Harper "Wears" Deficit

Latest Angus Reid poll, shows Canadians aren't prepared to solely blame our deficit on the global recession. The poll also asks the "coalition" question, possibly the last offering prior to this week's crescendo.

While an overwhelming majority of Canadians think the recession in the United States and global financial crisis are responsible for the deficit, the Conservative government is also on the hook, with 2/3rds of Canadians placing blame:


Canadians accept the global circumstance, but that situation doesn't provide the cover the government hoped. A large majority will accept the "wear it" narrative, a decidedly bad number for the government.

The poll also samples coalition opinion. On the question of a coalition government or an election (If the House of Commons votes against the budget, the Conservative minority government would fall. All things considered, which of these options would you prefer if the Conservative minority government is defeated?), the numbers favor an election- 48% would prefer an election, 38% a coalition, 14% unsure. The regional breakdowns show strong coalition support in Quebec, but all other regions decidedly against, including Ontario (50%-31%).

One interesting finding, despite this gap between a coalition and election, when the question turns to economic management, a coalition led by Ignatieff is much closer to the Conservatives. Harper only holds a 3 point lead over an Ignatieff led coalition on the question of boosting the economy (36-33%). The gap is only 5% on the question of getting us out of recession. These numbers are particularly bad for the Conservative, because the question specifically asks "a coalition government headed by Michael Ignatieff", and the findings are tight, despite the overall opinion of a coalition. Another indication that Harper is losing the battle of perceptions on the economy.

Harper's Truth Deficit

It's simply amazing to listen to Harper's revisionism, when it comes to the economic downturn. More stunning, Harper tends to go unchallenged, as though he speaks of a time so long ago, nobody could dare question his argument. Yesterday, during an interview with La Presse, Harper responded to a question on the recession:

Q During the last election campaign, you said that Canada could avoid recession, there would be no deficit. Today, the economic situation has deteriorated still fast enough to the point where your opponents accuse you of having hidden the truth to Canadians.

R You should first look at the private-sector forecasts. Last October, national and international organizations were not predicting a recession in Canada.

Nobody was predicting a recession last October, private-sector forecasts support the government's view. Is that so?

Monday October 6th, we have the following, from some of our leading "forecasters", under the title "Canada Heading For Recession":

Canada is headed into a worse recession than anyone expected, one that could last until almost 2010, said the country's top economists on Monday.

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

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

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

Okay, I "looked at the private forecasts", as Harper suggested. I've concluded, you're FULL OF SHIT Prime Minister.

Obama, Ignatieff And Israel

There is a curious dynamic at play, that is see regularly on the blogs. When I look at Barack Obama and Michael Ignatieff, I see two leaders with much in common. In fact, single issue diversions aside, in totality, the two men sit reasonably close on the political spectrum. Obama a center-left Democrat in American is very much the equivalent of a centrist Liberal in Canada. With that simple fact in mind, I find it strange that some regularly slam Ignatieff, but also elevate Obama to near sainthood.

I would like to use Israel an example of duplicity, when it comes to criticism and praise. I believe people were right to criticize Ignatieff for his timid position on Gaza, and I did a few posts of my own, highlighting the problems I had with the "official" Liberal position. Serious people acknowledge the complex political dynamics, the past problems for Ignatieff during the Lebanon conflict, but our position was still utterly disappointing. I still see the Liberal position as entirely dedicated to a two-state solution, a resolution on settlements and refugees, a sense of the human suffering, the potential for an even handed perspective. We "blew it" on the Gaza offensive, but that doesn't translate to complete failure on the peace process as a whole- I have faith that Ignatieff and the Liberals will articulate a comprehensive compromise position in the end, this adventure aside.

If one looks at Obama's statements on Gaza yesterday, and couple them with his past statements on Israel, you will find NARY a difference between what he argued and the position of the Ignatieff Liberals. In fact, reviewing the Liberal press release on Gaza, and comparing it with the text of Obama's presentation, the two views are mirror images. And yet, nobody is criticizing Obama, in fact we hear accolades, which is bizarre, given the reaction to Ignatieff.

Barack Obama, on the justification for the Israeli offensive into Gaza:

Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats.

For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.

Michael Ignatieff on the justification for the Israeli offensive in Gaza:

The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally condemns the rocket attacks launched by Hamas against Israeli civilians and calls for an immediate end to these attacks. We affirm Israel's right to defend itself against such attacks, and also its right to exist in peace and security.

Both leaders firmly support Israeli action against these rocket attacks, the offensive was valid.

Obama did recognize the suffering of Palestinians:

I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.

Ignatieff:

We regret the loss of life sustained on all sides of the conflict. We call on all parties to end these hostilities, mindful that a durable ceasefire will be necessary to prevent continued civilian casualties and lasting damage to essential civilian infrastructure.

The international community has a responsibility to ensure that the cost of conflict is not borne by the innocent and Canada must stand ready to assist and ensure that basic humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it.

Loss of life, on both sides. The need for humanitarian assistance. Our thoughts, our hearts.

This comment from CBC's Neil MacDonald, reviewing Obama's speech yesterday:

"Obama also made it clear, that the United States stands first and foremost behind Israel and it's security needs. Where that conflict is concerned at least, the new President positions are strikingly similar to those of his predecessor."

Neil MacDonald CBC

MacDonald is probably also drawing on Obama's past speeches, including one in June, wherein he took Jerusalem off the table, widely criticized by Palestinians. The very pro-Israeli rhetoric was praised by Prime Minister Olmert. The democratically elected Hamas nothing more than a "terrorist organization". As for yesterday's speech, it was slammed by Hamas, lauded in the Israeli press.

My point? Obama is no different than Ignatieff on the latest conflict, if anything a historical review of past statements, the American President maybe to the right (oh, the horror). Barack Obama is bending over backwards to appease the pro-Israel crowd in America, he's been doing it for quite some time, if you're paying attention. Yes, Obama is ready to send envoys and I don't doubt for one second his Presidency will be considerably more effective in helping to achieve a lasting peace. However, that long term view is exactly the same as that of Ignatieff, there is no difference in philosophy. The position of both men, on this current over-reaction in Gaza is decidedly disappointing, so if one is to vilify Ignatieff, then surely Obama deserves some fire.

You can't give Obama a pass, and then attack Ignatieff, for holding the same view. If one is going to be intellectually consistent, then Obama deserves criticism, maybe we can call him "Obama the bloody" for the ridiculous posters amongst us. The sad reality, all of our leaders are to careful, the language so vetted, it's rendered useless, when it comes to Israel. Obama failed to call out Israel for the Gaza operation, in fact he used the rocket attacks for justification. No talk of war crimes, no talk of the United Nations, no talk of disproportionate response, only the rationale for the operation.

I will continue to watch, as future events unfold, the great disconnect in perspective, between two men who are far more similar than some are prepared to accept. The uneven reactions to the Gaza conflict, a terrific example of double standards, based on personal bias, rather than an even reading of black and white facts.

Obama Works Against Harper

A under-reported nugget from the latest EKOS poll, it would appear that Harper has some Bush baggage, Canadians see Ignatieff as far more compatible to the new American administration:


Quite a gap, in favor of the Liberals, another intangible that should concern the Conservatives. Ignatieff would be wise to continually reference his personal ties with many in Obama's adminstration, any connection is a positive.

I have to admit, I've had a smile on my face, listening and watching government officials fall all over themselves trying to forge strong ties with the new administration. I smile, because the pivot from "Steve" to Obama's best friend is rife with transparent motivations. This government will desperately attempt to capitalize on any Obama popularity, his visit will be a brown nose spectacle of biblical proportions. With that said, it's nice to see Canadians see a disconnect, the Liberals look the more natural "partner".

Ignatieff Roundup

A few different items from the Liberal leader, which I thought I would put into one post.

First off, a rather interesting presentation from Ignatieff to a Quebec audience, regarding the tar sands. It's one thing to try and curry favor during appearances in Alberta, quite another to make the same argument, where your electoral prospects don't benefit, if anything a possible negative:

"The stupidest thing you can do (is) to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and not just in Alberta, but right across the country," Ignatieff told an audience largely of business graduate students at HEC Montreal, a management school affiliated with the University of Montreal.

Aware that the tar sands, one of the biggest oil deposits in the world, and also one of the dirtiest, is a controversial subject in Quebec, Ignatieff told the audience that "all questions of energy policy are a question of national unity."

Ignatieff repudiated that kind of rhetoric. "Alberta is a valued treasured part of our federation," he said. "Never pit one region of the country against the other when you develop economic policy."

Ignatieff tempered his comments by saying tar sands development must be made more sustainable – environmentally and socially. He said waterways must be protected.

"We've got to understand this isn't the Klondike," he said. "We're going to have this thing developing for a century. Let's do it right."

There is really no upside for Ignatieff to defend Alberta in Quebec, in fact, he could easily just avoid the issue entirely. That Ignatieff voluntarily muses about the tar sands in Quebec, speaks to a consistent message, which is pretty refreshing, relative to past behavior. Framing the debate as a question of national unity is spot on, because whatever your position on this resource, there is no question that how it is handled affects the federation. A concerted effort by Ignatieff to not demonize a particular region, replaced with a new understanding, sends a clear signal that this man wants to lead Canada, not subsets therein. Nothing Ignatieff offers absolves tough decisions down the road, merely a recognition that we are in this "together". Anyone who believes Ignatieff is just pandering, finds little evidence with the latest statements- there is simply no political gain, defending western interests to a Quebec audience, which means the desire is genuine. As someone who thinks the federation has been drifting apart for quite some time, the new direction under Ignatieff is very exciting, he may just turn out to be a great uniter.

---

We've seen some angst to date, about the people Ignatieff has selected to surround himself with. One or two appointments aside, I find nothing particularly noteworthy, or terribly troubling, about any leader leaning on people he trusts, people he has a long relationship with, people he knows well. That dynamic doesn't preclude a sense of accomodation, engaging all Liberals, not just supporters, but it's simply human nature, historically consistent, for a new leader to reward those loyal to him. In other words, the criticisms of Ignatieff "people" is a non-starter in mind, because it ignores simple realities of relationships. That aside, it is important that Ignatieff does "reach out" to former rival camps, ensuring that everybody is on board, a sense of inclusion. It would appear Ignatieff is poised to address any optical challenges:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will name his shadow cabinet this week, giving senior portfolios to his leadership rivals, Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc...

There is growing speculation that Mr. Rae could be reappointed to the Foreign Affairs position that he occupied when Mr. Dion was leader. Mr. LeBlanc is said to be very pleased with his new job, which has not been announced.

The article also reveals a recent appearance by Ignatieff at a Bob Rae fundraiser, another clear signal of unity moving forward. I would argue, complete unanimity aside (a Liberal impossibility it seems), that the Liberal Party is poised for it's most united phase in decades, "camps" and back biting, left to the margins, clearly not part of general thought. This quote sums it up for me:

“It was quite something,” the long-time Liberal said about Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Rae's efforts to remain united after so many years of Liberal infighting. “There is an unbelievable urgency for people to move forward … we have to get going.”

Rehashing the past is a complete and utter useless exercise, and it's good to see our party leaders recognize this fact and are looking "forward".

---

One thing that infuriates many Liberals, the lack of party discipline. Certain MP's or party officials freelancing on policy, or leaking items which only undermine our positions and empower the opposition. I've already had the sense that Ignatieff will clamp down on this front, but this sentence provides more support:

He also stressed discipline, impressing upon his MPs and senators the need not to leak information to reporters and to remain united.

If anyone has paid particular attention, you may have noticed that surrogates are now routinely parroting the exact same lines as the leader, in consistent fashion. The idea of repetitive message is key in a soundbite world, and I've been really impressed with how quickly the Ignatieff team has hit it's stride, understanding the importance of everyone in the same key. Not only does repetition allow concepts to better seep into any narrative, it also cuts down on the potential for public contradictions, which has plagued us in the past. Iron Iggy is fine by me, that's what's required within a "gotcha" climate.

Perfect Timing

Kevin Page is turning into a political nightmare for the Conservatives. The latest unbiased assessment comes at the worst possible time for the government, because it establishes a huge deficit, that can't be hidden within the buzzword of "stimulus". There is no doubt, the government was hoping to table a budget and frame any deficit as simply a result of proactive measures to help the economy. That Page comes out a few days before the budget release, and announces a massive deficit prior to any initiatives essentially means the opposition has powerful ammunition on the "wear it" front:

The pre-budget economic and fiscal briefing released by Mr. Page's office yesterday said Canada will run a budget deficit of $13-billion next fiscal year even before the Harper government spends a cent of stimulus money.

And, let's not forget that Kevin Page first warned of this shortfall on November 20th, just prior to Jim Flaherty laughably suggesting a slim surplus:

Parliament's budget watchdog warned yesterday Canada is at risk of recording deficits starting this fiscal year, and the annual shortfall could reach nearly $14-billion next year as it believes its worst-case scenario represents a "more likely" outcome.

The report takes some of the drama out of next week's fiscal update, which Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will deliver next Thursday in the House of Commons.

Page's latest report provides worse news looking forward, the prospect of all the progress, paying down the national debt, evaporating in a matter of years, is a sobering reality. Worse still, Page reaches this conclusion without factoring in any stimulus, again providing a powerful argument for Conservative responsibility.

The Conservatives are desperately trying to paint any deficit as simply a function of realities outside of our control, coupled with the need to intervene in the economy. Page reveals the disconnect between Flaherty's "rosy" projections and reality, which establishes one of two things, dishonesty or incompetence. When Flaherty rises, and he tries to wash his hands of the deficit, everyone will know the starting point. The Liberals have already pounced, and I suspect we will hear more references to Page's sombre analysis in the lead up to the budget. The timing is absolutely perfect, unless you're a Conservative of course. A fundamental OUCH, which confirms a negative legacy, that no amount of spin can overcome.

Election Option Off The Table

This statement from Ignatieff today, is the clearest signal yet that the election option is off the table for the Liberals:

"We need an election in February like a hole in the head. It is not the preferred choice of Canadians. We're in a recession (and) Canadians all know that an election is expensive," Ignatieff told a televised news conference in Montreal.

Ignatieff also said:

"[Public] opinion is asking us to give the government a chance to regain the House's confidence."

I read the above to mean allowing the budget to pass or a coalition, "hole in the head" isn't exactly coy language.

The Right Stimulus

Apart from investing in infastructure, I see reforms to EI as the most compelling form of stimulus. When you consider many economists only expect a 10% return on the dollar, when it comes to tax cuts (Don Drummond for example), it seems a pretty inefficient way to stimulate the economy.

If the budget really wants to address the "vulnerable", it seems the best way is to help those hurt by the economic downturn, enable them to ride out the recession and put them in a position to prosper once the economy turns around. There is universal agreement, that when Canada emerges from the recession, we will still see a labor shortage in many "skilled" categories. Why not expand EI benefits, make it more "lucrative" in the short term, so laid off workers have the capacity to keep spending? On top of that, expand benefits to include provisions for re-training, in targeted professions, so those workers have the skills to find future employment. You collect benefits for a longer period, and apart from that, the government will pay for additional training. If an employer hires a new "apprentice" for example, the government would pay that salary for a period of time, making it attractive to bring new people on board, "we" absorb that short term cost. That sort of investment keeps people spending, while also giving them the skills to find future work, once any program ends.

When people lose their jobs, they effectively are removed from the economy, apart from spending on the most basic of needs. Giving laid off workers more money through EI, allows people to continue to be "consumers", which means the economy as a whole doesn't suffer from a contracted work force. Extending benefits, while people "re-train", in specific areas where the future need is great, means we emerge from a downturn with workers ready to fill the known voids. To me, that seems like both a short term recipe to keep the economy moving, as well as longer strategy to make any recovery more sound and modern. When you compare the cost of ramping up EI benefits and training with the cost of tax cuts, I see the latter as decidedly inefficient.

People with jobs don't necessarily need a break, particularly in this climate where any small tax cut will likely be hoarded or spent on foreign goods. It's the people without work, the people that don't have the skills to succeed in the modern economy, that should be the primary focus. We can turn adversity into opportunity, and at the same time address future labor shortages, in critical fields. Increase the spending capacity of those who have lost their job, that in and of itself is a "stimulus", and continue that "stimulus" by paying for those laid off workers, as they acquire the skills we know the Canadian economy will need.

Coalition Supporters, Here's Your Poll

A new EKOS poll that provides bad news for Harper, but finally gives coalition supporters a positive finding. Actually, this poll may be an extension of a trend seen in the last two releases, which did show signs the coalition was gaining some acceptance. There seems to be a a co-relation between sagging confidence in Harper and acceptance of the alternative:

Polls conducted late last year showed a high level of opposition, especially outside Quebec, to a proposed Liberal-NDP coalition in the event the minority Harper government is defeated in the House. The new poll suggests Canadians' feelings have evolved, with 50 per cent of respondents favouring a coalition government, while 43 per cent are happier with the current Conservative government.

“This is a huge change from the period right after the coalition agreement was struck in Stéphane Dion's last days as Liberal leader, when the Tories took an apparently unassailable 20-point lead,” Mr. Graves said. “Clearly much of the recoil against the idea of a coalition really had to do with alarm at the idea of Stéphane Dion becoming prime minister so quickly after having been rejected so decisively at the polls.”

This is the first time any pollster has provided a coalition number which starts to reflect voter intention. It's always troubled me that 62% of voters didn't want the Conservatives, but a full third or more of those opposed a coalition. This result is good news for coalition supporters, the first time a majority has supported the concept. One caveat:

In addition, the poll suggests that 49 per cent of Canadians want to see Governor-General Michaëlle Jean send the country to the polls if the Harper government is defeated on its budget, instead of allowing a coalition government.

Canadians don't want an election, in fact they loathe the very suggestion. The fact they prefer one over a coalition is still reason for concern. That said, overall, it does appear that resistence to the coalition is lessening.

On party support, EKOS shows a tight race, Liberals on the rise, Conservatives down:

Conservative Party continues to lead in overall voting intentions in Canada, with the support of 36.2 per cent of respondents, compared with the Liberals at 32.6 per cent and the NDP at 14.3 per cent.

Even worse for the Conservatives, the pollster actually compares Harper to Bush, as his popularity wanes badly:

The Ekos/Globe and Mail poll suggests the Liberal Party is gaining momentum as economic concerns grow, with a majority of Canadians now holding a negative view of Conservative Leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Of the 1,000 respondents, 55 per cent disapproved of Mr. Harper's handling of his responsibilities, while 35 per cent offered their approval.

“That is a very bad number,” Ekos president Frank Graves said of the disapproval rating. “That is getting up into [former U.S. president] George W. Bush numbers. Not quite, but 10 more points, and you're up to as bad as it gets for elected leaders.”

Opinions of Ignatieff were quite favorable, although people have a limited opinion at this point.

These are the type of findings which speak to a sense of "legitimacy" for a coalition, imperative in my mind. A positive result, no question.

Favorite Moment

The moving speech, full of eloquence and poetic phrasing. The hand on the bible, as the crowd roared in approval, Obama sworn in. Obama walking down Pennsylvania Avenue, at one with the American people. So hard to pick a favorite moment from today, but for myself this particular one tops them all:



It really doesn't get any better than that.

Harper Playing Footsie

Stephen Harper is trying really hard to find political cover, at the expense of the Liberals. His recent musings on the budget remind me of the exact same tone we heard during the Afghanistan debate. Effectively overlapping his position with the Liberal one, with the main impetus, negate the issue. It is very, very critical that the Liberals get this debate right, and not be lulled by Harper the friendly. It is quite transparent, Harper is trying to share responsibility and neuter any future criticism.

I don't want to rehash the coalition debate, this post assumes the option is off the table, only a narrow focus on how the Liberals should proceed, if the Conservative budget is allowed to pass. It is imperative that the Liberals don't allow Harper to take the economy off the table, by leaving him a powerful argument on mutual agreement. It is already well known that this budget will include many of the demands made by opposition parties, the details notwithstanding. The centerpiece being the stimulus, more defined, infrastructure spending and bailouts. On this "big" issue, Harper has moved towards the opposition, but that fact doesn't mean the government can point to the Liberals for validation.

It pains me to say this, because the word is now synonymous with weak opposition, but the best course for the Liberals may be the abstaining route. If the Liberals vote for the budget, even if it is in the name of "the country's best interests", some pledge of nobility, that vote will allow Harper to wiggle off the hook. While the Liberals will argue that they've put partisanship aside for the immediate needs of the economy, it will be countered, and any support for the Conservative budget will be used by Harper in the future. Again, all we need do is review the Afghanistan debate, the issue barely raised, once mutual agreement was reached. Because the Liberals had a hand in reaching that agreement, the subsequent criticisms have been muted, and any revision of policy is superceded by the initial support.

There is a real danger of Harper using the Liberals to share in the economic responsibility. No matter how bad things get in the future, when it comes time for an election, Harper can say his chief opponent supported the same measures, what sense does it make then to replace him with a party that made the same calculations. The Liberals will be forced to argue the details, but Harper would have the quick soundbite, the broad stroke rationale, which just might suffice with a disinterested audience.

The Liberals can vote against, but then that means another election (yes, I know, the OTHER option), and given that we've JUST had one, only three months ago, it really isn't a favorable option, given public sentiment and/or simple logistics. Because of the just concluded election, coupled with the prospects of ultimate responsibility, abstaining or some other novel way of showing disapproval, without forcing an election, is probably the best option available.

There are many risks with abstaining, primarily because it re-introduces a decidedly negative narrative for the Liberals. However, every decision in this dance comes with inherent risks, and when you way the potential positives, abstaining looks more attractive. The Liberals can still use the for "good of country" angle, arguing they won't force another election, create more uncertainty, just when people demand clarity. The Liberals can use this frame, but also point to the policy differences in the budget, the measures they wanted, the failings of the Conservative offering, and say, with good conscience, they cannot support such a budget. The Liberals, understanding the present circumstance, will abstain, to show their displeasure, but in so doing, allow certain items they endorse to proceed and don't plunge the country into another crisis. I believe Ignatieff will not be ridiculed in the media class for this position, it is an entirely different dynamic than the painful 2008 routine we saw from the Liberals. I believe the Liberals would be cut some slack for abstaining, posturing of other parties aside.

Whatever your view, it is becoming more and more obvious to me, in listening to Harper, that the Liberals SHOULD NOT vote FOR this budget, under any circumstances. There are smart people surrounding Ignatieff, so I seriously doubt anyone is seduced by Harper's footsie routine, the kind rhetoric, the commonality of it all. That said, the entire debate for the next year, possibly beyond, will revolve around this budget vote. If the Liberals vote for the budget, the Conservatives have already tipped their hand, how they will manipulate that "support" to absolve their own actions. Clearly, Harper is angling for Liberal support, and that fact tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about what is the worst possible course of action for the party.

Groundhog Day

Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke, after today's meeting between Ignatieff and Harper:

Kory Teneycke, Mr. Harper's communication director, said the meeting at the Prime Minister's Langevin office was "cordial and business-like," but he declined to offer any further details.

Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke, after last meeting between Ignatieff and Harper:

Harper spokesman Kory Teneycke declined to offer additional details, saying only that the meeting was "cordial and businesslike."

Time for some new material Kory.

A Sound Strategy

I'm sure this post will be about as popular as a mess of ribs at a vegan conference, but I completely agree with the logic of "liberal sources":

Liberal insiders say Michael Ignatieff would prefer more time to rebuild the party and prepare for an election, rather than possibly topple the government next week by refusing to support the budget.

Liberal strategists see little upside to Ignatieff taking the reins of government at the start of what is promising to be a deep, severe recession.

They'd rather let Prime Minister Stephen Harper take the blame for the economic pain.

We just had an election, which gave Harper a strengthened mandate, although a minority. The Liberals were reduced, and the task at hand is considerable, on every front. The Liberals have a new leader, who has barely had time to get his team together, never mind the required policy work, fundraising, finding new, compelling candidates- rebuilding the Liberal brand. Within that reality, to feel any surprise that people in the party are preaching patience, is well, surprising.

There was nothing worse, than watching the Liberals continual abstain, time after time, during the previous regime. I believe that this routine greatly damaged our electoral chances, it created an atmosphere of weakness and an ineffective alternative. With that in mind, how can one now argue the opposite, the Liberals should bide their time in the short term, wait and pounce when optimal opportunity arises?

For the reasons stated above, the fact we just had an election and the party has a new leader, the dynamics have clearly changed. Couple the challenges of rebuilding the party, with a desire by the public to see politicians "get on with it", and in many respects it makes sense to allow a semi-acceptable budget to pass. If the goal is to rid Canada of the Harper Conservatives, you can make a pretty compelling case that conditions will be more favorable in a few months. I see nothing crass, or an abdication of responsible opposition, to take some time to get our house in order, while simultaneously watching Harper's crumble, as the economic bottoms out. In a practical sense, the economic road ahead is already paved, regardless of any government initiatives in the coming months, so it is a false frame to argue Ignatieff's short term decisions will really matter. Longer term, I completely agree, but government is simply powerless in the immediate, to offset our course. With that knowledge in mind, it is easier to "justify" any political consideration.

I don't want the Liberals to simply forget strategy and just plow ahead, guided only by our idealist want. Politics is necessarily a tension between core convictions and cold calculation- always has been, always will, with every party, every day of the week. To simply scoff at the "gameplan" is perfectly fine, it just shows no relationship to the real world.

One of the main reasons I argued against the Liberals abstaining, wasn't just a policy consideration, but the simple fact that the weakness projected was hurting our fortunes, it was reducing Dion's stature, it allowed other parties to pounce on themes of "real opposition", it made Harper look strong in contrast. I saw the abstaining strategy as a political loser, counter-productive to the ultimate goal of toppling Harper. The wanted "conditions" would never really occur, because the strategy undercut the chances of realizing those "conditions". In this new case, the dynamics are completely different, the landscape decidedly changed, which makes a temporary dodge and weave the best course.

I don't want an budget that meets all the Liberal demands, because then Harper receives a partial pass, through collective responsibility. I don't want to force an election, wherein the Liberals are forced to re-assemble a slate of recently rejected candidates, armed with a thin and hasty platform, lacking the proper planning to make a campaign hum. If conditions demand, then so much for the "best laid plans", but sitting here today, you can see better scenarios.

It is completely reasonable to give the new party leader time, when you look at the challenges, they aren't immediately remedied. Let the team put forth an agenda, let Ignatieff attract some new blood, let the party rebuild where it has too, let all the various parts begin the work, until there is a sense we can reasonably achieve our goal. Maybe we're better prepared in late spring, maybe the fall, maybe next budget, but if you detach yourself from personal want, focus solely on "when" constitutes the optimal opportunity to send Harper packing, next week isn't top of the list.

The "Wear It" Narrative

There is a real danger, that the Conservatives successfully use this economic crisis to cover their own fiscal mismanagement. Two themes provide cover for the government, and it is the job of the Liberals to make sure the Conservatives "wear" the deficit.

The idea of a imported recession, not of Canada's doing, is the primary way the government can deflect responsibility. Couple the economic origins with the argument of relative fiscal strength, any deficit we incur, much less than other jurisdictions, and it softens the impact of running in the red. We've already heard many government Minister's reference the American deficit, to show things could be much worse. It's a fairly persuasive argument, because economists and pundits will support the notion of relative fiscal health. Canadians see deficits everywhere, the global reality more cause than our government's actions, we're still relatively well off.

The other theme, potentially problematic for the Liberals, the Conservatives can argue that we too support a massive stimulus, which makes a large deficit inevitable. How can you blame the government, when your own party supports a massive injection into the economy? You argued for a stimulus, now you blame us for a deficit, which your policies demanded? That domestic fact, in concert with all other countries providing stimulus, allows the government to argue deficits are just the reality of the situation, not a reflection of competence or management.

It is imperative, that the Liberals argue forcefully, from all quarters, repeated ad nauseum, until it's imprinted in our brains, the following:

Next week (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper presents his financial budget after a decade of Liberal surpluses," he said. "Where are we? We are facing a deficit of $40 billion and this deficit is squarely Mr. Harper's responsibility. He spent us down to the red line in the good times and so we face the hard times as citizens of this great country with the cupboard bare."

Michael Ignatieff

This government spent wildly, in the lead up to this recession, further eroding our fiscal room. This government embarked on a series of tax cuts, universally rejected from the same economic people that are now supposed driving the budget thought process. This government abandoned the contingency fund, which was put in place for exactly these sort of extraordinary circumstances. This government claimed to have prepared us for the coming economic storm, and yet they rendered the government impotent, destroying any fiscal room to act, without plunging us into deficit. YOUR children are on the hook for the Conservatives fiscal mismanagement, and structural deficits have returned.

Whatever the size of the deficit, the Liberals need to argue that it didn't necessarily have to be this way. It is true, that we do need to go into deficit, during this economic downturn, but the SIZE is entirely a function of Conservative blunders. If the government moves on more tax cuts for the middle class, the Liberals have a counter- we simply can't afford it, given the way the government squandered our fiscal health. The "cupboard bare", that is the legacy and we will all pay a dear price in the future, for that reckless management.

There will be an epic battle of "frames" in the coming weeks and months. It is beyond crucial that the "wear it" narrative takes hold, otherwise, in many respects, this government receives a pass for their past actions. This tug of war is the first real test for the new era Liberal Party, can it be heard against the sharp messaging campaign of the government? The words of our leader today suggests we understand the importance...

Collateral Damage

Israel is poised to announce a unilateral ceasefire, primarily because all of it's "goals" have been met. Watching and reading, I'm not sure what those goals were, but I'm sure they were very, very important to Israeli security. I was just pouring over some of Israel's achievements, impressive indeed:

410 dead children (not sure if it includes these two unlucky little terrorists today)

1630 children wounded

1201 Palestinians killed (taking out the children and the women, plus civilian men, I'm guessing militants make up an embarrassing percentage of the dead- strategic, compassionate INDEED)

5300 Palestinians wounded

Now to be fair, we also have Israeli casualties:

3 civilians from rocket fire

10 Israeli soldiers (half of which were killed by fellow Israeli soldiers in friendly fire)


Remind me to GAG when the Israeli government declares "victory". Apologists should be ASHAMED of this farcical adventure, that has achieved squat in the grand scheme (unless of course a more united Gaza population behind Hamas was a stated goal).

Madness.

Mixed Bag

The new Angus Reid poll shows a 9% lead for the government, up from a 6% spread, but well short of the 20% gap AR had in December. The poll is sort of a mixed bag for the Liberals, but we still see positive internals.

Angus Reid's last poll had shown Ignatieff actually one point ahead of Harper on the "best PM" score, a result which was quite surprising. A sitting PM should always lead, and historically always does, because, well, he/she IS the PM, leader of the opposition generally doesn't enjoy the same consideration. In this poll, we see Harper taking a slight lead on this measure:

A Toronto Star/Angus Reid survey shows 27 per cent of Canadians think Harper is the best choice for prime minister, with 24 per cent preferring Ignatieff.

Last month, the two leaders were in a virtual tie, with Ignatieff slightly ahead at 28 per cent compared with Harper at 27 per cent nationally.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton was the choice of 12 per cent of respondents, up two percentage points from last month.

Interesting to note, Harper's stuck at 27%, the difference a very slight erosion for Ignatieff, but nothing that raises any alarms from here. In fact, if note for the past exceptional result, I would categorize these numbers as quite bad for Harper and encouraging for Ignatieff. You don't need to best Harper, just lurk in the same ballpark, a score of 27% is hardly indicative of Harper popularity.

On the critical question of the economy, Harper now enjoys a 14% lead, up from 9%, but this larger gap is a result of a lower score for Ignatieff, Harper remains at the same level. Still, the gap is a relatively good one for Harper, although other outfits have it closer.

On the horserace numbers, some statistical noise:

The Conservatives are at 39 per cent support nationally, compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the NDP, 9 per cent for the Bloc and 5 per cent for the Greens.

Liberals virtually unchanged (down 1), Conservatives up 2%, ditto for the NDP. Green support seems to be waning, across the board. As the pollster points out, the Conservative lead isn't as strong as the national numbers suggest:

"(The Tories) might be at 39 per cent (nationally) and that might suggest that they're on the verge of forming a majority government. However, when we look at the findings from the specific areas, it's not as easy as it seems," said Mario Canseco, vice-president of the polling company Angus Reid Strategies.

In fact, the Liberals are up in Ontario, to 40%(plus 4%), while the Conservatives are unchanged at 42%. I floated a theory the other day, that with the debate narrowing around the economy, and Ontario being ground zero, there is a danger that the NDP could get squeezed, the issue not necessarily their strong suit, particulary in this region. Some support for that view, because this is the first poll that shows the two principles at the 40% threshold in Ontario, while the NDP slumps to a mere 12% (down 3), 6% drop since the election. The Greens are also down.

The Liberals are up in British Columbia (the MOE is high), which is another positive. A slight downtick in Quebec, but given some other findings, I'll chalk it up to statistical noise at this point. It would seem, that the slight Conservative rise is primarily a function of more support in the prairie provinces. If you actually do the regional breakdowns, this particular AR poll is a mixed bag, rather than the perception of a widening gap, it's pretty much an electoral wash.

As an aside, I conducted my own poll this morning. Two voting age adults were sampled, and 100% agreed with the statement "Harper is a weiner". Results accurate 19 times out of 20.

Attack Ads

CTV reports that the Conservatives are running radio ads today, attacking the coalition, while pumping budget passage. The timing is curious, and probably not by accident.

The huge bounce the government received, in the aftermath of the coalition threat, has clearly waned, with every polling outfit confirming a significant shift from the soaring heights of early December. Within that reality, I assume the Conservatives polling reveals the same, there might be some nervousness which probably led to another round of attack ads. A tightening race, coupled with some evidence that the coalition concept is marginally more acceptable, and you can see why the Conservatives might want to attack.

Running radio ads is probably the smart move, because they get less attention than the television variety. The Conservatives can't afford to look to partisan or hostile, because that feeds all the cementing negative narratives. That said, the fact the Conservatives feel the need to run any ad, and risk looking partisan, is probably a statement that they have some genuine fear, that demands addressing.

Oh Well

I thought this story off the wire, was representative of this entire SAD misadventure:

Israel kills militant's family in Gaza tank fire

GAZA (Reuters) - An Israeli tank shelling the home of a Hamas militant killed his wife and five children on Friday in the central Gaza Strip, medical officials said.

The officials said Israel had apparently targeted the home of a Hamas militant near al-Bureij refugee camp. He was not there at the time, they said.

Maybe next time. Try his mother's shack, might be holed up there, worth a try.

Below is the latest Liberal press release on the Gaza conflict:

















Liberal Party Of Canada

Harper Losing His Edge

Comprehensive Strategic Council poll that shows Harper losing his edge on the economy. NANOS also had numbers out today that showed lukewarm support for Harper's competence on the economy. Ignatieff is statistically tied with Harper on "managing the economy", the first time the Conservative leader hasn't held a decided advantage over the Liberals:

The Strategic Counsel poll found the Liberals under Mr. Ignatieff closing the gap with the Tories on the issue of who is best to deal with the economy, with 38 per cent picking them as best managers, compared with 40 per cent for the Tories. The Tories held a 12-point edge in the area in a poll taken during the 2008 election.

You can't understate the implications of a leader of the opposition now running neck and neck with a sitting PM, on the crucial issue. That number represents the first signs of serious erosion for Harper, it should give the war room shivers.

On the horserace front, another poll showing Harper returning to earth, from the false coalition bounce. A 21% lead in December is now down to 7%:

The Tories still lead the Liberals in voter intention – 36 to 29...The poll saw no change for the NDP, at 18 per cent. In Quebec, the Liberals surged well ahead of the Tories, with 29 per cent, compared with 17 per cent. The Bloc continued to lead in Quebec with 36 per cent.

The numbers indicate the Tories have failed to hold on to the increase in popularity they gained after the announcement last year of a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. Within days of the coalition announcement, the Tories had a 21-percentage-point lead over the Liberals.

We see different gaps, depending on the poll, but all the trends are similar.

This poll also asked questions on an election and the coalition. For coalition backers, a ray of hope:

Of those surveyed, 49 per cent said they would prefer an election over a coalition government if the budget failed and the government was defeated. However, 44 per cent preferred a Liberal-NDP coalition government, with 66 per cent of Quebeckers liking the idea.

The closest breakdown we've seen, and the first one you can credibly claim any degree of public support. One caveat, voters would rather the Liberals vote for the budget, EVEN if they "don't like what they see":

The poll found 49 per cent said the Liberals should hold their noses and vote for the government even if they are not satisfied with the budget. Forty-three per cent, however, advised the Liberals to bring down the government if they don't like what they see.

A slight majority want Liberal support, no matter, rather than a vote against, but if there is a vote against we'd rather have an election than a coalition. That's the way it translates, so when you factor in the want for budget support, even with the not satisfactory label, then the want for an election, it's still quite a stretch to argue high support for the coaltion. That said, the coalition stench seems less pungent than it did in early days, others have shown a similar narrowing, so it's clearly somewhat positive.

Waiting Out The Economy

Last week, I laid out a possible theory to explain the "new" Harper, this latest installment conciliatory and non-confrontational. Harper's latest statement reaffirms my belief, that the Conservative strategy is to avoid an election, essentially wait out the economy:

Ivison: Talking about a more bi-partisan Parliament, what steps are you personally going to take to ensure that? For example, during the election, the idea that the justice package was a matter of confidence — are you in a position now to say that only money bills are measures of confidence, given your focus on the economy?


Harper: I wouldn’t go that far. Obviously the economy is everyone’s number one priority. It would be unwise for a prime minister to say he would narrow the range of confidence measures unilaterally, if the opposition parties would not be prepared to do exactly the same thing. I don’t want to be in a position where I would say only one or two or three things would be confidence while they would get up and say: “we reserve the right to bring forward a motion of confidence on every thing.” I think if we could get together and agree that a narrow range of things would be confidence — that would be useful to the functioning of this Parliament. I haven’t had that kind of discussion with Mr. Ignatieff and that would be a judgment he would have to make. But I do think that Canadians want to see Parliament work. We’ve had three elections in four years.

Not only is Harper offering to stop the flurry of confidence votes, Harper goes further this time, asking for assurance from the opposition. Why? Some believe it's all a ruse, Harper is just trying to look "bi-partisan", but will strike at the first opportunity. I believe that to be true in the long term, but clearly the Conservatives have decided they need to avoid an election until the economy starts to turn around. It really is pretty simple and stark when you think about it- no sitting government wants to go to the people, while the economic news is disasterous, a utter recipe for potential disaster, you don't control the agenda, you're vulnerable. The snap election call last fall supports the same rationale, head to the polls before it gets worse and you pay a political price. This latest "offer" to the opposition is completely consistent, Harper now wants to ride out the economic storm and is prepared to play "nice", if it achieves his goal.

Operating on the assumption that the government doesn't want an election, it provides the opposition with full knowledge. The Liberals SHOULD NOT agree to Harper's declared set of possible confidence matters, they should REFUSE any overture which boxes them in. Let Harper make "unilateral" declarations, the onus is on the government to make Parliament work, they're the one's who have failed, almost universal sentiment of their unseemly role in dysfunction. The Liberals should state clearly that we reserve the right to bring forth a confidence motion whenever we see fit, if the government wants to avoid that development, all they need to do is act responsibly, no need for "formal" declarations. Harper is merely trying to take the hammer away, once the budget passes, remove any opportunity to upset his plans.

The above quote from Harper is entirely transparent, no need to prescribe the hidden meanings or alterior motives. The Conservatives desperately don't want an election, and they will do what is required to avoid one. Not making legislation a matter of confidence isn't a way to show Canadians you have a desire to work together, it's a tactic to run out the economic clock. Lay low, don't piss in the pool, and see what happens. When old Harper returns, you know the economy is turning the corner. The trick for the Liberals, quickly get into readiness mode, then take Harper out at the knees, before the economic numbers improve. Above that, NEVER agree to a narrow range of confidence motions, keep the hammer.