On Justifications

My friend The Jurist analyzes the Ignatieff rationale for budget passage, gleamed from comments made by Liberal MP Glen Pearson. Pearson:

He argued that if he brought down the government by voting down the budget, certain short-term goals would be achieved. We would be government. He would be Prime Minister. We would be able to more correctly invest those kind of monies. All of this is true.

Then he challenged us to think of a larger dynamic, one that eventually won the day. A coalition, he offered, would be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of national unity. The West would want out. Quebec would be an unknown factor. And Canadians as a whole, excepting those constituency groups that would have been served by the coalition, would be ushered into an era of great national uncertainty again. The markets, so requiring of stability right now, would respond with alarm and alacrity. His arguments continued for a time yet.

I realized in an instant that he was correct, and powerfully so. We all recalled what the threat of coalition did to the emotional state of the country back in December - remarkable division and alarm. “I didn’t sign on to this job to split this country,” he stressed. “We are the party of national unity and we break our vow with Canadians as Liberals if we ruin our cohesiveness by grasping at immediate power.”

The thrust of The Jurist's post, which I've heard elsewhere, Ignatieff is merely repeating Conservative talking points, as it relates to national unity. I believe that the reality on the ground was much more than a mere talking point. Further, a talking point is only relevant if it resonates, if it speaks to a genuine manifestation in the real world.

I must confess, one of the main reasons I find Ignatieff attractive is his sense of country, the way he articulates his vision for how a federal party can be a vehicle for national unity. Now, I don't doubt that political decision making was part of the budget acceptance process, but it is also true that the same dynamic applies to EVERY party involved, so the notion of portraying anyone as craven, another pure, absolute and utter nonsense, that requires leave of one's senses.

Given what I've heard from Ignatieff, since he became leader and prior, it is hard to question his perspective on national unity as anything but genuine. People can disagree, whatever, but the philosophy of the man is his own, and he comes by it honestly. It just so happens, that I agree with the notion, that one of the central roles for a federal party is too highlight similarity, attempt to cultivate a better environment for tolerance, one that binds, rather than agitates. I believe that Michael Ignatieff has the potential to be a great "national" leader, because he is able to articulate the viewpoint of various regions, without sacrificing the strength of Canada as a whole. National cohesion is a pet concern for me, because I see the federation slowly drifting apart, too often we talk past each other, rather than moving forward with common understanding, that accepts compromise as a mutual benefit, rather than a winner/loser proposition. There is much latent resentment in the land, old wounds and patent misunderstanding, this country needs a voice of clarity, I believe Ignatieff has the capacity to fill the void. Time will tell.

With past musings in mind, it really isn't surprising that part of the Ignatieff rationale for rejecting the coalition, accepting the Harper transformation in the short term, was borne of a genuine concern on unity. There is no question, the coalition concept presented real regional challenges, to say it was merely a talking point, fails to recognize the honest sentiments. Nobody questioned Ignatieff when he first criticized Harper for turning an economic crisis into a national unity crisis, primarily because it was true. Whether or not the Conservatives fanned the flames is irrelevant, when one looks at the reality it created in the aftermath. The simple fact, in many parts of this country, the coalition was seen as an eastern power grab, that attempted to usurp the election results, it fed a pre-existing sentiment, it was a point of division. No matter the measure, there was a disconnect, and it wasn't the product of normal circumstance, Canadians more engaged than any time I can remember. Were reactions rational, were they fair, were they informed? In many respects no, but they were what they were, and no calm, detached view could reconcile itself with visceral reaction.

I have no doubt, had the Liberals plowed ahead with the coalition, the prospects for a period of intense division was real. When you consider just how far the Conservatives have moved (no doubt the budget had a conciliatory tone that was largely crafted to neuter counter arguments for defeat), you had a situation where national unity was further threatened. Just imagine the arguments from the other side, pointing to all the concessions, the attempt to address, and yet the eastern power base still moved towards their goal. You want to entertain "enflamed", November well could have looked tame by comparison. The Conservatives have shown they will stop at nothing, what moves would lie ahead, if they were armed with a "liberal" budget, still rejected? To not consider that possibility, is to ignore part of the landscape, to just confine yourself to certain aspects, simultaneously oblivious to obvious dangers.

Nobody is entertaining "separatism", although we would surely hear rumblings, but it is about alienation. The timing of a coalition, which lacked any regional representation, which constituted about the weakest presentation imaginable, on the heels of a just concluded election, led by a resoundingly rejected party, was rife with problems. That Ignatieff was concerned gives me further confidence, because his view is essentially the same as my own.

It was easy to grasp at "immediate power", it was staring us in the face, if that was the prime consideration. Sure, there were issues with the NDP, the ultimate movement on the game board, but again, please don't be so selective to ignore the political consideration of all "partners". It wasn't that simple, and one always needs to consider the ramifications, to fluff off the notion of "legitimacy" is to ignore part of the equation. This issue was real, it had the potential to create further national tensions, with lasting impacts. Maybe the coalition could allay those fears over time, but to minimize the potential is frankly irresponsible. What one calls "rationalization", I call a "principle", and while you can disagree, it doesn't mean you can't respect that point of view, particularly when it came with ample evidence that the fallout was entirely plausible, hardly a fear mongering proposition. Ignatieff believes the Liberals are the "party of national unity", and this decision on the coalition is entirely consistent with all that responsibility entails.

And That's The Way It Was

The World Economic Forum grappling with the consequences of American protectionism, a dead Canadian soldier returning home, an eroding ceasefire in Gaza, Obama's stimulus plan hits a snag, all possible lead stories. What's not a LEAD story, concerns CBC's national broadcast tonight, which decided that Canadians desperately needed to know that a 23 year old American Olympian took some bong hits at a party. God's speed Michael Phelps, as you enter this troubling phase in your life. Rehab, who knows where we go from here? And thank-you CBC news editors for giving this story the focus it deserves, hopefully Peter follows up tomorrow with an "In Depth" feature.

Sounds Like A Consensus To Me

If you listen to the denier crowd, you'd swear that the tenets of global warming are crumbling around us. More and more scientists are coming forward to question the supposed consensus, "global cooling" the new buzzword. Just go outside, need we say more? Complete ignorance of misfits and low rent journalists aside (yes, you hate Al Gore, we get it, but it's not really about HIM brainiac), interesting to see a new study, which shows in clear terms, the only thing crumbling is the deniers brittle brain tissue. The study found overwhelming support for global warming and man-made global warming, with the added emphasis, the closer to the field, the more expertise, the more inclined to agree:

A group of 3,146 Earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded.

Two questions were key: "Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The numbers are even more convincing, when you include the subset of scientists who actually work in the field. Imagine that:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

97% of those in the know, sounds like a consensus to me.

Anyways, I have some MORE shovelling to do, so take that you commie academic experts, peddling your knowledge laden hoax, based on objective evidence.

You Mean The "Goals" Weren't Achieved?

Nobody should be surprised, that despite Israel's declaration of victory in Gaza, that the tunnels are still fully operational, Hamas is still in complete control and Israeli "security" forever a untenable reality until a lasting peace is achieved. No matter, with the radical Netanyahu looming on the Israeli political scene, it's imperative to look "tough" and "decisive", pure FOLLY aside. That is why two feeble rockets (and a mortar no less) are grounds for "disporportionate" response:

Speaking to his Cabinet on Sunday, Israel's outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said Israel would respond “when and where we choose.”

The government's position, Mr. Olmert said, is that “if there is shooting at residents of the south there will be an Israeli response that will be harsh and disproportionate by its nature to the shooting at residents of Israel and at our forces.”

Hamas has not taken responsibility for any of the new attacks, which have been claimed by smaller militant groups. But Israel says it holds Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since seizing power in June 2007, responsible for all attacks emanating from Gaza.

Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu said Mr. Olmert's threat was an attempt by Israel to “find false pretexts to increase its aggression against the people” and to undermine Egyptian efforts to mediate a long-term cease-fire.

In case you were confused on what "disporportionate" really means. Cue the rationalizations.

Prentice Out Of The Loop

It was on all the networks, lots of hype, seemed everybody was talking. Despite almost unprecedented global focus, it appears Jim Prentice missed the Inauguration:

"Canada, U.S. in harmony on climate change: Prentice"

Maybe it was a typo, "were" omitted or something?

It's funny to watch Bush's international tag team partner on climate change now pivot towards the Obama teet. "Change" nobody believes in.

The Right Choice

Two polls, one from Strategic Counsel, the other from Ipsos, both reach the same conclusion on the Liberals decision.

The SC poll provides the best of all worlds for the Liberals. Canadians believe the opposition deserves credit for the stimulus, Harper's conversion pure politics, and the Liberals right to let the budget pass:

72 per cent of Canadians say the government would not have introduced the stimulative budget of this week had it not been for the pressure of opposition parties.

69 per cent say they still blame Mr. Harper for causing an unnecessary political crisis late last year when he should have been focusing on the economy.

Asked whether they believe Mr. Harper has changed since the fall and is taking the country's economic troubles more seriously, 63 per cent said they perceived no change and that the budget is all about politics.

On the budget itself, overall support:

62 per cent saying they have a positive impression, compared with 38 per cent who feel the opposite

The Liberal decision:

The poll also shows that the decision of new Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to avoid bringing down the Tories may have been the right one. Thirty-eight per cent of respondents say they would be less likely to vote Liberal should the Grits defeat the budget.

“If they had done the opposite, it would have come at a political cost to them,” Mr. Donolo said.

More bad news for the NDP:

Canadians are also urging the opposition parties to back the budget, with a full two-thirds saying they should support it. Even 47 per cent of New Democratic voters feel that way. The NDP has said it will vote against the budget.

Conclusion, Harper has damaged itself, and the Liberals clearly made the right political decision, to let the budget pass.

The Ipsos poll finds Canadians largely "indifferent" to the budget. The strong majority see the budget as "neither good, nor bad." On the question of budget support, again Ignatieff's decision appears a good one:

only 39 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement "the opposition coalition would have presented a better budget for these tough economic times than the Harper government has."

That suggests Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was probably correct to kill the coalition with Jack Layton's NDP, but to have done so in a way he can be perceived as forcing the Conservatives to bend to the will of Parliament.

"I think his moves this past week were incredibly astute," Mr. Wright said. "It was a very smart strategy but what the poll, however, shows is that people really don't believe that any political party or anybody really has the answer to this," he said, referring to the economic downturn.

"Astute", "very smart strategy", from the pollster, seems to reflect the general mood we've heard elsewhere, rabid partisans aside.

It's very evident now, that Ignatieff made the right political choice, in allowing this budget to pass, while others misread the mood of the public at large. It's also abundantly clear that Harper is damaged goods, a fact which will be particularly noteworthy when we do have an election.

Lack Of A Price

It's well understood, that there was a substantive disconnect between Quebec and the "rest of Canada", relating to attitudes on the coalition. The Liberals really had nothing to lose politically, by moving away from the coalition in the majority of the country, with the clear exception being Quebec. Given Quebecers apparent clear support for the coalition, you could cobble together an argument that the Liberal cause will now be hurt with the budget passage. Recent polls show the Liberals very competitive in Quebec, but these will surely wane, now that they've turned their backs on a popular concept. I don't really see that circumstance necessarily, at best a mild blip, for a number of reasons, but I've tried to gauge what I can, in the immediate aftermath.

From everything I can gather, in a general sense, scanning the outlets, the post-budget cartoonists that are quite flattering towards Ignatieff, some punditry, there is really no sense whatsoever that the Liberals have really harmed themselves in this instance. Yesterday, I heard the following from Chantal Hebert, who generally has a good read of her province's mood (even when it articulated the stubborn resistance to Stephane), and it seems representative:

"Today in Montreal, where people liked the coalition, people on the street who wanted to talk about it, there were quite a lot of them, seemed to think that it was almost normal that Ignatieff backed the budget. So, I think he had prepared, even those who liked the coalition, and I'm not talking die hard NDP and Bloc supporter, but he had prepared the grounds for supporting the budget sufficiently to get away with it."

Others, obviously have a more intimate read, but it would appear that the Liberals did "get away with it", there is little outrage or mockery. If the Liberals can remain relatively unscathed in the one province that held any prospect for "blowback", that's an added bonus, because the danger was beyond minimal anywhere else. As a matter of fact, apart from "die hard" partisans everywhere, Ignatieff and the Liberals have emerged from this debate it very good shape, particularly when you compare it to recent history.

Of course, everything could change in time, but then again, isn't that always the case....

Tough Call

It will be interesting to see how Ignatieff reacts to Newfoundland MP's voting against the budget. You have to balance the need for party discipline, unity, with a genuine concern. I'm inclined to say that Ignatieff should let these MP's vote their conscience, because this issue supercedes the general party position and strategy. I confess, complete confusion trying to decipher all these various side deals and such, but if these MP's feel strongly that Harper is trying to "screw" them, Ignatieff might be better off letting them express their view, and pledging to undo any negative effects in the future.

The reasoning, that forces everyone to toe the line, is more a question on optics, rather than a practical threat to the official position. In the grand scheme, nothing will really change, should these MP's vote against the budget, the political reality remains in tact, while these MP's maintain their credibility with their constituents. Danny Williams isn't blaming the Liberals for their budget stance, but he clearly is pushing for a statement:

“I know they're in a tough spot,” Mr. Williams said.

But even if the Liberal MPs vote against the budget, it would pass with the support of the other Liberals.

Mr. Williams is also looking for support from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and other premiers to delay budget changes that affect revenues from the equalization formula and the Atlantic Accord.

But it remained unclear Friday whether Mr. Ignatieff would back Mr. Williams's proposal.

“This is not a matter between myself and Michael Ignatieff. Michael Ignatieff is doing his best to try and remedy a very terrible situation,” the Premier said.

“I lay this squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Harper and his cohorts.”

If the concern is one of optics, I would suggest a counter view, that has an upside. While the obvious presentation of division in the ranks isn't necessarily advantegeous, having a group of Liberals vote against the budget, also sends a clear signal that this isn't our document and we do have genuine reservations. The decision to support, is one made on balance, but that doesn't preclude criticism or pointing to problems. The simplistic, and quite silly, suggestion that letting this budget pass is tantamount to full endorsement of the Harper Conservatives, isn't necessarily a real concern, but allowing these MP's some latitude does highlight the real disconnects.

There is also the danger of precedent, and Ignatieff will surely have to field questions about a "divided" caucus. However, isn't that reality already in the public domain, everyone knows how these MP's feel, a censor or "toe the line" doesn't remove the perception? In letting these MP's vote against, it allows these people to stay true, without crippling the overall Liberal position moving forward. Everyone has problems with parts of this budget, it's really a decision made in totality. Liberal MP's showing their displeasure, is actually symbolic of a real tension, and I'm not sure it's necessarily negative to present a budget vote, which speaks to the lack of universal approval.

So Scared

Ohhhh, nooooo. The NDP, have released a series of "scathing" radio ads, "attacking" the Liberals. I caught one today, had about the same professional quality as Dion's last video appearance, but I'm sure Canadians will be moved. Hardly surprising, listening to Mulclair's petty comments yesterday (questioning where Ignatieff paid taxes), on the heels of Layton's jilted lover routine, this makes sense.

One thing to keep in mind, the timing of these ads means that while the budget was being released, and Canadians were learning the details, the NDP were huddled in a corner, planning their attack, buying up ad time. That's exactly what Canadians were looking for from political parties, during this crucial time. In addition, when was the last time the NDP ran attack ads against the government, outside of an election?? Interesting, that.

Here's the deal, the NDP are the big losers yesterday, and I know this, not because of my reaction, but because of THEIR reaction, it speaks VOLUMES. The best part, it also demonstrates why a coalition with this bunch had the real prospect of turning into a nightmare for the Liberals, one hand around your shoulder, the other with a knife at our throat. Thanks, but no thanks.

Anyways, unless "bitterness" is the new winning buzzword in Canada, these ads are about as threatening as Wade Belak on a breakaway. Consider me amused, at best.

Below, a sampling of the tremendous backlash against Ignatieff and the Liberals for their pragmatic decision:

Winnipeg Free Press – Editorial, January 29, 2009

“In fact, Mr. Ignatieff not only passed the test, he came out of it looking as if his party not only saved the nation in this time of economic crisis, but that he had vaulted himself into the captain's chair without having to endure the tedium of actually navigating the ship of state through the shoals ahead.”

---

Benoît Aubin – Chroniqueur, Le Journal de Montréal, le 29 janvier 2009

« En se positionnant comme le professeur qui corrigera les devoirs du gouvernement aux trois mois, menaçant de lui coller un zéro et de déclencher des élections, M. Ignatieff s'est aussi octroyé une bonne mesure de ce que Robert Bourassa appelait «la seule chose qui compte vraiment en politique» : du temps, pour voir venir, et manœuvrer. »

« M. Ignatieff s'est sûrement valu un hochement de tête positif de la part de millions d'électeurs qui en avaient vraiment soupé du vaudeville qu'était devenu le parlement d'Ottawa - et qui apprécient la quasi-certitude offerte hier qu'il n'y aura pas. »

---
The Globe and Mail – Editorial, January 29, 2009

“Mr. Ignatieff made the correct decision yesterday in announcing that the Liberals will support the budget delivered on Tuesday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Flawed though it may be, it mostly embraces the approach the Liberals advocated - and its defeat would force the country into another prolonged period of political uncertainty that it can ill afford. Even to play a tactical game of chicken by demanding major amendments in return for the budget's passage could have forced the Liberals into a corner, creating a stand-off that Mr. Ignatieff was smart to avoid.”

---
Jean-Marc Salvet – Éditorialiste, Le Soleil, 29 janvier 2009

« Michael Ignatieff s'est-il écrasé devant Stephen Harper? Non. Il a agi de façon responsable. »

« Le PLC et la coalition ont déjà poussé le gouvernement dans ses derniers retranchements. Ils n'auraient pas obtenu plus. Ils l'ont forcé à bouger. Ils ont modifié son code génétique. C'est un exploit. »

---
The Brantford Expositor – Editorial, January 29, 2009

“Ignatieff's phrase that he is putting the Conservative government "on probation" shows a strength that has been absent from the Liberals for some time.”

---
Waterloo Region Record - Editorial

“In Ignatieff, the Liberals appear to have found someone whose intellectual skills and political smarts are the equal of Harper's. The matchup of these two should prove productive and interesting.”

---
Don Martin – Columnist, National Post, January 29, 2009

“Mr. Ignatieff has given the Liberals a sense of renewed vigour and a big bounce in the polls. With this budget-expediting move, he has proven himself a shrewd strategist on par with Mr. Harper's reputation, at least before his record was soured by that fall economic update fiasco.”

---
The Toronto Star – Editorial, January 29, 2009

“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is right, therefore, not to rush to the barricades with the other two opposition parties to defeat this budget and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government with it. That would mean either putting the coalition in office (which, unfortunately, many parts of the country would see as illegitimate) or forcing yet another election (which would be the fourth in five years). ‘Canadians need that like a hole in the head,’ observes Ignatieff.”

---
The Ottawa Citizen – Editorial, January 29, 2009

“One hopes that both Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper will carry on with the grown-up work of getting Canada out of this recession, while ignoring Mr. Layton's petulant taunting from the sidelines.”

Hang in there Michael, just ride out the maelstorm and hope the nation's fury wanes. Fingers crossed.

"The New Darling of Quebecers"

The new CROP poll shows the Liberals neck and neck with the Bloc, the Conservatives freefall confirmed. Particularly noteworthy, the Liberals have doubled their support amongst francophones, and are actually competitive outside of what was their "last stronghold" in Quebec. I know, I know, it's all going to change now, after the budget fallout (not), but allow me my real world delusions for a moment:

Bloc 34% (down 4% Oct)
Liberals 31% (up 7%)
Conservatives 16% (down 6%)
NDP 15% (up 3%)

The Liberals more than double the support of the Conservatives, clearly the appearance of the "federalist option" is supported. Better still for the Liberals, finally some evidence of decent support with francophones:

Bloc 40%
Liberals 26%
Conservatives 15%

Liberal support with francophones doubled, Conservative support halved, good news indeed.

The Liberals are also competitive in Quebec City region, while it's more bad news for the Conservatives:

Even in the Quebec City, the stronghold of the Conservatives since January 2006, the political scene is beginning to change. The Bloc Quebecois is ahead in this region with 30% followed by the Conservative Party (28%) and the Liberal Party (27)%.

The numbers are almost ridiculous on the best PM score:

Ignatieff 37%
Harper 16%

My flippant comment aside, there was some risk for the Liberals with this budget strategy, because it gives Duceppe some ammunition, and the coalition concept did enjoy support in Quebec. That said, my initial read, gauging the reaction of commentators, Ignatieff still enjoys the benefit of his "newness", so firm opinions have yet to gel, how the numbers pan out as we move forward, will very much be decided on future performance. I don't sense any lasting damage with this budget decision, and the immediate call to Charest after the announcement is evidence of a strategy beyond this one "test". I remain optimistic, and with a temporary lull on the horizon, I expect to see Ignatieff make excursions into parts of Quebec, Dion never dared contemplate. The above are excellent numbers for the Liberals, and it isn't a stretch to say the Conservatives are forever DEAD in Quebec.

Budget Poll

Angus Reid, gives us a first glimpse review of the budget. The numbers are obviously superficial, first impressions, but I think they speak to the larger desire of just wanting Parliament to get on with it.

On budget approval, solid support:

50% approve of the budget presented by the Conservative government, 31% disapprove

On Parliament passing the budget, a clear want:

53% want Parliament to pass the budget, only 20% don't, with 28% not sure

Impact of budget:

Almost two-thirds of Canadians (63%) believe the budget will have a positive impact in Canada, and almost half (47%) believe the spending plan will have a positive impact in their provinces—including 62 per cent in Ontario and 56 per cent in Alberta. Respondents in Quebec were particularly skeptical, with just 23 per cent foreseeing positive developments for their province, while 42 per cent expect a negative impact.
Still, almost half of Canadians (46%) believe the budget will have no impact at all on their household. Albertans lead the way in expressing personal satisfaction with the spending plan (43% expect a positive impact in their household) while less than one-in-ten Quebecers concur.

The Liberals are clearly on the ride side of public opinion, when it comes to budget passage. Really no sense of a political price, despite the howls from predictable sources.

Keeping The Pressure On

Some more details about the looming Liberal demands, which will effectively keep the pressure on the government, allowing plenty of opportunity for future defeat, if required:

Ignatieff will support the budget but with two conditions:

The Tories make amendments that include improvements in employment insurance and infrastructure but without adding more to the deficit.

The Tories issue an update three times a year on the types of progress being made in terms of the deficit, infrastructure, creating jobs, and regional fairness.
Fife said the first update would be in March when government estimates have to be approved by Parliament.

"He's really going to be holding the government to account here if they don't meet these requirements then the government will be defeated," Fife said.

I would categorize the "update" requirement as a stroke of political brilliance. The chief concern, if the Liberals support, then they take the economy off the table, they've lost the leverage for criticism, is completely addressed with the demand of government accountability. This requirement translates to sustained pressure on the government, the Liberals are free to scrutinze and reacess, keeping the government on the defensive. In essence, the opposition will drive the agenda, ensuring compliance, any deviation or slowness on the government's part, they will "wear" it. Rather than "propping up" the Conservatives, the Liberal role will be to ensure compliance, and make adjustments where necessary. The amendment also means, the Liberals enjoy set benchmarks for future non-confidence, as well as addressing the "trust" issue. We effectively put an ankle bracklet on the government, so we can routinely check their whereabouts, what they've been up to.

The Liberals aren't giving the Conservatives a post-budget reprieve, they will be held to account, and the intitiative remains. If Flaherty is "rosy", if his projections miss the mark, any evidence of promises unkept, there is a mechanism to reveal the failures, and react accordingly. Rather than budget support translating to endorsement, it's a wait and see attitude, and we are left to criticize and show our non-confidence in the future. This amendment basically says, we'll pass the budget, but we don't trust you guys, the Liberals will have a future accounting role. Fast forward, and you can see how this requirement can pay dividends, both politically, and the genuine interest in making sure the economy does receive the stimulus promised.

Liberals "Grumpy"

For what it's "worth":

After consulting late Tuesday with his caucus, the Liberal leader appeared poised to try to wring more concessions out of Harper before guaranteeing his party's support.

Ignatieff, who is to announce his decision Wednesday morning, did not overtly tip his hand during what was described as a "grumpy" caucus meeting. But Liberals left with the impression that he intends to propose an amendment to address some of the deficiencies his MPs identified in the budget.

A senior Liberal confirmed it's unlikely Ignatieff will choose to support the budget without any changes.

"I think it could even be a flat no or there could be an amendment," the insider said. "But those are the only two options".

Liberals privately suggested an amendment could include a proviso that municipalities receive their share of federal infrastructure funding, even if they can't afford to ante up matching funds. It could also specify that the unemployed must receive jobless benefits immediately, doing away with the two-week waiting period.

Coalition Now!

Just joking.

A few personal thoughts on the budget, which isn't a statement on optics or advice on how the Liberals should proceed.

First off, not a very "green" budget, which speaks to the larger point of creating the jobs of the future. I can't really see the grand vision in this budget, more of a hodgepodge, that a focused plan. How this budget modernizes the economy escapes me, it has a panicky feel, plugging holes, rather than using the initiatives to better position us moving forward.

The big item, that was revealed today, the tax cut regime. These cuts do address the "most vulnerable", the budget attempts to speak to the lower and working class folks, whether it's enough, another debate. 20 billion over 6 years, is quite a bit more than the 2 billion the government pushed today. I did like the renovations tax credit, as well as the first time homeowner incentive. If people know they have a limited window to benefit from the renovations credit, it does provide impetus, and most of the money spent in this sector is Canadian made.

Some of the infrastructure money comes with a catch, and I was shocked to hear Flaherty actually acknowledge the deficit could be lower, if this money wasn't spent- "use it or lose it". The pre-condition of provincial and municipal help makes sense on one level, and provides additional funds, but the practical failing, some can't afford the pre-requisite. The prospect of this money left in the federal coffers is, which Flaherty himself stated, is a red flag.

The changes to EI, if you can call them that, probably demands an amendment. The five week extension is clearly good news, so it's an improvement for sure. That said, it falls short on wait times and expanding those that qualify. The re-training money is another positive.

The issue of the deficit as a whole is a tricky proposition. I will give the government some latitude, in that projections in this climate are problematic by nature. However, it was interesting to hear many of the economists, bankers, who were asked already muse about "rosy", Flaherty optimistic. Everybody accepts short term deficits, but I don't sense Flaherty was very convincing in presenting a realistic plan to avoid structural deficits.

Using Flaherty's own numbers, the federal debt payment amount will increase by a full 10 billion at the end of the five years. Tack on the tax cuts, plus the 20 billion increase in spending (for the last two years, AFTER all the stimulus measures are off the books), and it's hard to see how we end up with a very slight surplus. Flaherty reachs a balance, but it assumes massive increases in government revenues, and I think this is why economists are sceptical.

In a general sense, the main criticism of this budget is that it "sprinkles". A little here, a little there, amounting to maybe not enough anywhere. The government clearly tried to cover all of its bases, particularly as it relates to the opposition demands, but for the amount of money being spent, it's still a question of effectiveness. In many respects, more pandering than serious, and the lack of a vision is really evident- no sense of all tenticles moving in tandem, toward a stated goal. Pretty bland, lacking any big picture imagination, more about survival than coherence.

Ignatieff As Dion

There is a point of view making the rounds, that should Ignatieff let the budget pass, he will be well on his way to suffering the same fate as Dion. The "weak" leader narrative, the sense of "cave", "rolling over", the criticisms of "real opposition", all the things that plagued Dion during his tenure, which ultimately made Harper appear much stronger, relative to his primary opponent. I respectfully disagree with that sentiment, in fact I see little in the way of revelant analogies, nor do I think Ignatieff damages himself, in any lasting way, in this instance.

Mr. Dion, for a myriad of reasons, never enjoyed a strong hold on his leadership. Not to rehash, but just as a point of fact, the "weak leader" narrative was entirely supported by the internal machinations of the Liberal Party. I think it beyond obvious at this point, that Ignatieff is, and will be, in far greater control, little prospects for divisions, camps, all the stuff that tends to undermine a leaders authority. That reality is entirely relevant, because much of the Dion frame was media generated, and the seeds of that sentiment were a reflection of party optics. When people sense weakness within, the performance in Parliament only amplifies and cements the narrative.

If, we are sitting here, this time next year, and the Ignatieff Liberals have continually avoided any challenges by the Conservatives, my opinion may change, but as of now, on this particular vote, there is nothing that suggest Ignatieff will be wounded. In fact, if you peruse the media, couple that with public sentiment, a vote for the budget contains little risk. This isn't a situation, wherein Harper "bullies" the Liberals, the suggestion really laughable. As I've already stated, this budget has left Conservatives scratching their heads, so far removed from the initial positions, so removed from the core tenets. Ignatieff never moved, not really one iota, the rhetoric of November identical to the demands of today, and those demands largely met. The universal media opinion, is that Harper has moved to appease the opposition, nobody recognizes him- no sentiment at all, of the Liberals painted into a corner, victim of Harper's strategic prowess. It is for that reason, along with the public want to see politics put aside, and something concrete delivered, that leaves little room for a backlash against Ignatieff, should we support the budget.

Ignatieff is a new leader, putting in place a new team, beginning to articulate his vision for the country. The dynamic of "new" affords Ignatieff some breathing space, no one is entirely surprised, or ready to pass definitive judgement, on a man and party retooling in the early days. "Avoiding" an election isn't a sign of weakness, it's seen as pretty reasonable, given the timing of the last election, given the new regime. Important to separate the musings of those with an agenda, who can say whatever they choose, with how the unaffiliated conduit interprets the maneuvers. With almost universal agreement, the idea that the Conservatives have moved to appease the Liberals, and the Liberals, under the new leader, rightfully want more time. That's the overarching view that I see and hear, so with that in mind, I fail to see DION II. Very different times, very different dynamics at play, very different men to be frank.

There is some sense that the Liberals are on the move under Ignatieff. How much of that is real, or just wishful thinking, remains to be seen. But, there is no question that Ignatieff is commanding a different level of respect, he is not the human pinata. Of course, that perspective can change, but it won't, as a result of this one vote, future events will dictate.

Comparing what appears to be happening, as of tomorrow, with the abstaining routine of the Dion regime, is a useless comparison. As someone who railed against the abstaining strategy last year, primarily because it further cemented Dion's "weak" position, I see little here that re-ignites my previous concern. Nobody is being bullied, Harper isn't forcing his agenda, while we run and hide behind the curtains. Ignatieff isn't under the gun to "stand up", in fact he's pretty much driven this debate, and looked very much a PM in waiting in the process. I will judge the Liberal strategy as we move forward, and it should it appear an overall liability, that hurts the brand or leader, I'll criticize. However, at this moment, on this vote, I see nothing of real substance, to support the argument that Ignatieff is following the same path as his predecessor, with similar risks and downside.

Jack Layton :"Steven Harper Sounds Like A New Democrat"

In a very unintended way, I think Jack Layton delivered the rationale, as to why the budget should pass. The comment by Layton came in reaction to a question on the series of budget leaks. Layton referenced social housing, infrastructure, prior to making the above statement. Also noteworthy today, the Throne Speech referenced a few Iggyisms, verbatim phrasing, which was representative of who the true authors of this budget really are. The point- if you were given the budget releases to date, and had no knowledge of which party was delivering the announcements, what party would you think crafted these initiatives? I would argue, the LAST party chosen would be the Conservatives, much more Liberal, a healthy dose of NDP, but little that resembles the Harper government we have all come to know.

I completely agree with Jeff, on hunting dogs and power grabs. A credible argument for toppling the government is completely undercut, when said offering includes almost all the original demands made. Even if the document includes other measures which don't jive with you sensibilities, you must view it all in totality. It is entirely laughable to suggest that Ignatieff and the Liberals will be "caving" should they support this budget. Oh sure, partisans may float the characterization of "propping up", but I have a very calm confidence that the frame will resonate with virtually no one. The reason? This budget has the Liberal fingerprints all over it, the same arguments made since day one, no wavering or amending as we moved forward. Stephen Harper has moved,, I will posit, moreso than any previous government in Canadian history. The chasm between the Conservative government of today, and the proposals offered in November, or the election for that matter, is so substantial, I think people are still having trouble comprehending the movement.

This government has already caved, they lost a long time ago. The only "victory" I suppose, would be clinging to power, but it's supposed to be about the economy, so that consideration supercedes. As for the idea of "trust", completely well founded, but don't forget the opposition isn't neutered moving forward, they will have a strong role on the "accountability" front. If promises aren't fulfilled, or shell games are in operation, a minority parliament always leaves the opposition with plenty of tools. The fact of the matter, at this moment, delivery is secondary to the optics of presentation. You can question the sincerity, but that hardly justifies rejecting the spirit of the initiatives, which is surely what Canadians will look at.

Just imagine, the Liberals rise to defeat the government, when everyone agrees that their checklist was, for the most part, met. That scenario does bring back the power grab angle, Harper can use all the "compromise" to show the opposition wasn't interested in solutions, but control. Politically, Harper is well armed and I see plenty of pitfalls.

I don't "trust" Stephen Harper, nor do I believe he's changed or his recent conversion authentic. However, absent of any huge surprise tomorrow, the government has covered its bases on the substance of the budget. Again, I'm hard pressed to think of another historical example, wherein a government of the day shifted so profoundly policy wise, it's really unprecedented. I don't believe Ignatieff will suffer, should the budget pass. Canadians will exhale, they could care less about, all they want is politicians to get on with it. If anything, I think Ignatieff will come off well, putting partisanship aside, in the name of national interest. Hollow cries from other politicians aside, who is really going to support the "weak" narrative, in this instance? Nobody.

Stephen Harper does sound like a New Democrat, sounds a lot like a Liberal too, sure as shit doesn't sound like the new Conservatives. That's the underlying reality, all the other arguments for coalition, elections aside. People no longer care how we got here, all they care about is getting somewhere. We'll have to wait until tomorrow, plenty more to come, but it's pretty hard now to see a OVERALL justification for defeating the government.

The Conservative Strategy

If you review all the budget leaks to date, they not so coincidentally speak to many of the opposition demands, while simultaneously, the potential contentious initiatives are being held for tomorrow.

Today's infrastructure announcement, announced by Baird. Money for social housing, retro-fits, forestry, mining, agriculture, re-training the unemployed, aboriginals. It would appear, that the government is trying very hard to speak to the opposition demands first, merit of initiatives aside, effectively taking all the issues off the table, prior to the other shoe dropping.

It is no accident, that we still have heard very little on the tax cut front, the issue with the greatest potential for conflict. In many ways, we are getting the finishes touches on the opposition budget today, and tomorrow will be more of the Conservative variety. I admit a little trepidation, that something unforeseen (rumors of a GST holiday making the rounds) is coming, because this strategy is clearly aimed at appeasing the opposition first, which suggest less palatable items are purposely being held back. Funny, that on a host of issues we have some specificity, while the only musing on tax cuts have been beyond vague. There is plenty of money still on the table (remember, today's infrastructure expenditure is over TWO years), if the math is accurate, and one has to wonder if tomorrow will bring a few surprises, any tax cuts larger than assumed. The Conservative strategy to date, seems to be about building support in the lead up, addressing demands, but it's the omissions that are particularly intriguing.

Where We Left Off

Interesting clip of the initial reaction to the fiscal update. Ignatieff's scrum, the demands. Mulclair, a gleem in his eye, as he immediately floats alternatives. Fast forward Flaherty, unless you've had recent trouble with insomnia:

So Far, Real Good

Remember the Lawrence Martin column "Where's Iggy?", which wondered why we hadn't seen more of the Liberal leader? Many of us pointed out the futile nature of promoting yourself over the holidays, better to wait and see, before making any declarations. Well, since that column, I've been entirely impressed with the way the Ignatieff team has conducted itself on the "sales job" front.

Everyday, Ignatieff has managed to keep himself in the news, on a host of issues, positioned entirely at the center of the debate. To be honest, part of the attention is merely a question of circumstance, given the dynamics of the budget debate, much of what happens moving forward rests on Ignatieff's shoulders, so every one of his musings are relevant. However, it isn't only a question of circumstance, much has been written because Ignatieff has created a mini-buzz around his ideas. The "listening" tour was entirely successful, creating a sense that the Liberals were on the move. Pumping Alberta in Quebec was surely something that would garner attention, and it provided a sense of Ignatieff's vision on the federation. Announcements on the "team", the talent assembled, another opportunity to convey a sense of competence and seriousness. Several high-profile interviews (today 3:30pm EST, Newsworld with Mansbridge, another example- good exchanges too). Everything has congealed, and Ignatieff has benefited from a host of free media.

I was speaking with a friend, and she noted the extensive coverage that Ignatieff's speech to the Coverage Club received the other day. I had noticed it as well, full live quotes on the radio, extensive bits on television, much more coverage than Liberals had come to expect under Dion, no matter the issue, forever challenged to get face time. I believe there was a study done, that showed Layton received as much coverage as Dion, and Dion was light years behind Harper. With Ignatieff, I get a very real sense that the media is much more curious, respectful and this bodes well moving forward. Even from unlikely sources, we hear certain praise about the team, the professionalism, the prowess, the optics of which creates the impression that Ignatieff is a serious challenger for Harper, his "equal" heard over and over, music to the ears of Liberals, particularly with recent past in mind. People dismiss the pundits and media class, but last time I checked, they are still the conduit for the vast majority of the population, their opinions and frames are entirely relevant. For a party still challenged financially, the free media narratives are important, getting Ignatieff in the news key.

"Where's Iggy?" Everywhere it seems, and almost all of it is positive. Ignatieff is a blank slate to many Canadians, and the big test will surely be the budget reaction, he will have the country's attention. However, in the preamble, Ignatieff has been quite successful in framing himself as a serious, careful thinker, that is more concerned with merit than posturing, a healthy contrast to Harper, and an initial impression that will serve him well. If we are judging the early days of Ignatieff's reign, the looming moment notwithstanding, I'd have to say Liberals should be entirely pleased.


Here is clip from Ignatieff's recent appearance at the Canadian Club:

Full Force Nature

I've always had this thing for waves (don't ask). There was a great movie released a few years ago called Riding Giants, which is beyond compelling, even if you have little interest in surfing. Anyways, I saw this old clip of American big wave surfer Mike Parsons tangling with a massive wave at a place called Pe'ahi (Jaws), on the north shore of Maui. The drama is fantastic, particularly as the camera pans back to reveal how insignificant a man looks riding one of the bigger waves ever recorded: