Mulcair's Magic Number?

One number everyone will be watching, Mulcair's first ballot percentage. Some talk about a Mulcair first ballot win here at the NDP convention, but I think that would be a stunner. The conventional wisdom is multiple votes, and within that a conversation about what Mulcair needs on the critical initial ballot.

I'm thinking 35% is a key number for Mulcair, anything above that and he takes on an air of inevitability. Rather than a real alternative emerging, a unifying sense develops and serious challenge looks remote. Factor in a muddled field behind Mulcair, and it's hard to see the wheels coming off, whether he inches or surges, 50%would look to be within his grasp.

On the other hand, should Mulcair come in around 30%, a couple percent either way, then this race looks wide open, everything in play. With so many reasonably strong contenders, Mulcair could end up with the lead, but not a pronounced one that looks unstoppable. A number on the low end could still work for Muclair because of a "divided opposition", but I see much intrigue should he fail to reach this arbitrary threshold.

I'll be looking for how the second to fifth shakeout, fully expecting a surprise within. Equally important, if Mulcair can meet expectations on the first ballot, create a sense of inevitability and in turn win without much consternation.

Convention Bound

I'm heading to Toronto as an accredited blogger for the NDP Leadership Convention, which starts tomorrow. Should be a fascinating couple of days, particularly with so many scenarios in play, a junkies dream. I'll be blogging, as well as tweeting @FarAndWide some insights and commentary. An added bonus, this week is "Slacker Canadian Music Week", so I'm taking a detour tonight to the Horseshoe to catch a couple indie bands before the political mayhem ensues!

Pre-Mature Verdicts

I've been utterly amazed at how many supposed political "experts", pundits, observers, have been so quick to pass judgement on the robo-call affair. There is a dismissive tone, intertwined with some sort of misplaced arrogance, that thinks the electorate fits into some neat theorem. There is a reason all study involving humans is called SOCIAL science and not SCIENCE, and these over bearing cynics get lost in their own smug assertions to recognize the error. Seems to me true wisdom first understands the folly of rash judgements, particularly when the facts are evolving and the debate looks to be protracted. That recognition isn't to say robo-calls resonate or move numbers, or cost the Conservatives anything, only that to scoff with finality the realm of a fool, ripe for future red faced revision.

With this backdrop in mind, imagine my surprise to see a fresh poll that shows Conservative support tanking to their core number, now tied with the leaderless NDP. More striking, this particular commentary:

The Conservatives are clearly paying a price for the robo-calls affair, plans to increase the qualifying age for Old Age Security, legislation that would give the government information on individual Internet accounts, and increased uncertainty over the costs of new fighter jets.

A host of reasons, at the top, the robo-call scandal. Given this issue has dominated the political landscape, fair to make the connection. I wouldn't understate the other reasons cited, because we have seen a rather rough patch for the government on many issues, only that the pollster seems to see robo-calls contributing to falling fortunes. As well, you'll note other polls have shown less than flattering numbers for the Conservatives on the robo-call scandal, as well as failing "right track" numbers, there is some noteworthy erosion occurring when it comes to confidence in this government.

Stephen Harper didn't come to power because of the economy, a quick review of stuffed coffers, robust growth, low unemployment, any measure you choose, a potent confirmation. NO, Harper came to power because voters tired of the corrupt Liberals, it was ethics, arrogance, cheating, that is what undermined, eroded support, not "trains on time" considerations. Canadian history is full of examples, wherein scandal has undone a government, not coming clean with voters, cheating, dishonesty, which makes the scoffing crowd all the more confounding. The prospect of Conservatives in handcuffs, no matter their stature, trying to usurp democracy, that doesn't matter or come with a price? I'd say more a commentary on personal bias than any fair reading.

Maybe the robo-call story goes nowhere, maybe it fades and the Conservatives suffer little in the final analysis. And, maybe the Conservatives don't, maybe this scandal- which fits a wider narrative- does strike a cord, comes with price. The verdict is still out, anyone already reaching one, is really what should be dismissed as valuable commentary...

Pollsters See "Co-operation" Merits

There seems to be two parallel conversations occurring, one involving steadfast partisans, the other detached observers with expertise in gauging political realities. Whenever the idea of co-operation, merger, arrangements are raised between the Liberals and NDP, there is hearty blow back and much of it is frankly understandable. However, I note in the last week two prominent pollsters have weighed in with alarming consensus, two firms who's job it is to pour over the data and ascertain political outcomes. As an aside, I've spent some time with electoral maps myself- without including the new pro-Conservative seat allocation- and come to similar conclusions, forever an uphill battle, the numbers are hard to run.

Both EKOS and Ipsos Reid have concluded that "only way" to beat the Conservatives is for the opposition to join together in some manifestation. Of note, the current NDP candidate for leadership with wind in his sails is entertaining just that as the required path forward. As well the leadership favourite is anything but your "far left", if he was running for the Liberal leadership, nobody would question his spectral lean, fit within the supposed "tent" with little effort. That the Liberals currently have a former NDP Premier as their interim leader, and we all think he's doing a terrific job, another indicator that tribal lines blur practical realities.

The pollster view offers a reality check to long odd "scenarios", they have no horse in this race, merely an objective read of the political landscape, one that is also supported by your own analysis. Part of the reason I've moved into the arrangement camp is because of the sober realities Graves articulates. I fully expect merger, co-operation talk, to increase moving forward as we get closer to the next election, for every difference we can highlight, there is also a compelling overlap. As well, any arrangement doesn't constitute the status quo, positions will be tempered, compromise, pragmatism will demand a reworking. This realization is important for those that point to incompatibility, because manifestations would resemble a coalition in spirit, an arrangement which articulates compromise anyways, just another to path to a similar result.

When the dust settles from this NDP race, we may be confronted with certain coherent avenues moving forward. I foresee the Liberal leadership race becoming a potential vehicle for the arrangement proponents. Much is to be determined, but the open primary concept will allow for participation beyond the hardcore partisans, meaning the general public- who are MUCH more open to arrangements- could have input if a candidate makes these ideas a rallying cry. There is a path for a proponent to bypass the narrow tribe contingents and reach out to a more receptive audience.

One thing is clear to my mind, the issues surrounding co-operation aren't going away, if anything I see a growing clamour moving forward. The pollsters are crunching the numbers, they see the daunting gradient, what is required now is some sober reflection, or it's very likely we revisit this conversation post 2015, facing another mandate, almost by divided opposition default, rather than true democratic expression.

"Jumbo" Fail

One of my favourite places on the face of this earth is "Jumbo Pass" in southeastern British Columbia. When I lived in a little town called Windermere British Columbia, my future wife and I would regularly drive up past the Panorama Resort, down an ever narrowing and bumpy gravel road up into the most pristine wilderness one could imagine. Soaring glacial peaks, wildlife everywhere, peaceful, spectacular, accessible but yet remote, I can honestly say the place is magical. When I moved back to Ontario, I would return to Jumbo Pass, I've been back six times in the last decade. I've brought friends there specifically to share the place and they've come away thoroughly impressed. I've made an emotional journey with my dying mother, who was simply awestruck and thanked me for dragging her up there, despite her trepidation at being so far removed from anything. It was a memory my mom recalled on her death bed, it made that much of an impact on her, as it does to everyone who has the opportunity to see it.

Today, the British Columbia government looks set to approve the controversial Jumbo Glacier Resort. The proposed "village" site:



This approval has been a twenty year battle. You can get lost in the back and forth arguments, as with every project, differing points of view. What strikes me is the fact nothing is sacred anymore, there is no "enough is enough" with human beings. The Invermere valley below is BOOMING, every time I return that much more development, another golf course, more oil money pouring in from Alberta, the area is rocking by any economic definition. Frankly, the place is losing its charm, but that's what happens to attractive vacation spots. My point being, this isn't a town in dire need of employment, all the benefits argued only mean more people, not a required need for the already resident population. To think of 700000 visitors going up and down Toby Creek to some manufactured "village", hard for me to see the appeal. As well, on your way to this new resort, you'll pass the ever growing Panorama Resort, which begs the questions again, when is enough enough?

Why do we "have" to develop Jumbo Pass? Why does the government of British Columbia not see merit in preservation? Why must every developer win in the end, going through "hoops" fine, but can't we just say NO every once and a while, particularly for an area increasingly rare and unique? I feel quite confident in saying this particularly area doesn't "need" another resort, another golf course, another fine dining experience, another gluttonous excess at the expense of rarity. Leave it alone, leave the goddam grizzlies alone, even if you can't be there, you know it exists and that's enough. One day, they'll look back in wonder at our short sighted stupidity, and our perverse sense of "progress". A Jumbo fail, and I'm ready to join the fight....

Handicapping NDP Race

Political predictions are problematic at the best of times, but given the complicated voting structure, this weekend's NDP leadership convention is ripe for surprise. That said, the most likely scenario appears to be a Mulcair victory, for a number of reasons. Perhaps as compelling as the eventual winner, who will emerge as the primary alternative, or is the field so muddled that no "stop Mulcair" option can even be entertained.

The only two candidates that seem to have the slightest degree of "momentum" heading into Toronto are Mulcair and Cullen. Cullen has run a terrific campaign, his authenticity has served him well, as has a degree of boldness in his thought process. The question becomes, is the appearance of entering the "top tier" enough, moral victories aside, unless we see a very healthy first vote expression, it will all be for not in the final analysis. Should Cullen get lost within the pack chasing Mulcair, it's hard to see how subsequent votes coalesce around him, particularly when other candidates will similar potential stay on the board. Of course, all this speculations assumes more than one vote, as well as a presumption Mulcair isn't "on the cusp" after the first tally.

Nash to me has run a very bland campaign, I perceive her entering this convention flat, hard pressed to see how she emerges as a go to alternative. Ditto for Topp, although I don't think he's fallen as far as some suspect, difficult to find a winning path. Interesting here, both of these candidates represent the traditional NDP lines, pass the "purity" tests, but also a tired message in some respects. I foresee lots of pressure to drop out immediately, should either not look terribly viable. Given how many campaigns are vying for second spot, anything past third on the first vote is a certain loser, I expect to see a walk or two, with arms raised. If I'm looking for two "underperform" candidates to watch, it's Nash and Topp.

I've always liked Paul Dewar, but his campaign hasn't been terribly impressive. A good campaign, but no real spark or compelling impetus to separate from the pack. Dewar is clearly in the mix, seems to have strong pockets of support and organization, but I sense Cullen has stolen a bit of his "grassroots" thunder. Curious to see where Dewar lands, as with the others anything from second to fifth is entirely possible.

Of course, all this jockeying behind Mulcair works for Mulcair. The best case scenario after the first vote is Mulcair ahead, with a unclear picture behind him, a bunch of candidates separated by a few points. Given 70% of votes are predicted to have been cast prior to the convention, it becomes a reach to foresee a truly effective counter emerge on the floor, as we've seen in the past. Mulcair at 30% is intriguing, Mulcair at 35-37%, that range, pretty much all over. Mulcair will grow, people can scoff at Martin Singh, but he looks poised to deliver on masse, even three, four percent of delegates will have impact, when other drifting is factored in. Other candidates would kill to have a built in growth mechanism on the second ballot, so this tertiary storyline is not without consideration.

Mulcair likely wins because we can't figure out who the anti-Mulcair is, reasonable to see nobody emerge as required to upset him. However, there may very well be some "deals" in play that only manifest on the floor, but even here this probably involves two campaigns working in tandem to support a third, given the pre-vote, this type of scenario really the only viable, effective option.

Where is Mulcair on the first ballot? Is there any separation on the first ballot, or are the chasers a muddled mess? Does this format of prefrential ballots and a majority of pre-votes allow for traditional convention floor jockeying? And, most importantly, despite all the predictalbe raised hands and talk of unity when the new leader is selected, will this process leave wounds and have consequence as we move forward?

Agendas

There is a story within the robocall story that is perhaps equally as fascinating, primarily because the dynamics of such have ramifications well beyond this one issue. Amazed implies surprise, a better word might be confirmed, because watching the various reactions, over reaches, underminings, slants, one thing is clear, objective reads are rare, almost everyone seems to have an agenda, rendering underlying truths merely one facet of a confusing maelstorm.

Stephen Maher has it right, when asked to speculate on various directions, he returns to the facts as known to date, reiterates that if you focus on those alone, you have a fairly formidable issue. As well, I note people like Andrew Coyne continually reaffirming that we need to see where the facts take us, keep an open mind, let the evidence guide us where it will. Seems to me that viewpoint is the foundation of good journalism, makes a good historian, is a pre-requisite to any worthy inquiry. And yet, this sober, detached perspective seems to be a rare viewpoint, said with urgency in the face of strong, dismissive headwinds, as well as over the top implications.

I watched a respected professor the other day dismiss the robocall affair, not based on merit, but his own viewpoint that Ottawa was to consumed with scandal rather than real issues, our political class distracted by triviality while serious matters put on the back burner. I think most would agree with that sentiment, however in this instance I refer to that bias as "baggage", to make this robocall scandal bear the brunt of a larger trend has the effect of nullifying it's INDEPENDENT significance. It is irrelevant to questions of overall Ottawa culture, let's look at the unique merits of this particular issue, without bringing in all these preconceived wider narratives, it does a disservice to the fundamental democratic problems swirling around this story. Leave your biased baggage at the door please, your cultivated cynicism offers no insight to whether vote suppression is real or imagined, the dismissive tone is insulting.

On the other side, I've cautioned against the over reach, making certain claims which could well fall short, and in turn marginalize transgressions simply because of relativity. For example, let's say 31000 complaints to Elections Canada wasn't known, the now revealed 700 plus genuine complaints are seen in a different light. As it stands now, apologists have been given a talking point, because true reality appears less than previous forecasts, nothing on actual merit, just a lowered bar that was a created marker. As well, when partisans try to make this a national campaign, orchestrated by the top echelons of the Conservative machine, if we end up finding limited voter suppression, THOUSANDS of calls in a particular riding, the true implications are somehow lessened by artificial expectation.

Everyone acknowledges something "bad happened" in Guelph, but even here we see how agendas attempt to manipulate these accepted facts. The PMO feeding certain journalists information which acknowledges an alarming problem but carefully supports the "one off" resignation, supports an isolated event, which has no somehow morphed into a freebie of sorts. The entire Conservative campaign in Guelph is lawyered up and we all agree thousands of non supporters where given bogus information, but really is that a big deal? Only if you must implicate the entire Conservative apparatus, otherwise yes the facts alone represent the biggest attempt at voter fraud in Canadian history.

Keep your eye on agendas moving forward, because they exist beyond this one issue and an sense of true objective pursuit is the casualty. It is frankly astounding to hear so many people scoff, actively suppress, in the name of personal bent, cynical indifference or a larger agenda, both revealing and concerning all at once. The facts are speaking, hopefully they don't get lost in the political tug of war, sadly the proxy media war, and everyone else attaching their own personal pet peeves that do a disservice to the fundamentally important issues at hand.

NDP Leadership Race Goes "Liberal"

It really is quite astounding, that someone with as much political experience as Ed Broadbent would so openly and fundamentally attack the candidate who is the consensus favourite to assume the NDP leadership. I would categorize his comments as reckless, but perhaps worse outright dangerous, leaving much potential for lasting damage. That the elder NDP statesman made subsequent comments in more than one venue, all the more amazing, because a moment of reflection should have solicited pause.

It's not that Broadbent doesn't make sense, isn't articulating genuine concern as to philosophical leanings and personal fitness, but it seems obvious that no good can come from so scathing an indictment. Broadbent has effectively opened up a deep chasm that will have ramifications moving forward. Should Mulcair lose the leadership, fair to ask about his future place in the NDP, particularly if there is the slightest sense that party purists have rejected his presence within. As well, the very real possibility that the verdict amounts to a rejection of the new Quebec breed, since Broadbent went out of his way to divide new and old MP's into tiers. If this convention reveals any sense of ganging up to stop Mulcair, this doesn't occur in a vacuum, there will be lasting impact and Broadbent's words will haunt.

The other scenario involves Mulcair winning, and while much is in doubt, surely Broadbent must realize this the most likely scenario, or at least a real possibility. Mulcair wins, and yet there will be this sense that his colleagues question his mental makeup, people are uncomfortable with his leadership style, some see an abandonment of the traditional NDP political bent. I'm not sure a bunch of smiling faces, arms raised in unity on the convention floor will adequately put to rest the Broadbent blindside, particularly when his expressions aren't without merit.

Broadbent represents a terrific blunder, a poorly conceived gambit inspired by narrow self interest. In trying to help his sagging candidate Topp, he has undermined Mulcair in a way that cuts deep. Actually, the fact that Broadbent didn't see the political pitfalls, didn't react with the slightest FORESIGHT, perhaps a testament to why his brand of NDP leadership never did reach the promised land, because yesterday was strangely amateurish for such a seasoned politician. To say Broadbent's broadside was ill conceived is being kind....

Harper Will Galvanize Opposition

The "anything can happen" camp in both opposition parties will resist any talk of co-operation, but if you live in the world of probability rather than possibility, sober conclusions must be entertained if we are to truly rid Canada of a government I personally consider a scourge. A divided opposition is Harper's trump card, it is the dynamic that allows an almost justified arrogance, simply take care of the base and Conservative prospects are guaranteed, the "rest" an irrelevant afterthought. A superficial review of issue after issue showing majority opposition to policies- yet little electoral recourse- proof positive that the Conservative equation is forever favourable. Look elsewhere, approval ratings at these levels amount to devastation, in Canada, it represents stable majority government, due to inefficient opposition.

Trudeau is the latest to openly muse about what may be required to defeat these Conservatives in the next election. His sentiment really no different that what we are hearing from certain quarters in the NDP, there are forces in both parties open to some level of co-operation, degree yet to be entirely fleshed out. Watching how the MP's from both parties GENERALLY interact- partisan constructs aside- there is a fairly positive mood, which is cultivated primarily by a sense of common "enemy". Liberals, NDP, Green, doesn't matter, we are all concerned about the government changing the environmental review process for instance, from my perspective the dangerous dimensions of application trump any tribal concern. In other words, this government is so offensive, on so many issues, as well as the toxic climate they cultivate, they will galvanize opposition. I firmly believe a Harper majority, their unbridled power, is beginning to act like a cold shower, it is putting the true damage into undeniable focus, which will allow for decisions beyond narrow self interest and arbitrary lines that pale in comparison.

Differences will always remain, fundamental philosophical departures, but surely a party with a "frontrunner" who sounds like a Liberal, and another with a former NDP leader at the helm, aren't that far apart that no rapprochement can be had. When faced with the reality of what another Harper mandate might mean for the country we desire, big picture epiphany will be reached, it is happening one member at a time, as we continually see the consequences of this particular reign.

I'm not sure what manifestation of co-operation will unfold, but I will remain open to ever proposal, because while there are fundamental disagreements, there is also a common realization of what the alternative means. There is a way to rid ourselves of Harper in 2015, there is reasonable path, but it will require brave thinking that puts common interest above self interest.

NDP Leadership X Factor?

As the NDP leadership approaches, I'm noting a lot of emerging digestion on the horserace, who to watch, who sits where after the first ballot, the juicy stuff that only a certifiable politics geek can love. After watching the last leadership debate, as well today's Joan Bryden piece, I think the real X Factor in this race may just be the lowly Martin Singh, and lowly is important as I'll explain:

Thousands of Martin Singh supporters in B.C.'s South Asian community are being urged to rank front-runner Thomas Mulcair as their second choice for federal NDP leader.

As recently as Sunday, Singh vehemently denied he's working in concert with Mulcair.

Yet Singh's former western organizer, Sukh Johal, confirmed Monday that he's now working for Mulcair.

Johal told The Canadian Press he signed up 4,500 members from British Columbia's South Asian community for Singh. He ceased working for Singh on Feb. 18, the deadline for signing up new party members eligible to vote in the leadership contest.

Now, Johal said he's volunteering for Mulcair, urging the same people he recruited for Singh to mark Mulcair as their second choice on their preferential ballots.

What's more, he said he suspects Singh might openly deliver the same message to all his supporters in the next day or two.

First, British Columbia is a LONG way from Toronto, fair to say many will be voting with mail in/online ballots, rather than in person. Of course many will be voting live online as well, but the fact Singh is directing supporters to put Mulcair as second choice indicative of how many of his people will ultimately participate. Under the leadership rules, the "mail in" participate lists a preferential ballot, meaning once their candidate drops out, their second choice becomes THE choice, a very important dynamic. The fact that Singh is universally understood as an "also ran" means he, more than others, will most certainly be dropping out, should we have subsequent votes. That reality means these "thousands" of Singh supporters who are being encouraged to vote Mulcair could have a relatively large impact, a fact that seems to be escaping conventional wisdom so far.

If we have a scenario where three or four people look viable after the initial vote(no one foresees a first ballot victory), the second choice preference for these contender supporters is irrelevant, it hasn't engaged, it sits there waiting to have impact, if ever. However, for candidates like Singh and Ashton- who will be dropping out- those triggered second place preferences can have sizable impact, both in terms of true results as well as momentum, perceived "growing" capabilities for those left in the race. You may very well have a scenario where the second vote is deciding, and if not, brings a certain inevitability that influences other supporters moving forward. Martin Singh, if he is directing a loyal base, has the potential to play a deciding role in this race. I suspect Cullen's volley Singh's way yesterday was also an admission of the behind the scenes concerns, "also rans" get triggered, "contenders" stay dormant.

I will be attending the NDP convention as an accredited blogger. Much thanks to the NDP for allowing me to attend, it should be a fascinating couple of days that I'm really looking forward to. I'll be keeping my eye on many things in Toronto, one of them is the Martin Singh factor, given the rules and his apparent INTENTIONS, perhaps a larger player than raw numbers would otherwise suggest.

Robocall Impact

I find it a bit odd, the rush to verdict on the robocall affair, particularly when it's clearly an evolving story, that is nowhere near crescendo. How anyone can make definitive conclusion on resonance escapes me, particularly seasoned observers like a Gerry Nichols for example. Much of the impetus for these rash pronouncements seems to stem from already held beliefs on what matters to Canadians, rather than viewing the robocall affair with non jaundiced eyes. Considering many a government has been harmed by non "trains on time" scandals, the dismissive tone from many quarters strikes me as misplaced cynicism.

Kinsella is on the money again, to date one of the better continual reads on this scandal:

"As a general rule, they will not pass judgment unless they see perps being led away in handcuffs and orange jumpsuits"

I've made this point as well, when we start seeing Conservatives walking into court rooms, no matter how far up the chain, it will tarnish, it will impact public perceptions, anything but irrelevant or inconsequential. We are at the early stages of this scandal, already we see a public that does want answers, but it is hardly surprising that an overwhelming judgement has yet to pass, unlike some who are covering the affair. Cheating, getting caught and going to jail, Canadians don't like, dismiss and time may betray you.

Kinsella makes a wider point, which "opposition" to Harper must tackle, if things like the robocall scandal will truly have measurable electoral impact. There is a very compelling, almost irrefutable, argument to be made that the current party divisions constitute a "free pass" for these Conservatives, relatively immune due to fundamental negating forces. It is for this reason that we can see devastating right direction/wrong direction polling for the Conservatives and it still translates into power, comfortable at that. Every conversation starts with 30-35% support in the Conservatives pocket, almost unshakable, something that can be depended on no matter the issue that arises, it simply has no place to go. It is a bit disconcerting that you can have two thirds of Canadians vehemently opposed to this regime and they can simultaneously feel no discernible threat. It is this dynamic that represents the single biggest reality in federal politics, if not addressed, much of the sound and fury is marginalized.

Moving forward, I think what is imperative, understanding the best possible path that delivers the most comprehensive impact. What scenarios will make things like robocon truly BITE the Conservatives, how to take certain outrages and maximize the damage to their fortunes. One thing is now beyond clear, the current political makeup has a "scot free" component which undermines any notion of accountability or normal consequence.

Robopoll

The first robocall specific poll is out from Angus Reid and it provides little comfort for the Conservatives. The poll also reveals the opposition will find much support in pushing for further inquiry. As well, on a couple key questions, there is some consensus across party lines.

The opposition should ramp up the calls for a full public inquiry, that is shrewd politically and the concept finds overwhelming support with votes, even Conservatives:

81% want an independent investigation to find out exactly who was behind any misleading robocalls that may have been made in the May 2011 federal election...including 72% of Conservative voters

That is a big number, rarely do you see such unanimity on any question, even more striking the large majority of Conservative supporters on side. If the opposition really ramp up the calls for a public inquiry, there is a VERY sympathetic audience.

As I mentioned in the last post, a real tug of war politically revolving around isolating the robocalls, is it a "one off" or is it "systematic". This poll shows the Conservatives face headwinds:

64% think the Guelph incident is “probably’ or “definitely” one of many that took place in the last campaign...only 18% think it isolated.

I would argue the above also supports the need for a public inquiry, as people clearly aren't buying the Conservative argument this is a rogue affair, in only one riding, they suspect more are in play.

As it relates to resonance, an even split, 50% following very closely or moderately close, 50% not much or not at all. Relatively, a pretty strong number as to the "water cooler" element, and perhaps moreso when you consider percentage of people who actually vote.

Another interesting finding, voters were asked if there should be by-elections in "every riding that was the subject of misleading robocalls should have a by-election as soon as possible." 50% of voters agreed, 37% don't, a finding which provides fodder for possible recounts. As well, 44% of people believe robocalls have "changed the outcome" of the federal election, 36% don't agree, concerning in that this controversy is undermining our democratic confidence.

This is a quite a bad poll for the government side, people aren't buying their arguments and they believe further inquiry is warranted, in overwhelming fashion. These results give the opposition some ammunition to keep up an aggressive posture, people are concerned and people are questioning.

Robocall Reset

It's important to keep some perspective here, as the Conservatives play the "contain" game with robocalls. The frame emerging seems to be that if the Conservatives can isolate electoral fraud to Guelph, they've effectively killed this scandal. On the other hand, the opposition is entirely focused on finding the smoking gun that leads right to Conservative central command. There is a tug of war at play, which has the almost bizarre effect of rendering Guelph almost irrelevant to the discussion. Oh sure, something really bad happened in Guelph involving Conservative operatives, perhaps some rogue element used the database for nefarious purposes, but if it can be contained to that riding, it equates to full "exoneration" in a sense for the formal Conservative Party apparatus, which is all that matters. Huh?

You don't get a freebie riding, you don't get to say "well this happened here, BUT", because that distracts from what DID happen in a riding very much in play. Backtrack to the last couple weeks of the national campaign, a Liberal Party CRATERING, there was every sense that no seat was safe, particularly a "swing" riding that was quite close in 2008. In the dying days of the 2011 campaign, Guelph was in doubt, look at an electoral map and you'll see a SEA OF BLUE surrounding it on all sides, a lone island, the last Liberal stronghold in an entire region. It was reasonable to surmise, given the state of things, that a few votes could well determine the outcome in Guelph, to say it was safe, historically asinine, perhaps moreso given the Liberals in TOTAL freefall. In other words, a prime riding wherein voter suppression could well have been perceived as a tilting factor, no doubt about it.

It is somewhat irrelevant if anyone finds formal sanction of what transpired in Guelph. Given the stance of people like Giorno, Harper, there is a certain confidence that no direct chain will lead right to the heart of the Conservative machine. I would submit that is a reasonable assumption, because serious people understand electoral fraud and paper trails, I suspect a certain cognition which wouldn't touch this formally. What remains in my mind, how far up the chain, was there nudges, winks, was their mid level assistance, all these questions remain to be seen. However, what happened in Guelph isn't in dispute, the Conservatives CONCEDE, their own database perhaps sheds some light, for whatever reason, on Guelph all parties agree.

Here's what we need to keep in mind moving forward. The Conservative frame is that Guelph yes, but there is no formal undertaking, nor was these a carefully orchestrated NATIONAL endeavour. That is a bar that is artificial, so it's important to not get caught up in demands to reveal more, when we already have SO MUCH acknowledged. There is a danger in treating Guelph like a mulligan, with the REAL onus somehow on the opposition to prove more. Bullocks! We have a swing riding that seems to be the target of WIDESPREAD electoral fraud, which according to Elections Canada seemly involves Conservatives, perhaps people involved in a formal campaign, using sophisticated data to usurp democratic will. Isolate yourself to Guelph all you want, but again that's a fictional distinction, because that type of frame distracts from the biggest example of electoral fraud in Canadian history, don't trivialize within a pursuit of something more.

Nobody knows where this scandal leads us, I suspect many more surprises moving forward. That said, this examination isn't about the aforementioned tug of optical war occurring, much is already known and it IS damaging to the Conservatives, let's not lose ourselves in dueling frames as "victory" measures. If no more investigations come, if no more ridings are put under the microscope, if no more evidence leads to a wider net, we are still left with an incredibly disturbing scandal which apparently involves Conservatives who are committed to this Harper regime. Hardly trivial or easily fluffed off as rogue nothingness, Guelph counts no matter where we go.....

"The military is to serve the Canadian public, not the Minister."

If there is one IMPORTANT story that is largely being ignored- as we sift through the robocall scandal and all its tentacles- it is the revelation that Peter MacKay employed the Canadian military to find DIRT on a political rival. The very idea is simply obscene, while current military officials are fluffing off this controversy, those with some perspective appreciate the very dangerous prospect of our military picking sides politically, using their resources to provide partisan cover:

The Canadian Forces is defending its decision to use officers to collect information on one of Defence Minister Peter MacKay's political opponents, saying the process is no different than its efforts to gather facts for the public and news media.

But former military officers say such activities, which prompted allegations about Canadian Forces personnel "digging up dirt" on the minister's political enemies, cross the line and jeopardize the longstanding political neutrality of the military...

Simms said he was taken aback by the efforts of the military officer in MacKay's office to collect information on him. "The fact that this military officer is using military resources to back up Peter MacKay is incredibly disturbing," he added.

First, I believe our military has better things to do than opposition research on our dime, that is way out of bounds. More importantly, if people begin to perceive our military as an "ally" of the Conservative Party, it effectively undermines the notion of neutrality, which in turn can erode the perceptions of Canadians, as to how they see their military. There is simply no reasonable excuse for military personnel looking into dirt on a Liberal MP to protect Peter MacKay, that very much crosses a line, despite the reassurances.

Everyone is a partisan in Harper's Ottawa, or at the very least, no institution isn't a potential tool to be exploited for self interest. Disturbing is right and these revelations deserve serious attention.

Conservative Cracks

Three years until we vote, meaningless, yes I understand! Nanos poll out with a few noteworthy results, not the least of which the walking dead party, the Liberals, touch 30% nationally, pretty remarkable, even if it's a one off result(I bet they can't keep Peter C. Newman's book on the shelves). As well, EKOS out with their poll, which shows the Conservatives barely outside a statistical tie with the NDP, dissatisfaction with this government skyrocketing. The two polls provide contradictory results in one sense, but both show some evidence of Conservative cracks.

Nanos describes his latest as "steady" for the Conservatives, and the top line national results support that notion, no change whatsoever. However, looking at the regionals, we see that two places show measurable change, Atlantic Canada with a large Conservative uptick which offsets a 6% drop in Ontario, creating the national sawoff result. Poll junkies will note, Atlantic Canada has a very small sample size, poll to poll the results vary wildly, whereas Ontario is the more instructive MOE wise, within a singular poll. A very encouraging result for the Liberals, particularly because Nanos has found Ontario resilience for consecutive results:

Libs 37.8% (35.1%)
Cons 35.9% (42.1%)
NDP 21.9% (16.9%)
Greens 3.9% (5.4%)

The third place Liberals are in first place in Canada's most populous province again for a Nanos poll. Noteworthy as well, this occurs with Bob Rae at the helm.

Nanos also puts the NDP back up to 32.6% in Quebec. As well, the Liberals remain pretty firm at 27%, a solid second place result in the province. The Conservatives are an afterthought fourth in the province. We have a circumstance were "steady" shows the opposition leading in Canada's two most populated provinces, and poll to poll, this result represents a seat loss for the Conservatives.

Moving to the EKOS poll, if you look at his trendline since the election, Libs gently moving up, Conservatives consistently falling, NDP off their highs. The Conservatives down to 31.5% nationally represents weak minority terrority, less than a year into their mandate. What is really concerning for the Conservatives, the EKOS right direction/wrong direction shows considerable erosion:


Confidence in this government is on the wane, an underlying result which has to be of some concern.

These two polls don't provide consistent narratives, one has the zombies at 30%, the other the NDP nipping at the Conservatives heels, but both show opposition to this government is manifesting itself, weakness very evident. The question now, what are we going to do about it and make that opposition optimal, in terms of effectiveness?

Cheater

There is an interesting tension underneath the robocall story, the debate about resonance, "legs", staying power, inside, outside, how much impact this scandal is truly having with the general public. Everyone will look to the next batch of polls to denote the impact, others already pointing to specific avenues of public expression, we will seek concrete reassurance to confirm what our sensibilities tell us. One caveat, as Kinsella shrewdly points out, rash judgements may not fit this particular scandal model, "tarnish" may be hard to ascertain short term.

I keep hearing the "trains on time" argument, all we care about is the economy and competence, this scandal, like many others, will simply fade as a vote motivator. I understand the logic in a certain sense, but I also see it a bit too simplistic and one dimensional in verdict. This scandal is simple at the heart, not some complicated scheme in the sense that it boils down to fairness and CHEATING. Nobody likes a cheater, when we watch a sport we leap out of our chair at a dive, when somebody butts in on a lineup we furrow our brows, tsk, tsk. The notion of fairness manifests itself everywhere, in our lives we confront it everyday, this isn't some abstract concept or complicated undertaking, it's a very elementary belief system.

If I care about the economy, it doesn't mean I absolve usurping my democratic right, it doesn't mean I condone people cheating to win an election. Whether or not the Harper government won handily anyways is utterly irrelevant, and I suspect people comprehend this fact. What matters isn't the overall outcome, but the attempt to influence any outcome using voter suppression, taking away that singular right we all have, attempting to nullify the core tenet of a democracy. To argue this issue doesn't matter is to say Canadians don't care about their individual rights, their system, the idea that we compete fairly and ethically. To date, the only people I see condoning the alleged behaviour are hopeless conbots and their media water carriers, the reality based community is largely aghast. Again, a simple digestion, people may have CHEATED during this election, people may have attempted to OBSTRUCT your democratic expression, people may have tried to STEAL an election.

This the most serious election related issue Canada has ever faced, there is no precedent for any of these allegations, it will force a re-examination of our political process. Much of the debate now is how much will stick, can the Conservatives maintain separation, can the stench be isolated down the chain, that will be important moving forward. However, admissions are already acknowledged, which means certain Conservatives have done things untoward, everyone admits CHEATING has taken place, the "who" still in question, the WHAT firm and no in dispute.

Conservatives CHEATED during the 2011 election, rogue, organized, isolated, pervasive, systematic, amateurish, whatever, Canadians merely see that one word and that it ties to a certain partisan expression. Nobody likes a cheater, simple as that...

Sheer Arrogance

I'm not sure what's worse, having the stones to run self promotion ads for a budget that preaches austerity, cutting public service, or the fact the Conservatives will suffer little consequence. On a day when Harper blames the Liberals for the Election Canada's investigation of the Conservatives, the following still sticks out for sheer arrogance:

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced this week that March 29 will be federal budget day, the very first words out of his mouth heralded the coming “Jobs and Growth Budget.”

If the phrase sounds vaguely familiar, it should.

Taxpayers are footing the bill for a $12.4-million government ad campaign with one common message: “creating jobs and growth”...

The irony is that the government-wide message — and its taxpayer-funded promotion — comes in advance of a federal budget that Conservative ministers have said could slash spending by as much as $8-billion.

“It does strike me as passing strange to be talking about restraint on the one side and talking about jobs and growth on the other side,” Doug Porter, deputy chief economist for BMO Capital Markets, said in an interview on Thursday.

A lot of the commentary these days gets lost in the "pox on all their houses" mentality, which tends to absolve individual transgressions in the name of some relative indifference, borne of past experience. Every government promotes itself, and with that a collective yawn that misses a central fact: NO government in Canadian history has come ANYWHERE near the expenditures of THIS Conservative government when it comes to self promotion, NOT EVEN CLOSE. These Conservatives have spent FOUR TIMES their predecessors on government advertising, a fact that gets little attention, which amounts to a free pass, which leads us to today's revelation.

Here we are, on the eve of the "toughest" budget in years, public servants BRACING for cuts, the axe will fall, everyone is prepared to belt tighten in the name of "austerity". And yet, we witness a complete contradiction, there will be no scaling back of nonsensical ads that offer little of substance, it's business as usual for self interest, you must show prudence, we will carry on with naked excess. If there is a more glaring disconnect currently, I'm hard pressed to find one. Unfortunately, the word hypocrisy has been so overused of late, it no longer carries any weight, but here, this is a classic and disturbing example.

As we wait for the budget, I'm just hoping as digestion breaks away to commercial, this government has the audacity to buy a spot or two, because for that one brief instance, it would amount to the perfect moment that highlights all that's wrong with Harper's Ottawa. Watch for it, and watch them pull it off as well....

An Utter Waste Of Time

With so many issues flying around, the actual role of Parliament in this scandal is largely lost. For the last two days, I’ve made a point of watching Question Period with some misguided “anticipation”, which should have been betrayed by past experience, but curiously wasn’t this time. I suspect the amount of people viewing Question Period has risen this week- even attendance in the gallery seems to be more than usual- there is a rare buzz, as happens when major issues break. What is instructive I think, the absolutely ABYSMAL show in Question Period, the complete and utter irrelevance of the undertaking, a total waste of time. Fact is, the debate amongst our Parliamentarians, at least during this high profile period, has contributed nothing of value, it’s provided no “light”, it’s given no answers, it has served no purpose that I can ascertain.

Review the transcript from yesterday, the actually sad hilarity is just that much more pointed. The NDP begins with a question about the robocall controversy, the Prime Minister responds with a completely unrelated lecture about floor crossing episode. The NDP leader asks a follow up question, same topic, again the subject is ignored and the same response regarding an issue with no relationship to the question. We then move to another NDP questioner, who is met with a complete dodge, something about telling Elections Canada what they have, delivered in robotic fashion, nothing gleamed or anything of use to anyone. Okay, let’s give the Liberals a crack. Rae rises, asks some pointed questions about the robocall scandal and the Prime Minister responds by discussing vikileaks, unilaterally ignoring the question and delivering his own pre-determined message. And so on, and so on, and so on….. CLICK, what was I thinking, why did I bother, if there is a place on earth devoid of external meaning, surely this is it.

Question Period is supposed to be a means to maintain accountability. The whole concept revolves around the notion of the government answering to the issues of the day, the opposition playing its role in holding them to account, that’s the theory. In practice, an embarrassing display of nonsensical answers, it’s as though two parallel worlds exist that can never collide, just get the charade over with, make it until 3pm and everyone gets out of jail. Should anything of substance actually transpire, this is a seismic event, an anomaly that is really a byproduct of random chance, dumb luck, rather than true intent.

Again, so many angles to this particular robocall story, but one that I take note of, another astonishing example of just what a disservice, what a fundamental failure, this now accepted comedic routine known as Question Period.

This Fire Has Embers

Ibbitson states the obvious to a certain extent, the Conservative strategy appears to be banking on this robocall storm simply blowing itself out. Hardly a new tactic, the Conservatives are masters at riding out controversy, knowing full well that today's media climate is immediate, attention spans non existent, what looks "huge" today, forgotten tomorrow. The catchword "BREAKING" is almost redundant, because our daily information is forever the now, issues go stale in hours, not days and unless a story is continually "stoked", it simply burns out, we move on to the next instant gratification. As well, a certain boredom tends to take hold, a recurring story tends to have less impact with each successive review.

Vikileaks fits into the above category, in a week nobody will remember the name of Liberal staffer, just another example of unseemly political activity, but largely forgotten. However, if the Conservatives are "banking" on the robocall controversy simply falling off the radar, I submit that strategy will fail. One caveat, given the available options, perhaps the tried and true Conservative reaction (go back and look at In and Out for example, Harper is eerily familiar now, as are the minions) is the least worst option, cornered, what other avenues are available?

I believe this scandal has "legs", there is an almost institutional element that will keep the issue top of mind. There are investigations, legal questions, the very real possibility of a bi-election or two, as well as unforeseen revelations, all congealing to create a scandal which has legs. As well, I note CBC's Jamie Watt segment on what is resonating found this issue is hitting a very widespread nerve, robocalls are resonating, it has burst outside the bubble and generating real world chatter. You could make a compelling argument that most of the previous controversies these Conservatives have confronted haven't truly resonated, which has contributed to the success of the "ragging the puck" strategies. In this instance, early evidence suggests a potentially deeper electoral reaction, which again puts into question whether the Conservatives can successfully ride this issue out.

The courts will decide in April if we will have a least one bi-election in Etobicoke Center, Liberals are looking at other ridings as well. The legal threshold for triggering a bi-election lies with the ability to demonstrate that this robocall behaviour may have impacted the result. There is a very real possibility this stipulation can be met, which would translate into a fascinating development. A bi-election, wherein ethics will be the primary issue, as impetus, no question any vote would become a referendum on this whole unseemly matter. Should a bi-election be called anywhere, it amounts to a guarantee that this scandal will stay front and center, we will have a protracted national debate about political behaviour and our democratic tenets. Voters will have the most concrete avenue available to weigh in, to sanction or punish, emotions will run high.

There are so many angles within this scandal, so much drip, drip, drip, so many formal avenues that will evolve, the Conservatives might find that this time, their formely successful scandal template doesn't bail them out. This fire has embers...

"They're All The Same"

I think you can make a convincing case that Toews personal life in this instance was relevant, given assertions he was making, the record contradicted the disingenuous optics. That said, the whole Vikileaks account was bad form, despite an early follow, I declined to reciprocate, it was irrelevant to the matter at hand and above all it was entirely mean spirited. My instant instinct- which I shared with a couple of people- was that the formal nature of the accounting reeked of professional research and I "bet" it was an opposition party. Sadly, now that the dust settles it turns out it was a Liberal staffer in our research department, which meansour donations were effectively fueling this person's activities, it was done on our time so to speak.

There are some real important lessons learned here, the particular timing sadly perfect in terms of clarity. Here we are, on a day when Parliament returns with a maelstrom circling, and one Liberal has managed to distract attention, throw ourselves into the unseemly soup, rather than Conservatives drowning, a certain shame from our quarter and a general sense that we're all the same. A caveat, by NO means am I elevating this to the level of "robocalls", only an acknowledgement that it's a bit hard to take the high road when you yourself are on the defensive. This day took a shocking turn, and in so doing, took some heat off where it should be and left us scrambling, unnecessarily.

Again, I don't like hard and fast rules, Toews personal life was relevant because of his assertions, like any public account, I feel there is an obligation to assert discrepancies, personal or not. I'd also add I don't feel that is some tortured "rationalization", due to political bent, that conveniently cheapens a legitimate argument. However, the idea that some person in our research bureau was spending his day pumping out sordid details- in reaction to an issue completely detached from the subject matter- it was low brow, it was dirty and it should never be sanctioned by a party or its subordinates.

What we have to realize here, the public doesn't go over all the nuance, that is the realm of the small geekdom class, who forever have trouble realizing the difference. Today, I'm sure many a casual observer is saying "oh, they're all the same", the two matters melt into a indictment of our political masters, we are all sullied. And, this stark reality is why it is very hard for any political party to claim true moral high ground, they are constantly met with hypocritical instance and selective outrages. Today, only adds to the confusion, and unfortunately a mountain meets a molehill and you're left with a murky picture.

I suspect Liberal staffer is a one day affair, this "robocall" issue simply dwarfs in so many ways, fundamentally the two issues aren't even in the same conversation, obviously. However, the real lesson here is, tonight, right now, a lot of people can't tell the difference.

Outrageous

While we focus on robocalls, there is another story on the political radar, one that is simply an outrageous ABUSE of power, that puts the impartiality of the military into question:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay almost ran from a military conference Friday morning as he dodged questions about emails that suggest military personnel were enlisted to help turn the tables on the opposition after revelations MacKay used a search-and-rescue helicopter during a fishing trip in 2010.

The emails show that on Sept. 22, one day after a TV report that MacKay had used a Cormorant helicopter to be taken from a private fishing lodge near Gander, N.L., military officials began searching for instances of opposition members using military aircraft.

This revelation demands an investigation, MacKay has effectively pimped out the military to do opp research on a political rival. In so doing, MacKay has made the Canadian military an arm of the Conservative Party, a simply astounding development. It is no wonder MacKay ran from reporters, because there is no credible way to reconcile this political interference, this behaviour crosses important lines.

No comment from Gen. Walter Natynczyk is simply not good enough, the military should be conducting its own investigation, because ultimately this tarnishes public perception. Is this my Canadian military, or are my tax dollars being abused to further a political party's interests? The military didn't initiate the MacKay story, journalists did, and yet the "counter" seems to be entirely political in scope, people otherwise invested in military matters scanning records looking for DIRT on a Liberal MP. The opposition isn't supposed to be the "enemy" that the military needs to expose, but effectively, here, they've taken a political side, they've become an active player and this represents an incredibly dangerous precedent.

MacKay can't run forever, this story deserves further attention.

Harper's "Climate"

There are many underlying objective truths that will hopefully remain in tact, as we enter the SPIN dome on the robocall question. No reasonable observer would dispute that these Conservatives have pushed the boundaries of acceptable political behaviour, a "nastiness" attached to the process that Canadian politics hasn't seen, at least in terms of frequency. The tone of the political debate has soured, the way people are attacked has intensified, the low road is now met with almost surrendering shrugs, we've become acclimatised to unseemly tactics.

Rewind a few scant months ago, and you'll see a DESPICABLE misinformation campaign in Irwin Cotler's riding. The formal Conservative arm will distance itself from the robocall question, but here we had a SANCTIONED campaign, with the sole aim of DECEIVING voters. You'll also recall when "outed", all we received from Harper Conservatives was bizarre rationalizations, a "run out the clock" strategy and the issue died, just another fluffed off example of dirty politics. I mention this example, in light of Harper's selective outrage yesterday and PLEDGE to find these unethical individuals and make them PAY! In reality, whether it is found to be a rogue partisan in this most recent instance, it really is the type of behaviour akin to formal war room strategy, as the Cotler example revealed in NAKED fashion.

I've followed the American primary system for a long, long time, and I believe this an objective truth: when it comes to nastiness, dirty tactics, a poisoned well, NOBODY does it better than the Republicans, the Democrats are amateurs compared to the cesspool that occurs when the GOP picks a standard bearer. Sure, you can highlight a particular example here and there for partisan counter, but when you pull back and observe the landscape in totality with any fairness, only a die hard bias would dispute a stronger correlation between conservatism and scumbag tactics. I mention this reality because much of the Conservative thrust is imported philosophy, there has been a concerted effort to adopt certain approaches. This robocall story reeks of American style politics, that type of nonsense is commonplace within their system, nobody bats an eye, it's accepted as part of the game.

John Ibbitson piece today touches on an similar theme:

It could take many months to get to the bottom of the case of alleged voter suppression during the last election. The larger question, though, is whether the Conservatives’ hard-ball tactics are encouraging some people to cheat.

If they are, then the Tories bear a measure of responsibility, even if they weren’t complicit in any unethical or illegal acts...

And they may have instilled such an intensely partisan anything-you-can-get-away-with mentality among their campaign workers that one or more of them concluded it would be okay to cross the line of legality.

Plenty of outrage last week at the idiot that started a twitter account and bashed Vic Toews. This individual had sullied our entire political process, to never recover, a sad indictment of eroding morality and standards in Canadian politics. Perhaps true, but let's hope the same outrage incorporates the wider climate we currently operate in, who sets the tone, who has the most power to change or elevate, who more times than not is at the center of low brow tactics, who sits in first class on Air Douche. See the forest from the trees, that's where enlightenment lies, that's where you start ascertaining and drilling down to find underlying realities.

I could care less if we find the firm tether in this particular instance that leads right to the official Conservative war room. What's truly instructive here is very much the political climate that these "hard ball" Conservatives have brought to Ottawa, how they do politics, this end justifies the means mentality. More concerning, a successful template, these Conservatives sit with a majority, formal affirmation of a strategy which others will surely adopt, in the name of perceived success. When we wake up one day and see little contrast between the way we do politics here, and how they do it in South Carolina, just remember who were the Right Honourable's when the gutter became the norm, because it isn't a coincidence.

Weed As A Winning Wedge

From my perspective, there was a lot of misguided "scoffing" when the Liberals emerged from their Convention advocating marijuana be legalized. The passage was extrapolated into an indictment of not having compelling polices on issues that "really matter", instead left to champion some quirky side issue that is clearly not top of mind for Canadians. Quite true, I've yet to see "marijuana legalization" on any issue priority poll, although the larger topic of crime does register. Let's take it as a given that Liberals need a whole host of compelling policy positions on the economic, health care, etc to get back into the good graces with Canadian voters. As well, let's not be cynical about a particular policy that can contribute to the wider dialogue, one that can act as distinct wedge and provide a much needed contrast on the crime issue.

If you're paying attention, the Liberals gambit on marijuana is quickly becoming mainstream opinion, rather than some "far out" proposition, it seems nothing more than part of a more general opinion. Last week four former British Columbia attorney generals came out in favour of reforming our marijuana laws. As well, border states like Washington will be voting on marijuana laws this fall, a potentially huge decision, given the concerns about American reaction to potential Canadian reform. Today, more evidence of a changing climate, U.S officials warn the Conservatives on failed drug policies:

A high-profile group of current and former U.S. law enforcement officials has written to the Conservative government with a surprising message: Take it from us, the war on drugs has been a “costly failure.”

The officials are urging Canada to reconsider mandatory minimum sentences for “minor” marijuana offences under its “tough-on-crime bill” and say a better approach would be to legalize marijuana under a policy of taxation and regulation.

“We are … extremely concerned that Canada is implementing mandatory minimum sentencing legislation for minor marijuana-related offences similar to those that have been such costly failures in the United States,” their letter reads. “These policies have bankrupted state budgets as limited tax dollars pay to imprison non-violent drug offenders at record rates instead of programs that can actually improve community safety.”

The letter was signed by more than two dozen current and former judges, police officers, special agents, drug investigators and other members of the advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

I would argue there is a very effective vein to be tapped here, the Liberals can pivot off the Conservative embrace of FAILED American style approaches to drugs and offer a convincing alternative, marijuana legalization the linchpin. There is an emerging consensus that current approaches to drugs are a complete "bust", the Conservative view outdated and regressive. There are economic arguments as well, the subject of cost, the underground economy, once you accept inevitability, even the notion of lost revenues for preferred inputs.

It is not trivial that more and more opinion is coming from south of the border questioning the Conservative approach to drugs. I would guess any Canadian polling on the Americans "war on drugs" would agree with the idea of complete failure, which again speaks to the soundness in challenging that viewpoint. The Conservatives may use crime as an effective wedge to curry favour, but on the topic of the "war on drugs" there is a vulnerability, particularly when we speak of "importing" failed policies. The fact American states are rethinking their view on marijuana undercuts the historical fear of retributions, should Canada look at marijuana in a progressive way, the old caveats are subsiding. American opinion is changing, as are many state laws, the climate is much more receptive.

I don't believe advocating marijuana legalization can be the singular issue which captivates Canadians and returns the Liberals to the electoral promised land. That said, a sound house is made up of bricks, each plays a structural role that gives overall identity and form. When you speak of winning "coalitions" of voters, I would submit marijuana legalization can play a contributing role, rather than dismiss, a look at the emerging landscape shows an idea who's time has come and will find increasingly useful allies moving forward.

Oilsands And Selective "Upsides"

If you're a proponent of the oilsands, your central argument is obviously the economic upside. Listen to any sales job, and immediately you hear how the oilsands don't just benefit Alberta, but the entire country, armed with incredible statistics to show how many jobs are tied to this development, equalization payments, etc. Perhaps this a central Canada-centric point of view, but if you factor in all the various dynamics at play, one wonders if this supposed benefit is really as enticing as advertised.

With the emergence of the oilsands, our dollar is more than ever simply an extension of oil prices, oil goes up, our dollar rises, oil drops, in tow as well, a very simple casual relationship that becomes more pronounced over time. Higher oil prices obviously benefit the oil patch- particularly relatively high cost oilsand production- but because the dollar is so closely tied to this price, there is an almost inverse reality at play that harms other economies. Present day Ontario highlights the disparity, a province that relies on manufacturing is heavily dependent on the standing of our dollar. When you factor in all the jobs lost due to reduced competitiveness as a function of our energy related dollar, the flowery statistics coming out of the oilpatch are somewhat disingenuous. "All the jobs" the oilsands bring to Ontario through supposed supply of equipment is offset by an artificially inflated dollar that is too closely tied to one commodity. In fact, I'm hard pressed to really see a net benefit overall for a place like Ontario, if anything erosion as a function of the counter "emergence" out west.

There seems to be this kneejerk economic argument attached to the oilsands, despite contradictory evidence that doesn't support the optimism. For instance, this argument that a higher dollar has some inherent advantage for consumers- again the overly simplistic theoretical economist arguments apply- we should see cheaper products, that's the payoff! Instead, and our Finance Minister agrees in "frustrated" fashion, the promised cheaper goods as a function of the dollar haven't manifested, the disparity between the border pronounced, consistent, stubborn, with no signs of the promised benefits. As well, the notion of buying cheaper equipment from the Americans is a bit suspect, when one considers manufactures are closing up shop due to that very same dollar related dynamic, it's a complicated picture trying to ascertain true benefit in totality.

The energy sector is crucial to the economies for many jurisdictions. However, in the "federal" sense, when one takes the country as a whole, the supposed "slam dunk" upside is less obvious. Yes, more equalization payments from one quarter, but offset by alarming "have not" status elsewhere, again an almost tug of war reality as it currently stands. Some provinces saddled with debt, others with surplus, some with no taxes, others with high taxes, the gulf is widening and one wonders how that will affect this federation moving forward, because the notions of equal opportunity and distribution of resources are in question. A "regional" perspective I know...

Trust The Media

Some really fascinating discussions coming out of the whole Vic Toews story. What we know or don't know, what is discussed or buried, seems to boil down to judgement calls, ethical considerations, standards, a whole series of arbitrary decisions based on a pre-determined set of values, which are particular and closed in development. The Canadian public has never voted on, or formulated any rules governing journalism, that is left to publications and a subjective standard which has developed based on this closed discussion. Essentially, we are left to "trust the media", what information you are privy to is decided by a group of people who have no outside validation, the public simply has no voice in the thought process, the decisions, we only enter the equation after the fact, commenting on what has been deemed of use to us.

In my own formal training, we were taught about sourcing and how the observer attempts to ascertain truth, even though the actor is inherently biased- the lens never clear- the attempt of a flawed actor to accurately disseminate an objective reality. The conclusion of the philosophical exercise, there is no "idealist school" in the practical realm, any writer, researcher that delves into an topic will be impacted by personal experience and bias, it will "lead" the observer, he/she can only hope to minimize bias, but never fully eliminate it.

I do trust in certain journalists, no problem giving them certain latitude in weighing very complex decisions and issues, when determining "newsworthy". However, individual exceptions aside, that is really irrelevant to the wider discussion of entrusting an entire medium with "gatekeeper" status. As Stephen Maher points out in his balanced column, the press is not a "monolith", and he lists various political slants to support the diversity. But, therein lies the rub, there is no "standard" that applies equally throughout the medium, subjectivity again reigns supreme, rendering any sense of duty or standard a purely isolated consideration.

I don't trust the National Post editorial board to give me the straight goods, just as a right winger may be uncomfortable with the Toronto Star deciding what "deserves" consideration. If you review any polling done in the last decade, you'll see overwhelming opinion from the public that reveals serious, pervasive DISTRUST of the media, which is a learned reality. Given this circumstance, there is something refreshing and revolutionary, democratic and inclusive, about the role of social media to breakthrough the "arbiter" role, to pierce an almost star chamber editorial board thought process, a world where it's all just puked out and THEN we all participate in moral judgement, rejecting or accepting, highlighting or ignoring, sanctioning or scorn. What is wrong with empowering everyone, is it really any different than all the notions we champion about our democracy? The alternative is a closed room, made of individuals none of us have give license, arbitrarily deciding what is fit for our consumption, what is "important". Anything less than full disclosure amounts to dictation, it just does, that's the nature of the relationship, apart from after the fact inputs, which are reactive rather than participatory.

Perhaps it's time for "in camera" editorial boards, and when people say "but we're not elected", I say "exactly". I didn't follow Vikileaks30, others did, that's how it should work in a truly interactive media world.

Trudeau: Crazy Like A Fox?

Justin Trudeau is getting ripped for his admittedly reckless comments, but I'm not sure the visceral reactions are accurately digesting the potential political ramifications. Trudeau is done as a political force, Trudeau is narcissistic, a lightweight, immature, needlessly theatrical, the pile on relentless. However, woven with the "outrage", some opinion, mostly Quebec-centric that picks up on perhaps the longer term impact of Trudeau's outburst.

I've argued for some time, the Liberals need to update their presentation to Quebecers. This belief doesn't abandon former stances, but the Liberals are perpetually stuck in outdated dichotomy that lacks any evolution. It could just be that Trudeau's apparent departure from traditional Liberal stances might register as a breath of fresh air. Truth be told, the old hardcore federalist "option" that Liberals have always played in Quebec appeals to an ever narrowing pool of voters. Quebec society is moving beyond the distinct lines that dominated the debate during Trudeau's fathers era. The recent NDP surge, while built on a singular persona, was also underpinned by a nuanced dance between the old federalist/separatist distinctions. Rather than "out there", Trudeau's recent musings might also simply serve as more of a mirror of current perceptions and realities, a bit of a weather vein.

There has been a great misconception in English Canada. With sovereignty numbers waning- separatism on the backburner- we've all assumed that the federation is in relatively good shape. The collapse of the Bloc only adds to this perception, but a look with any depth, reveals more malaise, alienation and disconnect than some grand endorsement of the status quo. Hebert's column touches on the state of things in Quebec, how this Harper government has fostered a disconnect, all is not well, unless withdrawal is a positive. Trudeau goes too far of course, but the sentiment he espouses isn't off side, rare or radical, in fact I suspect he's resonating quite well with mainstream Quebec society.

This may be an odd characterization, but Trudeau may have moved the ground in Quebec and made the Liberals "cool again". Beneath the unfortunate threatening language, opinions that speak to Quebecers values, what they stand for, Trudeau is championing those sensibilities. There is nothing offensive in the comments to Quebecers, if anything Trudeau is merely expressing a widely held opinion about the Harper government and how deep the chasm that has developed. Never has a federal government been so completely marginalized in Quebec, a state that begs for an alternative and we've seen the manifestations.

Trudeau was crude and unsophisticated, his words poorly chosen, but I'm not sure what most are fixating on truly captures the entire tone and how that may resonate. In English Canada, Trudeau's comments a blip on the screen, I fail to see any "legs". However, in Quebec, Trudeau may have modernized the Liberal view, not the official party line, but a sense that the conversation is current. We can pontificate how we feel Quebecers should view the federation, but that never understand how they DO view the federation, so let's be careful in assuming or declaring someone "dead" due to pointed musings. If anything, we may just look back on this entire Trudeau maelstrom as freshening up the Liberal brand in Quebec, because at the core Justin has a receptive audience in terms of frustration.

The iAnkleBracelet

If the Conservatives "lawful access" legislation passes, we will live in a world wherein your cell phone becomes an ankle bracelet. What a study in contradictions these Conservatives, pounding the table about "intrusive" SURVEYS, filling out a form to hold a gun, but having no issue with tracking the citizenry without any CHECKS, big brother at its worst. This legislation is one scary proposition, it dismisses the legal tenets that exist in the larger society. Apparently, when it comes to online activity, law enforcement can act with complete impunity, worse still, nobody outside of that organ has any knowledge of activity. The Conservative bill will sanction a regime which just begs for abuse, at the expense of freedom and privacy.

Everyone wants to catch pedophiles, everyone wants police to have all available tools to assist them in pursuit of criminals. However, law enforcement must also demonstrate a rationale for said pursuits, they must present a reason for a search warrant, they can't just break into your home for example without basis. Interesting that our national embarrassment that is Vic Toews argues the need for this legislation to catch child pornographers when just two weeks ago, law enforcement were highlighting advanced techniques in carrying out one of the biggest busts in Canadian history. In other words, law enforcement can already access IP's, locations, HONE in on criminals using technology and the LAWS already ON THE BOOKS, the system works. That the government is left to nonsensical hyperbole a testament to the shallow logic behind their bill, when confronted with reasonable questions, we receive outlandish accusation.

Whatever this legislation attempts to confront or accomplish, it fails miserably as it stamps all over individual rights and ignores the well established legal precedents in the "real world". To set this debate up as "with law enforcement or against" does a disservice to genuine concerns, thoughtful extensions, it doesn't incorporate the primary notion that checks and balances are the cornerstone of our entire system. Law enforcement must provide evidence or inclinations or tips or some logic to a independent arbitrator who can decide if surveillance is warranted, we can't live in a world where people operate without "monitoring" themselves. The current state just didn't materialize, it is a learned system, because people do abuse, people do act unethically, without a balance, the inevitable always happens, history is unequivocal in this regard.

Vic Toews Poll

In light of Vic Toews comments today, I thought a poll might be in order to solicite some opinion:

Speaking Of "Boring"

What's your definition of boring, bland, yawn inducing? For myself it's predictability above all else. From a purely partisan perspective, I suppose this now on going media categorization of the NDP leadership race as "boring" is a welcome frame, but really it does a disservice to the wider political climate. What is more maddening, the recurring frame shows no relationship to reality, because every NDP debate has been JAM packed, NDP membership signups are impressive, the NDP were forced to MOVE their convention site to a BIGGER location because SO many people are coming. All the empirical cues point to a rank and file engaged, real world excitement and yet everyday we have to endure this manufactured frame that this race is boring everyone to tears. Please point to me the last internal party leadership race that captured the imagination of the wider Canadian population? Never happens, and if that's the self determined benchmark, it's a false standard.

Students of Canadian politics will note a reoccurring lament that our political discourse is deteriorating, politicians don't talk substance, they hurl insults, places like Question Period have become unseemly exercises, all "theater", all "show". And yet, a recent effort to raise the level of discourse, stop the cat calls, was met with "this is boring", "it's too nice in here", the same profession which clamors for high brow discourse couldn't handle civility. And herein lies the rub, the inherent contradiction, our media need a "story", without a juicy angle, certain intrigue, sensational elements, there is no compelling narrative. A deeper look reveals that we the "client" are simply receiving what we appeal to, the audience is the final arbitrator and we eat up the fluff and bombast, at the expense of serious discourse. In other words, blame is a complicated discussion, so any observation isn't really an indictment, just a recognition of the state of things. We live in a world wherein scribes lament the lack of focus on serious issues, the "tone" of our discourse and yet when confronted with said want, they react with a yawn and demand some sizzle.

If the NDP are playing "nice" with each other, what is wrong with that, why is that "boring"? Does that dynamic come with a lack of compelling ideas put forth? No, we have a Brian Topp who completely wants to redo our approach to taxes in a fundamental way. We have a Nathan Cullen proposing a very bold electoral arrangement that would alter the political landscape in truly remarkable fashion. We have Thomas Mulcair attempting to move the NDP towards the center, should he win, the direction of that party will profoundly change. In other words, there is much to chew on within this race, real philosophical questions, that go beyond "knockout" punches and acrimony. I predict we will start to see more jostling as this race reaches crescendo, but that's not the point, nor is that some sort of imperative as the "boring" cries imply.

If nobody was showing up to the debates, if membership drives were pedestrian, if this convention was poorly attended, if there were no serious proposals on the table, these type of measures could support a "boring" argument. However, as it stands, "boring" looks nothing more than a perceived lack of friction, required ingredient for a "story", but of no relevance to what constitutes a successful leadership process.

Caterpillar Highlights Failed Policies

The Caterpillar fiasco is another example of the failed relationship between government, corporations and community. Rather than get lost in the minutiae of the Caterpillar story, a wide angle lens reveals a disturbing picture of corporate greed, negotiating in bad faith, the free market economy at its absolute worst. We can debate certain points all day, but the notion of a company making record profits, upper management receiving record pay contrasted with demanding employees take a 50% wage cut, demonstrates obscene disconnect. This wasn't a GM or Chrysler- companies teetering on extinction require deep worker sacrifice- this is a company flooded with cash, a historic high water mark, running on all cylinders, giving the SHAFT to the people who contributed to its success.

The federal and provincial government have assisted Caterpillar, not the least of which corporate taxcuts. The wider story, corporate taxes have failed to deliver as advertised, chose your empirical measure, one is hard pressed to justify, left to future theoretical proclamation. Perhaps the Caterpillar story highlights the need to have "strings attached" to government initiatives which benefit corporate Canada. Perhaps corporate taxcuts require certain criteria to qualify, this type of regime is quite common with other government allocations. Rather than a blank check scenario, wherein government is left to HOPE, money should be tied to commitments, thresholds, tax breaks a function of a credible plan to incorporate those savings.

Is it so offensive to say to Corporation A, you can qualify for a certain corporate tax rate if you demonstrate reinvestments, if you can show productivity gains, if you address employment? Should said corporation show no interest in meeting certain thresholds, they simply don't qualify for the "break" and they lose the opportunity to redeploy DIRECTED capital within their organization. Given all these stipulations still ADVANCE corporate SELF INTEREST, where is the downside to said corporation, within a qualification system? Again, review many, many government programs and you will see merit based systems, you will see money doled out if certain requirements are met, quite common, quite fair as well.

Caterpillar represents a scenario where everyone except the corporation has acted in "good faith". Government has assisted, helping that corporation operate in a more healthy business climate. The employees have assisted, helping to make the corporation incredibly profitable, part of the success no question. Caterpillar in turn has said, thanks for the public money, the tax breaks, thanks for making quality product employee, but we're out of here, despite RECORD profits, despite a JUGGERNAUT company with more cash than it can spend, we flip you the BIRD. This whole story highlights the desperate need for corporate responsibility, the missing variable in this entire equation.

The Caterpillar example is sensational, but it is also symptomatic of a larger problem with the way governments approach corporate "citizens". The time has come for "show me" regimes, wherein corporations who want the benefits of government measures must demonstrate where that money will be redeployed, provide detailed plans to show how corporate taxes will benefit the company, as well as achieve the benefits these measures were intended to provide. Rather than Jim Flaherty expressing "frustration" that corporations aren't reinvesting as hoped, we have concrete assurances tied to certain tax rates. A strings attached system would garner the wanted reinvestment, employment, productivity, because there is still self interest, the company still benefits through compliance, the alternative is less attractive. It's time for society to take back the reigns, rather than rely on incapable entities to do the right thing, we should leverage some control, in a way that allows benefit, but also brings responsibility.

Liberals Close Fundraising Gap

With the year end fundraising figures out for all the parties, encouraging signs for the Liberal Party in particular. The Conservatives still FAR outpace everyone, but the gap is narrowing and the Liberals are showing peculiar resilience, given recent electoral manifestations. As an aside, those scoffing at any fundraising "uptick" would be the same people jumping all over any "setback" as evidence of looming death, a revealing reality. There is something to be said for a third party easily besting the Official Opposition, as well as increasing donors, given perceptions.

It wasn't that long ago that the Conservatives regularly had 4X the fundraising of the Liberals, ditto for the amount of donors. This latest quarter shows the closest comparison to date, Liberals actually raised 66% of the Conservative tally, 71% on the donor front:

Conservatives: 4,100,154.71 raised
Liberals: 2,716,969.86 raised
NDP: 1,613,434.61 raised

Conservatives: 35,747 donors
Liberals: 25,847 donors
NDP: 17,975 donors

Numbers that would give Peter C. Newman pause.

The above figures represents the narrowest fundraising gap we've seen in many years, while the Conservatives are still well out front, the Liberals are beginning to operate in the same area code. If we go back to the same quarter last year, we see the Conservatives have dropped 6000 donors and 1.1 million raised. The Liberals are up almost 6000 donors and more than 500000 thousand. NDP fundraising is flat year to year, number of donors up slightly.

With political fundraising subsidies being phased out, obviously the Liberals have a steep climb ahead. However, it is important to remember the Conservatives received the most money from this system, further amplifying the disparity. Under the above numbers as sole source of party income, this disparity is actually lessened, relative to the past.

The Liberals are starting to build a consistent fundraising base, the Victory Fund is creating a steady donor stream. Liberals have more than doubled their fundraising from last quarter, they've added 8000 donors, and they've once again easily outpaced the Official Opposition once again. Add in the narrowing gap with the Conservatives, and it's a relatively optimistic scenario, the trends are encouraging.

There is a sense that Liberals have the slightest of breeze in their sails, the fundraising numbers do nothing to detract from that sentiment, in fact I'm putting the figures in the "Not Too Shabby Zombies" folder. Long way to go, but we've come some distance as well.

The Dope On Marijuana

Perhaps more interesting than the Liberals- at least their assembled delegates- advocating legalization of marijuana, has been the reaction to said passage. I sense some hostility, revolving around the notion that Liberals are misguided to highlight this issue, when so many other "top of mind" concerns exist with the electorate. That's your big idea Liberals, legalizing pot, really, that's all you've come up with? Fair in one sense, last time I checked legalizing pot doesn't register on the "top issues" front. However, rather than elevate this proposal to centerpiece status, why not look at it as merely a potential plank within a larger narrative, because the position does have tentacles.

Liberals will never best Conservatives on the "tough on crime" question, that's a bread and butter issue for their side. Liberals never win when put in reactive mode, they simply won't persuade voters trying to mirror Conservative approaches. It is here that marijuana legalization provides a clear stepping off point, rather than reacting to Conservative offensives, misinformations, we offer a decidedly different approach, one that actually has some popular appeal. The entire crime question will be debated on this point, on ground chosen by Liberals, this would be the lightning rod question. This debate puts down a clear Liberal marker, we say the war on drugs has failed and here's an alternative direction that addresses that failure in progressive fashion.

In addition, there is an economic argument to be made, one that attempts to take money out of the hands of criminals, into the hands of government, for the betterment of the citizenry. We are not talking about chump change, tax revenue in the billions, we can pivot off this legalization in a positive way. I would argue that marijuana taxation revenue be redirected into drug education campaigns, expenditures to focus on true scourges like crystal meth, rather than a tax grab, demonstrate how this additional money can still assist in dealing with drug related problems. With this type of proposal, you somewhat blunt "condone" criticism, because you use these additional revenues to attack certain problems. Use the tax revenue to further educate on the dangers of drugs, that avenue addresses society validating drug use through legalization. We accept that marijuana is here to stay, you can either continue with the futility approach or accept reality and use the industry to allow for greater focus on other drugs, rehab programs, education, etc. I see a fleshed out new tax revenue allocation proposal as a compelling pivot to completely reset our overall approach.

Philosophically, there is also a "liberty" argument to be made, this issue transfers responsibility to the individual, a notion which clearly has appeal within certain subsets. I think Liberals will be surprised who gets "turned on" by the legalization argument, rather than a sideline distraction, it is a motivating factor that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I predict a candidate for Liberal leadership(assuming we actually have a race, not a coronation)waves this legalization flag and in so doing shakes up the race on the "supporter" front. Legalization proponents from all corners would have little hesitation becoming supporters, I guarantee a few motivated individuals could sign up impressive numbers under this signature banner.

Rather than some trivial proposal that fails to address the real concerns of Canadians, I see this marijuana legalization idea as ONE starting off point that can bring true differentiation, as well as add fresh perspectives to an already well defined political entity. Yes, Liberals must craft a credible economic argument, ditto for health care, pensions, taxation, the deficit, etc, etc. Acknowledging this obvious fact doesn't mean the legalization question is a distraction or be abandoned, in fact it can be a demographic compliment that weaves within a greater, coherent direction. I see potentially fascinating days ahead...