

Stephen Harper is so concerned about the economy that the Conservatives are not launching any negative ads aimed at Michael Ignatieff, according to one well-placed Tory source. Although the Tories have lots of money and ammunition (example: Mr. Ignatieff's flip-flop allowing his Newfoundland MPs to vote against the budget), the Prime Minister doesn't want to appear to be playing political games in the midst of the economic crisis.

"The government is focused on projecting itself as serious about the economy. ... Anything that could make the government seem focused on other things [like an attack ad campaign] is being avoided," the source said.

As a side note, somewhat comical that even the Conservative knee jerk sleaze machine understands the public mood, while the NDP looks more partisan than ever, with their badly timed ads.

You can't take Jane Taber as gospel truth, but given the genuine reality of the times, it's pretty safe to assume we won't see any overt attacks on Ignatieff in the near term. Understanding the financial constraints, it would still be wise for the Liberals to consider some "introductory" ads for Ignatieff, nothing outlandish, a small buy, that can use free media to our advantage (last year, the Conservatives announced new ads, the media played them ad nauseum, but they never made it to the airwaves in any real way, HELLO).

Apart from the possibility of our own campaign, I have little doubt, that as things cool down in Ottawa, Ignatieff will begin more high profile tours of the country. Right now, there is clearly a measure of curiosity with our new leader, everything Ignatieff does tends to make it into the news. I say, we should capitalize on the honeymoon, and get Ignatieff out there, everywhere and anywhere, while we still have the media's attention. If there is a pause in Conservative gutter politics, we can fill the void with a positive presentation, further cement a sense that the Liberals are on the move, with a new direction. A trip into Bloc heartland would bring plenty of attention, electoral chances aside. Rural British Columbia, the Conservative bunker on the prairies, all the unusual locations, a hint of bold, a sense that Liberals are reaching out, rather than realistic "winning" opportunities.

“Ignatieff’s Clearly In The Game"

It's all about the trend line, and for Ipsos Reid, the Liberals have cut the gap in half:

The popularity gap between the government and the official Opposition has narrowed once again, with 37 per cent of decided voters supporting Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and 31 per cent behind Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals...

Conservative support nationally is down from the last poll by two points to 37 per cent; Liberals up three points to 31 per cent; the New Democratic Party down one point to 14 per cent; and the Green party down two points to seven per cent.

Liberals up in Ontario:

The Liberals lead Ontario with 39 per cent support, compared to 37 per cent for the Conservatives, 14 per cent for the NDP and 10 per cent for the Greens.

Compared to the election, Liberals up 6%, Cons down 2%, NDP down 4%.

Quebec, the Bloc up:

The Bloc has the support of 42 per cent of Quebecers, an increase of seven points, over the Liberals at 24 per cent, the Conservatives at 18 per cent, the NDP at 11 per cent and the Greens at 10 per cent.

The rest of the country:

Nationally, the Conservatives still hold a commanding lead of 48 per cent in British Columbia, 70 per cent in Alberta, and 55 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals are on top with 48 per cent, followed by 25 per cent for the NDP, 24 per cent for the Conservatives and four per cent for the Greens.

Conservatives up in the Prairies, which is noteworthy, because the regional disparity is even more pronounced, the national numbers misleading in terms of seat distribution. Further evidence, that the NDP may be getting squeezed out of the economic conversation, and it looks like the Liberals are benefiting.

Wright:

“This is really the first poll since Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership where we’ve been able to measure the full effect of his stewardship of the Liberal party,” Wright said.

“His comment about putting the Conservatives on probation was astute, and probably echoed many of the people in this country who have wondered what the Conservatives are going to do about the economy and whether or not the Liberal party would act as an official Opposition."

We'll have to see if the Bloc bounce in Quebec is real. CROP showed an entirely different result, and as I was often reminded in the past, their sample size and accuracy history should be considered. That said, it isn't entirely hard to believe the Bloc would get a bump in the budget aftermath, particularly with a high profile convention to boot.

Overall, good news for the Liberals, pollster aside, the trends are positive.

“The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party ever made” Stephen Harper

Or maybe not so much:

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party accused the prime minister of condoning immoral, illegal and unethical behaviour in the Cadman affair.

The Liberals charged that Harper was aware of an attempt by Conservative officials to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

On a Friday afternoon, no less :) Pretty much tells us who make the "mistake". Oh, tough guys...

Ezra Levant: Good Call

I confess, I rarely read anything Ezra Levant pukes out, because, well, he's not a bit right, plain and simple. However, yesterday someone linked to his latest turd in the comments, so my curiosity lead me to the "column". Ezra Levant February 5:

The recession is halfway over. That might sound surprising to those who are bracing for the return of the Great Depression, but it’s true...

Despite media hysterics, this economic downturn is much milder than the two recessions of the mid-1980s or the one in the early-1990s.

February 6:

The drop in employment in January was greater than any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s, Statistics Canada said.

Good call Ezra.

Ignatieff Gets Harper To Nibble, Kennedy Sets The Hook

Hat tip to Jeff for the video. Quite a clever display in QP today by the Liberals. Ignatieff begins with a seemingly easy question, asking the Prime Minister about fair dispersal of infastructure money. Harper rises, thinking he was handed a relative soft ball, a quick, terse response. Then the follow up, Kennedy delivers the evidence to completely contradict the just completed response:


We play chess too. At the very least, the tactic gets inside their heads a little. Well done.

Incoming

Wow, quite a day for the government. Watchdogs, from all quarters, piping in, none of it flattering.

Budget Officer Kevin Page, who is building an impressive track record for accurate predictions, unlike Deficit Jim:

Canada's parliamentary budget officer is casting doubt on the federal government's rosy projections in the budget, saying the recession will likely be deeper than expected and Ottawa's stimulus package smaller and less effective.

Kevin Page told a parliamentary committee Thursday the government's claimed $39.9 billion stimulus package over two years is effectively about 20 per cent smaller, at $31.8 billion.

And he adds that a portion of the smaller amount may not find its way into the economy because $10 billion is contingent on shared spending by other levels of government.

The difference will mean the extra spending is unlikely to create or save the 190,000 jobs projected by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Page said, estimating the number at closer to 120,000.

Our new Environment Commissioner, picking up where his predecessor left off:

"Due to the nature of federal-provincial trust funds, it will be difficult for the government to support its claim that the $1.5 billion it is spending on the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund will actually achieve the target it has set for lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Vaughan says.

Environment Canada "conducted almost no analysis to support that figure," he reports. "The little analysis it did undertake is based on flawed assumptions -- for example, that all provinces and territories face identical opportunities, challenges and economic conditions for achieving emission reductions."

"Since the basis for the estimate is flawed, we cannot determine what a reasonable range of expected results should have been."...

OTTAWA — When the Conservative government walked away from Canada's Kyoto Protocol targets, it argued its less ambitious plan was more credible and based on “real, measurable and verifiable results.”

Scott Vaughan, Canada's new Commissioner of the Environment, says the government has failed on all three fronts.

Adjectives such as weak, poor, negligible and disappointing pepper the scathing review of two central and costly pillars of the Conservative climate-change plan.

"Weak, poor, negligible and disappointing", sounds about right. More evidence of our "leading the world" approach on climate change.

During the last election, Stephen Harper bragged about the Conservatives record on food safety. Auditor General Sheila Fraser:

Auditor-General slams food inspections

OTTAWA — Federal inspectors spend more time certifying Canadian exports of fruits and vegetables than making sure that the plants and produce that come into Canada are bug- and disease-free, the Auditor-General has found.

In a report released Thursday, Sheila Fraser called for greater protection of Canada's crops and forests, given the associated industries are worth $100-billion a year.

Ms. Fraser pointed to the threats associated with invasive plants, seeds, pests and diseases, and was alarmed to report that “high-risk imported commodities … are sometimes released for distribution without being inspected....”

"Accountability", the Conservatives consistent nemesis.

Obama's "Don't Blink" Visit

Is it just me, or is Obama's visit being pared down to the point of poor optics? First, no appearance in Parliament, then no meeting with the GG, now we hear word of a 3 hour visit, that won't even get Obama off the runway in Ottawa:

The official Canadian visit by U.S. President Barack Obama is turning into a presidential pit stop.

The working assumption in the Prime Minister's Office is that Obama won't leave the vicinity of the Ottawa airport when he makes his first foreign trip two weeks from now.

The Obama visit, which is mainly to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper but includes a courtesy chat with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, is expected to take roughly five hours from landing to the president's return to Washington.

Technically, Canada can still take solace in the "first foreign visit" label, but really this visit hardly denotes any level of seriousness or priority. Low profile, to the point of second rate, the fact Obama will be back in Washington a mere five hours after leaving, really doesn't speak to the "special relationship", with you biggest trading partner, in the midst of serious bilateral issues.

Given all the initial hoopla, the forever diminishing itinerary is starting to look like your spouse's work Christmas party. You're obligated to go, but you can't wait for it to be over, and you're forever thinking of ways to deke out early.

Oh Look, It Was A "One Off" After All

From precedent setting marshmellow man to iron fisted tyrant in a matter of hours. So nimble:

Michael Ignatieff allowed his Newfoundland MPs to register a symbolic protest against the federal budget but he's insisting they now support legislation that will actually implement the measures they find so offensive.

Having cast their protest vote Tuesday, a spokesperson confirmed that Ignatieff now expects the Newfoundland MPs to support the budget on all subsequent votes, including the budget implementation bill.

Moreover, he's told the MPs they can't attempt to amend the bill, which is to be introduced this week.

Setting the record straight:

Moreover, sources said Ignatieff warned caucus he doesn't intend to relax discipline again in future.

"He said it was a one-time thing, alone, period, full stop, and for us not to get our hopes up too high because it would not happen again," said one caucus member.

My prediction, Williams plays it RELATIVELY cool and calls it a day in the end. The MP's never thought the budget wouldn't pass, so there's little reason to push further, point made, now it's time to join ranks.

NDP Voters Split On Budget

We now have two polls, gauging budget support, with one particularly noteworthy finding. Both the Strategic Counsel and Decima polls provide almost identical findings, when the question of budget support is put to NDP voters. Yesterday's Decima poll asked a question on the Liberal position, which provided a fascinating result:

The new leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, has indicated that the Liberal Party will allow the budget to pass, but has put the Conservative government on probation, and has indicated that the government needs to formally report on progress about how the new spending is stimulating the economy every 3 months. Do you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose the way Mr. Ignatieff has reacted to the budget?

A full 68% of NDP voters supported Ignatieff's decisions, while only a feeble 21% disagreed. This type of result explains the NDP's attack ads, more about shoring up their own base, rather than any realistic outreach (I suspect there was some knowledge within the NDP, that they were on the wrong side of this issue).

That result aside, on the very clear question of budget support, the Strategic Counsel poll found:

“The Opposition parties should support the federal budget”

NDP voters 47% agree, 53% disagree

A clear split, by any measure. What's striking, these results are replicated by the Decima poll:

Do you think the House of Commons should pass the budget or not?

NDP voters 41% pass, 41% don't pass

The numbers for overall support are ridiculously on side for passage, and this is borne out in the subset you would expect to see the most resistance, given the official stance. The fact that NDP supporters are evenly split, putting the Ignatieff decision making question aside, shows a real disconnect, when you consider all the partisan rhetoric we've heard. Two polls, identical results, the NDP needs to convince it's base first, before anyone dare entertain the "come join our cause" limp rallying cry.

Positive Sign Indeed

Even though it's only a subset, within a partial period, any indication that the Liberals raised a similar amount to the Conservatives is a positive sign indeed. That this uptick occurred, prior to any impact from the new fundraising strategy, is a reflection of the leadership draw. The Ignatieff effect:

In fact, observed Le Devoir, the Ignatieff effect was so pronounced that the Liberals managed to raise more money in December that the Conservatives, ($ 832 000 against 826 000 $, still considering only donations of $ 200 and more).

I wouldn't suggest that the Liberals can keep pace with the Conservatives in the near future, because that is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, but the above certainly validates a sense of optimism. Rossi and Ignatieff have both recently publicly referred to impressive fundraising in the "last few weeks", so the trend doesn't look a blip.

In terms of public perception, any indication that the Liberals are on the move under Ignatieff will serve us well. The importance of money is beyond obvious, but the optics of growth in fundraising allows the narrative of "resurgence" to continue, a sense that we are getting our act together. A simple thing like fundraising numbers are pretty important in terms of perception, and the linked article speaks to the beneficial presentation.

Liberals On Side

In terms of polls, this one would be classified as a slam dunk for the Liberal position (sorry ankle bitters). Rarely do you see such overwhelming sentiment, but these numbers only reaffirm the logic in the Liberal decision:

OTTAWA - A new poll suggests Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff struck a chord with the public by compromising over the federal budget.

Ignatieff's offer to support the Conservatives' fiscal policies in return for a pledge for regular status reports on the economy won majority support from respondents across the country.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found that 72 per cent of respondents supported the idea of quarterly updates, with only 20 per cent opposed.

The poll also suggested the Conservatives read people correctly in drafting the budget, with 62 per cent of respondents saying they wanted it passed and only 20 per cent opposed.

Support for Ignatieff's decision cut across all political parties, with 85 per cent of Liberal backers, 75 per cent of Bloc supporters and even 64 per cent of Conservatives saying it was a good idea.

The survey was part of a national omnibus phone survey which interviewed just over 1,000 people between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2, and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

75% of Bloc supporters, but what of the coalition?

Clearly, absolutely no appetite for political machinations, this poll supports previous findings, people wanted the budget passed and saw little reason to vote against. The fact the public also supports the Liberal amendment shows that nobody is buying the weak spin of "propping up" the Conservatives, merely a serious response to an extraordinary circumstance.

In terms of public sampling, it doesn't get much more conclusive than the above. Must have been a push poll or something :)

UPDATE

Another sport metaphor from the pollster:

Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima, said it looks as ifIgnatieff hit one out of the park in this case.
"That's exactly what I saw when I got those numbers,'' he said. "It seems that he struck the right tone ... he made the right decision."

Walker also said the data suggest that the idea of an opposition coalition to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is dead.

"Among Liberals, there was almost universal support for what he did and almost arguably absolutely no support among Liberals of going for the coalition."

The survey also suggested that Canadians are more insistent than ever that their politicians put aside partisan bickering.

The Appropriate Response

It's a good decision in the end, and the process speaks to leadership style. Ignatieff will allow Newfoundland MP's to vote against the budget, a decision which seems entirely appropriate.

Beyond the most obvious of optics, a party "divided", the usual kneejerk stuff from predictable sources, this decision actually works in the Liberals favor for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, the votes demonstrate that Liberal support isn't a blanket endorsement, the nonsensical notions of coalition and all the other superficial drivel. Having some MP's vote against, sends a clear signal that Liberals are conflicted, a decision made in totality doesn't translate into propping up anybody. There is little room for fallout, because Canadians overwhelming want the budget to pass, so this symbolic expression merely reaffirms our displeasure with the Conservatives. Ignatieff was right to speak with Harper, attempt to force changes, but no one, including Danny Williams, expected that recommendation to be a deal breaker. Nobody, including the participants, are arguing for the Liberals to bring the government down over this issue, they merely want to express their rejection and highlight an unfair, unilateral move by the Conservatives. The Liberal position is different, and a Liberal led government will re-visit and revise as appropriate.

The fact Ignatieff huddled with these MP's, in such a fashion that he was open to listening, rather than dictating, provides a positive on leadership style. Ignatieff could whip the vote, or sanction dissent, but by allowing a "one" off here, on a critical issue to Newfoundlanders, he sends a signal that he appreciates the concerns, in fact he agrees. Compare that approach to Harper's, when faced with a similar circumstance in Bill Casey, and Ignatieff looks relatively positive. Ignatieff allows these MP's to vote their conscience, but maintains the overall position, that allows this vote to pass. The final outcome remains the same, but the Liberals are spared the public spectacle of iron fist submission, fall in line or face consequences.

When the vote occurs tonight, obviously attention will be given to Newfoundland MP's. However, what seems to be absent, the rejection of the Conservative policy doesn't seem to translate to a rejection of Ignatieff's decision for the party. These MP's understand the different considerations, as do the most vocal voices from Newfoundland, the Liberals aren't damaged, it's Harper's decision that is at issue. In the end, I like the optics of Liberals wrestling with their decision, because it speaks to complicated consideration, it demonstrates clearly that we are no fans of the Conservatives, and a Liberal government would operate differently. This issue came up in the aftermath of the initial decision to support, and I would suggest that Ignatieff's handling and reaction have turned something potentially explosive into a net neutral circumstance, that brings little political consequence, and beyond that, benefit to these MP's in question, who stay true, without altering party direction.

Cue the ankle bitters...

On Justifications

My friend The Jurist analyzes the Ignatieff rationale for budget passage, gleamed from comments made by Liberal MP Glen Pearson. Pearson:

He argued that if he brought down the government by voting down the budget, certain short-term goals would be achieved. We would be government. He would be Prime Minister. We would be able to more correctly invest those kind of monies. All of this is true.

Then he challenged us to think of a larger dynamic, one that eventually won the day. A coalition, he offered, would be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of national unity. The West would want out. Quebec would be an unknown factor. And Canadians as a whole, excepting those constituency groups that would have been served by the coalition, would be ushered into an era of great national uncertainty again. The markets, so requiring of stability right now, would respond with alarm and alacrity. His arguments continued for a time yet.

I realized in an instant that he was correct, and powerfully so. We all recalled what the threat of coalition did to the emotional state of the country back in December - remarkable division and alarm. “I didn’t sign on to this job to split this country,” he stressed. “We are the party of national unity and we break our vow with Canadians as Liberals if we ruin our cohesiveness by grasping at immediate power.”

The thrust of The Jurist's post, which I've heard elsewhere, Ignatieff is merely repeating Conservative talking points, as it relates to national unity. I believe that the reality on the ground was much more than a mere talking point. Further, a talking point is only relevant if it resonates, if it speaks to a genuine manifestation in the real world.

I must confess, one of the main reasons I find Ignatieff attractive is his sense of country, the way he articulates his vision for how a federal party can be a vehicle for national unity. Now, I don't doubt that political decision making was part of the budget acceptance process, but it is also true that the same dynamic applies to EVERY party involved, so the notion of portraying anyone as craven, another pure, absolute and utter nonsense, that requires leave of one's senses.

Given what I've heard from Ignatieff, since he became leader and prior, it is hard to question his perspective on national unity as anything but genuine. People can disagree, whatever, but the philosophy of the man is his own, and he comes by it honestly. It just so happens, that I agree with the notion, that one of the central roles for a federal party is too highlight similarity, attempt to cultivate a better environment for tolerance, one that binds, rather than agitates. I believe that Michael Ignatieff has the potential to be a great "national" leader, because he is able to articulate the viewpoint of various regions, without sacrificing the strength of Canada as a whole. National cohesion is a pet concern for me, because I see the federation slowly drifting apart, too often we talk past each other, rather than moving forward with common understanding, that accepts compromise as a mutual benefit, rather than a winner/loser proposition. There is much latent resentment in the land, old wounds and patent misunderstanding, this country needs a voice of clarity, I believe Ignatieff has the capacity to fill the void. Time will tell.

With past musings in mind, it really isn't surprising that part of the Ignatieff rationale for rejecting the coalition, accepting the Harper transformation in the short term, was borne of a genuine concern on unity. There is no question, the coalition concept presented real regional challenges, to say it was merely a talking point, fails to recognize the honest sentiments. Nobody questioned Ignatieff when he first criticized Harper for turning an economic crisis into a national unity crisis, primarily because it was true. Whether or not the Conservatives fanned the flames is irrelevant, when one looks at the reality it created in the aftermath. The simple fact, in many parts of this country, the coalition was seen as an eastern power grab, that attempted to usurp the election results, it fed a pre-existing sentiment, it was a point of division. No matter the measure, there was a disconnect, and it wasn't the product of normal circumstance, Canadians more engaged than any time I can remember. Were reactions rational, were they fair, were they informed? In many respects no, but they were what they were, and no calm, detached view could reconcile itself with visceral reaction.

I have no doubt, had the Liberals plowed ahead with the coalition, the prospects for a period of intense division was real. When you consider just how far the Conservatives have moved (no doubt the budget had a conciliatory tone that was largely crafted to neuter counter arguments for defeat), you had a situation where national unity was further threatened. Just imagine the arguments from the other side, pointing to all the concessions, the attempt to address, and yet the eastern power base still moved towards their goal. You want to entertain "enflamed", November well could have looked tame by comparison. The Conservatives have shown they will stop at nothing, what moves would lie ahead, if they were armed with a "liberal" budget, still rejected? To not consider that possibility, is to ignore part of the landscape, to just confine yourself to certain aspects, simultaneously oblivious to obvious dangers.

Nobody is entertaining "separatism", although we would surely hear rumblings, but it is about alienation. The timing of a coalition, which lacked any regional representation, which constituted about the weakest presentation imaginable, on the heels of a just concluded election, led by a resoundingly rejected party, was rife with problems. That Ignatieff was concerned gives me further confidence, because his view is essentially the same as my own.

It was easy to grasp at "immediate power", it was staring us in the face, if that was the prime consideration. Sure, there were issues with the NDP, the ultimate movement on the game board, but again, please don't be so selective to ignore the political consideration of all "partners". It wasn't that simple, and one always needs to consider the ramifications, to fluff off the notion of "legitimacy" is to ignore part of the equation. This issue was real, it had the potential to create further national tensions, with lasting impacts. Maybe the coalition could allay those fears over time, but to minimize the potential is frankly irresponsible. What one calls "rationalization", I call a "principle", and while you can disagree, it doesn't mean you can't respect that point of view, particularly when it came with ample evidence that the fallout was entirely plausible, hardly a fear mongering proposition. Ignatieff believes the Liberals are the "party of national unity", and this decision on the coalition is entirely consistent with all that responsibility entails.

And That's The Way It Was

The World Economic Forum grappling with the consequences of American protectionism, a dead Canadian soldier returning home, an eroding ceasefire in Gaza, Obama's stimulus plan hits a snag, all possible lead stories. What's not a LEAD story, concerns CBC's national broadcast tonight, which decided that Canadians desperately needed to know that a 23 year old American Olympian took some bong hits at a party. God's speed Michael Phelps, as you enter this troubling phase in your life. Rehab, who knows where we go from here? And thank-you CBC news editors for giving this story the focus it deserves, hopefully Peter follows up tomorrow with an "In Depth" feature.

Sounds Like A Consensus To Me

If you listen to the denier crowd, you'd swear that the tenets of global warming are crumbling around us. More and more scientists are coming forward to question the supposed consensus, "global cooling" the new buzzword. Just go outside, need we say more? Complete ignorance of misfits and low rent journalists aside (yes, you hate Al Gore, we get it, but it's not really about HIM brainiac), interesting to see a new study, which shows in clear terms, the only thing crumbling is the deniers brittle brain tissue. The study found overwhelming support for global warming and man-made global warming, with the added emphasis, the closer to the field, the more expertise, the more inclined to agree:

A group of 3,146 Earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.

Two questions were key: "Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The numbers are even more convincing, when you include the subset of scientists who actually work in the field. Imagine that:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

97% of those in the know, sounds like a consensus to me.

Anyways, I have some MORE shovelling to do, so take that you commie academic experts, peddling your knowledge laden hoax, based on objective evidence.

You Mean The "Goals" Weren't Achieved?

Nobody should be surprised, that despite Israel's declaration of victory in Gaza, that the tunnels are still fully operational, Hamas is still in complete control and Israeli "security" forever a untenable reality until a lasting peace is achieved. No matter, with the radical Netanyahu looming on the Israeli political scene, it's imperative to look "tough" and "decisive", pure FOLLY aside. That is why two feeble rockets (and a mortar no less) are grounds for "disporportionate" response:

Speaking to his Cabinet on Sunday, Israel's outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said Israel would respond “when and where we choose.”

The government's position, Mr. Olmert said, is that “if there is shooting at residents of the south there will be an Israeli response that will be harsh and disproportionate by its nature to the shooting at residents of Israel and at our forces.”

Hamas has not taken responsibility for any of the new attacks, which have been claimed by smaller militant groups. But Israel says it holds Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since seizing power in June 2007, responsible for all attacks emanating from Gaza.

Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu said Mr. Olmert's threat was an attempt by Israel to “find false pretexts to increase its aggression against the people” and to undermine Egyptian efforts to mediate a long-term cease-fire.

In case you were confused on what "disporportionate" really means. Cue the rationalizations.