Conservatives Balk At "Decorum"

It really does demonstrate what a low brow bunch is in charge, when you read some of the reaction to the Speaker's call for "decorum" during member's statements:

Speaker muzzles Tory attack dogs in House of Commons

MPs from three parties gave Milliken an ovation Thursday. But the Conservatives were angry.

Ottawa-area Tory Pierre Poilievre vigorously defended the right to criticize. He suggested the Speaker might have succumbed to pressure from fellow Liberals.

“Part of a democracy is promoting ideas. The other part of a democracy is pointing out the flaws in some of those ideas,” Poilievre said.

He said it should be up to voters to scrutinize and judge MPs for their behaviour in the Commons, not the Speaker.

You can't blame the poodle, after all it's not like he does anything constructive in Parliament, apart from taking cheap shots at fellow MP's, or defending alleged illegal activity on the part of his party. Pierre's a joke, and now he's lost his only avenue to get attention.

More from another tough guy:

“I wouldn’t read anything into it. … I think if you’re going to step into the ring, you’ve got to be able to take the punch. This isn’t a classroom at Harvard. This is the House of Commons. This is politics,” Mr. Teneycke said.

There were THREE occasions today, wherein Milliken killed the mic on Conservative MP's, as they continued to hurl the nonsense. We can all assume, while the economy crumbles, Conservatives are huddled together thinking of new creative ways to get the slurs in.

I admit some surprise, that the Liberals aren't highlighting the Conservatives tactics, because they really are obnoxious and Canadians wouldn't take kindly to such shenanigans, particularly at this time. You could provide a nice contrast. I suppose we choose to ignore it, don't give it an audience, because after all the irony is Canadians are ignoring it, so generally disgusted they've tuned out.

What will the poodle do now?:




I'm sure the incision was quite small :)

Behind The Curveatives

Harper is turning into a model of consistency. His rhetoric always demonstrates a clear disconnect from reality, as well as a complete inability to demonstrate any foresight. Instead of bracing Canadians, Harper choses to paint a "rosy" picture, that relies on unproven theories to "boast". Yesterday we heard leading economists question Harper's assertions about the Canadian economic rebound, even the argument that Canada could well come out of this recession AFTER the Americans. We also heard from Kevin Page, who argued that, depending on your measure, the Canadian economy is actually performing WORSE than the Americans. Today, two new forecasts for the economy, that completely contradict the Harper rhetoric, and official Conservative calculations, moving forward:

Canada is in for one of the toughest years in decades with massive job losses, plunging corporate profits and a severe contraction in national income, the Toronto-Dominion Bank says.

In one of the gloomiest economic outlooks of any major forecaster, the TD Bank rejects rosy forecasts by the federal government and the Bank of Canada for a painful, but short recession that has Canada bouncing back to health beginning in the second half of this year.

Rather, TD says, the recession will be painful and long.

"There is no doubt that 2009 will go down in the history books as one of the most difficult economic years for Canadians," says Beata Caranci, the bank's director of economic forecasting.

And Canada won't return to a "normal, steady state" for at least five years, says Caranci.

The bank estimates that the recession will result in 583,000 Canadians losing their jobs, more than the 462,000 that were thrown onto the unemployment rolls during the 1990-91 recession.

I suspected Harper's speech earlier this week might become a "mission accomplished" moment. What we are seeing, mere hours after the Harper view presented, that once again this government is entirely behind the economic curve. Real leadership requires honest assessments (we've seen this stateside), because we you misread the situation, you are ill prepared to react quickly, instead forever playing catchup. I'll make my own prediction, Harper's words are going to bite him in the ass.

More tomorrow, when the unemployment numbers come out...

Egomanical.ca

The Conservatives have introduced their new website, where you can "track" the government's progress on their "Canadian Economic Action Plan". Take a look, but be forewarned, it's not a very asthetically pleasing site:



Maybe the Liberals can reach a compromise on the 3 billion stimulus provision, wherein Harper merely provides us with his weekly itinerary, and then that way, we'll know EVERY SINGLE EXPENDITURE.

Smart Strategy?

You have to wonder, if "sunny" Harper is the best strategy for the Conservatives, as they try to deal with the economy. Tom Flanagan offers some of the rationale:

But the economy is a different thing, Mr. Flanagan said. If Mr. Harper comes across as pessimistic or discusses the spectre of a depression, Canadians will eventually agree with him that things are bad. Then, they will look to somebody else to replace the Tories.

"That can only help your opposition," Mr. Flanagan said. "If you keep saying how bad things are, eventually people are going to say, 'Well, hey, let's get a government that can fix it.' "

The Prime Minister's approach is also reminiscent of a change in tactics adopted by U.S. President Barrack Obama, who only a few weeks ago began injecting more hope in his speeches. The President and his advisers had picked up that Americans might be blaming Mr. Obama, in part, for the unprecedented collapse of the stock market. Mr. Harper has apparently concluded the same.

First off, the Obama example is a non-starter, because he was running against an incumbent, he had no responsibility for the predicament, "hope" relative to the current administration. If the Conservatives are trying to mirror Obama, it's a mistake, because there is no similarity, in terms of circumstances.

Flanagan argues that by articulating doom and gloom, you help the opposition, but I have to question that logic. When you paint a rosy picture, and we've already seen this before, then you effectively set yourself up for failure, should the indicators not match the optimism. In this way, you actually arm the opposition, because they can paint you as out of touch, not recognizing the true severity. Case in point, just watch for the reaction on Friday, should the employment numbers look bleak- they will surely contrast the reality with Harper's misplaced optimism. Given the unknowns, raising expectations leaves you vulnerable. Fast forward a few months, if things deteroriate further, with little evidence of recovery, Harper's speech yesterday will make for a nice contrast ad, he will look the fool.

In addition, the venue Harper chose for his optimistic assessment is completely inappropriate. Harper basically went to ground zero to offer an upbeat picture, which is strange, given Ontario is experiencing every bit as severe a downturn as the other jurisdictions he used for perspective. I doubt the Harper line resonated with people losing their jobs, if anything he highlighted a disconnect.

I would argue, the best strategy for the Conservatives would be to lower expectations. If a pessimistic view turns out to be accurate, Harper can argue that he accurately understood the situation, and his government moved within this reality, nobody is surprised, you've softened the ground for more bad news. If the economy were to perform better than assumed, Harper can then take credit, his policies are working, light at the end of the tunnel. What Flanagan doesn't seem to articulate, Harper does have some latitude, because people do understand that this is a global phenomenon, nobody realistically thinks we're immune, a political buffer exists for ultimate responsibility. Better to use that reality, rather than trying to paint Canada as poised for a strong rebound, when that is merely a theory at this point. The current strategy voluntarily sets the Conservatives up for future failure, which makes it a curious decision at best.

UPDATE

A couple early assessments, that point to the "gamble" in Harper's position:

Economists said they're not forecasting Canada to recover significantly ahead of peers.

“That's the part I am not so sure about. That's certainly not what we forecast,” Toronto Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond said. “We see a fairly similar pace of recovery as the United States. In fact, under the great economic principle of what falls the most usually rebounds the fastest, the U.S. would actually have the advantage.”

Added BMO Nesbitt Burns deputy chief economist Douglas Porter: “I don't think we're going to be a quarter or two ahead of the U.S. I think we'll turn at roughly the same time. And I don't think we're going to come flying out of this.”

Of note, both these economists were also predicting a recession, at the same time Harper was telling people he didn't see one coming, it would have happened already, we would have a surplus and they should buy stocks.

UPDATE

Less than 24 hours later, that pesky Kevin Page is undermining the Harper delusion:

He says an even better indicator is gross domestic income, which measures Canadians' purchasing power, and that shows a plunge of 15.3 per cent in the fourth quarter over the previous three months.

...that it is far worse than the 1.5 per cent contraction in the U.S. during the same period.

"A Fascinating Revision Of History": Jim Flaherty

Jim Flaherty took to the airwaves today, chiding anyone who dared suggest he was behind the curve on Canada's recession:

Flaherty

"Nobody saw it coming, none of the economists saw it coming...

Newman:

"You're not surprised we're in a recession in 2009, you thought that was coming? Well, I'm not sure, when you did your fiscal update, it wasn't entirely clear what you thought, you didn't think it was coming then either"

Flaherty:

"Well no, no one did. See, this is the fascinating thing, you go and talk to the economists now, "well this was going to happen". Well, that's not what they said in November. This is a fascinating revision of history."

Here's a sampling of what some LEADING "economists" were saying in October and November of last year, all dates PRIOR to Deficit Jim's fiscal, cough, update. Speaking of HISTORICAL REVISION:

October 6th 2008

I think we're looking at a much more serious downturn than a mild recession that most of us are talking about," said Doug Porter, with BMO Capital Markets, at a meeting of senior economists in Toronto...

October 6th 2008


TD Bank's Don Drummond said he sees the economy shrinking until late 2009 and then only gradually recovering.

October 6th 2008


"[We're] forecasting Canadian and U.S. recessions, plus 100 basis points of [Bank of Canada] and Fed cuts that could come at any time. This is not just made-in-U.S.A. weakness as Canada faces its own home-grown recession signals," Scotiabank economists Derek Holt and Karen Cordes

November 1 2008

Toronto Dominion's forecasting director Beata Caranci has issued a new report that not only says a recession has begun, but that it could be severe. While there's still a chance to avoid the worst, it says, the world's industrial nations collectively could be about to suffer the worst economic setback since the Great Depression.

November 12, 2008

A recession in Canada is ``inevitable'' as the economic slump in the U.S. spreads north, Toronto-Dominion Bank chief executive officer Edmund Clark said.

November 20, 2008

"Overall, given that the balance of economic risks is tilted to the downside, our judgment is that the [worst-case scenario] of budget projections represents a more likely range of actual outcomes." Kevin Page

Mr. Flaherty said that Canadians should wait for his government's official numbers, adding he "didn't agree entirely" with some of the assumptions in Mr. Page's report.

November 25, 2008

OTTAWA–Canada has fallen into a recession that will last for most of next year as the world falls into the worst slump in a quarter of a century, says a respected international think-tank.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development says Canada will not be immune from the global malaise, the worst since the deep recession of the early 1980s

"Fascinating" indeed.

UPDATE

I see I'm not the only one who noticed the "revisions" today. This is great:

Kreskin Speaks

Given his track record with prognostications, a unique ability to never see anything coming, Canadians should shutter at the latest musing of Stephen Harper:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper predicts Canada will come out of a global recession faster and stronger than any other country.

Using a theorem I've developed, based on past predictive success, I translate the above to suggest that Canada will be slow to rebound, and it's best to stock up on canned goods now, while we still have the chance.

Today's must read, that will keep your head from exploding.

New Polls

Two new polls today, from Ipsos and Strategic Counsel. The full details for the SC poll won't be released until later tonight, but the national numbers are as follows:

Cons 35%
Libs 31%
NDP 16%
Greens 10%
Bloc 9%

From the last SC poll, which had a statistical tie, the Conservatives are up 3%, Liberals down 2%, NDP down 1% (people might remember, it the last SC poll that had the Greens leading Quebec with 26%). The 4 point gap mirrors Ipsos latest:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have stalled at 37 per cent support among decided voters, according to the poll, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National from Feb. 24 to March 5. Meanwhile, the Liberals have edged up to 33 per cent, an increase of two percentage points from a month ago.


The NDP remained in third at 12 per cent(down 2 percent), followed by the Bloc Quebecois at 10 per cent and the Green party at eight.

The narrowing gap for Ipsos seems to be a result of improved Liberal fortunes in Ontario:

Libs 42%
Cons 37%

What's interesting here, the Liberals are up another 3% in Ontario, while the Conservatives haven't moved. In the last Ipsos poll, the NDP was down to a lowly 14% in Ontario, given the math here, the number is even lower now.

In Quebec, Liberals up 3%, Conservatives down another 2%, Bloc down 1%:

The situation is especially dire for the party in Quebec, where the Conservatives have dropped to 16 per cent in support, well behind the Bloc Quebecois, who stand at 41 per cent, and the Liberals at 27.

The biggest thing that sticks out, is the NDP appear to be losing support. Of note, the SC poll has shown a drop the last two offerings, although not as low as what Ipsos says. There has been a general trend with all the pollsters, showing some NDP erosion, and the real cause seems to a fall in Ontario, as voters seem to be moving to the Liberals as the sole alternative. I've argued in the past, that with the economy tanking, Ontario ground zero, the NDP might get pushed out of the conversation. We are now seeing some evidence that this is occuring, and it might explain why Layton was asked point blank today if the party strategists are trying to change gears, because they feel they aren't getting much traction in the post-budget world.

As for the Conservatives and the Liberals, it would appear the Conservatives have stopped the bleeding. I've sort of expected to see post-Obama polls help the Conservatives slightly, taking the focus off the economy and onto international matters, not to mention looking like a leader for a moment or two, surely didn't hurt the Conservatives cause. I also suspected some evidence of a firming up, when Harper started the tough guy routine, which he only seems to when the Conservatives internal polling is relatively improved.

For the Liberals, I honestly can't remember the last time an Ipsos poll had the Liberals at 33%. Ontario is quite encouraging, Atlantic Canada good, Quebec solid, particularly with the Conservatives falling as a credible federalist alternative. Both results point to a close race, which seems the general trend now, with all the polls. Given where the party was, even when you omit the coalition debacle, the Liberals are well positioned moving forward, very slight movement all that is required to defeat Harper.

Liberal Roundup

A couple of articles today, that touch on many issues for the Liberals moving forward. A few thoughts on some of the highlights.

The Hill Times has a story on Ignatieff's "kitchen cabinet":

Each weekday morning when the House is in session, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff sits down at 8:30 in the boardroom in his office in 409-S Centre Block with the 12 MPs who make up his Strategy and Tactics Committee, the so-called "Kitchen Cabinet."

If you review the list of MP's in this group, you see a wide sample of opinion, representative of various "wings" within the party. I'm pretty impressed that Ignatieff puts such a premium on getting outside advice, rather than just insulating himself, relying on a narrow core. A leader needs to absorb as many points of view as possible, in this way they will make more informed and wise decisions. An inclusive approach is a nice contrast to the one man show on the Conservative side, where we know full well Harper usually dictates, with little interaction. Given these type of meetings really serve no electoral interest, I think it speaks to a genuine openness to different lines of thought and it should serve us well moving forward.

The Toronto Star has a pretty comprehensive story, that offers many hints. On fundraising, while we have no numbers yet for this quarter, we keep hearing signals that there's been an uptick, under Ignatieff, from various sources. Another general indication here:

But Liberal organizers take some solace that in the last three weeks of December, after Ignatieff took over as interim leader, the party raised more than $1.1 million. And they say that momentum has carried into this year.

I'm sure, when this quarter fundraising is released, Liberals will still have much work to do. However, a sense of improved fundraising will send a clear signal that the Liberal Party has some momentum, further cementing an emerging frame within the media that Ignatieff has been a positive. On a similar note, attendance at Ignatieff's events, every one of which has been sold out, is beginning to support the notion of a re-energized party:

And the Liberal leader is drawing crowds. When Ignatieff spoke in Edmonton on Feb. 27, 800 people paid to attend the event with another 200 on the waiting list, he said. "That sort of thing hasn't been seen in ages," Apps noted. A similar crowd appeared to hear Ignatieff the next day.

People may remember, one of the media's favorite pet digs, was constant references to "poorly attended" events in the past. These events were used to convey a larger thesis of a party in disarray, spinning its wheels, going nowhere. You can't underestimate the optical importance of "energy" when a leader tours the country, again this frame gives a sense of momentum. Not only do you enhance fundraising and organization by drawing crowds, but you give the impression that something different is happening here. Public relations gold.

On election timing, it would appear my June argument doesn't have many supporters, which is hardly surprising:

Though June is cited as one window for a possible election, there's consensus that would be too early, both for the party's own organization and Canadians who likely aren't keen for the distraction of a vote while worrying about their own futures.

The real window seems to be the fall, or at the latest the next budget. I can see the rationale, especially if the economy doesn't show signs of turnaround late this year (which looks less likely with each passing day).

One of the most intriguing items I'll be watching- what calibre of new candidates can Ignatieff attract? Already talk of an improved slate:

"There's a lot of people who want to run, so even if we had an electoral emergency, we would be able to field a much stronger slate of candidates" than last time, Apps said.

Attracting "star" candidates is another offshoot of improving perceptions under Ignatieff. We've already heard a few rumors, and the more general view that Ignatieff will look to recruit people with economic credentials. That emphasis is a no brainer in this particular climate. I'll be particularly interested in which Quebecers Ignatieff manages to entice, as well as what he attracts in the prairie provinces.

All in all, if one is being intellectually fair, letting the objective indicators shape the thesis, rather than disjointed attempts to support pre-conceived negative bias, it's hard to argue anything but the following- things are looking up for the Liberal Party of Canada.

"Sucking And Blowing" II

If want further proof, that the Conservatives stance on their 3 billion slush fund is nothing more than political grandstanding, then look at their approach to the university infrastructure funding. Ottawa demands accountability:

The federal government insists the money be used on projects benefiting science and technology...

In a note sent to universities and colleges on Thursday, Industry Minister Tony Clement and Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, said that qualifying projects must “directly support federal (science and technology) strategy” and develop facilities for research and development in industry.

Universities were also asked to develop their own list of priorities, which would be reviewed by the federal and provincial governments, with Ottawa making the final call. Ottawa would pay for 50 per cent of a project, with the other half to be funded by the university or province.

The Conservatives are resisting demands that the infrastructure money simply be put into a provincial formula, and then the schools decide where the money will be spent, maybe on science and technology, maybe on a roof, their choice. Given the lack of funding for forward thinking projects, I tend to agree with the government here, that this money must be directed where it is intended. In other words, I have no qualms with a measure of oversight. In this way, the money won't get lost in the system, taxpayers can point to the expenditures reaching the targets, set out by the government.

Nevermind your personal opinion, the fact the government demands accountability for these funds, and then balks at any desire for accountability on their 3 billion slush fund, demonstrates the height of inconsistency. In fairness, the Liberal reaction, articulated by Kennedy, that the government should get out of the way, quickly give the universities the money, conflicts with the reasoning on the 3 billion slush fund. Hard to argue you're holding up some money on one score because of your desire for oversight, then on another criticizing a desire to eliminate oversight, in the name of expediency.

However, it's the government that needs to be consistent in the practical world. The fact the Conservatives seem to be offering selective accountability, effectively talking out of both sides of their mouth, depending on the allocation in question, makes the Harper threats look even more hollow and irrational.

Harper "Sucking And Blowing"

Quite a strange forum to criticize the Liberals desire for accountability. Stephen Harper, on the Liberals motion, that effectively identifies where infrastructure money will be spent:

He said the Liberal demands were unrealistic.

"There is no excuse for an opposition that has been saying we need to deliver money more quickly to now say we need to delay that money or say we need to have Parliamentary sign-off on every individual project," he said.

"That is not realistic. It's not going to work that way."

Harper said the Liberals need to stop throwing up "roadblocks" and let the money flow.

The kicker, Harper made the comments while announcing just the sort of specifics the Liberals want:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the speeding up of another infrastructure project Friday and pushed back at Liberal accusations regarding a $3 billion stimulus fund.

Harper, speaking in Berwick, N.S., announced the federal government and the province were spending $17.5 million to widen part of Highway 101 through the Annapolis Valley.

The highway is a major east-west route and connects Halifax to Yarmouth.

So, Harper is resisting accountability, while announcing a project, which satisfies the accountability requirement. Harper tells Canadians were money is being spent today, but finds it unrealistic to continue announcing where money is being spent in the future. Confused? And, the Liberals are "sucking and blowing", according to the Prime Minister. Alright then.

Ciao

OUCH


Let's hope Randy Hillier runs, just for the sheer spectacle (sorry Ben ;)).

The Non-Showdown

Apparently, we are headed for some sort of a showdown over this 3 billion dollar "blank cheque", that could result in an election. Okay, sure, if you say so:

Fight over $3B could spark election

Ignatieff wants to require government to say where extra cash will be spent

OTTAWA–A dispute over a $3 billion emergency fund for the economy has the Liberals and Conservatives lurching toward a possible early election.

The Liberals oppose Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan to quickly disperse the money without going through the usual parliamentary spending checks, saying it amounts to a Tory slush fund.

But Harper says the emergency cash is critical to the government's economic rescue effort and its approval in the Commons will be a confidence matter, which means opposition parties could defeat the minority government and send Canadians to the polls if they fight it.

Yesterday, in the latest twist in this showdown, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the Liberals will put forward a motion in Parliament next week requiring the government to list the departments and programs on which the $3 billion will be spent.

Ignatieff repeated that he has no intention of giving the government a "complete blank cheque." But he suggested the upcoming Liberal motion offers the Conservatives a possible way out of the impasse.

"I see no reason why the Prime Minister would make it an issue," Igantieff said when asked if he was willing to force an election over the $3 billion.

I see no reason why any of this is an "issue", and I'd love to see the government try and spin it into an election justification. How dare the opposition demand accountability, clearly Parliament is dysfunctional and we need a new mandate. Come on.

Part of the reason the Liberals are pushing hard here, is because they know full well that Harper's bravado is just that. Ignatieff laughed at Harper's threats, because they're really laughable, nothing more, nothing less. Tough guy was still in his Obama afterglow, and he incorrectly assumed it was an opportunity to return to previous partisan form. Problem is, nobody's particularly afraid and the issue is so ridiculously simple, the best spin doctors can't make it fly for the government. Let's get this straight, the party who's "signature" achievement, the thesis for their initial mandate, would force an election because he can't accept simple ACCOUNTABILITY. It all boils down to a soundbite, and any resistance on the part of the Conservatives is a complete and utter LOSER politically.

Canadians support the "probation" idea, and they have no problem with spending being accounted for, it's actually a matter of common sense. Forcing a conflict over this demand, portrays a very simple frame- do you have something to hide, and if not, what's the problem? Harper wants to force an election over accountability, it's almost absurd, and I suspect our reaction has incorporated that dynamic.

In the end, there will be some language that allows the Conservatives to appear as though complete capitulation wasn't required. However, they will "walk back down the hill", AGAIN, and still not realize that tough guy blew the wad in November, and is now almost comical when he elevates and manufactures lines in the sand, where none need exist.

Oh Gawd

Please just SHUT UP. Thank-you.

Quite a "country" we have...

How To Respond?

If the Conservatives do go negative, then the question becomes- how should the Liberals respond? Speculation, if the Conservative run ads, the Liberals will respond with ads of their own. No matter the financial circumstance, response ads are a necessity. A modest "buy" would be enough, because the free coverage and digestion after the fact would validate any expenditure and further the frame that the Liberals will no longer be bullied.

The only danger, with any response, the possible perception of a tit for tat pissing match between the two principle parties. People really wouldn't care who "started it" necessarily, so the Liberals would be wise to fashion a classy response, that strikes a tone of non-partisanship. I'm thinking the best response is to actually use the Conservative attack and shove it right back in their faces.

Just a thought, but something like a television in the background playing the Conservative attack ad, then start plastering newspaper headlines over the screen, with titles that speak to the dire economic data. The entire screen covered, then simply a question about leadership and priorities, asking Canadians if these attacks are what they expect from their government during an economic crisis.

That sort of response doesn't place the Liberals in the mud with the Conservatives. In fact it exposes their own obnoxious distractions, it actually mocks the source. The substance of any attack ad is secondary to attacking in the first place, you neuter the frame, while simultaneously appearing above the fray, almost a tsk tsk feel. I think any response by the Liberals should incorporate the attack ad, and make it more about the messenger, than the message. Then, when Canadians see or hear the Conservative campaign against Ignatieff, they are reminded of playing partisan games while the economy is crumbling. Hardly a net positive for the Conservatives, and you show the distinction.

"I'm Trembling In My Shoes, I'm Quaking"

Anybody worried about a "redux", or being bullied by big bad Harper should check out this masterful response (h/t Jeff):



Ignatieff seems to have a good grasp of the public mood, a real tone of non-partisanship that will serve him well. Admitting that the budget was a hard swallow, a candor and seriousness that elevates Ignatieff. I absolutely loved the laughter, in response to the Harper threats. Confidence is everything and the tone translates to make the Prime Minister look anything but, perfect.

I'm glad to see Ignatieff pushing back, because Harper is bluffing as sure as I'm standing here. That Ignatieff calls Harper out, in a very reasonable fashion, simply an issue of accountability- who could possibly have a problem with that, nevermind forcing an election?

Three minutes in time, but it pretty much encapsulates why this guy has the combination of stature and self assurance to ultimately make the Conservatives "quake".

Bizarro World

It really was a hilarious spectacle. Three MP's from all the parties, appearing on CTV, discussing the Conservatives looming attack ads against the Liberals. Mention of the Liberal email fundraising response, Martha Hall Findlay explains the rationale. Tom Clark moves to NDP MP Chris Charlton, who apparently lives within the cave of purity, completely unaware of the most blatant hypocrisy she was about to utter, with added moral superiority inflection:

Tom Clark:

"Chris, you're sitting there shaking your head"

Chris Charlton NDP MP:

"I can't believe the conversation we're having here... I'm sorry Martha, you can't defend a fundraising ad. You're sending an ad for money, while Canadians are worried about having a paycheck at all. Both of these parties are unbelievably out of touch with what's happening in our communities. People are worried about their jobs, their savings, and you're sending them fundraising letters"

I agree Chris. It really is unbelievable, that during a economic crisis, parties would launch ATTACK ADS and FUNDRAISING PLEAS. Even more unseemly, if ONE party did BOTH, attack and ask people to foot the bill. Hello in there, knock, knock. Let's get back to the kitchen table, shall we?

Itchy Trigger Finger?

It comes as no surprise that the Conservatives have a negative onslaught against Ignatieff in the can, waiting for a moment to pounce. Ignatieff knows it's coming, and I'm sure his team has already considered methods of response. After all, mean spirited, partisan crap is what these Conservatives do best, it's their natural state, negativity their inspiration. One can't expect these people to run on their record, or their principles, whatever those are these days, so it's left to undermining their opponent, try to win by default.

I've argued before, that the Conservatives would hold off, because the hyper-partisanship of November, coupled with the need to look serious on the economy, made the prospects of a high profile attack counter-productive. In many ways, attacking Ignatieff would say more about the messenger than the target, reinforcing negative narratives for the Conservatives. I think this is the reason for the pause to date, and the sentiment in the Globe and Mail piece tends to reinforce that view.

Ignatieff, on balance, has had a terrific first few months at the helm. I honestly can't remember the last time, no matter the tenure, wherein a leader of opposition has been so firmly place at the center of our political debate. Part of that is circumstance, part fascination, part making your own news, but it's all congealed to present Ignatieff as a very serious threat to the Conservatives- a fact which is clearly starting to unnerve them, and may well move up the attack starting date:

The shift comes with government members fretting about relatively strong polling numbers for Mr. Ignatieff and his party.

Many agree that while the Commons atmosphere might have been more pleasant in recent weeks, the survey data haven't been.

“The dynamic shifted back to the old thinking,” said a government insider. He said he doesn't know for sure when the attack ads will start airing, but predicted they will start surfacing over the summer.

“The failure to brand him in the way we did Stéphane Dion is actually worrying some people — that maybe we've missed our opportunity to brand him negatively in the eyes of Canadians, and that an impression of competence is now sticking.

“So the pendulum is shifting back — that we should attack a bit more.”

Competent seems a recurring theme, statesmanlike another, compelling, you can see why the Conservatives find it hard to resist their natural instinct. The "summer" reference is something for Liberals to keep in mind, as soon as they figure they can get away with it, any hint of static economic data, it will come. Maybe sooner? When you hear talk of the dynamic switching back, Conservatives reconsidering the negative pause, it really is a recognition that Ignatieff is getting traction, something might be slipping away, not acting tantamount to a surrender of sorts. For that reason, I can see better judgement being abandoned, and the Conservatives beginning sooner than they've previously considered plausible. The question then becomes, is it a mistake?

Three predictable lines of attack:

Tories say there will be three themes to their attacks: that Mr. Ignatieff is an out-of-touch elitist; that he flip-flops (they will cite his shifting positions on a carbon tax, on coalition with the other opposition parties, and on Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon); and that he's a fair-weather Canadian.

As far as the elitist angle, I would argue Ignatieff has done well in recent weeks to dispel this characterization. Ignatieff has been the one in front of the audience, taking questions, wading in, demonstrating an ease with we commoners. Contrast that with ivory tower Steve, who has NEVER mingled with the masses, I can see plenty of return fire (assuming the resources available) that could cripple that argument.

As for a fair-weather Canadian, that could fly with a subset of the Canadian population, but our patriotism tends to encourage foreign participation, being worldly not a negative, particularly Britain and America, part of our global sphere. Of all the lines, this one may be best suited, because you can mangle reality, plenty of soundbites available for distortion. However, this type of focus also comes with a flip side, because Ignatieff also has plenty of written evidence to support his never wavering pride in Canada. More importantly, Ignatieff can be shown as a natural treasure, a Canadian kid made good on the world stage, a terrific export that we should be proud of. How many internationally recognized, "great intellectuals" do we have, you can spin this around.

On the flip flopper front, I'd say that angle is rife with powerful counters. So, the guys that did a complete 180 in the span of weeks, probably the most seismic political turnaround in Canadian history, have the moral authority to accuse others of flip flopping? That event, engaged Canadians more than any other event in recent memory, it simply dwarfs any other issue, in terms of public opinion. Do the Conservatives really want to rehash those events- you say coalition, I say no recession, no deficit, no stimulus. That's a winner? Ignatieff has changed positions, probably the carbon tax offers the best opportunity for the Conservatives. Funny enough, Ignatieff has been out front on this score since he took the helm, so that might serve him well, moving forward. We listened, yes we already know.

If the attacks start soon, you know the Conservatives polling shows big trouble, because now is simply the worst time to get overly partisan and negative. It would be a sign of weakness, not strength, because they've really abandoned their rational senses. Having said that, I won't be surprised, because in all honesty, things are probably going better for Ignatieff early on, than I would have envisioned when he took over (on balance of course, any negatives developing still just seeds at this point). The fact Conservatives are reconsidering their earlier logic, tells me they agree.

UPDATE:

I don't sense fear, but I see fangs.

Making Headway

When consistent Liberal hater Neil Waugh starts singing your praises, you begin to think the new Liberal leader is actually making some inroads. I admit to partial shock, at what I was reading:

Unlike other eastern Liberals, he has a humble side...

Ignatieff seemed to be doing a better job at defending the province's economic interests than even Premier Ed Stelmach at times...

For a guy who only made a windshield tour of Fort McMurray last summer and lived out of the country for most of his life, he's a quick read.

He certainly appears to have a better handle on things in Alberta than Canada's automaker prime minister, Stephen Harper.

Or maybe even Ed Stelmach. Then again, Iggy's probably just another cynical Liberal politician just saying the things he wants us to hear.

Right?

I've argued before, that Ignatieff's pledge to take any revenue from polluters and put the money back into the jurisdiction in question, effectively neuters the "money grab" argument, and will make an environmental plan more palatable. Waugh recognizes the distinction:

It sounds like the same kind of deal Stelmach has called a "wealth transfer" to other provinces and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has described as a cash cow for Quebec.

Once a Liberal, always a Liberal - until Ignatieff puts flesh on the bones of his idea.

"Albertans are rightly sensitive of any measure that appears to be an extraction device from politicians down east," he said.

Dion's Green Shift carbon tax grab didn't exactly win many friends.

"Clearly you want to recycle the revenue you get from cap and trade to incentivize green technology investment in Alberta," he added.

Sounds a lot like the Alberta government's cap-and-trade program where the cash goes into a technology fund.

"We will be watching to make sure they don't hurt Alberta," Ignatieff vowed about the federal Conservatives' carbon cap and trade dreams.

Because, unlike the happy face that Alberta Finance Minister Iris Evans was wearing last week when she announced her temporary deficit - until the oilsands industry hopefully comes roaring back next year - Ignatieff appears to have a much firmer grasp on things than the homegrown politicians.

Imagine the spectacle, a Liberal leader from Toronto having a "firmer grasp on things" than Ed Stelmach and Stephen Harper. Even when Waugh suggests cynicism, he offers a question, as though he's half convinced Ignatieff is sincere. I've seen it all now.

A New Dynamic?

Elizabeth May is on record this week, stating she would run again in Central Nova, unless a by-election emerges before the next election. Given that the next election is probably a sooner, rather than later proposition, the odds are good that May will face MacKay one more time. Tonight, Ignatieff sends a clear signal, that the Liberals will contest that seat, which translates into a much tougher challenge for the Green leader:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Saturday he intends to have candidates in all of the nation's ridings, including one in Nova Scotia where the Liberals did not run in the last election after a deal with the Green party.

"I have respect for Elizabeth May but I'm running a national party and in a national party we have candidates in 308 ridings across the country," Ignatieff said prior to speaking at a dinner being held at the annual meeting of the provincial party.

Liberals in the province were critical of Dion for making the deal, saying it weakened support among party faithful.

I'm of two minds, when it comes to this decision. The prospect of a Liberal candidate probably guarantees MacKay's re-election, so there is the issue of vote splitting(although, one could argue the riding really isn't in danger for the Conservatives). On the other hand, I remember well the resistance from local Liberals, who felt Dion's decision didn't consult, reflect their wishes. This choice does speak to local want, and undoes some of the damage caused by Dion's decision. On that score, I'm fine with this choice.

The broader curiosity, was this decision a way to distance the Liberals from the Greens, to demonstrate any informal understanding has evaporated? It will be interesting to see the reaction of May, and whether the relationship between the two parties changes. May rarely criticizes the Liberals, if the Greens feel the Liberals are trying to blunt any progress, we could see a more adversarial debate, no more footsie.

When To Go?

Reading Rae's comments, reacting to Harper's paper tiger tough guy routine, he called him "tarzan"(not an attractive characterization, given the scantily clad imagery). The article also speaks to election timing, with these observations:

The likeliest timing for that would be June.

But Queen's University political scientist Kathy Brock said the official Opposition won't be in financial shape for an election before fall.

Fundraising, which staggered under Stephane Dion, is recovering under leader Michael Ignatieff, but not fast enough for a quick election, she said.

However, Jean-Marc Leger, president of Leger Marketing, said forcing an election after June "will be too late" from the Liberals' point of view.

"All the winning conditions are there" for Ignatieff, said Leger, particularly in Quebec.

The two views denote the tension between election readiness and opportune timing. I'm of the view that the Liberals are wrong to fixate on optimal readiness, at the expense of other factors. The question really becomes- can the Liberals fight an election in three months? The answer is yes, there are tools available that will allow the party to spend the maximum, and logistically it is possible. Obviously, the more time, the better, on several scores, but it's entirely possible, and it becomes even more attractive when you plug in the possibility of diminishing returns in other areas.

The government is largely in reactionary mode at the moment, and that dynamic won't change in the near future. There is a danger in giving the Conservatives a few months to retool over the summer, particularly when you consider that Liberal prepardness doesn't occur in isolation. We are being bombarded with staggeringly bad news on the economy, to the point of saturation. One has to wonder if future bad news, that has any hint of relatively mild, will be greeted with some optimism. Numbers and statistics are funny things, because they are constantly measured against other moments in time. If we begin to see indications that the downturn has slowed, a sense that we've reached bottom, certain indicators show lessening carnage, then the Conservative mood will change from defensive, to arguing light at the end of the tunnel. Assuming the economy will be a gift for the Liberals until late fall or early next year is largely a crap shoot, nobody really knows and the prognostications are varied. What we do know with certainty, there will be no silver linings for the next few months, the first and second quarter is largely a known quantity. This reality makes June attractive, in terms of opportunism.

You also can't assume that Ignatieff will enjoy this blitz of media, and largely favorable reviews for an extended period of time. On top of that, we already see signs of the Conservative smear machine, just waiting to pounce, if conditions change somewhat, expect a rash of negativity. Isn't it astute to recognize that timing is the only hesitation, and react prior?

I see a bounce for the Liberals in the lower mainland after the convention, if history is any guide. I see a Liberal leader who enjoys rare air at the moment, largely left to himself to define, clearly positioned to compete with Harper. I see a Conservative inner circle that's unsteady and recalibrating, a government simply trying to ride out the bad news. I see opportunity, and while it's true that time is our friend on one level, that may well be offset by other factors. June deserves serious consideration.

Iggy In Edmonton

Here's a full transcript of Ignatieff's speech today, in front of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. An interesting read for sure, this speech and the presser that followed, offer a few tidbits on future Liberal environmental policy.

What struck me was the following, and it's an extension on what Ignatieff has argued before:

"Albertans are wary of any measure that looks like an extraction device from politicians down east. Clearly, you want to recycle the revenue that you get from a cap-and-trade system to incentivize green technology investment in the province of Alberta."

When Ignatieff first proposed a carbon tax, it came with a provincial component, wherein any revenue generated was returned to the jurisdiction in question. I always thought this a clever distinction, because it eliminates any notion of an eastern power grab. Ignatieff now uses the same formula under a cap and trade, which again should make the overall goal of cutting emissions more attractive to provinces with high output, because the citizens know that money will be redirected to encourage "green" projects in that province. One of the major problems with any national framework, this sense that provinces like Alberta will suffer, we will see a transfer of wealth to other parts of the country. I like this idea, because it removes the irritant, as well as applying pressure on the resident population to walk the walk. This idea, proposed by Ignatieff is "sellable", and it demonstrates a sensitivity.

I must say, I also liked the following characterization:

Ignatieff warned, however, that the controversial megaprojects that have sprung from the oilsands must become greener.

"We're operating this thing like it was the Klondike, and it's not the Klondike. We're going to be there for a century or more.

If you accept the premise that oil reserves will be developed, it isn't realistic to believe any economy would simply leave a valuable resource in the ground, then the above has some attraction. With what we know of human nature, how the world works, it's hard to entertain a complete shutdown, based on environmental considerations alone. Fatalistic, but realistic by any measure.

The current economic climate has done much to slow down development in the tar sands, the exponential surge in production people were predicting mere months ago has been considerably revised. When you consider the fact that the tar sands are effectively money in the bank, just a question of when to make the withdrawal, then the idea of the Klondike is a shrewd analogy. I've always argued that the "hell bent for leather" approach of the Alberta government didn't address a simple fact- you don't need to take it all now, it can be in done in such a way to provide reasonable, steady growth, without sacrificing everything else in the process. Ignatieff seems to be arguing for a slower approach, a long term view, which would be a welcome development in this debate. It's not like this view doesn't have proponents in Alberta, people like Lougheed and others have been arguing for a more sustainable, reasonable growth model for quite some time.

Making no bones about hard caps, provides a point of distinction. While the visit seems to be more of the same on the pandering front, which I've never necessarily disagreed with, Ignatieff, or more rightly the coverage of Ignatieff, looks to be more balanced.

Not to leave it on a sour note, but there's no way Ignatieff can actually believe this line:

Companies in the oil sands are calling for a price on carbon themselves.

Companies operating in the oil sands get it – they get that they’re leaving behind a legacy for our children and the environmental impact of their projects can’t be ignored.

Please, amoral multi-nationals only care about profit, any recognition of consequence or measures taken, are only done so because they are demanded by the political climate. Within that climate, these entities will do the bare minimum allowed to look credible, to remain viable in the public eye. Huge corporations don't have souls, I think we've seen this simple fact in spades recently, it's more about appeasing, than worrying about the "children". I'll see if I can get the photo of Ignatieff with his fingers crossed behind his back, when he uttered the above :) Smooth.

On Balance

I've argued about the political danger within Ignatieff's strategy, not so much the thrust, but the degree. Ignatieff is still pretty much a blank slate, but we've now had a few issues present themselves, which begin to give a measure of the man, and from that people are starting to point to patterns. Any fallout from supporting the budget was more wishful thinking, on the part of political opponents. However, it was always part of the equation, that the "pass" wasn't infinite, and the Liberals would face challenges moving forward. The partisan attacks having a better chance of resonating, should we see successive support, over a long period of time, undermining our own credible as opposition. In addition to that fact, the emergence of more areas of convergence present a problem for the Liberals, it is IMPERATIVE that we distinguish ourselves from the Conservatives.

Not to rehash the National Geographic debate, but it is noteworthy, that since my first caution, we've seen the Bloc go hard at the Liberals, and now we see Quebec weather vein Chantal Hebert starting to connect the dots:

Since he has become leader, he has talked a good game about building bridges to a host of natural conservative constituencies but said very little about maintaining those that link the Liberal party to more progressive ones.

On the day when Trudeau was making his modest first entry on the left-hand side of the legislative ledger, his leader was taking pot shots at National Geographic magazine for a graphic depiction of the environmental impact of the Alberta oil sands, and making a pitch to rural Canada.

There is no doubt the Liberals should try to reintroduce themselves to voters in regions like Western and rural Canada, where they no longer have much presence, but the real question is: on what basis?

Ignatieff talks about the need to make up for years of Liberal neglect, but it is really his party's stance on some of the very issues that have distinguished the Liberals from Conservatives over the past decade – like Iraq, climate change and same-sex marriage – that have kept away many of the voters he is so determined to court.

Essentially what I've argued, the courtship of elusive voters, but done in such a one sided fashion, it leaves your other flank wanting. Nobody disputes the desire to "re-introduce", myself I'm 100% behind that goal, both philosophically and politically. However, if Ignatieff doesn't start demonstrating some balance, some articulation to the center-left, he risks framing himself as largely the same as the Conservatives, and his previous "pass" on the budget is now used against, to demonstrate the wider pattern.

It's no coincidence, or surprise, that we are beginning to hear some negative rumblings coming from Quebec, because Ignatieff is voluntarily positioning as though he's somewhat offside with palatable Quebec policy. If Liberals think the "nation" will suffice, and we can just take it all for granted, as we over reach for voters who require a spiritual epiphany to even consider, then I question the wisdom of the entire strategy.

I would take these early hints as valuable, and take some steps to nullify before they gel and a problem develops, which makes the whole strategy nothing more than treading relative water at best, hurting yourself overall at worst. And, PLEASE don't fall for the Liberal model of the 1990's, because you had the benefit of a political perfect storm, the right divided and largely impotent in key portions of the country for YEARS. It's pure folly to believe a re-creation is possible, because the landscape will never be so kind.

Ignatieff should reach out, Canada desperately needs a national unity figure. My concern has nothing to do with the strategy, but the nuance. Liberals don't need to out-Conservative the Conservatives to appeal, and if that's the gameplan, it fails to realize the erosion and understand the need to "distinguish". A truly sound strategy incorporates the hints and adapts, before things are allowed to fester.

Freshen Up?

The Coen brothers of Fargo, No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski fame have done a commercial for the Reality Coalition, which takes on "clean coal":

Tar Can Stick

My friend BCL responds to Ignatieff's tar sands comments as follows, which speaks to a certain strategic perspective:

By definition, the fact that the development of the tar-sands is largely out of the hands of Canadians means it doesn't matter what side of the issue he's on. So let him pander. Its harmless and might help win a seat or two out West (though not in Alberta).

I agree, that what ultimately happens with the tar sands is largely out of Canada's hands. Couple that fact, with the simple reality that the Alberta government will decide, no federal party can reasonably think it can "shutdown" the tar sands, it just doesn't work this way, the nature of Canadian federalism and international economics suggest otherwise. In other words, Ignatieff's position isn't irrelevant, today and now, but it isn't exactly powerful in practice either. So, with that in mind, you can reasonably arrive at the "harmless" conclusion, right?

That conclusion assumes no negative political fallout from such a stance. The Liberals need to appeal to the west, defending the tar sands could actually help their credibility and bring some new support, in a region of the country where it's desperately needed. However, that is a view in isolation, that doesn't entertain the other dynamics, dynamics which question the "harmless" line.

Today in Question Period, it was quite telling to see Gilles Duceppe rise and instantly refer to the National Geographic piece. In both questions, Duceppe lumped the Conservatives and Liberals together as tar sands apologists. The next question went to Bloc MP Bernard Bigras, who again attempted to connect the Liberals to the Conservatives on the tar sands. Bigras went further, referring to Ignatieff as an oil sands lobbyist. Clearly, the Bloc strategy is to pounce on Ignatieff's comments and undermine his credibility on the environment file. Additionally, there is much for the Bloc to gain, by providing further evidence of a Con/Lib pseudo "coalition". And, there's the rub.

I believe, despite the criticisms from the other opposition parties, that the Liberals received something of a "pass" with voters in supporting the Conservative budget. I don't want to rehash all the arguments, as far as I'm concerned public opinion is a slam dunk, the media was largely sympathetic and the Liberals emerged unscathed, Ignatieff faired quite well, through the whole debate. I also believe the "probation" strategy is a good one, although each successive period that goes by, brings a risk that a negative narrative can take root. With that in mind, let me return to the Bloc argument today.

If the Liberal opponents can introduce other policy areas of convergence, beyond the budget vote, to show that in reality the Liberals are largely "the same" as the Conservatives, then you start to see a pattern, a pattern which is problematic. Look, the Liberals supported the Conservatives on the budget, evidence of similarity in foreign affairs, and now we see the same rhetoric on the environment. The reason the Bloc pounced, which I predicted yesterday, is because they see the tar sands stance as a way to show Ignatieff is out of step with Quebecers on the environment, don't look to him as an alternative to Harper, because he's the same. When one starts to look at a REALISTIC electoral map, you begin to see the potential backlash for the Liberals, and the notion of "harmless" begins to unravel. Is it really sound strategy to mimic Jim Prentice, with the best case scenario being a couple of seats, when you give opponents ammunition on more fertile electoral ground? Pretty risky stuff, if you ask me.

In fairness to Michael, he also made these comments yesterday:

We are where we are. We've got to clean it up and we've got to make it a sustainable place to work and live not only for the Aboriginal populations there but for the workers who live there. My concern is that at the moment it's barely environmentally sustainable and it's barely socially sustainable. The Conservative government has done nothing about this. We need to move forward.

What I'm arguing, isn't a complete retreat on the tar sands, because I recognize regional sensitivities, not to mention economic realities. However, Ignatieff needs to stress more of the above, his defence or courtship must demonstrate a balance. Not only will this play better in other parts of the country, but it should play within his target audience. Many, many Albertans are also concerned, so a strategy that recognizes, but also points to Conservative failure, one that presents a clear path to reconcile, has just as much political advantage than simply projecting unequivocal support.

Part of me sees the Ignatieff strategy to date as merely laying the foundation, building a sense of trust, which is the first step in this process. However, that's largely speculation on my part, a fact which is somewhat concerning. While it might not necessarily matter, and decisions made in Washington will determine our path, that doesn't mean we cede any moral ground, because then we don't really stand for anything, practicalities aside. There is a political downside, which means Ignatieff really needs to articulate a balance, he needs to speak frankly, because pandering alone will alienate. The Liberals are fine on the budget, but the more areas of convergence, the more you give credibility to counter narratives, a fact which shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Please Stop Talking

When pandering becomes offensive:

Tories, Liberals defend oil sands

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who recently positioned himself as a supporter of the oilsands, was emphatic in his disdain for the National Geographic story.

"National Geographic is not going to teach me any lessons about the oilsands," he said.

"This is a huge industry. It employs Canadians from coast to coast. We have oil reserves that are going to last for the whole of the 21st century. We are where we are. We've got to clean it up, and we've got make it a sustainable place to work and live."

Ignatieff has ALWAYS been consistent, this idea of energy policy as national unity issue. The federation is fractured, there is much regional angst in the land, and it's true the level of tolerance is on the wane. It's imperative that the Liberal Party, even if it doesn't translate into sweeping seat totals, appeal to the entirety of Canada, because this country needs a unifying voice. I believe Ignatieff is sincere in his desire to bring people together, and I have high hopes for him as Prime Minister in this regard. I also understand, that in the game of politics, nuance is required along with some heavy petting- kissing ass is part of the equation, always has been, always will be, the tenets of democracy almost demand it. HOWEVER, let's not get carried away, shall we, because you're now ALIENATING part of your base, with a misguided courtship.

Earlier, I linked to the Alberta Environment Minister, responding to the National Geographic piece. Renner actually used the word "fair" to describe the piece, found some positives and stressed the improvements coming in the future. In other words, Renner was less categorical and dismissive than Ignatieff, while Ignatieff sounded exactly like Jim Prentice, who sounds like a Suncor executive half the time. It would seem the Liberals are now trying to out- Conservatives the Conservatives on the tar sands- almost like "no, we love it more, no we love it more, no we love it more..." Sssstttoooopppp!!!

Ignatieff is going too far in my estimation, because he's essentially giving NOTHING more than lip service to environmental concerns, while singing the praises of what amounts to an environmental NIGHTMARE at the moment. As mentioned earlier in the comments, many Albertans share concerns on the tar sands. It's not like everyone in the province is screaming "full steam ahead", the environment be damned. That fact means that Ignatieff doesn't have to be so one-sided in his presentation, he MUST speak to the balance, he MUST articulate how the tar sands can be viable within an environmentally friendly policy. Otherwise, Ignatieff just sounds like the Conservatives, even worse, under some illusion that this now MEGA pandering will lead to a red wave across the oil patch.

I'm actually starting to get quite pissed here. Earlier, I cautioned on waiting for the other shoe to drop, somewhat content allowing Ignatieff to do the necessary work to redeem the Liberal brand. But, with this latest crack, directed at National Geographic, Ignatieff is in danger of losing his soul, for the sake of political expediency. AND, even if you confine yourself to mere strategic considerations, Ignatieff risks undermining support he enjoys now, while he over shoots with attracting the "new". What's the environmental vision here Michael? I think Ignatieff had best starting fleshing out a few things, because at the moment, parroting Jim Prentice isn't quite doing it for me, and I suspect I'm not alone. Unity yes, respecting provincial economies a given, offering solutions to mitigate the damage, let's hear it, slamming NG for a "fair" piece, please stop talking.

Stewart On Obama Visit

And of course the NP reacts in the typical sense of humor challenged conservative way.

It Is What It Is

Don Martin column today which describes the National Geographic story as the "baby seal moment" for the oil sands. There's no doubt that the story undercuts the public relations campaign of the Stelmach government. Martin is correct that this high profile attention will harm the tar sands "reputation", but apart from some vivid language, the piece is hardly unfair.

There is nothing presented by National Geographic that is factually untrue, and they do a good job highlighting the issues beyond a simple discussion on global warming. A propaganda piece is an attempt to "slant" the narrative- but really does anyone dispute how disgusting the tailing ponds are, their threat to waterways, the health risks, the damage to the ecosystem, the energy intensive methods needed, the social problems that accompany rapid expansion? In terms of historic oil production, the methods used, the quality of, really do represent "scraping bottom", so the description isn't in error or outlandish.

People can try to put lipstick on a pig all they want, but the tar sands are what they are, the National Geographic piece simply tells a story. Apologists would argue it's a sensational story, but nobody needs to photoshop the sludge, the moonscape speaks for itself and the health of the ecosystem isn't based on fiction. It's important to consider consequence, rather than a simple economic argument. If that constitutes a "baby seal moment", it should surprise no one, because it's part of a real reality that is conveniently ignored by proponents.

Don't Forget Your Left Flank

Ignatieff used to say the Liberals needed to "plant their flag on the center-left". Since assuming the helm, the rhetoric has changed to "center", and Ignatieff has intimated that the Liberals have the most to gain from winning over "compassionate Conservatives", centrist voters. This belief is obviously based on polling done by the party, and Ignatieff has actually been quite open in referring to the strategy. I don't dispute for one minute, that the Liberals need to appeal to the center, after all the designation implies mainstream society. It is for that reason, that I'm prepared to be somewhat pragmatic, accepting the necessity of appeal and the rationale for "moving", as a means to topple the Conservatives. Any party that hopes to govern must be prepared to compromise, and the act of governing itself generally forces a move to centrist policy.

However, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this perceived tunnel vision, to siphon off soft conservatives, former progressive conservatives, as our only avenue to take power. While I don't dispute what internal pollsters are telling the party, it seems they are many equations at play, and others which don't necessarily mean you need to abandon you're left flank to expand support. Pointing to the Chretien/Martin model is problematic, because it occured while the right was divided and/or didn't enjoy support in central Canada. I would be very weary of using any reference point which included the words Reform, Canadian Alliance or post Kim Campbell Progressive Conservative. Extraordinary circumstances, which allowed the Liberals to sweep Ontario, remain credible in Quebec, almost by default- in many cases voters had little appealing alternative. The new framework is entirely different, which is why, again, I caution with the "centrist" stuff, at the expense of progressive.

Who was the biggest "gainer" in the last election, an election where the Liberal vote eroded? It was the Greens, with the Cons and NDP only enjoying a minimal uptick. There is really no co-relation between Liberal erosion and a move to the Conservatives. In 2004, you can make a better case, but again the NDP vote was up more decisively, the Conservatives gained at the Bloc expense, so the casual relationship isn't necessarily definitive.

The Conservative base support is probably around 30%, expecting it to fall below that seems to defy common sense at this point. When you consider second choice support, amongst the various parties, you can make a strong case, that the Liberals can draw equally from all the parties. I would hardly classify Bloc support as necessarily demanding a move to the right, nor the Greens, and obviously the NDP. Yes, we can gain support from the Conservatives, but equally, you can appeal to other party voters. My point, don't move so far that you alienate one voter pool, attempting to appeal to another. In my view, the smartest strategy is policy which demonstrates balance, centrist on the economy, center left on social issues, a forward view on the environment, woven within a modern economy.

Again, personally I'm prepared to make the compromise, endorsing a direction which doesn't completely mirror my own view. That's simply a reality in politics, it's not necessarily a game of purism, forever pandering and watered down. That said, it's imperative that the Liberal strategy throws a bone or two in one sense, allows for different perspectives, to latch on to various policy positions, which encompasses the essence of a big tent. Don't let the drive to the center alienate part of your base, because if that occurs, you're essentially doing nothing more than treading water.

Reality Check

CTV has this new segment on their political show called "Reality Check". Today, Sun Media's Greg Weston was on, and the topic of the upcoming Green Party convention came up. In discussing whether or not the Greens would be able to maintain a high profile and voting share, Weston first made some derogatory comment about the Greens in general, then fluffed off any suggestion of Green votes bleeding to the benefit of the Liberals. While there's no question the dynamics have changed with Ignatieff at the helm, as well as no sense that the Green vote is eroding, it was still curious that Weston piped off, stating "all the polls show" that Conservatives have the most to benefit from any crater in Green support. According to Weston, all the data suggests the Conservatives are the second choice of Green supporters. You know, if you're going to be so dismissive, with the know it all tone, you could at least have the semblance of a CLUE:

Harris Decima



EKOS:


The Conservatives never rise from third choice in the Decima poll, this is mirrored by EKOS. As a matter of fact "all the polls" I've seen confirm the above, so I'd love to know Weston's source material, or does working for SunMedia impede basic comprehension.

A small quibble for sure, but Weston was just so sure of himself, I thought I'd do my own "Reality Check" for the reality checker.

Amen

I confess, I'm to the point of NAUSEOUS, watching this government contort, reinventing themselves. Such a callous attempt to bask in Obama's popularity, so brazen it assumes none of us are capable of memory, every day a new, fresh reality. We are your canvass Stephen Harper. If Harper is able to pull this off, or more rightly. if a easily distracted media lets him get away with it, it might just be the biggest swindle in Canadian history. It's obnoxious and offensive when you think about it.

A few voices calling a spade a spade, a dose of reality in what is becoming bizarro world:

Mr. Obama will propose what he's always promised: emissions caps for greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. He will create a market for permits to be purchased from the government, then traded among emitters. These permits might bring the U.S. government $300-billion in a decade or so.

Nothing like this has been proposed by the Harper government. It has preferred useless policies such as tax credits for public transit and expensive subsidies for corn-based ethanol that waste taxpayers' money. The centrepiece of the Harper approach has been that companies will have to reduce the intensity of their energy use and emissions and, if not, pay into a technology fund that might some day come up with ways of lowering emissions.

This intensity approach is quite different from Mr. Obama's hard cap. But we are now in the Orwellian world of Ottawa's climate-change policy. The Prime Minister and his spokesmen have been saying the two systems – intensity and hard caps – amount to the same thing, when, in fact, they do not. It's the same weird disconnect that had Mr. Harper blaming George Bush for the failures of Canada's own climate-change policies.

Shut up Jim Prentice, with your nonsensical references to Obama as though global warming soul mate. Put a big wool sock in it Stephen Harper, musing about lost opportunities, finally, finally a climate change partner in your midst. Give me some duct tape for every government minister and crony who can't complete a sentence without the word Obama being uttered. And, please, please PIPE UP supposed reality check, when politicians go horribly astray, because if you don't, it's actually a testament to just how USELESS a medium you swirl in.

Get over the Obama afterglow, and start speaking on the chameleons, because it's actually quite embarrassing. As for the opposition, I suggest a recent history lesson or two, because if you're not careful this fraud will have positioned himself as Obama's key ally on climate change, not to mention absolving himself on the economy and a host of other issues. There's a frame occuring, and whether it sticks is entirely a discussion on the power of propaganda. Don't let the ass ride the donkey.

Fancy That, A "Vision"

In many ways an economic downturn provides an opportunity, if government uses expenditure and legislation to retool and modernize. Probably the most disappointing aspect of the federal government's stimulus plan and overall framework to blunt the current economic fallout, is it provides no sense of a "vision", there's no real road map or coherence, merely temporary band aids. When the Canadian economy does rebound, it's hard to point to any initiative which really revolutionizes our economy, so that it's better placed to sustain itself in the 21st century world. More about political survival, than actual forward thinking, the Conservatives read like a old school, two dimensional template, for governing during an recession.

People can quibble about the details, but it's fair to say that the McGuinty government is presenting a "vision" with it's Green Energy Act, a comprehensive approach to move all facets in tandem towards a over arching goal. It really is a plan that has a transformational component, so that if successful, the Ontario economy will emerge stronger and more diversified, more competitive and greener, in such a way to be a benefit, not a drag.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Ontario Liberals, they tend to move in a timid fashion, small steps here and there, but nothing that evokes the word bold. What we see now, is a recognition that it's sink or swim time, Ontario can't plod along, relying on past powerhouses to fuel the economy, it must modernize:

Ontario's Green Energy Act will create 50,000 new jobs in construction, trucking and engineering while laying the groundwork for developing projects more quickly, Energy Minister George Smitherman said today.

"If passed, the act would ensure that new green power doesn't get tripped up in all kinds of red tape, but instead that new renewable generation would be built and flowing into the system faster," Smitherman told the legislature after introducing the bill.

The Green Energy Act will also set what Smitherman called ``reasonable" domestic content requirements for renewable projects to ensure more money is spent in the province.

Premier Dalton McGuinty said while he understood a switch from making cars to making wind turbines may not be easy for workers in Ontario, green technology is key to boosting the province's economy.

The province isn't turning away from its traditional auto jobs, but has a responsibility to create new work as well as a sustainable energy base, said McGuinty.

"It's not an easy shift, I understand that, but we need to begin to plan for the future with a sustainable energy base," he said.

"We have to see ourselves as vital players. We can't just tinker with a few things."

Progressive Conservative critic John Yakabuski called the legislation vague, noting it "leaves

Encouraging words from the NDP:

New Democrat Peter Tabuns said the change was "way past due."

"The fact that this government is finally saying it will link jobs with climate change is welcome, it opens the debate," Tabuns said in the legislature.

"My goal is to see that we actually deliver; that we don't get trapped in the timidity that I see in the bill before us."

The legislation will amend 15 statutes and the government says it will create 50,000 new jobs.

Is this plan perfect? I've heard encouraging reviews from many sources, others are critical, but given that unanimity is a fallacy, overall I think you can argue, with credibility, that this plan has the comprehensive component, a coherent thread throughout, that it encompasses everything a bold plan should entail. You can't just play along the margins, and maybe the McGuinty government was guilty of this in the past. This economic collapse allows the Liberals to be aggressive, because there is a real, sober understanding, that the status quo is a future anchor.

Governments are given political capital during tough times, we see it in other jurisdictions as well. A crisis is really an opportunity, because the urgency it brings allows for initiatives which cut through the normal pace of change, as long as your articulate the light at the end of the tunnel, you're given room to "try it" so to speak. Whereas, the Conservative government offers vanilla, old ideas, the only goal to "ride out", the provincial Liberals are demonstrating a capacity for BIG ideas, with an eye for the future.

In A Nutshell

Susan Riley column, which succinctly sums up the Obama/Harper connection on climate change:

"Ultimately, the key difference between the two may be that Obama believes the climate crisis is real and wants to fix it, while Harper wants to look like he is trying."

Lest we forget:

Where Have I Heard This Before?

As Harper suckles from the Obama teet, as though he the proactive force on reducing GHG emissions, this development today should reveal who is trying to mirror who:

Clinton urges U.S., China co-operation on clean technology

"The United States and China will build an important partnership to develop and deploy clean energy technologies designed to speed our transformation to low-carbon economies," Clinton said in Beijing.

"Areas for useful co-operation include renewable energy, the capture and storage of Co2 from coal plants and energy efficiency in our buildings," she added.

We're just along for the ride...

Didn't Hurt

If you approach the meeting from a non-partisan perspective, it's safe to say Harper's dance with Obama, and the framing afterwards, works for the good news starved Prime Minister. Harper was quite steady during the press conference, forceful on certain issues, a strong performance. The reviews were positive, and the simple optics clearly help Harper's image.

What is particularly noteworthy, Harper has effectively given himself a free pass on the environment for quite some time. Complete bullshit aside, Harper and his minions have managed to create a new starting point, that virtually relinquishes past nothingness. Harper even went so far as to absolve the past Liberal government for it's inaction, with reference to the ongoing struggle to engage the Americans. Directly tying our environmental policy, with that of the Americans, means we now basically wait for legislation to slowly meander through Capitol Hill, all the while no pressure on the Conservatives to do much of anything.

Additionally, and more importantly, this "dialogue" on clean energy assumes the beginning of a process, with little expectation for immediate results. It is hard to underscore the importance of Obama endorsing things like carbon capture, and the "music to our ears" sentiment coming out of the oil patch serves as proof. The Conservatives can now present a unified effort, with a President who brings environmental credibility, their fates are joined. There will be no more embarrassing displays on the world stage, because Canada will merely defer to the American leadership, we will move in lockstep, with little space between us, effectively neutering much of the criticism. Any sense of affinity with the Obama administration is a plus for the Conservatives, expect to hear the "working TOGETHER" talking point ad nauseum anytime anybody dares mention the climate change file.

I view the fallout of the meeting as a "stop the bleeding" scenario for Harper. I suspect any afterglow is entirely temporary, as we return to the onslaught of bad news, but leaders generally do benefit from forums that allow them to look the statesman, this instance is certainly a high profile example. I suspect the PMO has a bit more of a bounce to their step now, sensing some success, in an otherwise gloomy predicament. Does it help Harper's stature? That remains to be seen in any lasting way, but it hasn't hurt, I think that a fair read.

On Photo-Ops

A big nothing, in the grand scheme of things, but a nice jab, given the lengths our PM went to marginalize Ignatieff:

It all started when Liberal officials were faced with the challenge of getting a photo of their leader’s meeting with Ignatieff out to the media despite the fact that the schedule arranged largely by the prime minister’s office relegated the meeting with Ignatieff to late afternoon.

Liberal staffer Michael O’Shaunessy called Marc Methé of CNW Group to arrange for the picture taken by Ignatieff’s official photographer to be distributed to Canadian media. When he asked how much it would cost to distribute it to U.S media, Methé told him that if they added a press release to the picture, they could have the picture posted in Times Square and Las Vegas for no extra cost.

All in all, the PR coup cost the Liberals $1,100 for U.S distribution, $300 for the high definition picture to give them bragging rights and $500 to distribute the photo to Canadian media outlets.

As an aside, much talk about the fact Obama has read "several" of Ignatieff's books. To be fair, while Obama hasn't read anything authored by Harper, the two leaders did discuss books and what they've read recently. Harper mused about the last book he's read.

UPDATE:

Here's a photo from the White House website (h/t Knb):

The Company You Keep

Noteworthy, that while Harper is painting himself green, has been for years you know, his old confident offers this jewel:

Prof. Flanagan said the province's plan to spend $2-billion on developing carbon-sequestration technology may be necessary to respond to heightened demands for green energy. “Even if you believe as I do that the whole thing is a hoax, nonetheless, from the point of view of doing business I don't think Alberta can afford to walk away from that,” he said.

Does Flanagan mean carbon sequestration is a hoax, or is he referring to climate change in general?

Cut From The Same Cloth

The PMO released a new photo, to highlight just how much the two leaders have in common:



Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke:

"You do the math, it's eerie"