A Net Negative

A little late to the party here, but a few thoughts on last week's developments. I'll try to approach my analysis from a non-partisan perspective. I don't think there is any question whatsoever that the Liberals completely fumbled their strategy, whereas Harper managed to improve his standing moving forward. I also think the NDP and Bloc have solidified themselves as practically irrelevant and superficial.

Since I was away, my impressions were confined to newscasts and publications, which meant little exposure to the partisan rationalizations and mostly marginal "details" of the final resolution. What I saw, a Liberal Party that boxed itself in on probably the least advantageous issue available. Ignatieff came out guns a blazing, with ultimatums on a few issues. The stance was such, it unnecessarily raised expectations on what would be required for a final resolution. Harper's reaction was steadfast, and although Ignatieff secured a face to face, which ultimately left a few scraps, the climbdown from the initial position to the conclusion was striking.

For the first time, the characterization of "weak" was applicable. What's worse, the Liberal strategy lent itself to self inflicted damage. The problem was the Liberals never had the stomach for an election, and the maneouvers after the initial "tough" stance proved it in spades. If one has that knowledge beforehand, it's pure folly to over reach, because you know a backtrack could transpire. What the Liberals did, is firmly put the ball in Harper's court, but in such a way that he had the leverage. For all intent and purposes, the Liberals were a paper tiger. Posturing without conviction to see it through, all unnecessary and risky.

The "concessions" the Liberals received where really nothing of the sort. Our main tenet on EI reform, the qualification number is off the table, it's dead and to be truthful we've already lost the PR battle on "45 days". What's left, Ignatieff now parroting Harper on EI- the Conservatives already had the self employed inclusion in their platform and Harper is on record saying the different regional standards are a problem. Harper was right to shrug in his post-resolution presser, that really he's agreed to nothing he already didn't want. Ignatieff was left to champion part of the Conservative platform as though his own, hardly a compelling talking point. There won't be a fall showdown over EI, because Harper will give enough to make an election over an impasse look ridiculous. The kicker, what the Conservatives end up "compromising" on will be on ground they already largely own. Harper agreed to this discussion over the summer because he effectively will get a Afghanistan redux, wherein he neutralizes the Liberals by presenting a non-partisan approach to Canadians.

As it relates to the opposition day in the fall, that's a strategic point and I'm glad we have it. However, to Canadians, a big whatever, so it's hard to argue this is a feather in Ignatieff's cap. The Liberals extracted another chance to force an election nobody wanted anyways- hardly something that resonates or matters in the grand scheme.

It's fair to beat up on the Liberals for their game plan the past week, but it sure as hell shouldn't be coming from NDP or Bloc partisans. Once again, knee jerk rejection that really looks more foolish with each successive example. The NDP are broke, their fundraising sucks at the moment, their polling is particularly bad where it matters most- an election now almost rationally absurd. And yet, there we see the toothless lion roaring, chest glistening, all a by-product of marginalization. The simple fact of the matter, the NDP have absolved themselves of all reasonable responsibility to make Parliament work, instead they effectively endorse the concept of 4 or 5 elections a year. That's the NDP stance in a nutshell, using the Liberals for cover, letting them be the adults, while they operate in theoretical land in a misguided attempt to look "strong". If there is one piece of advice I would offer to the Liberals, rather than ignoring the NDP, strategy wise I would make a point of highlighting their voluntary irrelevance to the proceedings.

Harper extracted what he wanted- time and a modest agenda moving forward. Harper actually addressed his chief weakness, he looked stately rather than petty. EI is now the fall benchmark, and I see little difficulty in manoeuvring enough to effectively neuter the issue as a trigger. Meanwhile, the Liberals have exhausted a certain amount of political capital, Ignatieff is left with his first truly below par performance and the media frame is adjusting. I see the wisdom in wanting a fall election, rather than plunging us into a campaign nobody wanted, the threat of voter backlash probably more likely than any recent example. However, if the Liberals had that knowledge in the first place, it's hard to justify the unnecessary posturing, because the conviction was forever lacking and subsequent events revealed that for all to see.

Getaway Day

Heading off to visit a few old haunts in southwestern British Columbia. Cheers.

Liberals Lead On "Issues"

The new extensive EKOS poll has plenty of good news for the Liberals, as they widen their lead. What's also interesting, the Liberals now lead the Conservatives by a healthy margins on "issue" based questions.

Nationally, EKOS gives the Liberals a 5% advantage, up from the narrow 1% edge we saw in the last EKOS offering. Pretty much in line with others, although EKOS notes the gap soared to 8% after the Raitt fiasco.

Regionally, while Ontario remains fluid there seems to be a new volatility range. A couple of weeks ago, we saw several firms that showed a narrowing, the Liberal lead shrinking, although ahead. Prior to that, we had seen double digit gaps, the Liberals in the 40's. Now, a few polls are showing a return to the wide gap, which suggests that the volatility is a question of size of lead now, rather than the previous back and forth we've seen in previous years. EKOS has the Liberals at 43%, Conservatives 32% and the NDP still at a concerning 15%. This type of gap, coupled with a lack of vote splitting, as we've seen elsewhere recently, translates into a large swing in seat totals.

EKOS maintains the dynamic in Quebec, Liberals and Bloc neck and neck, both up slightly from the last poll, Conservatives trending down.

A huge advantage for the Liberals in Atlantic Canada, over both the Conservatives and NDP. Given the size of this poll, the margin of error is relatively low for this reason, so the numbers are noteworthy. Liberals 43%, Conservatives 26%, NDP 24%.

Interestingly, EKOS again shows a neck and neck race in British Columbia. The last EKOS polls showed a dead heat, and this is replicated with this latest offering. Conservatives 31%, Liberals 30%, NDP 25%. My friends in British Columbia tell me to be cautious, but positive signs indeed.

While the numbers are good across the board for the Liberals, what is particularly relevant with this poll, the issue orientated numbers. Canadians are asked to comment on importance of issues and who is best able to deal with them. The overall score on issues gives the Liberals a substantial lead:

Which party is best able to deal with these issues, overall score?

Libs 38%
Cons 29%
NDP 17%

Of particular importance, on the question of jobs and unemployment, the Liberals lead 41% to 31%. That suggests real erosion on the last remaining "strong suit" for the Conservatives, managing the economy. We also see the two parties basically tied on the question of who is best able to deal with the deficit.

The Cheese Factor

I honestly don't know if I can stand to watch this stunning spectacle:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to present a rosy picture of his Conservative government's handling of the recession Thursday in a slick made-for-TV presentation designed to forestall a quick summer election.

The planned event in the southwestern Ontario industrial city of Cambridge will feature the prime minister releasing the government's report on the effectiveness of government policies at the Armenian Community Centre.

The presentation will be moderated by Senator Mike Duffy, a former television journalist, and feature Harper, flanked by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley and Gary Goodyear, the local MP and Minister of State for Science. It will include a staged interview segment between Harper and Duffy.

Duffy has been doing staged interviews with Conservatives for years, so this should be old hat.

The fact the government is resorting to this cheesy approach to sell themselves, is a statement in itself. You don't need slick if you've got the goods, you don't fear a REAL interview, if you have compelling answers. This concoction reeks of a charlatan.

“Am I going to get blamed for this?”

Lisa Raitt seems to have a preoccupation with appearances. Today, we learn more about the Jim Prentice angle, and it's noteworthy not because she calls the wind energy group "whiny" and again shows concern for her career, but because it reveals something about this government's environmental priorities:

Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Now that this priority discussion is in the public record, I think Canadians would like to know what Mr. Prentice has to say. Apparently, something is afoot, because Prentice won't talk, always a sign with this government that something substantive lies underneath:

Mr. Prentice's office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister's office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Ooooh, they'll end media availability, if someone dares ask Prentice a question about his file. The nerve of some people.

Harris Decima Poll

A new release from Harris Decima, which provides a very positive trend in Ontario's 905 region for the Liberals. Apart from that confirmation, which was sort of self-evident given recent polling for Ontario, this poll is more of the same:

On a national basis, voter intentions give the Liberals 35 per cent, the Conservatives 31, the NDP 15, the Bloc nine and the Greens eight.

No regionals yet, although HD gives the Liberals a "double digit" lead in Ontario.

This poll from HD is similar to their last offering, and it's similar to other pollster findings. It appears we are settling in here at the moment, a slight Liberal lead nationally, barely outside of margin of error. A more noteworthy advantage when you factor in the regionals, Quebec looks to be firming up as a true dynamic, as does Ontario.

I'll post the regionals when they come out...

Silly Me

I have to stop projecting my own sense of what constitutes an acceptable response. Yesterday, resignation or not, I fully expected Raitt to rise prior to QP and offer some sort of apology. When that didn't happen, I thought we would surely see something during the back and forth. CBC's Susan Bonner commented after QP that the opposition seemed "caught off guard" by the Conservatives posture (I sensed that too). Not only did the Conservatives not find it necessary to offer anything contrite, they had the gall to turn it around on the opposition as though they in the wrong.

It really is amazing to see how the Conservatives react to controversy. The inability to contemplate a humble response, or see the need for some type of verbal revision is striking. People were caught off guard, because they made some basic assumptions about decency. I guess the cardinal rule was forgotten, when these guys get cornered, they get aggressive, they ignore the heart of the discussion and turn to some diversion that puts others on the defensive. There's a smugness to it all that is really distasteful, but hardly surprising I suppose. Silly me for thinking otherwise.

UPDATE

Raitt decided to apologize today. Doing this yesterday is one thing, doing it now, after the PMO has heard the outrage, well... I take her words as sincere, the timing, not so much. It's a sweater vest day in the PMO.

What Others Are Saying

While Lisa Raitt questions Leona Aglukkaq's competence, it's interesting to note what people with a partisan slant have to say about the Minister and her abilities:

But rather than earning scorn from her political opponents for ducking for cover, Aglukkaq is receiving praise.

"I think she's done a terrific job," said Carolyn Bennett, the Liberal health critic and herself a doctor.

"Politics is politics and public health is public health. I'm really impressed that she knows where that line is."


"For a rookie minister, she's on top of this file and she's responded very effectively," said NDP Health Critic Wasylycia-Leis. "She's probably one of the better rookie MPs in the House."

Pretty sad, when your political opponents can demonstrate the ability to offer a fair judgement, while a Conservative colleague and her sidekick talk behind her back.

Status Quo

A new Strategic Counsel poll, which is essentially the same as their last sample:

Liberals: 34 per cent (-1)
Conservatives: 30 per cent (no change)
NDP: 16 per cent (no change)
Greens: 11 per cent (no change)
Bloc Quebecois: 9 per cent (no change)

Another narrow Liberal lead, that looks more attractive once you drill down into the regionals. A solid lead in Ontario, and a worrying number for the NDP:

Libs 44%
Cons 35%
Greens 11%
NDP 10%

Both the main parties are up slightly, the NDP have dropped 5%, now polling fourth behind the Greens. I'm not sure I buy the fourth place percentage, but it's still a bad number for the NDP, who continually poll well below their 2008 totals. All the pollsters now seem to give the Liberals a lead, within the same range, which could be even more pronounced if potential vote splitting wanes.

In Quebec, the familar storyline, Grits and Bloc jockeying for first, Conservatives poised to lose virtually everything:

Bloc 37%
Libs 35%
Greens 11%
Cons 9%
NDP 8%

Another single digit finding for the Conservatives, another poor showing for the NDP, Quebec increasingly looks like a two horse race. Donolo says the "Quebec numbers are now solid".

The Conservatives still maintain a healthy lead in the west, the NDP rebounding somewhat. What is interesting, the Conservatives stand at 41%, which is 12% lower than the 2008 election.

Done!

Nothing says resignation like turning terminal illness into a career opportunity. As someone who has lost someone to cancer, and is in the process of losing someone else to cancer as we speak, Raitt's comments can't be glossed over, no damage control, no bullshit from the PMO. Almost everyone I know has been touched, to some degree, by this incessant disease. This terrible fact won't allow excuses, and won't excuse looking at something so serious as "sexy" and good on the resume.

Lisa Raitt is DONE! Just get it over with, show some class and RESIGN. It's over, and if you decide to hold on, I'll be cheering with red in my eye as we go for the jugular. Get Raitt the hell out of there.

Good Hire

Good Hire:

The minister of natural resources is probably looking for some divine intervention these days.

Last week she barely held onto her cabinet job, while her press secretary wasn't so lucky. Jasmine MacDonnell had to resign after a binder of secret documents was left behind in a national newsroom.

Now, the minister, Lisa Raitt, has hired STEVE OUTHOUSE to help fill MacDonnell's shoes.

Probably a wise decision, because Raitt's career is headed for the shitter.

More About The Messenger

A pretty clear indication, that not only are the attacks NOT working, but they're actually HURTING the Conservative cause. The Nanos poll shows, when it comes to these ads, they say more about the messenger:

Effectiveness of Ads Question: Would you say the ads were effective, somewhat effective, somewhat ineffective or ineffective? [Recall Only]

Effective 20%
Somewhat effective 15%
Somewhat ineffective 8%
Ineffective 53%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Ignatieff Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of Michael Ignatieff? [Recall only]

Positive 14%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 45%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 22%
Unsure 4%

Impact of Ads on Impression of Conservative Party Question: Did the advertisement leave you with a positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or negative impression of the Conservatives who paid for the ad? [Recall only]

Positive 7%
Somewhat positive 3%
Neutral 20%
Somewhat negative 12%
Negative 53%
Unsure 6%

Important to note, that almost 40% of Canadians haven't seen the ads, which is another indication of overall effectiveness.

I heard Nik Nanos on the radio this morning, and his basic thesis was really no resonance outside of hardcore Conservative supporters and anti-American NDP supporters. In other words, even if Conservatives want to point to a "marginal" net negative for Ignatieff, it gets lost in the audience it's having an effect. Liberals don't care what the Conservative base thinks, nor a certain segment of NDP support, the target is the soft support that can potentially move votes, and these ads overwhelming fail.

Nanos doesn't directly this point, but when you add up the slightly negative, negative numbers for Ignatieff, you find 34%. The rest are neutral or positive, so having 1/3 see any measure of negative impact is pretty irrelevant, once you factor in party support numbers, once you consider kneejerk reactions from demographics hostile to Liberals in general. Objectively, it's a nothing number, although Nanos uses the term "marginal".

What isn't marginal, the negative reaction to the Conservatives running these ads. Even their own supporters recognize that these ads reinforce the Conservatives baggage, namely that of hyper-partisan, prone to nastiness government. Nanos finds the ads overwhelming "reflect poorly" on the government, adding up the positive/negative reaction, we see a decisive -55 score for the Conservatives. I've argued from the outset, that after the prorogue debacle Harper's political capital is spent on the partisan front. Whatever gain the Conservatives hoped to achieve from these ads would be offset by CEMENTING their own achilles heel. Nanos, and others for that matter, seem to confirm this belief, it's a net loss for the Conservatives. As Nik himself pointed out today, it's never considered a successful ad campaign when you alienate more than you attract.

The bottom line conclusion:

The Conservative attack ads have not arrested the incremental trend which currently favours the Liberals. The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact.

The only remaining question, the "long term" argument. Mostly a Conservative apologist talking point at the moment, to deflect from the FAILURE of these ads to resonate, one must still consider. People like to use the Dion example, but there is one thing to consider and I believe this vital moving forward. Attack ads can work if the target plays into the narrative. It is a fair question to ask if the Dion ads would have worked, if not for the Liberals continually volunteering evidence to suggest the "weak" tag was accurate. The ads needed real world manifestation to be effective, they weren't effective just because they aired. Everything about the Liberals screamed weakness, whatever your measure, so the connection was made, the attack was reinforced. It is for that reason, that people should be careful using the Dion template and extrapolating from there. If Ignatieff, in the next few years months acts like an elitist, with no understanding of Canada, then these ads could have a impact over time. I'm not particularly worried on that front, the Conservatives would be best to find another attack angle if they must. What is clear, Stephen Harper just spent 5-6 million so he could firm up opinion that yes, he really is a CAD. Bravo Sir.

Scraping Bottom

The companion piece to "Favorite MP's", a list of our representatives that are prone to display the worst traits, generally lowering the level of discourse:

Conservatives


As a student in history, I'm quite confident that Stephen Harper will go down as the most divisive, hyper-partisan Prime Minister in Canada's history. It all starts at the top, all the nonsense before QP, all the obstructions in Committee, all the ridiculous robo responses of surrogates, Stephen Harper is without question the WORST. The level of discourse will rise immediately after Harper is defeated, addition by subtraction.





Quite simply, Pierre Poilievre is a perpetual GOOF. No matter the forum, has the unique ability to interject completely unrelated information, with the sole focus on smearing opponents. I've actually never heard Pierre engaged in a high signal debate, it always degrades to the lowest level. An embarrassment at every turn, one would like to think high minded Conservatives would agree.




The master of bombast, a heckler who stands alone, John Baird always makes it personal. One of the most laughable appearances I've seen recently, John Baird taking to the airwaves to defend Pierre's "tar baby" crack, lamenting the "gotcha politics" we seen in todays Ottawa. Talk about a live in a glass house moment, Baird
represents all that is wrong with partisan politics.

Liberals



Denis Coderre is prone to exaggeration, rarely able to make a coherent argument without interjecting something off color. When he rises in Parliament, you can almost hear the moans, as everyone wonders what over the top rhetoric is to come.



I've never been a fan, and while he doesn't share some of the other notables penchant for gutter politics, I always have a hard time believing anything that comes out his mouth. Volpe's seems phony, a career politician who's been in Ottawa too long. As far as I'm concerned, the Liberals should have turfed him after his scandalous leadership run.




Jim Karygiannis is a loudmouth. Jimmy K's CLASSLESS performance when Dion was already ready to step down really showed his true colors. Prides himself on being a "straight shooter", I think that's just a cover to rationalize RUDE.

NDP




Somebody who might need some anger management, get Thomas Mulclair excited and we enter the unglued zone. A really smart chap, but another politician who can't just make a strong argument for it's own sake, forever looking for the partisan shot. If anyone noticed Mulclair going ballistic during the Raitt QP this week, they might have seen his NDP colleagues squirming in their seats, barely applauding when he was done. Mulclair has been a huge disappointment since coming to Ottawa, and watching him makes me think Charest is glad he's gone.





Whenever a "scandal" breaks, nobody is more sanctimonous and indignant than Pat Martin. There always seems to be a nasty edge to any of Martin's commentary, in Committee he's a grandstander of biblical proportions.



I'm going to give Jack Layton an honorable mention, because he does display class and grace on occasion and he is a genuine advocate most of the times. However, sometimes Jack is so transparent in his arguments, forever looking for the edge, and alot of the times missing the real target as a result. I think Jack just knows the game to well now, and sometimes his valid arguments get lost in his partisan calculations.

Favorite MP's

Paul Wells column, which laments the state of discourse in Ottawa. Wells makes one assertion, which gets lost in the "madness", and it's largely true:

This doesn’t get said often enough, but your members of Parliament are good people. They are decent men and women who upend quiet lives, endure the indignity of electoral campaigns, leave their loved ones at home and jet weekly to Ottawa. They bring big hearts and steady purpose. They want nothing better than to help their constituents.

On the "good people" front, I'd thought I throw out a few names of MP's that I see as sincere, genuine, representing all the best attributes we desire from our elected officials.

NDP:


Paul Dewar is quite adept at making his arguments, without turning any discussion into a "scoring political points" affair. Always on issue, always demonstrating class, Dewar seems to have his priorities straight. I would peg Dewar as "the" star within the NDP caucus.



Nathan Cullen can throw some elbows, but rather than political posturing, you always get the sense it's more about defending core beliefs. Cullen comes across as tireless, and he is always well versed on any topic. On the environment, Cullen is probably the best MP in Parliament, always sifting through the spin to make accurate arguments, factually based and honest.




Libby Davies seems the perfect character for NDP House Leader. Whenever she makes an appearance, Davies generally comes across as dedicated to getting things done, moving things forward and trying to find common ground. Her tone is disarming, and while the nature of the job demands partisanship, Davies looks like somebody who wants to roll up their sleeves and get to work.


LIBERAL


Quite simply, the conscience of the Liberal Party. Some would argue that Gerard Kennedy has made some questionable political moves, but I think that really speaks to putting principle above self interest. I heart Gerard Kennedy, he's in it for all the right reasons.





If I had to describe Martha Hall Findlay in one word it would "refreshing". Martha speaks in plain language, she cuts through the bull, but she's a smart cookie. Very effective in focusing on the real issues that matter, rather than parroting party spin.




If we measure things in terms of respect, then Bob Rae has no peer. People will note a curious anomaly in Parliament, when Bob Rae rises to ask a question or speak, the catcalls and background noise evaporates, the room turns silent and people actually listen.


CONSERVATIVES



Although nuttier than a Snickers bar, Stockwell Day has afforded himself quite well since the Conservatives took power. Day is always serious and he tends to argue the government position without reverting to partisanship. Day is a sincere advocate, and his demeanor is all the more noteworthy, given the company he keeps.




Michael Chong would be a prominent player in this government, but he's been handicapped by not towing the party line, when it conflicts with his principles. Chong has been punished in the past, but I've always been impressed with him in Committee, trying to find resolutions rather than grandstanding.



One of the few Conservative MP's I can listen to, because he comes by his views honestly and he tries to keep any debate high signal. I don't have to agree to recognize a certain amount of integrity.


Any other suggestions welcome...

Just Rising

The new NANOS poll puts Liberal national support at the highest level we've seen from any pollster since Harper took office. Not exactly a sign of attack ad effectiveness, it looks more and more like the 6 million dollar smear campaign is a BUST. Yesterday, I saw uber hack Tim Powers on television, telling us all to watch for the new poll that he was apparently privy too, he seemed confident. Tim must have got his numbers backwards, poor thing:

Libs 37.2%
Cons 31.8%
NDP 15.7%
Greens 7.4%

Not a huge change from the last NANOS poll, a 3.8% national gap is now 5.4%, but the trend continues. NANOS also shows a new pollster high water mark for the Liberals in Quebec, now ahead of the Bloc:

Libs 38%
Blocs 35%
NDP 13%
Cons 12%

The Liberals have a solid lead in Ontario, the gap comparable to other findings:

Libs 42%
Cons 34%
NDP 14%
Greens 10%

The last NANOS poll only showed a 4% gap, now 8%. You can make a timid argument that Ontario is trending back to the Liberals, although the requisite caution is in order.

NANOS has the Liberals up everywhere, with the exception of the "west". That said, it's also encouraging to see polling in the 30's for this region, because it suggests some strength outside of Alberta and Sask.

NANOS also asks voters what they think about a summer election. In a shocking finding, we see very little support for going to the polls. Whether the Liberals should heed the overwhelming sentiment against an election call is a debatable point.

Given the regional breakdowns and national gap, these type of numbers would translate into a solid Liberal minority. As the post attack ad polls come in, Conservatives are reduced to the argument that you must wait a few months before drawing any conclusions. Personally, while I understand that these ads can have a cumulative effect over time, it's a pretty weak retort at this point. Fact is, when you unleash the largest non-election advertising buy in history, on par with a full election expenditure, one would expect to see some evidence by now. The "you just wait" argument looks more wishful thinking than anything.

Conservatives Hit New Low In Quebec

The first time any pollster has given the Conservatives 8% in Quebec, running LAST in the province. The number might be on the low side of reality, but it shows just how far the Conservatives have fallen. Ipsos puts the Liberals back ahead nationally:

Liberals 36% (33%)
Conservatives 33% (35%)
NDP 12% (14%)
Greens 9% (8%)

Ontario volatility explains the change, and it's noteworthy that two polls ago, Ipsos had the exact same national spread as they do now. In the last Ipsos poll, the Conservatives appeared to rebound in Ontario, this latest one puts the Liberals back with a solid lead. When the last Ipsos poll showed a swing, I posited that the Dhalla controversy might have hurt the Liberals (something which EKOS seemed to confirm in their three week poll). The latest numbers revert back to the trend prior to that rough week, a return to real issues seems to help the Liberals:

Liberals 41% (37%)
Conservatives 34% (39%)
NDP 14% (12%)

Ipsos shows the Liberals with a healthy lead in Atlantic Canada, a positive trend in the Prairies. Ipsos gives the Conservatives a wide margin in British Columbia.

This is clearly a blip, but Ipsos pegs the Greens third in Quebec:

Bloc 38%
Liberals 37%
Greens 10%
NDP 8%
Conservatives 8%

The Liberals numbers keep edging up in Quebec. Tonight, I read a pile on piece, with the Bloc, Cons and NDP all going after the Liberals in Quebec (first they ignore you, then they...). Two recent polls have put the Conservatives at 9%, but this is the first 8%. I would say "dead to Quebec" is probably around 12-14%.

The big question moving forward is whether Ontario really firms up for anyone. The Liberals are generally ahead, their top end numbers hit for periods suggests real big pickup possibilities, but that's a fluid argument.

Another poll out tomorrow apparently...

Naked Politics

Much discussion about Bill C-15, wherein the Liberals will support mandatory sentencing for drug crimes. Susan Delacourt peruses the online reaction, calling it a "Liberal Revolt". I won't rehash all the sound reasons for opposing our stance, but just a few comments on what is really going on here.

I'll make one basic assumption, the Liberals DON'T really support this measure. In fact, if left to our own devices, Liberals wouldn't even entertain the concept as a credible option to deal with drug crime. It's pretty obvious, the impetus to support is a pure political calculation, based on the misguided notion that we must neutralize the crime issue.

I'm disappointed in Ignatieff, but if one is being honest here, this "approach" has been present for a few years now, as Liberals continually bend and contort reacting to Conservative wedge politics. The government has never had the facts on their side, with almost all the crime legislation they've introduced since they took office. It's not different in this instance, little empirical support for C-15. It's actually embarrassing how little real justification the government can muster.

The entire premise of the Conservative agenda, exploit unsubstantiated fear within the public, use the disconnect between perception and reality to appear tough on crime, and in so doing paint your opponent as weak. Whenever the government gets in any sort of trouble, they beat the crime drum, whether it be for fundraising, shoring up their base, or trying to score points against the Liberals. The Liberals have always had the benefits of statistics, facts on the ground, concrete international examples, but in one sense it's a losing argument because on this issue perception IS reality. Don't tell me crime is diminishing, don't tell me that this initiative or that will be ineffective, don't tell me the Conservative agenda won't work, with the public your almost screwed as soon as you show dissent. I'm sure the Conservatives honestly believe much of what they propose, their ideological bent blindly guiding the agenda. However, the issues around crime take such prominence because tactically it's a wedge issue that they can exploit.

The Liberals are trying to nullify, trying to keep up their "creds" on crime, sound policy an afterthought. That's the bottom line, this latest example so transparent, I don't think I could stand to listen to any rationalization. I'm not necessarily outraged, because really it's all just another chapter in a reaccuring theme- the Conservatives have us SPOOKED on crime and we're always on the defensive, trying to improve the optics. People have made the conclusion, a mentality that has permeated Liberal ranks WELL before Ignatieff took the helm, that we have to counter the Conservative frame, because it's a winner for them with the public. Principle is sacrificed for a naked political calculus. Shocking I know...

The Right Pitch

Besides apparently raking in $600000 tonight, at a very successful fundraiser, Ignatieff's speech was pretty spot on from my perspective. Of course, the piece I read comes with the "woo Quebec nationalists" angle, but really in this speech, and in his earlier comments today, Ignatieff actually argues from a firm Liberal tradition. This isn't Mulroney or Harper playing footsie, this is Ignatieff stating unequivocally "no new powers for Quebec", the country is already decentralized, the federation works, lets get on with it.

At first blush, Ignatieff opens up the kneejerk response from seperatists, another rigid, centrist Liberal that will deny Quebecers aspirations. However, it's where Ignatieff moves from the traditional Liberal terrain that could have appeal beyond hardcore federalists:

“In the last election, Quebeckers protested against the right-wing government of Stephen Harper, and many Quebeckers voted for the Bloc Québécois,” he said in a fundraising speech last night. “Quebeckers protested, but Stephen Harper is still there.”

The option, Mr. Ignatieff said, is for Quebeckers to help the Liberals return to power. In exchange, he said, the Liberals will ensure that Quebeckers get a real taste of power.

“The best Canada possible is a Canada inspired by Quebec. The best Canada possible is a Canada with Quebeckers in power,” he said

In an interview before the speech, Mr. Ignatieff said he will increase the number of first ministers' conferences if he becomes Prime Minister, and work toward increasing interprovincial trade. But he insisted he will not offer major jurisdictional shifts to win over Quebec.

“I certainly don't have a constitutional package in my back pocket, and I don't think Canadians or Quebeckers expect me to,” he said. “Let's make the federation work as a practical, operational, day-to-day matter, above all on working together to get us out of the economic crisis.”

The Liberals are manipulating the unhappiness with the Harper government to their advantage, while simultaneously asking soft Bloc support what their vote really achieved. There is a underlying, compelling rationale to the argument that it's better to have some influence on the levers of power, rather than sitting on the sidelines perpetually marginalized. It's about giving Quebecers a voice in government, and it's said without the folly of expecting a new paradigm. Ignatieff is arguing we have the tools already, so the alternative is to make Canada work, within that protect, respect and recognize Quebec's unique standing within, or thumb your nose and revel in your idle purity. Where Ignatieff can pull off this argument, is if he's seen as sincere. There's a real sense that Ignatieff has some measure of intrigue with Quebecers, and while opponents will try and undermine, he still has a relatively attentive audience to get out our perspective.

I have to say, I like the way our approach to Quebec is fleshing out, there's a lot of potential. What I find most attractive, Ignatieff isn't prostituting a core Liberal position with this "woo", unless of course a vocal, engaged Quebec voice at the federal table is considered counterproductive.

Obsess Much Gilles?

I heard the Bloc are sending out flyers attacking Ignatieff, so I thought I would venture over to their party website. Wow, looks like Gilles and the Bloc are pretty obsessed with Ignatieff, he's EVERYWHERE:




Not much mention of Harper strangely enough...

UPDATE:

Apparently I'm not the only one who felt compelled to visit their website today.

The Conservatives Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

It's sort of amusing that Conservatives are now reduced to warning Liberals against entertaining a vote of non conidence. Stephen Taylor gives Liberals some friendly advice, detailing why we might want to think again. In so doing, the defensive posture actually speaks to why the Liberals really should entertain. I found this passage particularly noteworthy:

Strategically, going to an election in July wouldn’t be ideal for Mr. Ignatieff as a $5-6 million Conservative pre-writ ad buy defining the Liberal leader would be much more effective if the Conservative messaging is fresh in the minds of Canadians.

There's another way of interpretating this logic. The fact your opponent has recently found it necessary to unleash the largest non-election attack ad expenditure in Canadian history, confirms that the situation is quite desperate and you're generally worried. It's also fascinating, that Taylor argues the "fresh" angle, when for the last two weeks, Conservatives have responded to the initial blowback against these ads, evidence of virtually no immediate impact, with the retort that people should take the "long view"- these ads are such, that there true impact can only be measured after many months of "framing". Now, Liberals should worry about the wildly successful short term impacts. Alright then, duly noted.

In a strange way, the more Conservatives warn us why we need to avoid a non confidence, the more I'm inclined to believe the timing deserves further consideration.

What Happened To Tough Guy?

If you google "Harper threatens election", you'll be bombarded by so many manufactured tough guy routines, it's simply staggering. As a matter of fact, it's hard to think of any pivotal moment since he became Prime Minister where Harper hasn't intimated going to the voters. With that in mind, it's particularly amusing to listen to the guy who ditched his own mandated fixed election date, fabricated a crisis when Parliament wasn't even sitting, now argue that Canadians have had "enough" with elections. I'm not sure who would win an election, although I fancy our chances, but one thing is certainly clear, Stephen Harper doesn't fancy his:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper "strongly advised" Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Wednesday against bringing down the Conservative government.

"I've had three elections in four years," Harper told reporters in Quebec City. "I think that's more than enough for the Canadian public. I don't meet anyone … of any political persuasion who wants to spend the summer fighting an election."

The country doesn't need the "political stability" an election would trigger just as it begins to emerge from a recession, Harper said.

"So you can certainly count on this government being against any kind of election in the near future. I would strongly advise the Opposition of the same thing."

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that Harper was in British Columbia threatening the opposition, something about going to the voters? Wasn't it a few weeks prior to that, where Harper said he was ready to go to Canadians over something or other? Now, all of sudden, when Harper has finally realized that his opponent is formidable, he can't bully his way anymore, he's suddenly found salvation. Canadians have never wanted an election, and they never have EVERY time you've threatened one in the past. So PLEASE spare us all this nonsensical routine, that insults our most basic comprehension.

Here's the bottom line, with the new "strongly" advising Stephen Harper, he sees himself as a LOSER. The new posture isn't Harper's organic predisposition, he only reverts to it when he sees it all slipping away. When he was faced with a coalition he caved, because he had no choice, but Harper's natural state is to be aggressive, to sabre rattle, to appear resolved and strong. More than the polls, Liberal optimism, the most telling evidence that the math looks really bad for the Conservatives, the sombre conclusions they've voluntarily made, as they try at avoid an election at all costs.

Stephen Harper has used the election threat to his advantage time and again. It's really been his chief club to get legislation passed, to force his agenda. Quite interesting now, to watch Harper without his former bravado as he now reacts to something which appears more compelling than anything he could return in kind. It's sort of like watching the transformation of a bully, when the other kid just completed a growth spurt and now has a swagger of his own.

Rae Defends Raitt

With all the drama surrounding Raitt and the secret documents, Bob Rae offers the embattled Minister a lifeline:

"One plausible explanation is maybe she thought CTV was a branch of the government, I can't explain it"

Said with a wry smile and a telling glance, Rae takes a pointed jab at Conservative TeleVision.

On a more serious note, what others are saying about Minister's accountability and missing government documents:

"It obviously was not done on purpose. It was a mistake. But it doesn't matter. It was clearly done and that has to be treated appropriately. There are precedents and this obviously is a warning to all Ministers."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Macleans.ca, May 26 2008



"Mr. Bernier has learned and informed me that he left classified government documents in a non-secure location. This is a serious error. The minister has accepted his responsibilities in offering to resign."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CTV News, May 26 2008



"This is about one thing, and that is a failure to uphold expected standards on government documents. It is a very serious mistake regardless of who the minister is."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, CBC Radio's World Report, May 27 2008



"We certainly take adequate care to ensure that they are not disclosed, and that they are not left behind somewhere, and unfortunately, the minister broke those rules."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Global National, May 27 2008



"Mr. Speaker, the rules governing classified documents are always serious. That is why, when the minister became aware of the situation, he told me and tendered his resignation, which I accepted."



"Ministers are always responsible for the protection of classified documents. The minister admitted his mistake in this matter and resigned his post. That is why I accepted his resignation. The former minister did the honourable thing by resigning."



"The minister admitted that he failed to protect classified documents. That is why he offered his resignation and why I accepted it."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 2, 2008



"The former minister of foreign affairs informed me about the problem with the documents on Monday and offered his resignation, and that is why I accepted it."



"The former foreign affairs minister admitted that he left classified documents in unsecured premises. That is the reason why he tendered his resignation and I accepted it."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 3, 2008



"We know the reason the former minister of foreign affairs offered me his resignation was because of his own actions. He left classified documents in an inappropriate and unsecured location. He offered to resign and I accepted his resignation."



- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Hansard, June 18, 2008

Sounds pretty cut and dry, according to Mr. Harper.

Getting Frisky

I first read, then heard, Ignatieff's scrum today. Measured and serious, not really a opportunistic tone, but more a rational reasoning as to why the Liberals find themselves exploring all options. What I find striking, this isn't transparent bluster, there will be serious deliberation.

Part of this is surely a byproduct of the real latitude the Liberals enjoy. The overwhelming odds, no matter the decision there will be no election, but there are no guarantees. If I can be blunt, this can all be described quite succinctly- the Liberals are saying "fuck it". We're the opposition, we don't have any faith in this government, almost everywhere you turn, there's a stench. If we go to an election, we go to an election, not necessarily the want that others are trying to paint but fear of possibility no longer an overarching concern. Ignatieff wasn't playing safe today, and clearly people are feeling frisky:

Question: Will you be moving a motion of non-confidence before the summer break and will you also be supporting the Main Estimates, voting for the Main Estimates (off microphone)?

Michael Ignatieff: I don’t want an election. Canadians don’t want an election. But here’s where I am. I’m trying to make Parliament work with a government that every day is displaying more flagrant examples of incompetence. We’ve got a major medical crisis with the isotopes. They’ve got no plan. We’ve got, Toronto Dominion Bank just announced that the deficit over five years will be, wait for this, $168 billion. That’s the biggest number anybody has ever heard of. The public finances of this country are not under control. Right? Third, we’ve got an unemployment crisis with unemployment surging across the country. We’ve got Premier Campbell, we’ve got Brad Wall, we’ve got Premier McGuinty saying let’s do something about a national standard for EI. I’m not fancy about how we do it, but let’s do it. Right? We’ve got stimulus that needs to get out the door and only 6% of the stimulus has actually reached the country in the middle of the construction season.


So look, I want to make Parliament work. Canadians don’t want an election. I don’t want an election, but we have a problem, a serious problem about this government’s confidence, and I’m getting to the answer, next week, next week they have their second report card. Right? And as I said at the beginning of this, we’re holding these guys on probation. We’ll look at the data when we get it and we will make a serene and clear decision probably in the middle of next week. Thank you.

Outcome notwithstanding, for someone who's been embarrassed time and time again in the past as we scurried in the shadows, I'm enjoying the spine.

Shocking!

In a stunning report, TD bank concludes Jim Flaherty can't add. Suffice it to say, the revelation is simply shocking:

TD questions Ottawa's surplus forecast‏

The federal government will miss its projected return to surplus by a whopping margin, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank wrote Tuesday.

OTTAWA -- The federal government will run a cumulative deficit of roughly $162-billion over five years, or nearly double what Ottawa projected in its most recent budget, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank said Tuesday. As a result, the government will be nowhere near a return to surplus in 2013-14, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in his January budget. According to the TD forecast, Ottawa will record a $19-billion deficit that fiscal year, as opposed to an anticipated $700-million surplus. The only way the budget gets back to balance in 2013-14 is if Ottawa freezes program spending growth after fiscal 2012-13, at which time TD expects the economy to fully rebound from the current downturn.

Deficits are to continue up to 2013-14, with a $19.4-billion shortfall, which is expected to amount to 1.1% of nominal GDP. That means $162-billion of deficits for a five-year period ending March 31, 2014, compared to the $83-billion anticipated during the same timeframe in the budget.

What's another 80 billion, especially when you won't own up to it, until FORCED by the calendar.

These type of numbers, and TD argues this fact, mean the government either has to map out a massive cost cutting exercise and/or raise the spectre of TAX INCREASES. I would argue that the party that comes to grip with simple realities and formulates mature policies, will be best placed come the next election. These are sobering numbers, and one can't expect to be seen as credible if people hold onto unrealistic recovery scenarios.

Strange Timing

For the past three years, critics have lamented the government's inability to reign in spending. Leave it to the Harper government to suddenly turn off the taps just as the country and economy actually need it:

Government spending growth in Canada actually slowed to below the historical average in the first three months of 2009, even as the recession's grip tightened...

Government spending rose only 0.3 per cent in that period over the previous quarter. This increase even fell short of the 30-year historical average of 0.5 per cent for quarterly government spending growth.

"In a quarter they're supposedly rolling out big stimulus, government spending actually rose less than a typical quarter," BMO Nesbitt Burns deputy chief economist Doug Porter noted.

As Mr. Porter observed, it's a surprise that government spending growth actually softened as the downturn grew.

"We were actually expecting a bit more of a positive impact from government spending."

I've heard a rumor that as we get more mandated disclosure on spending, ending this past fiscal year, we could see a suspicious effort to hold back spending, so that it didn't count against the deficit. The above tends to lend some credence to that belief. It will be interesting to see if the government put the optics of their bottomline presentation above spending that was already allocated, clearly needed.

Attack Ad Impacts

The Angus Reid poll details the possible impacts of the attack ads. The Toronto Star headline reads "Tory Attack Ads Backfiring, Poll Finds". In the spirit of fairness, I should point out a few things that go beyond the soundbite presentation. The Angus Reid poll does show that Harper fars worse, relative to Ignatieff with those that have seen the ads, and with those that have seen the ads and the Liberals You Tube response. However, and this is an important factor that seems to be ignored by the pollster and the piece, Harper's numbers are equally abysmal with those that haven't seen the ad or the Liberal response. Angus Reid breaks voters into these three categories, but Harper's numbers are virtually identical across the board. One could argue, that those who haven't seen the ads or the Liberal response still think less of Harper because of what they've read, but I think this fact shows a wider sentiment, namely that people just don't care much for Harper these days, regardless of these attacks. Harper's numbers:

Seen the ad:

Opinion of Harper improved 10%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 50%

Seen the ad and the Liberal You Tube:

Opinion of Harper improved 9%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 52%

Haven't seen the ads or the Liberal You Tube:

Opinion of Harper improved 7%
Stayed the same 42%
Worsened 49%

I'm prepared to accept that the horrible media response to these ads has impacted the last category, but it's also relevant that Harper suffers equally, no matter the subset. To conclude the ads are the reason for Harper's horrible score isn't quite conclusive. As a matter of fact, previous AR polls asking this question have continually shown Harper with considerable negative momentum, regardless of attack ads, so this makes the final group all the more curious.

When it comes to Ignatieff, the conclusion is the attack ads have had slight impact. This is true in terms of voting intention, as well as relative scores to Harper. One small caveat, and I don't want to overstate this, because I agree with the minimal impact thesis, this AR poll is the first to show Ignatieff with negative momentum since he became leader. Previous AR polls continually showed Ignatieff bucking the trend amongst the party leaders, the more Canadians saw, the more they liked, he the only one with positive momentum. In this poll, Ignatieff scores a -7 momentum score, paltry compared to Harper's -41, Layton's -20, but a first time negative number nonetheless.

What AR does show, Ignatieff's numbers are completely stagnant with those that haven't seen the ads, those that have, but have also seen the Liberal response. But, with those that have seen just the ads, Ignatieff does see some erosion:

Seen the ads:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 24%
Stayed the same 26%
Worsened 42%

Seen the ads, Liberal response:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 29%
Stayed the same 35%
Worsened 31%

Haven't seen the ads or the You Tube:

Opinion of Ignatieff improved 28%
Stayed the same 38%
Worsened 28%

The subset that have seen both the ad and the response is irrelevant, because it isn't representative of average Canadians. Only 30000 people have viewed the You Tube ad, this poll presented it to them, so the general population really falls into two categories, seen or haven't seen. When you factor in the millions of Canadians who have seen these ads, then the first category, wherein Ignatieff takes a slight hit is worth taking seriously. However, I'm not trying to elevate marginal impact, merely taking issue with a few superficial conclusions.

AR also asks a whole range of questions about the party leaders, and it's here that we find Harper takes a real risk. Harper is seen as more arrogant, decidedly more secretive, uncaring, dishonest and out of touch. Ignatieff is seen as more intelligent, open and strong, as well as scoring quite low on the measures that haunt Harper.

If you wanted to wrap this entire poll into a couple ofsentences, I would suggest the following. Stephen Harper has serious problems with the electorate, his image is cementing in a negative way. Ignatieff had best keep on eye on the attacks, but he still looks a winner beside Harper.

New Polls

Two new polls, that show quite similar results. The Angus Reid poll also looks at the effect of the attack ads and the leaders, but I'll do a seperate post on these, because there is a lot to pour over. Both Angus Reid and EKOS(with a huge, prolonged sample) put both parties in the same range. Angus Reid gives the Liberals a slight edge, within MOE, although it's interesting to note this is the first time I can remember this pollster giving them any lead:

Libs 33%
Cons 31%
NDP 17%
Greens 7%

The last AR poll had a dead heat, so minimal change, but not insignificant, given that everyone is looking to see if the attack ads have moved numbers. These results would tend to show no impact, although some argue that these ads are a long term venture, a position I see as wishful thinking, in the face of lack of immediate return. We shall see, but with the massive ad buy, that is bombarding Canadians at every turn, one would hope to see something tangible. The frequency of these attack ads go well beyond, to the point of exponential, anything launched at Dion.

When Ipsos showed some movement in their poll, I cautioned that nobody should immediately look to the negative ads as symptom. Just as valid to look at the Dhalla controversy, because it was enjoyed intense coverage and it countered any positive momentum the Liberals had enjoyed. Interestingly, the EKO poll, taken over three weeks, suggests that Dhalla did hurt the Liberals, far more than the attack ads. When we compare EKOS results, averaged out over these three weeks, any narrowing relative to their last poll, is largely a function of Dhalla:


You can clearly see the Liberal numbers dive after Dhalla, and you can also see nothing of note after the attack ads aired. EKOS:

Libs 33.5%
Cons 32.3%
NDP 15.1
Greens 10.4%

A close result, but one will note the final week, which provides the most representative numbers, shows a larger Liberal lead. The average effect of Dhalla provides much of the reasoning to explain the apparent narrowing, relative to the last EKOS poll, but after that event, we see a rebound that is relatively similar to past findings.

Both pollsters see a tight race in Quebec. EKOS merely mentions this fact, while AR shows the Bloc 36%, Libs 33%, Cons 10%- the type of numbers that have now become common. AR also gives the Liberals a 7% lead in Ontario, 43%-36%-14%. Other polls have shown the government doing better in Ontario, so this result is just further evidence of real volatility. No matter what the polls show going into an election, one thing is clear, the campaign will decide Ontario, voters haven't parked anywhere.

Hello In There!

Much speculation, about various scenarios that get something done over EI, avoiding a June election. Janke posits that any deal will cause Liberals to "grind their teeth", and then offers some apparent LSD inspired musing about the "Liberal caucus sharpening their knives". Let's clear the air on WHAT exactly is happening here, and this ain't spin.

The media suffer from duplicity. They chastise political parties for perpetual "election" talk, when it's they in fact that pour over every sentence to raise the temperature, so THEY can talk about a possible election. Sometimes they don't even require an idle quote, in amongst a much more telling paragraph uttered, they just see any area of conflict and RUN with it. If the media is tired of election talk, I assure you we are all more tired of their lazy frames that manufacture real election talk (generalizing of course).

The Liberals are pushing in Parliament, no question. The Liberals have made EI reform a pivotal issue. Let's face it, without the Liberals on board Jack and Gilles could bellow forever and nothing would happen, Harper wouldn't move, because he simply doesn't have to. Throw a determined Ignatieff into the midst, the game has changed, there's enough support that the government must respond. The government must respond, because they don't WANT an election- is this really a newsflash to anybody? More the "sky is blue" realities, the NDP and Bloc don't WANT an election. Even if one of them did, it's still irrelevant because BOTH MUST want to, so let's just say an election isn't in the cards, nope, nada. Liberals can add, unlike some people (hey there Jimmer!).

Does everybody think the Liberals are without strategic sense? A pretty self-evident review of the landscape reveals an opportunity to assert ourselves, without much risk of actually pushing Parliament over the edge. Equating a firm stance on EI as "Liberals clammoring" for an election fails to recognize LEVERAGE. Parliament is brinkmanship, you don't get what you want unless you convey strength, committed and your opponents fear you. For the first time in a long time, that's the dynamic the Liberals enjoy. Ignatieff doesn't have to cower, he can push and be forceful, because he knows full well the other parties aren't keen. It's really no different than the NDP exploiting past Liberal weakness to introduce non-confidence this, non-confidence that.

Do the Liberals want an election? I'm sure a few do, the polls are positive, but I can say with reasonable certainty, the "hawk" camp is in the minority, most are looking to the fall now as the realistic window. To conclude then, that talk that a compromise on EI will leave the Liberals wanting, is just asinine partisan tripe. If we get a deal on EI, no matter what "coalition" of parties agree, it will be because everyone is trying to get to the summer break. From the Liberal perspective, a few more months to ramp up fundraising, organization, attract a strong slate, etc, etc, that's always been the real gameplan, the majority view. If the EI issue is resolved, to some extent, then the Liberals have succeeded in their demands, they got what they wanted and they didn't have to "prop up" anybody. I fail to see any reasonable observer suggesting otherwise, no matter the final configuration of parties that make "backroom" deals.

"Liberals thwarted", more like Liberals get a concession on their key demand coming out of the convention. Concession that only came about because Liberals were strong and prepared, letting others dance around like they did in the past. And, everybody returns to Plan A, without much fuss. That's the bottomline.

Fraud

Pedigree, accomplishment and choice of beverage don't make one an elitist. Inability to relate to, and participate with ordinary Canadians is a far better measure. One of the most laughable frames is this idea that Stephen Harper is more a man of the people, more in touch with average Canadians, more "regular". In fact, Stephen Harper is probably the most guarded, detached, elitist Prime Minister we've seen in some time. Stephen Harper doesn't like Canadians, in fact he does everything in his power to avoid interaction. Outside of a room full of gushing partisans, Stephen Harper is uncomfortable conversing and interacting with Canadians, the last thing in the world you will see is Harper actually visiting a Tim Horton's. Oh, he might make a tightly scripted appearance in a venue that conveys a sense of connectedness, but that presentation evaporates when one entertains the unthinkable- actually MINGLING.

I've met Ignatieff in a very informal setting, speaking, answer questions, mingling with people who weren't necessarily "fans". I watched the sense of ease, very much like this telling post by Aaron Wherry, Ignatieff is quite comfortable with the "masses". That's really no surprise, because Ignatieff has spent considerable time in his life "diving in", not content to pen observations from a hotel room, but from the streets of the world, in place far less "sophisticated" than our latte loving destinations. I've lost count at how many times Ignatieff has done town halls, taking all comers, including hostile partisan plants. The measure of a man in many respects, when speaking of detachment and "air" is their capacity to relate, a genuine sense of comfort. Education doesn't make you an elitist, worldliness and travelling in intellectual circles doesn't make you an elitist, DETACHMENT and lack of respect and recognition make you elitist.

This brings us to the champion of the people, Stephen Harper. There are certain moments that crystalize the nature of a person. During the last election, all party leaders were invited to take part in CBC's "Your Turn", which basically provides ordinary Canadians a chance to interact with their leaders. It's really a pretty pedestrian affair, the questions are screened and generally they deal with the big issues, no real surprises. All the leader's agreed, except one, who DEMANDED that he take NO question from a Canadian or else he wouldn't APPEAR. Think about that for a second, the man of the people was so concerned about actually interacting with average Canadians, he issued an ultimatum and sadly CBC agreed. In the last election, Stephen Harper didn't answer ONE question from a ordinary Canadian; come to think of it he hasn't answered ONE since. What is Harper afraid of? I mean, this is the guy who could waltz into Tim's and feel at home? Truth of the matter, Stephen Harper would be TERRIFIED at the prospect of an unscripted dialogue with the people he claims to represent.

When Barack Obama visited Canada, people will remember his arrival at Parliament Hill. Harper waited indoors, greeted Obama and then began to walk towards the receiving line of elites. Obama stopped Harper, apparently oblivious, and said "do you mind if we go outside", because he understood the crowd waiting outside, he understood that a simple wave, a recognition, is what a true man of the people does instinctually. Harper didn't give the commoners a second thought, because Harper really isn't a "people" person, that sort of display makes him uncomfortable. Harper has no relationship with Canadians, the only time he wades into a crowd, it's a bunch of party hacks bused in, to convey some presentation. Harper doesn't want to speak with the media, he doesn't want to speak with YOU, he doesn't want your input, he doesn't find it necessary to INTERACT. Stephen Harper is a detached, social misfit that conducts himself like an ivory tower elitist. Meanwhile, the cultured international intellectual, grabs his expresso and heads out week after week speaking with Canadians of all stripes, in a way Stephen Harper never COULD or WILL. An interesting contrast, given all the presumptive talk.

The Nasty, Divisive Patriot

Strategic Counsel, asks a series of questions, comparing attitudes toward Ignatieff and Harper. Some of the conclusions, Quebecers HATE Harper, Ignatieff has work to do on the patriotism front, people would have a coffee with Harper, even though he's a nasty piece of work. Buried in the numbers, probably the most important stat, the Liberals are now statistically tied on managing the economy, a finding which towers above all other considerations:

Michael Ignatieff is seen as starkly less patriotic than Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a new poll that suggests the Tories accurately put their finger on the Liberal Leader's vulnerabilities with a series of recent attack ads.

But while the survey comparing the two leaders reveals chinks in Mr. Ignatieff's armour, it also shows the public finds fault with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who voters say is more divisive, nasty and partisan in his approach than Mr. Ignatieff.

The Globe and Mail-CTV News survey shows opportunities abound for both sides to take advantage of the other's weaknesses among regions, gender and income groups.

The general mood of all the answers paints Harper as a more down to earth common man, and he does get the edge with the all important middle class. On the ad front, this poll confirms why the Conservatives chose this line of attack, as Ignatieff trails badly on patriotism. Interestingly, and this plays into something I've argued, these ads tend to feed the negative narratives about Harper, he is seen as far more partisan, nasty and political. It's an fascinating dynamic, while the ads could highlight an Ignatieff weakness, these findings show considerable risk for Harper, reinforcing his own achilles heel.

Generally, we've seen the Conservatives hold an edge on the "economic manager" front, although the Liberals have chipped into this advantage the past few months. It's natural for the governing party to hold an edge on this measure, because they are in charge, whereas the other party is simply theoretical. When you start to see the opposition party even with the government, it represents a serious problem:

When it comes to party preference, the two parties are close in who is viewed as best able to manage the economy, with the Tories ahead 26 per cent to 24 per cent, a gap that has narrowed from 11 points last August.

Even more than the Liberal number, the very low score for the Conservatives tells us they are really losing credibility with Canadians, on the most crucial of files. A full 50% didn't pick either party, which speaks to a real uncertainty. Given the pessimistic economic news we have been bombarded with, it's noteworthy that Ignatieff leads when it comes to ability to inspire. When Canadians see a pretty bleak outlook, challenges ahead, Ignatieff edge on this score could be an asset, as he might best be able to convey a better reality for the future.

One part of this poll omitted from this link, was an intriguing finding on where Canadians think Ignatieff sits on the political spectrum:



I would categorize the above as optimal positioning for Ignatieff moving forward.

"Sucking And Blowing"

When the Liberals attack the government's fiscal mess, the common counter is that we are "sucking and blowing". It's a refrain the media is starting to ask as well, because on the surface there is an air of opportunism. How can Liberals stand up day after day demanding more money for stimulus, EI, etc, and then chastise the government for taking us into a massive deficit? If the government cowered to the opposition demands, the deficit would be bigger, so it's a confusing dual criticism.

Right now, everybody is primarily focused on the government, and their lack of competency. However, that temporary fact shouldn't allow a false sense of security, because the Liberals need to stay ahead of the data curve. It's a pretty simple argument, that Canadians will understand- you say we're spending too much, but you want us to spend more, huh? I think it's wise to counter this argument right now, rather than let others frame what it means.

Given the size of this deficit, beyond responsibility and competence, the question will turn to how we get out of this mess, who has the solutions. The Liberals do have an out, when it comes to the "sucking and blowing" counter. When we were demanding more stimulus money, more expenditures, it was with the understanding that the deficit was at a certain level. Now, with the ballooning debt, a prudent party must re access previous demands, because we were mislead on the deficit. In this way, the Liberals are pragmatic, without letting the government off the deficit hook.

Let's keep it real here, playing with GDP percentages aside, this deficit is HUGE and STRUCTURAL. The deficit will haunt government for years, the latest figures will obliterate any nonsense about temporary, any excuses, any general argument that all will be well in the end. The Liberals need to adapt to the new numbers, and I would argue we should abandon any talk of further stimulus, given the new updated figures and the prospects of worse numbers to come. Within that argument, we can abandon the idea of further stimulus, because the initial stimulus is still sitting in the bank waiting to be spent. Highlight the inability to deliver with a sense of fiscal restraint. Liberals will focus on getting this money out the door, not arguing for more, particularly within the new reality.

Liberals can be smug this week, as we watch Flaherty and Harper self implode. This deficit will HAUNT the government, their credibility is a very real issue, that will be a central theme for the Liberals. That said, the Liberals actually lessen the damage, when fair minded observers turn to their arguments and see competing and contradictory themes. In a sense, we let the government off the deficit hook, if we're seen as the party that wants more, if we don't understand the inherent duplicity.

The latest figures have given us a chance to do the "blank slate" routine. Whatever we've argued the past few weeks is largely irrelevant, if we use the new deficit projections as basis for a policy rethink. It's one thing to argue for further stimulus when we're at 34 billion, quite another when it's 50 billion PLUS. Within rapidly changing events, the Liberals need to be nimble and responsible. I've sensed two things this week, one the obvious lack of competence on the government's part and two, the alternative seems equally out to lunch in it's demands. If we really want the government to wear this circumstance, then it's imperative that we present a consistent message as an alternative. Otherwise, the Liberals own mixed messages effectively alleviate some of the real criticisms directed at the government. These new figures don't just provide an opportunity to hammer the government, they also allow the Liberals to drop some baggage and get ahead of the data, which in the end will win them favor.

Gerard Kennedy And Friends

Gerard Kennedy will be hosting a series of seminars on June 9 and June 14, with an impressive list of speakers, including Bob Rae among others. There will also be speeches by Michael Ignatieff and Dalton McGuinty. Kennedy And Friends:

Welcome Friends,

Please join us for a series of enlighting seminars and inticing dinner events in June at two of our favourite Toronto venues.


Outreach Seminars (Seminar Speakers) (Schedule)

On Tuesday, June 9th and Sunday, June 14th, I will be hosting a series of interesting talks by my friends Bob Rae, Bonnie Crombie, Mark Holland, Kirsty Duncan, Omar Alghabra, and the Honourable George Smitherman.

Following these seminars, we will enjoy cocktails and sit down for an exceptional dinner, highlighted by speeches by Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff and Premier of Ontario, the honourable Dalton McGuinty.


Special Dinners (Guest Speakers) (Schedule)

Guests wishing to attend only the dinner events may do so. I hope that you all can make the time to come out to these very special engagements.

Follow the link for more details, and spread the word :)

Sign Of The Times

Below, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff instructs staff at Stornoway to sweep the compound, looking for any suspicious listening devices:



Zsuzsanna Zsohar expresses happiness, when staff inform her that the flowers are "clean":



Ignatieff points to a tiny white wire running from the chandelier:



You can never be to careful, Ignatieff reverts to sign language during a strategy meeting:

Harper Unplugged

Harper should never freelance, much better when he keeps to his tight scripted persona. See, when Harper does speak freely he tends to reveal too much, he tends to look every bit the mean hyper-partisan, low ball personality, that really isn't Prime Ministerial or worthy of any leadership role in this country. Today, in QP, Harper offered a threat, but in so doing he highlighted EVERYTHING that is wrong with him:

"Mr. Speaker, I can't fire the leader of the opposition. With all of the tapes i've got on him, I don't want to."

What a juvenile response first of all, even worse Harper seemed proud of his "witty" retort.

I though Ignatieff had the perfect response after QP:

Question: Mr. Harper said he has tapes on you.

Ignatieff: That's the other thing. He said in the house that he had tapes on me. That is the most Nixonian of Mr. Harper's many remarks. Every day that goes by he's more like Richard Nixon. We're in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since the second world war, and the prime minister of canada is wasting his time listening to tapes of me? And then, not content with that, he says it in the House of Commons so he'll intimidate me. I will not be intimidated by the prime minister. I've got a job to do which is to hold him to account. The public finances of our country are in freefall, and he's wasting time with tapes of me? It's a joke.

A joke of the highest order. We've just learned Canada is adding an extra 5 billion a month to our deficit, unemployment claims are skyrocketing, and Harper finds it necessary to give Canadians the visual of him sitting in the basement with headphones on, listening to old musings of a political opponent. That Harper VOLUNTARILY tied himself directly to this smear campaign, and essentially promised more, is a real indictment of his priorities.

Hey Kory, you better get a leash on your guy, because he's had a BAD couple of days in Parliament.

UPDATE

Jeff does the heavy lifting with the visual presentation:

Girls and Boys

My only quibble, the video actually shows Flaherty has changed his tune in FIVE WEEKS not four months, which I think emphasizes the incompetence even more. But, who am I to tell Grit Girl ;)

Jeff with a great video today, on the same theme:



Jim Flaherty, showing Canada what Ontario already knows.