This Guy Is A Strategist?

I've never quite understood why Tim Powers is considered a "must read" Conservative strategist. Maybe I'm missing something, or he's just too agile for my pedestrian mind to comprehend, but I've always found his musings and commentary nothing more than juvenile, typical tripe, that isn't particularly persuasive. Today, Powers, like many other Conservatives, is fixating on a mostly obscure YouTube presentation known as "GritGirl". It just grates these Conservatives, and it's very amusing to see how easily they can be put off their game. Powers:

The mysterious Grit Girl

Of course, certain Liberals have been running viral attack ads against the government for a while now. Under the pseudonym Grit Girl some clever force has been filling the Internet with anti-government propaganda. This modern day Tokyo Rose is pretty good at flogging but not so good at disclosing. All is fair in love and war, but the Liberals should at least own up to their ads stop hiding behind Grit Girl's skirt.

...It is a strange position to take for someone who is trying to characterize himself as a confident fiscal manager. But then again if Grit Girl is Iggy's model of accountability, who is really surprised?

In articulating such a thin skin, Powers actually draws attention to a "phenomenon" which NOBODY in Canada actually knows about. I would argue, if GritGirl ever does hit mainstreet, she can largely thank the Conservatives, because all this focus is just pure gold, exposure wise.

This comment from the piece, pretty much sums it up:

Stan L from Canada writes: I think you guys should spend a lot of time talking about GritGirl.....keep writing stories and trying to guess the identity.....it's good for business, after all I would never have known about these spots if some Conservative supporter wasn't crying foul about them.

Thanks Tim, I'm sure there are a few more, formerly in the dark, Canadians now looking for "GritGirl" on YouTube as we speak. The more these Conservatives "attack", the more I'm convinced Kinsella and company are going to eat these people alive. This guy is a strategist?

Did It Every Occur To Anyone?

I've read some criticism of Ignatieff, as it relates to Mulroney. First the birthday phone call, now the defence of Mulroney in his spat with Harper, clear evidence of some affinity, more proof that Ignatieff is a conservative at heart. Did it ever occur to anyone that this is all merely strategic mischief?

I fail to see the downside, in Ignatieff calling Mulroney, or injecting himself into the Conservative "feud". As a matter of fact, I think it's brilliant and I have little doubt it's intentional "stirring the pot". Why not speak to Conservative internal strife, why not volunteer an opinion, why not highlight a negative storyline? All I see, Ignatieff exploiting a chasm, and in so doing looking far more statesmanlike than the leader of said party. It's not an endorsement of the man's policies, or some deeper meaning, it's a political ploy, pure and simple. Mulroney still enjoys support within the Conservative ranks, and a measure of stature in Quebec, so Ignatieff's "praise" highlights an under the surface tension, which Conservatives don't welcome. I note that Bob Rae also called Mulroney, and I would love for someone to extrapolate that phone call as evidence of political similarity. I'm sure it's all genuine on one level, but a strategist would also see the value and a shrewd Ignatieff would relish the opportunity to wade into the Conservatives family feud.

If you're a detractor, it's easy to seize on the Mulroney/Ignatieff dynamic to further some pre-conceived view. IMHO, that narrative is a meaningless distraction from the real impetus here. This is smart politics, and it's refreshing to see Liberals poking the coals, as opposed to the previous years of listening to our opponents fan our own divisions. I haven't seen the tape, but I'm willing to bet a curious grin came to Ignatieff's face, when asked to comment on the Mulroney matter.

The Flaherty Follies

What a surprise:

More On The "Mild Recession"

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

Conference Board issues grim outlook

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

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

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

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

When To Go?

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

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

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

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

Words That Will Haunt Flaherty

Leave It Alone

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

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

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

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

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

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


“Relatively speaking this is a mild economic recession"



Canada loses a record number of jobs in January 2009

Canada trade deficit biggest on record

Budget adds 57 billion to swelling deficit

Carney sees record drop in Canada's GDP

Canada faces worst recession since 1980s

Canada retail sales post biggest monthly drop in 15 years

etc, etc...

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

On "Alternatives"

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

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

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

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

Bigger Rooms?

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

Last night's Liberal fundraiser was no different:

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

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

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

What Were You Thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brain Kramp

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

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

Tory MP warned of suspension over Ignatieff attacks

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

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

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

He began cutting off MPs who ignored his ruling.

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

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

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

Tory Times Are Tough Times

The latest installment from GritGirl:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libs 35%
Cons 34%
NDP 14%

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

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

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

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

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

Bloc 42%
Libs 33%
Cons 12%
NDP10%

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

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

Ignatieff Does British Columbia

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

Ignatieff attracts overflow crowd for town-hall session

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

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

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

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

Will They Go Negative Now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Canadians warming to Ignatieff, poll suggests"

Gong

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



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

Ignatieff In Kamloops

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

Hello In There

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

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

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

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

Harper was quick to brush aside Page's claims.

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

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

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

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

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

CROP Quebec Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Needs Puffins?

She's good:



And, the "Deliverance" feel is just brilliant.

Self Inflicted Wounds

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

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

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

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

You Scratch My Back?

Given who is lobbying the government for financial relief...:

Both CanWest CEO Leonard Asper and Quebecor’s Pierre-Karl Péladeau, have personally met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on behalf of their companies in recent weeks. The federal lobbyist database also shows meetings with Minister Moore, senior CRTC executives, and former industry minister Jim Prentice. Douglas would not comment on specific meetings, or reports that Canwest has engaged the lobbying services of Ken Boessenkool, a former senior Harper adviser, but said the company has always kept Ottawa in the loop about its concerns: “The amount of dialogue we’ve had is no different that what we’ve had over the previous years.”

...one can rightly ask- what rate is the government being charged to run high profile advertisements in publications owned by the companies in question?:











I can't seem to find much, in the way of advertising, on any other media outlet (except fellow lobbyist Quebecor). But there isn't a Canwest publication that isn't putting the government website front and center, down the side (in two separate locations), the reader bombarded.

The government website is nothing more than a Conservative propaganda presentation, funded by the taxpayers. Is it just me, or is this "relationship" between a media outlet, in desperate need of government assistance, and said government, a bit of a conflict of interest? Not suggesting ANYTHING, just asking the question.

As an aside, it would appear the egomaniac flavor of the government website might have had some negative feedback, because I note today TWO front page pictures that actually don't contain Harper's mug.

Fill Those Coffers

Plenty of positive indicators, that the Liberals are getting back in the game on the fundraising front. Taber details what amounts to a mega fundraiser, that could well add close to 1 million to the Liberal coffers. We also get the first indication, although not surprising, that this quarter's fundraising will be "significantly" improved, relative to past efforts. Taber puts her usual gossipy spin on the efforts, but all I see are dollar signs, which translate into a formidable counter to the Conservatives:

For $1,100, you can talk to Michael Ignatieff at a cocktail reception and then sit really close to him at the dinner that follows. Pay $500 and all you get is the rubber chicken.

This latest Grit tactic is being employed for the Leader's Dinner, a major Liberal Party fundraiser being held at the swank Fairmont Royal York hotel in Toronto on April 1. More than 1,000 people are expected.

Taking the middle ground, you're looking at around 750 thousand minimum for this type of fundraiser, a staggering figure by Liberal standards.

We also get some indication from Rossi, that this quarter has been a good one for the Liberals:

Mr. Rossi, the party's national director whose background is fundraising, predicted yesterday that total donations for the first quarter of 2009 "will be significantly better than the first quarter last year, despite the recession ...The Liberals raised $846,000 in the first quarter last year"

There are two important factors to consider here. Obviously, the aforementioned CASH, what that means to a party, desperate to compete with the Conservative machine. However, maybe just as important, in terms of free media and positive frames, this idea that the Liberals are on the move under Ignatieff. We've all seen how previous fundraising numbers have been used to promote negative storylines, cementing the sense of a weak alternative to the Conservatives. Robust fundraising, relative improvement, creates more buzz for the party, it keeps a fickle media onside. As an extension of that sentiment, packed rooms validate the sense of a reinvigorated party. In addition, improved fortunes can spook the Conservatives, who see a more formidable opponent, capable of counter. We don't have to match the Conservatives at this point, just demonstrate a positive trend. Hard not to be cautiously optimistic.

This Is Your Government Canada

The call for decorum will not stand:

"The Scene. The Conservatives have identified a loophole in the Speaker’s recent ruling against the use of Parliament’s time to launch personal attacks against political rivals—namely that it’s not a personal attack if you don’t immediately identify the individual you are defaming.

So it was that Mike Wallace, another of the government’s enthusiastically obedient, if relatively interchangeable, backbenchers, was sent up before Question Period to air various allegations against “someone.” Only at the final moment did he reveal that this “someone” was, in fact, the Liberal leader. Suffice it to say, the Prime Minister found this quite hilarious."

The sad part, NOBODY watches Member Statements, and yet the Conservatives are determined to get their smears in, as though important. When one thinks of the mental energy wasted, trying to find ways around the idea of decency and standards, it really is a statement on what a bunch of low class operatives run our government.

Auditor General Didn't Get The Memo

On March 3rd, in response to a question demanding accountability for the government's 3 billion "slush fund", Harper responded in Parliament with the following:

"The fact of the matter is that we have consulted the Auditor General. We will be fully accountable for this money. This money is necessary to make sure that we take full advantage of the upcoming construction season."

Harper explicitly implies that the Auditor General is in the loop on the stimulus expenditure, what is required. But, if you read today's comments from the Auditor General, she essentially parrots the opposition concerns and articulates no such "consultation":

"It's not unreasonable.

$3 billion is a fair bit of money and they must have ideas, even in broad strokes, how that money will flow between April and June," she said.

"I must say that I don't buy the argument that they can't tell them something -- maybe not the detail of, say, what festival, or how much, but they could at least say where the money is going, whether it's (to) infrastructure or festivals."

If "the fact of the matter" is the Conservatives consulted with the Auditor General, why doesn't she "buy the argument" of the government, namely that they can't be accountable. Seems to me, Harper has boxed himself into a corner, trying to undermine the opposition's reasonable accountable demands, using the Auditor General for cover, when in fact she is asking the SAME questions.

Ankle Bracelet.ca

The Liberals have launched a new website, titled On Probation:



What I like about this site, is that although it's clearly a partisan presentation, it isn't overtly so. When you contrast the professional, "just the facts" theme, with the hyper-partisan, Harper orgy, presented on the government's website, the Liberals strike a more serious tone. On a stylistic note, but I'm sure not by accident, the lack of red is clever, because again, one can see this site as more than a Liberal propaganda vehicle. This is a subtle presentation, that gets its point across, without being offensive.

In terms of Liberal propaganda, this site provides another tool to get our message across, that the opposition is holding the government to account. The name choice is great, because it further cements our simple messaging, in soundbite form, a frame that easily resonates.

Thumbs up.

Positive Initiatives, Questionable Strategy

I just watched an interview with Ignatieff, wherein he articulated that EI reform would be at the top of our agenda, moving forward. The idea that the current system isn't equipped or structured to adequately deal with the economic crisis. The Liberals will bring forth ideas to overhaul EI, so that workers are protected. I'm pleased to hear Ignatieff make EI reform a priority for the Liberals. However, I don't quite understand the logic in telegraphing our "strategy" moving forward.

Ignatieff said that in the "next six to eight weeks" the Liberals would present something to Parliament, in the hopes of getting reforms passed. It's hard for me to see the benefit, essentially tipping off the Conservatives, giving them a timeline of what to expect from our side. Particularly when we are talking about weeks, it allows the government to "prepare". Given what we know about Harper's tactics, we can fully expect the possibility that the Conservatives will act pre-emptively, if they see a potential issue which could cast them in a poor light, they will seize the initiative and present something on their own. Ignatieff essentially tells the Conservatives, in broad strokes, what is coming down the pipe from the Liberals, potential pressure points. Does anybody think the Conservatives aren't glad to have this information? Does anybody doubt that the Conservative strategists won't devise counters, won't come up with their own measures to neuter any call by the Liberals? I applaud the focus, but the public pronouncement is questionable at best.

Looking Good

A new NANOS poll, which translates to objectively good news for the Liberals. Nanos pegs the Liberals national support at the highest we've seen since Harper was first elected, and the regionals look even better. First, the horserace numbers:

Liberal Party 36% (+3)
Conservative Party 33% (-1)
NDP 13% (-3)
BQ 10% (NC)
Green Party 8% (+1)
(*Note: Undecided 11%)

Another poll, which confirms the same trends. Liberals on the uptick, with the NDP support tanking to worrying levels( the last NANOS poll also showed a 3% erosion for the party). This poll, while still quite close, gives the Liberals the largest "gap"(still within MOE) we've seen in years.

NANOS gives the Liberals a huge edge in Ontario:

Libs 44%
Cons 31%
NDP 14%
Greens 10%

Those numbers would represent a huge seat swing in Ontario, particularly if the NDP is less of a vote splitting factor.

In Quebec, more good news for the Liberals, as NANOS puts them within striking distance of the Bloc:

Bloc 36%
Libs 32%
Cons 19%
NDP 7%
Greens 6%

The last batch of polls all show a rise for the Liberal in Quebec, which translates into plenty of potential come the next election.

The Liberals are way ahead in Atlantic Canada, with 46% support, a dynamic which is confirmed elsewhere. Also, the Liberals are up to 30%(plus 4%) in the "west", a steady rise over the last few NANOS polls. As a matter of fact, it's pretty much good news across the country for the Liberals, all the numbers pointing in the right direction.

In terms of the best PM measure, no movement from the last NANOS poll, but Ignatieff is very well positioned:

Stephen Harper 33 (+1)
Michael Ignatieff 27 (-1)
Jack Layton 12 (-2)
Gilles Duceppe 6 (+1)
Elizabeth May 6 (+1)
None of them 7 (NC)
Unsure 9 (NC)

Again, we see that Layton's popularity is really suffering. It is quite encouraging to see an opposition leader so close to a sitting PM, and these type of findings bode well for a campaign(Ignatieff now leads Harper in Ontario, which is exceptional).

I don't think it a stretch, to say this is probably the best poll we've seen for the Liberals in literally years, all factors considered. The nationals and regionals point to a clear minority victory.

On Unintended Consequences

It really is an incredibly amusing reaction, because in the final analysis, all the Conservative focus on "gritgirl" does is elevate. Complaining, and the latest call to arms merely brings more attention, the Conservatives are perpetuating any buzz that existed. The bottomline, the Conservatives can always find something to solicit funds from the paranoid minions, their latest effort features the recurring theme of entity under fire from "powerful special interests". With that in mind, in using "gritgirl", a nebulous unknown, whatever monetary gain is offset by highlighting the offense in question. What is really indie, is in danger of becoming mainstream, because the Conservatives reaction amounts to free exposure.

In reality Mr. Finley, it's the Conservatives who are "sloppy" here:

Subject: Liberal hypocrisy is back.

March 19, 2009

Dear [Conservative supporter],

Liberal hypocrisy is back.

After having their Leader and National Director decry the use of negative political advertising, the Liberal "War Room" has been actively promoting television-ready anti-Conservative attack ads on the web.

Given that the style, sourcing and messaging of the ads are identical to attack material being generated by paid Liberal staff, it's clear that the Liberal "War Room" is test-driving ads.

What does this mean?

First, the Liberals are sloppy . The Liberal "War Room" has tipped its leader's hand by demonstrating that the Party's opposition to attack ads and shallow, manufactured outrage is nothing more than a lie.

Second, the Liberals will say anything to win . The ads being promoted by the Liberal "War Room" are full of errors. Time and time again, the Liberal attack ads misquote and distort the words of our Prime Minister

Third and finally, Conservatives must be ready to respond . Unlike the Liberals, we can't rely on powerful special interests to deliver our messages for us. We need to have the financial and volunteer resources to fight back.

Have the Liberals really tipped their hands? Seems to me, the Conservatives are chasing shadows. All the Conservatives have done is create more anticipation for the next video. Don't get me wrong, these videos have been a hit, but let's keep it real. The amount of views are large by certain stands, but miniscule in a general sense, you could walk on any street today, pull aside a thousand people and get nothing but blank looks when you mention this infamous "gritgirl". These videos are inside the beltway stuff, more about psychological warfare, than any genuine attack to shape public opinion. However, by reacting as such, the Conservatives are validating a threat, creating more intrigue, doing everything you shouldn't.

I have no idea the origin, but I'm willing to bet the Liberal war room is quite pleased with the Conservatives out of proportion, hyper-sensitive reaction to mostly obscure jabs.

I Wonder If It Has Anything To Do With Quality?

As the government ponders aid for life support publications like the National Post, it is quite telling, not to mention beyond embarrassing, that this "paper" can't even snag ONE NOMINATION for the Newspaper Awards. To be fair, NP did receive a nomination, in the highly respected "Most Absorbent Bird Cage Liner" category:

TORONTO — The Globe and Mail leads the pack of finalists with 13 nominations in the running for the 2008 National Newspaper Awards to be announced May 22 in Montreal.

The Toronto Star has 10 nominations, followed by Montreal's La Presse with eight.

The Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald and Hamilton Spectator each collected four.

The Canadian Press earned three nominations and the London Free Press, Montreal Gazette and Winnipeg Free Press had two each.

The Barrie Examiner, Brantford Expositor, Edmonton Journal, Lethbridge Herald, North Bay Nugget, Prince George Citizen, Reuters, New Brunswick (Saint John) Telegraph-Journal, Simcoe Reformer, Toronto Sun, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times-Colonist, Record of Waterloo Region and Windsor Star have one each.

The "guru" has more commentary on the journalistic beacon that is the National Post.

The Blitz

Yesterday alone, I saw a new government commercial three times, pumping the "Canada Economic Action Plan". Today, I note an ad on the CTV website:


It's not uncommon, for the government of the day to use taxpayer money to push their messaging. However, given that this website is really nothing more than a visual orgy of all things Stephen Harper, it raises the question of misuse of public funds. I've never seen anything so political in nature presented, under the guise of communicating with Canadians. The fact that the Conservatives are apparently spending oodles of money, with the sole purpose of making Harper look good, is worthy of real scrutiny.

With massive deficits on the horizon, are we really comfortable with this hyper-partisan expenditure?:



The TV ads are quite misleading, in that encourage people to visit the website, thinking they will learn more about initiatives. When you arrive, all you learn, is that Stephen Harper is an egomaniac and apparently the recession is secondary to improving electoral chances. Nobody in the media, finds this type of obscene waste of money troubling? Maybe, after the bailouts.... ;)

"Out Of Touch" Poll

Give it a try:

Good Rant

I wonder if Stephen Taylor sees justification?



The quality is quite professional- you do the math. From the CBC no less, I mean come on.

Have You Seen My Forebrain?

It's all part of the vast left wing media conspiracy, don't you know? If there is anything, that's more intellectually BORING, than this auto-pilot reaction to EVERYTHING that dares challenge Conservatives, let me know. Today, unaware of irony it seems, the NP attacks the Goodyear story, referring to it as a "witch hunt" by the Globe and Mail.

Yesterday, I listened to a radio talk show, discussing Goodyear's predicament. What was amazing, the common theme of Conservative supporters calling in, discounting the substance and instead, with singular zeal, going after that "left wing" rag, known as the Globe and Mail. Clearly, and this view is furthered by the unabashed conservative publication, this whole story is really about a media, bent on destroying the Harper government. I actually turned off the radio at some point, amazed at the sheer stupidity on display.

If you want to see the true ideological bent of a particular publication, or more correctly, a sense of "fair" analysis, there is nothing more indicative than a election ENDORSEMENT. Beyond comical, to the point of concerning, that people actually think the G and M is an organ of the Liberal Party. A paper, who's television cousin went out of it's way to undermine Dion, a paper that CHOSE Stephen Harper in the last election. There are always differing "opinions", and then they are bottomline considerations, that cut through the fog of debate- endorsing Harper obliterates any feeble counter, as to bias, in fact, probably more powerful that the OPPOSITE is true. How anyone can actually argue the Goodyear story is another example of the left wing plot, given the clarity of objective FACT, is just stunning. More than a testament to "bias", listening to this counter nonsense, really tells us that common sense isn't that common after all.

You Started It

It's sort of amusing to listen to Conservatives whine about being attacked, not to mention the paranoia about the source, black ops and what not. Who knew a few little YouTube videos could unnerve the Conservatives, to the point of actually trying to block them, and in so doing making it BIGGER than otherwise would have been the case? According to Taylor, this is all justification for the Conservatives to unleash their fury and rain down on the hapless Liberals:

If the Conservatives are looking for an opening to unleash a barrage against Ignatieff and the Liberals this may be it as their actions would appear to be defensive rather than offensive.

Oh, good luck with that rationale. Remember all this talk about putting the economy first and seeking bipartisanship? Well, it's off now, because some anonymous person on the internet made a few videos, some bloggers linked, and that represents a breach of the non-aggression pact, so here comes the shit storm of negativity. Never mind, that our pathetic minions have been wasting time in Parliament to slam the Liberals for weeks, so bad they had their knuckles smacked by the Speaker, this is game on. Please. Gosh, I sure hope the Conservatives are dumb enough to take Taylor's advice.

Just the mere mention of Conservative attack ads brought a flurry of editorials chastising the timing, reaffirming all the unproductive narratives that now plague the Conservatives. If anyone is stupid enough to think the YouTube assault absolves any blow back, my goodness, get some fresh air. That said, you know these people are itching, negativity is what they do best, and there is a sense that the Liberals have the ball. It really won't take much to tilt the balance, lessen the sense of hesitation and pounce.

I have to admit, I hope the Conservatives miss the plot here and unleash their barrage. This isn't 2006, and this isn't Dion, it's nothing of the sort. This is post cluster fuck 2008, wherein Harper blew any remaining political capital to justify his hyper-partisan ways. Haven't you noticed, that even a hint of "old" Harper now brings a wide ranging rehash of all the things we've never liked, and all the reasons why the Conservatives haven't reached their primary goal? Throw in the economy, the very serious circumstance, and going negative for the Conservatives is problematic at best. We WILL pounce on THEIR tactics, and quirky references to some obscure "gritgirl" won't quite cut it, on the "they started it" front.

Here's a plausible theoretical. The Conservatives respond to the "insurgent" attack on YouTube as Taylor refers, and release an ad, detailing what a pseudo-Canadian Ignatieff is, alerting the masses to the elitist which lurks. The ads come out to much fanfare, as everyone digests the shock and awe that is the Conservative machine. What, pray tell, will the Liberals do? It just so happens, that like everyday, a new measure or forecast is released, a fresh piece of data, that confirms the historical mess that is unravelling. Armed with reality, it's pretty easy to see the Liberal response, that accomplishes a great deal. Every time bad news is released, you contrast that real fear in Canadians with the Conservatives wasting time scoring political points. I can literally HEAR Ignatieff now, as he easily pivots and SHOVES the attack right back in their faces. Probably more important, how many pesky scribes will see the disconnect and point out the issue of priorities? How many more reminders of past behavior, rearing it's UGLY head again? You know, there's a reason why the ads haven't come to date, and it's because a few Conservative strategists do have their wits about them. Should a few YouTube videos push people to discard their rational deduction, in the end, I say it will all turn out to be a BOOMERANG.

Ouch

Truth hurts. I noticed the Conservative ad, used a dead policy that everybody knows is past tense, and a tax hike that hasn't been put forward. The contrast is striking, one so desperate they invent, the other a simple "on the record" statement of fact. Nice.

New Poll

The last Angus Reid poll had one of the larger gaps between the two principle parties. Today's release brings AR in line with other pollsters, many of the trends we've seen in other polls are largely replicated. Also, very good news for Ignatieff in the internals, the only leader to show a positive score. First, the horserace numbers, which show a 9% spread narrowing to 4%:

35 per cent of respondents (-3) say they would vote for the Tories in the next federal election, followed by the Grits with 31 per cent (+2), the New Democratic Party (NDP) with 16 per cent (-2), the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent (+2), and the Green Party with seven per cent (+2).

Another polling trendline, that looks positive for the Liberals. AR has consistently shown the Conservatives on the cusp of majority, this is the closest gap since the last election, with the Conservatives at a low for this pollster.

In terms of the regionals, more evidence of an uptick for the Liberals, and a downward trend for the Conservatives in Quebec:

Bloc 38%
Libs 29%
Cons 16%
NDP 13%
Greens 3%

In Ontario, the last AR poll gave the Conservatives a healthy 8% lead. This latest offering shows a significant shift, the Liberals now statistically ahead. Also, another poll that shows the NDP falling off quite badly in Ontario:

Libs 39%(up 6%)
Cons 38%(down 3%)
NDP 12%(down 7%)
Greens 10%(up 4%

Again, we see evidence of a polarization in Ontario, with the NDP getting the squeeze. Last week, two other pollsters mirrored the same very poor trend for the NDP, to concerning levels. Interestingly, the pollster sees the NDP vote siphoning off to the Liberals:

Much of the Liberal increase from the last election seems to have come from the NDP. In fact, nearly a quarter (22%) of people who voted NDP in 2008 are now supporting or leaning towards Ignatieff’s Liberals.

In terms of party leadership, we have two themes. One, Ignatieff is narrowing Harper's advantage, the only leader to show a positive trend. The other trend shows Layton suffering, a situation referred to as "dire" by the pollster.

Best PM, a virtual tie:

A tight race continues when Canadians asked which of the five federal party leaders would make the best head of government. Conservative leader and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (26%) is barely ahead of Ignatieff (24%). NDP leader Jack Layton is a distant third with 10 per cent

Momentum:

The Liberal leader posted a positive momentum score (+4), while the remaining four federal party leaders did not perform as well. One-in-four respondents (26%) say their opinion of Ignatieff improved over the course of the past month, while 22 per cent report a decline. A third of Canadians (34%) say their opinion of Harper has worsened. May holds a negative momentum score of -11.

For Layton, the situation is dire. The NDP leader posted the worst momentum score this month (-27) and half of Canadians (50%) disapprove of the performance of the party he commands.

The survey shows that the NDP—a few weeks removed from an electoral campaign that was designed to promote Layton as PM material—is facing a tough battle. There is marked increase in the proportion of Canadians who disapprove of the party's performance, and little positive momentum for its leader.

The fact that Ignatieff is tied on the best PM score is quite significant, because we rarely see an opposition leader in this position. Further good news, when we look at some of the individual measures:

Manage the economy:
Harper 31%(down 3%)
Ignatieff 24%(up 4%)

Strong and decisive leader:

Harper 43%(down 3%)
Ignatieff 31% (up 2%)

The two leaders are tied on "who understands complex issues", Ignatieff lead on "inspiring confidence", Harper on "vision". The key number that is encouraging, Ignatieff has cut the economy management gap in half. Obviously, an important measure, and Ignatieff is now well poised to look the credible alternative.

In terms of how the various parties are viewed by the public, the Liberals are the only ones to show an uptick (up 5%), while the Conservatives (down 2%) and NDP (down 3%) are viewed less favorably. These type of numbers show the Liberals are suffering no ill effects, or more rightly the attack lines are weak, because of their post-budget position. If anything, it suggest the official opposition is doing it's job, in the minds of Canadians.

All in all, another positive result for the Liberals, relatively speaking. Many of the internals leave room for optimism, and Ignatieff is performing well.

Quotas And Kneejerk Reactions

As soon as I read the piece today on the Liberals former gender specific "quota" being put into question, it took about a nanosecond to realize it would be seized upon as evidence of a step back, anti-progressive if you will. Bullocks. In the words of someone who got there on her own merit, and is turning into a star within the party:

"Personally I'm not a fan of quotas," Ms. Hall Findlay. "It's difficult for me as a woman to say that because there are a whole lot of people who feel strongly about quotas, but my focus is on getting more women to run period. I don't need a number to tell me that, and I don't need a number to tell me we don't have enough."

Martha articulates where the focus should be, and it's really the most respectful "formula". In my opinion, there is nothing more pandering to women than a system which says you require artificial help to compete with the boys. I've always hated the past quota ideal, frankly it was a end around to doing the really hard work, a pleasant front that was more about process than progress. Much, much better to have people like Martha using her sway to encourage more potential candidates, that seeks quality, rather than some sort of fundraising thermometer feel.

I would rather the Liberals approach the gender issue as one where we seek out, rather than dictate. Maybe we reach a greater percentage, maybe we don't, but you acknowledge disparity and look for talent. Then, you get in the trenches and let the best bipedal person carry the nomination day. Far better to put people through their paces, than telling a membership who can and can't run, frankly it's all very insulting. Strength of resume, articulation of ideas, sound character, the ability to inspire, those are the pre-requisites. I could care less the gender, given the way we lost swaths of "women" in the last election, despite our attractive banner, I'd say it's inconsequential.

Is there a disparity? Absolutely, but I'm much more comfortable with an approach that recognizes without legislating. In the final analysis, the ideal is much better served without the spectre of quotas, which undermines genuine abilities. It's hard to reconcile how equality is achieved using necessitated inequalities- merit not mandate, with a recognition of attracting.

Family Of 4, You Owe 2500 Hundred More (plus interest)

If there is one constant, during this economic downturn, it's that the Conservatives are completely devoid of any foresight. Every time the Conservatives comment or calculate, project or pontificate, they are quickly undermined by the facts, or challenged by independent analysis. It happens with almost ABSOLUTE certainty.

Just seven weeks ago, Flaherty delivered the budget and his deficit projections. Today, a "real" economist delivers a scathing report, which suggests the deficit for the next two years will be a staggering 30% beyond what Flaherty presented. Granted, this is just one forecast, but given this is the same economist who said we were in recession when Harper was saying the worst was probably behind us and Flaherty was in denial, I know who I'm inclined to believe:

The worsening recession will drive Ottawa $18-billion deeper into deficit over the next two years, a leading economist is predicting - an increase beyond existing government forecasts that appears set to push annual budget shortfalls into record territory.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank's calculations - using their updated economic forecasts - would see Canada's federal debt swell by $81.5-billion over the next two years instead of by $63.5-billion as the Harper government forecasted seven weeks ago.

"This illustrates the risks that are inherent in the economy right now," Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond said.

Canadians are ready to except deficit spending during a recession, in many respects the government receives a free pass. However, when just mere weeks after your budget- which represented a major revision from your fiscal update, which represented a major revision from your election rhetoric- we start to see further evidence of bad forecasting and "rosy" forecasts, that "pass" from the public becomes massive baggage.

What we are seeing here, a distinct pattern, wherein the Conservatives look completely out of touch, continually unable to read the landscape and plan accordingly. You can't keep blaming the changing economic indicators, particularly when the contradictions come so quickly. How can Kevin Page get it right, and not Jim Flaherty? How can Don Drummond see worsening conditions, while Harper thinks it's time to brag? It's one thing to weather a storm, quite another to continually get it wrong, at every single turn.

It's a long time before the deficit projections come home to roost, and we all know how good Flaherty is at covering up the bad news bottomline, but this really speaks to credibility. Tell the average Canadian, a family of four now owes $2500 more than they did just seven weeks ago, not including the interest, and you might start to see more angst. If, we start to see more forecasts, and Carney's climbdown this weekend is further evidence, then this particularly disconnect between the Conservatives and reality, might just be the final nail, from which they'll never recover.

Every Little Bit Helps

CTV's political roundtable today was discussing how the Conservatives have effectively "given up" on Quebec. Judging the sentiment, it looks like Quebecers have given up on the Conservatives, but let's not split hairs. It appears a Conservative MP is trying to help the process along:

Tory MP under fire for language comments about Quebecers

A backbench Tory MP from Quebec City has landed himself in hot water after describing Quebecers as a bunch of "illiterates" when it comes to the English language.

"Whether in elementary or secondary (school), English is practically swept under the rug (in Quebec)," Petit, 60, said last week at the House of Commons official languages committee. "At the university level, it's even worse. We have illiterates of the second language."

But Petit's remarks contradict recent statistics which revealed that French-speaking Quebecers were more likely to be bilingual than their English-speaking counterparts in the rest of Canada. A new research analysis by the Association for Canadian Studies concluded that many francophones are getting enough exposure to their second language in school to propel them to excel in bilingualism in their mid-teen years and after they hit the workforce.


"Whatever (francophones) have learned, however uneven or insufficient their learning is, it seems be enough to push them into a very significant degree of bilingualism, once they've finished school," said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the association, in an interview. "Anglophones in the rest of the country, don't seem to have the opportunity or excitement . . . about learning the other language."


Critics quickly pounced on the gaffe from the Tory MP who has developed a reputation for stirring up controversy.

Every little bit helps.

Getting Lonely Out There

Harper has lost one of his few optimistic allies, the Bank of Canada is coming back to earth:

Central bank ditches economic rebound prediction

The Bank of Canada seems to have ditched its prediction for a made-in-Canada economic rebound next year.

Speaking to reporters at the Group of 20 finance ministers meeting in Horsham, Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney hinted strongly that his last forecast for 3.8 per cent growth in 2010 is no longer valid. “Clearly the risks are breaking to the downside,” he said, referring to the string of grim Canadian and international growth data in recent weeks.

Quite a feat, how Harper consistently positions himself to look completely detached from the reality in front of his nose. If you have stock in the CPC, now might be a good time to SELL.

Another Poll, Similar Trends

Harris Decima poll, which mirrors some trends we've seen from other pollsters recently. Liberals up in Quebec, NDP support eroding and now some evidence of improved Liberal fortunes in British Columbia. Nationally, a slight uptick for the Liberals, relative to the last HD poll:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey put the Liberals at 33 per cent and the Conservatives at 32.

The NDP was at 14 per cent, the Greens at 10, and the Bloc Quebecois at nine.

The last HD poll had it 33% Cons, 31% Libs, so minor movement, with the Quebec numbers looking quite good:

The Conservatives have also seen their support in Quebec cut in half. The Bloc remains in front with 39 per cent support, while the Liberals have moved up to 32. The Tories have slid to 13, the NDP are at nine and the Greens at six.

The last batch of polls have all shown the Liberal numbers improving, while the Conservatives are really faltering. The 32% represents a recent high water mark for the Liberals with HD, as they seem to be emerging as the federalist option. I'd mentioned before, that the Bloc bounce we saw around the budget was part that dynamic, as well as Duceppe's 90% endorsement by Bloc rank and file. That uptick appears to have waned somewhat, and the numbers seem to show the Liberals taking advantage (this week's SC poll also suggested the Liberals were gaining at the Bloc's expense). The Conservatives are in real trouble, with each successive poll, the dire numbers cemented.

Ontario shows a tight race, with the Liberals up 38% to the Conservatives 34%, numbers fairly static from the last HD poll, and reasonably in line with others. What is particularly striking, another poll that shows the NDP hitting new lows. Earlier this week we saw a 12% number, now HD adds weight with a concerning 13%. Given this is ground zero on the economy, whatever message the NDP is putting forth isn't resonating, and they look increasingly marginalized.

We've seen some signs of slight improvement in British Columbia, and HD would also seem to suggest that:

In British Columbia, Liberal fortunes have improved significantly since the last election, but the Conservatives remain solidly ahead. The Conservatives lead with 38% followed by the Liberals with 32%, the NDP at 19% and the Greens at 9%.

High MOE, but if you look at all the polling for HD for the last few months, you see the Liberals pretty consistent, slightly above the 30% mark. You can't understate how important British Columbia might be in the next election, given where the Liberals will need to grow, so these numbers are encouraging.

Also, another poll which shows a strong Liberal lead in the Atlantic provinces.

The pollster concludes that women are moving back to the Liberals, and gives Ignatieff part of the credit:

It suggests the Tories trail the Liberals by five percentage points among women overall and by 12 points among urban women.

Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima, said that's the important finding.

"Women are moving back toward the Liberals, where they had been leaning toward the Conservatives leading up to and then at the election in (October.)

"It's women overall, but in particular, among urban-dwelling women, the Liberals are ahead of the Conservatives by 12 points now and they were even at the time of the last election."

Walker said the arrival of Michael Ignatieff as Liberal leader seems to be one key to this shift. The economy is the other.

Many traditional Liberals abandoned the party under Stephane Dion, Walker noted.

"Having Ignatieff as leader of the Liberals changes that.

Given the regional distributions, if this poll were true, it would be a slight Liberal minority. That aside, this poll does support similar trends found elsewhere, which are positives for the Liberals moving forward. Interesting to see if the numbers move further in the next few months, or if we're now headed for a holding pattern, until the next election.

What's Wrong With The "Center"?

This quote, from Ignatieff, highlights much of the debate, as it relates to ideological compass:

Ignatieff also acknowledges that he is repositioning his party: “Yes, I’m moving the party to the centre because I think we win from the centre. We win when people believe we are moderate, pragmatic, sensible party that connects to what Canadians are worried about.”

Some left of center people, like myself, get quite animated, after reading comments like the above. Not the low rent, kneejerk, intellectually challenged babies, but the genuine people, with genuine concerns about party direction. I've chosen my own version of pragmatism to reconcile any philosophical disconnect, others are free to do their own math, debate is healthy. The question really becomes- is the "center" a bad place politically?

When Ignatieff speaks of moving to the center, it is really nothing more than positioning ourselves to appeal to mainstream Canada. The center, by definition, is the place on the spectrum that has the capacity to appeal to the greatest percentage of Canadians. The Canadian "center" is nothing more than the middle ground between our societal extremes. With that simple fact in mind, it is hard to argue against positioning that is largely reflective and "connects". It's more a question of degree, than it is approach.

Supporting Ignatieff was always a compromise, based on my leanings. Reconciling the ideal with the practical, very much encapulated within our new position on the oil sands. If I was left to my own devices, put in charge, the tar sands would lie dormant, until somebody figured out a sustainable way to extract without doing great damage, no solution forecoming, no dirty oil. That's my personal view, but I've never been naive enough to think it extends beyond my wants, or is reflective of majority opinion. The fact of the matter, which I've known all along, the oil will be extracted, simple economic realities don't disappear, multi-nationals don't fold up because I attended a rally, the people directly affected will fight to keep projects moving forward- in other words, the tar sands are here to stay. The pragmatic view is to marry some semblance of environmental considerations with the other inate forces within the economy. That brings me back to Ignatieff, not ideal, but some recognition of environment moving forward. Maybe it's to do with my only face to face with Ignatieff, where we talked about the environment, and I came away with a sense of sincerity- he may be a good steward to balance all the forces at play. As it relates to the "center" the balancing act does speak to mainstream society, if samplings are a true indication, Ignatieff is right in the pocket in terms of "connection", not just in the "patch", but in places like Ontario too. One could argue that it's out of step in Quebec, but let's not forget that Harper the most right wing PM in our history was on the cusp of a real breakthrough, which suggests other issues tend to blur the spectrum debate in that province(see Mulroney too).

My point, I'll make the compromise, because after all, the "center" isn't some radical philosophy imposed on the Canadian people, it's where most of us live. It's really no different than Obama, who ran left in the primaries, like every successful Dem in history, then did a sizable shift in the general to curry favor, to amass a winning coalition of voters. I suspect Ignatieff is moving "us" for the same reason, and I have no problems with the Liberals looking "sensible" to the average Canadian, that's your overarching audience.

I see the difference between the two principle parties as such. One moved to the center to try and expand support, but within that political calculation, every opportunity taken to implement right leaning ideals, whether it be policy, program cuts or enhancements, government operation, some subtle things that in totality amount to seismic. I'm thinking needles, funding for science, arts, multilateralism at the UN, hard targets, EI as "lucrative", etc, etc. The other party is moving to the center under the same political calculus, but it will have a flirtation with progressive ideals, where merited, and that makes the contrast all the more important. Returning to my earlier example, if I have two choices as to federal government, overseeing something like the tar sands moving forward, I'll pick Ignatieff every single time.

If one eliminates their own particular view of the world, and extrapolates to Canada as a whole, trying to reconcile competiting interests, rather than imposing, then the "center" is entirely acceptable. Ideal no, realistic, why of course.

" If There Ever Was A Time To Put Away That Legendary Canadian Modesty, It Is Now":Stephen Harper

Sing it from the rooftops, we're leading the pack:

Job losses accelerate
Unemployment rate surges to 7.7 per cent; 295,000 positions gone since October


"Canada now appears to be losing jobs at a faster pace than the U.S...

Employers eliminated 82,600 jobs in Canada last month – a painfully steep decline, but one that was mitigated by the addition of 28,300 new part-time jobs, partially offsetting the drop of 110,900 full-time positions.

The ranks of the unemployed bulged by 105,800 people last month, boosting the total of unemployed people to 1.42 million, Statistics Canada said.

Harper made a point of using statistics to show Canada's strength, relative to the Americans. Interesting, that in the last three months, Canada has shed 40% more jobs per capita than the Americans. Harper's speech in Ontario was telling, because it has the most to brag about, it's unemployment rate now easily surpassing the carnage down south:

In other words, Ontario has shed 160,000 positions since October, including 35,000 in February alone. The unemployment rate surged 0.7 percentage points to 8.7 per cent last month

The American unemployment rate is 8.1%, so again you can see how well Canada's doing relatively. Good luck catching up Yanks, we got game, and the momentum to boot!

March 10, 2009, will be Stephen Harper's "mission accomplished" moment...

UPDATE:

I swear it isn't me, but this is the second time this week I've posted, then minutes later saw the latest gem: