On Photo-Ops

A big nothing, in the grand scheme of things, but a nice jab, given the lengths our PM went to marginalize Ignatieff:

It all started when Liberal officials were faced with the challenge of getting a photo of their leader’s meeting with Ignatieff out to the media despite the fact that the schedule arranged largely by the prime minister’s office relegated the meeting with Ignatieff to late afternoon.

Liberal staffer Michael O’Shaunessy called Marc Methé of CNW Group to arrange for the picture taken by Ignatieff’s official photographer to be distributed to Canadian media. When he asked how much it would cost to distribute it to U.S media, Methé told him that if they added a press release to the picture, they could have the picture posted in Times Square and Las Vegas for no extra cost.

All in all, the PR coup cost the Liberals $1,100 for U.S distribution, $300 for the high definition picture to give them bragging rights and $500 to distribute the photo to Canadian media outlets.

As an aside, much talk about the fact Obama has read "several" of Ignatieff's books. To be fair, while Obama hasn't read anything authored by Harper, the two leaders did discuss books and what they've read recently. Harper mused about the last book he's read.

UPDATE:

Here's a photo from the White House website (h/t Knb):

The Company You Keep

Noteworthy, that while Harper is painting himself green, has been for years you know, his old confident offers this jewel:

Prof. Flanagan said the province's plan to spend $2-billion on developing carbon-sequestration technology may be necessary to respond to heightened demands for green energy. “Even if you believe as I do that the whole thing is a hoax, nonetheless, from the point of view of doing business I don't think Alberta can afford to walk away from that,” he said.

Does Flanagan mean carbon sequestration is a hoax, or is he referring to climate change in general?

Cut From The Same Cloth

The PMO released a new photo, to highlight just how much the two leaders have in common:



Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke:

"You do the math, it's eerie"

You Sir, Have No Peer

I guess the only question that matters, can Harper get away with it? In terms of sheer gall, Harper's dizzying spin on the climate change file is almost without precedent. You're reading it, but you can't actually believe he's saying it, and you wonder how it's possible anybody could swallow it. Steve:

Obama's climate policy a positive change, Harper says

Barack Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions, Stephen Harper says.

...the Prime Minister insisted that Canada's climate-change policy has been hamstrung by the inaction of its largest trading partner.

“In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” Mr. Harper said in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.

“I think quite frankly the fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement.”

If you were to ask any international delegation in the world, which country they would consider Bush's best ally within the climate change debate, Canada's name would come up every time, almost immediately. Canada has been such a "laggard" we've actually achieved the unfathomable, collecting more dinosaur awards in Bali than brother Bush. We're the country of "inspirational" targets, we're the one's who have changed the time lines, the baselines, talked of "intensity", that's "made in Canada".

The fact this character has the audacity to snuggle up to Obama, as though he's waited in the wings, finally, finally a dance partner, represents a new threshold in pure, unmitigated bullshit. You sir, have no peer. Stephen Harper actually believes he can move from Bush's sidekick saboteur to Obama's policy twin and nobody will notice. This nonsense is a test, it's a fundamental point, because if Harper is allowed to expouse this line, along with his surrogates (Prentice today, just simply amazed at how close the two countries really are on global warming), then it's true- you can do and say anything, repetition becomes reality. What Harper is saying, the whole argument, it's simply offensive, these clowns should be blushing when they utter the words.

Reality Check

Quite a bit of coverage, surrounding just how much time Ignatieff will get with Obama. Is it 15 minutes, 20 minutes, less or more? That the focus is on this topic is quite silly, but I had a hunch that some Conservatives would twist it into an attack on Ignatieff. So, I decided to take a rare visit over to the cesspool, and sure enough:

Iggy The Spoiled Child


Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sounding like a spoiled little child, is apparently upset that his meeting tomorrow with US President Barack Obama will only be 15 minutes in length...

Iggy sounds a lot like a child complaining to his mother that his bigger brother got a slightly larger piece of cake after dinner...

I wonder if it every dawns on these people, that the ONLY reason this is even an issue is because that hyper-partisan, SCHMUCK of a Prime Minister we have can't just be an adult and give the opposition leader his fair due. NOBODY would even mention Ignatieff's "time", if not for the crap from the PMO. Period.

Kory Teneycke, defending the schedule:

"This is not inconsistent with how past (presidential visits) were organized," he said.

"You try to minimize the movements. When you're moving the motorcade around - all 50 cars - you're going to burn up a lot of time."

Trying to minimize movements? Seems to me, you don't need the motorcade for Ignatieff to visit with Obama on Parliament Hill, when he's ALREADY there. Instead the Conservatives dump Iggy in the backroom of a hanger, maybe Rae can take a quick snap with his cell to prove the event actually occurred.

There's only one "child" here, who has no class, a constant embarrassment, everything he touches becomes a strategic maze of absurdity.

Back Off JT

I read HUD's post, relating to a robo call from Justin Trudeau. Yesterday, I received the same call, and agree Trudeau is a capable spokesperson, that delivers a certain sincerity.

Anyways, a while ago I was lucky enough to receive a SECOND call from Justin, how special I felt. I confess, I did hang up half way through, we've been here before Justin. Well guess what happened about ten minutes ago? You guessed it, JT on the horn for a THIRD time. Robo call error, or man crush?

What a SMALL Man

Only Stephen Harper could manage to turn a important visit by Obama into a statement on petty politics and manipulation. God forbid the GG should be allowed to greet Obama, in front of the cameras. How outlandish, that the oppostion leader should meet Obama in a diplomatic setting. Simply ridiculous to acknowledge that Canadians might want a mere glance or two. The PMO has micro-managed this visit, to the point that they've turned it into a selfish farce.

Yesterday, it was amusing to see Harper speak of the visit, almost giddy at the prospects. You can't blame the PMO for wanting to maximize the benefits to their advantage, that's a natural political reaction. However, the controlling nature to ensure than only HE is the center of the attention, leaves a bad taste and in turn Harper has managed to undermine the positives. The PMO's pathetic attempts to point out the comparisons between the two men (surprised Kory didn't mention that both men stand erect and eat breakfast too) denotes a callous opportunism.

A "working" visit, without the ceremony is fine, given the times, you want to convey a serious, business-like feel. That the visit has become so tightly ccntrolled, to the point of ANAL paranoia, once again provides another disappointing example of Stephen Harper's smallness.

Martin Half Right

Don Martin column today, which mostly posits the folly of Ignatieff "wooing" the west:

But somebody forgot to share those dire stats with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who seems to relish banging his head on the western wall no matter how painfully poor the prospects of winning seats...

The guy has been to western Canada twice since his coronation two months ago, pledging to give voice to regional concerns as if they were his own...

“The best way to overcome Western alienation, in my view, is to get a few more Liberals in the House of Commons in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation,” he told supporters in Saskatoon.

That’s still got to be a dream, if not a delusion, which is why it’s a curious strategy for a Liberal leader to focus on the West when, to paraphrase former premier Ralph Klein, he would be better off hunting where the ducks are.

The only glimmer, and a small one at that:

It’s not entirely hopeless, one supposes...

Martin's piece is right, the Liberals are nowhere in western Canadian and:

...to suggest there’s an Iggy mania in the making takes a vivid imagination.

The Liberal brand is a political anathema almost everywhere on the Prairies. It will take more than a few leader trips and mea culpas before The West wants in on any scheme that could toss the Conservatives out.

Where Martin is entirely off base, assuming that any Liberal of sound mind actually entertains a western wave. Martin sets the bar higher than even the most optimist would suggest. In my mind, and I suspect the Liberal braintrust, Ignatieff is merely trying to get the Liberals back in the conversation, which translates into a few seats at BEST, under optimal circumstances. Don't confuse building up from our low of 2008 as a testament to wild desires, nobody's that naive.

Is it really out of the question, for the Liberals to double their seat total in the next election, grab one or two, here and there on the prairies? It's not like that's never happened before, so outlandish to be nonsensical. Way, way back in 2004, the Liberals had 14 seats (14 in 2006 as well), and the vote breakdown for the four western province was as follows(2008 vote percentage in brackets):

British Columbia 28.6%(19.3%)
Alberta 22%(11.4%)
Saskatchewan 27.2%(14.9%)
Manitoba 33.2%(19.1%)

Martin seems to think Liberals want to paint the west red, but really the goals are far more realistic, entirely doable. A few more seats, more regional representation than the present extinction. That's what Ignatieff is up to, in my view, so no need for the head scratching at the "woo", everyone is well grounded. Small steps, which are achievable and sober.

"We Are Lost Right Now": Ignatieff on Afghanistan

Probably the most plain language we've heard, and something which needs more examination, Ignatieff on Afghanistan:

"To be frank, we are currently lost in Afghanistan. I support the mission, but I think we are lost right now. We need to find a new strategy and I think Canada can offer a legitimate contribution," he said.

The debate on Afghanistan has been largely non-existent, basically nothing more than a discussion on the 2011 end of military operations. It's as if Canada is merely playing out the clock, and nobody is putting forth any strategic re-think in the intermediary. Canada will just plod along with it's NATO partners, even though the evidence mounts that the operation is a destined to fail, by any measure.

I don't want to elevate what Ignatieff said, but a recognition of being "lost" is a starting point and I would encourage the Liberals to concentrate on 2009 and 2010, what the policy should be, rather than constantly referring to a position two years out, which does nothing for the NOW.

The Conservatives seem content to debate the "future of NATO", the same old line that more input is needed from our partners, if we are to succeed. That emphasis assumes there is a solution at hand, we just need better participation and commitment. However, that policy endorses status quo tactics, merely a question of degree.

Admitting failure is half the battle to understanding plausible solutions. Rather than talk of end dates, it's about time we heard a debate about whether we're just spinning our wheels until then. If one determines that we are "lost", then they need to offer an alternative vision, and if that isn't conceivable under this international regime, then we can legitimately reconsider our commitment.

I'll be curious to see, now that Ignatieff is getting his internal footing, if he articulates a path which distances the Liberals from a mere endorsement of the 2011 end of operations, as though that's the only consideration. I want to hear what is the "new strategy", because after you admit being "lost", it's incumbent to clearly define a way forward, otherwise you're simply irresponsible.

God's Speed Mike

If you're like me, then you've been on pins and needles awaiting the conclusion of the Michael Phelps saga. I hadn't heard anything for a few hours(weird), which only heightened the unease, but awesome word today, on every news outlet imaginable, across the world- Michael Phelps can remain a member of society. I just hope now that Mike, if I can call him that, gets the help he needs and puts his shattered world back together. A young man and a bong, concerning, shocking and so rare, but at least nobody died in the end.

Anyways, CTV found it compelling enough to put up a poll on the question, so have your say too. God's speed, for a troubled soul, and a big "what up" for the intense media coverage of such a relevant event in the 21st century, that impacts us all.

Coalition Baggage As Weak Attack Line

Last week, in response to a possible Conservative attack line against Ignatieff, using the coalition option to fear monger, I posited this hypothetical response:

"If they raise the spectre of national unity, attempting to fire up their western base, they actually play into Ignatieff'sspan> hand. Part of the rationale, in avoiding the coalition option, was entirely a consideration on national unity, Ignatieff can tell western Canadians that his stance was partially a recognition of western alienation, the belief that the coalition didn't enjoy support across the country. Ignatieff can make the argument, using the coalition, to demonstrate that he is receptive to western sentiment, and he sacrificed a real opportunity for power, because he recognized the "mood". Rather than an albatross, I think Ignatieff can pivot and turn his decision into an example that he is "listening" to the views of all Canadians, personal ambition is secondary to responsibility. If Ignatieff takes western Canada for granted, if the Liberals are primarily an eastern-centric entity, then why didn't he move forward and install himself as PM? The Ignatieff decision, the facts, actually shows a sensitivity to western sentiments, rather than the craven opportunism the Conservatives will argue. The entire coalition debate is a testament to Ignatieff's desire to bring Canadians together, to be a force for unity, part of his grand vision for the country."

Ignatieff, in an interview yesterday in Regina here:

Ignatieff also said it was the West's strong feelings about the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Quebecois, that contributed to his decision not to continue to pursue it.

"You are after all looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," said Ignatieff. "I want to be someone who unites the country and that includes the West."

As the Conservatives argue, you can't change the coalition facts, letters and what not. Those facts work for Ignatieff, not against, so if our opponents want to raise the issue, the above sends a unequivocal, FACTUALLY based message. Turn it around, because rather than an attack on western want, Ignatieff's coalition "record" articulates his capacity to incorporate western sentiment into his decision making.

Thinking JUNE

If you weigh all the strategic considerations, you can make a strong argument that June is the optimal time for the Liberals to force an election. There's a downside to every scenario, for the Liberals a sense that time is on our side, the more we have to improve fundraising and readiness, the better. It's quite true, it takes time to "rebuild" a party, particularly in areas of the country where the Liberals organization and appeal is currently weak. I'm afraid that sense will lead many to look to the fall "probation" update, as the earliest possible window for forcing an election. I would submit, that what the Liberals may gain on the readiness front could be offset by other factors that could erode the longer we wait.

Ignatieff is riding a pleasant wave, emerging from the budget/coalition debate in a strong position. Ignatieff has positioned himself as a believable PM in waiting, the Liberals have a credibility they haven't had in years, a fickle media generally on side. I see nothing on the near horizon to fundamentally change this dynamic, no bigger tests immediately apparent, than the one's just concluded. Given the primary focus on a cratering economy, which will surely continue through the spring, Ignatieff merely has to stay out of the way, and let events dictate.

I can't remember seeing the Harper team look so unbalanced and in flux. Internal issues, the frame of "strategic genius" now a distant memory, sagging fortunes, principles abandoned, coupled with governing during this economic mess, the Conservatives seem entirely vulnerable. However, to assume this condition is permanent fails to acknowledge the ability of your opponent to adapt. Politics are forever fluid, and with an unknown economic future, there is a risk for the Liberals thinking they can simply bide their time and pounce whenever they choose. If some of the forecasts are correct, the economic numbers may start to flatline, even hints of recovery come the fall, which will surely put some wind in the Conservative sails, a sense that they're coming out the other side. If the Harper government is allowed to hit bottom, and then be able to point to indicators showing the worst is over, that reality is dangerous for the Liberals. Things don't have to be "rosy", they merely have to convey some confidence that it's about to get better. The markets are notorious for being ahead of the economic curve, if there is light piercing the gloom, we could well see some optimism and this will affect the media coverage. Waiting until the fall, is a risky proposition, because nobody really knows where we'll be, so you couple economic uncertainty, with giving your opponent ample time to retool, and you might see an opportunity passed.

June is attractive because you are fairly certain that the economy will be in the "ditch", any campaign rife with poor data, a circumstance which guarantees the government is on the defensive. The Liberals have successfully distanced themselves from the budget, and these "probation" updates provide opportunity to bring the Conservatives down. However, these updates are a double-edged sword, because while they allow control, they also have the capacity to forfeit culpability. Letting the Conservatives live on in March is a given, the budget barely out the door, nobody will expect the Liberals to move, and nobody will really blame them for that decision. Currently, the NDP attacks on the Liberals, this idea of a Con/Lib alliance are feeble and remote, mainstream thought doesn't really entertain the concept, the media largely ignores as nothing more than politics. That said, should the Liberals keep allowing the Conservatives a "pass" on the updates, there is the possibility that these attacks gain steam, because Liberal criticism is eroded with every rubber stamp, on subsequent judgements. March is a given, June is somewhat more intriguing, that is where the narrative can change and we start to "wear" the Conservative budget, or at least we absolve part of the responsibility.

Electorally, the Liberals desperately need to improve their fortunes in British Columbia. Unless the Liberal convention is a historical anomaly, Ignatieff will get a bounce out of the love-in, and it just happens that this event allows a terrific opportunity to showcase the party in a key region. This convention provides a vehicle to sell the Liberal message and Ignatieff's stature will surely rise. The fact it occurs in May, just prior to the June update, means the Liberals could well be riding a wave, some serious momentum.

Parliament isn't in session during the summer, which means if the Liberals did choose to move in June, they can make the argument that this action doesn't impede ability to deal with the economy. An election during the "pause" can be framed as responsible- we can't support the government anymore, we're on the wrong path, a summer election is the best time, if we must have any "uncertainty". I'm not sure that's a powerful argument, but it may help appease a public who wants no part of any election, at anytime for that matter.

I suspect fundraising is on the uptick, we already have some evidence and soundbites to show that things are improving. It will take quite some time for the Liberals to compete with the Conservatives, in terms of money and organization, waiting for that moment seems a far away goal. While the downside of June might be optimal "readiness", one needs to counter-balance that facet with the other issues at play, many of which clearly work to our advantage, many of which might be temporary. When you have your opponent somewhat demoralized, so consumed with merely keeping afloat, coupled with relative "good times" for yourself, it doesn't really get much better than that in politics, and you would be wise to pounce, because the moment may be fleeting.

Busy Guy

The latest cover for Maclean's:



Earlier I made note of Ignatieff's three day tour of Quebec next week. Apparently, the new Liberal leader is a very, very busy man, today and tomorrow in Saskatchewan:

The Liberal party must embrace Western Canada instead of running against it, says Michael Ignatieff, who is making his first visit to Saskatchewan this weekend as leader of the federal Liberals.

Ignatieff told a brunch crowd of about 400 people in Saskatoon on Saturday that the party must work hard to win more seats, and more respect, in the West.

"Sometimes we've fallen prey to the temptation to run against the West, you know, to run against Alberta, to run against the Saskatchewan energy sector. This is not the way to go," he said.

"The western economy is the beating heart of Canadian progress in the future. This is where the action is. And, if this is where the action is economically, then we have to be there too.

Goodale introduced Ignatieff with the traditional "the next prime minister of Canada," igniting a rally of whoops and hollers.

Ignatieff took off his blazer, rolled up his sleeves and answered questions before posing for photos and signing autographs like a political rock star.

Tomorrow in Regina, then Monday to Wednesday in Quebec, taking full advantage of the break in Ottawa, and a good way to keep up momentum.

The really interesting part, Ignatieff is saying the same thing to the "west", that he's said in the "east", a fact which speaks to conviction rather than simple pandering. Talking up Alberta in Quebec really serves no political purpose, but I must say I'm getting quite excited about Ignatieff's "vision" for Canada. At a time when Canada desperately needs someone who can reconfigure the old dynamics and offer a progressive view of the federation for the future, Ignatieff gives reason for optimism. Small steps, a mountain of work to do, but glimmers and a sense the commitment is real.

Ignatieff Quebec Tour

Ignatieff is slated to do a three day tour of Quebec next week, including a tantilizing "wooing" of popular Trois-Rivières mayor Yves Lévesque to run under the Liberal banner. Ignatieff will also travel to Quebec City to meet with mayor Régis Labeaume :

Taking advantage of favorable polls, the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, will undertake a tour of great seduction for three days in Quebec next week.

Mr. Ignatieff will leave Ottawa next week to visit Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Tuesday in the Montreal area Wednesday, according to information obtained by La Presse. The Liberal leader will return to Ottawa Thursday to meet with U.S. President, Barack Obama, who makes his first official visit to Canada.

And, a contrast in style that Liberals should start highlighting at every turn, Ignatieff won't play "peek a boo", unlike our supposed "leader":

" Ignatieff attaches great importance to Quebec. And he believes that one of the best ways to be on the lookout for regional issues is to meet with municipal officials. You must listen to them", said one Liberal strategist

In each of the stops, Mr Ignatieff will be available to the media to answer their questions. "Unlike Mr. Harper, which remains locked in an ivory tower, Mr. Ignatieff will move throughout the parliamentary break to meet with local stakeholders and will make available to the media," said Liberal strategist.

The Liberals finished at distant third in Trois Rivieres, if they could ever convince Lévesque to run for the Liberals, it's would be a tremendous coup. You may remember, Lévesque accused the Conservatives of partisan punishment, withholding funding because the seat went to the Bloc in the last election. Even the mire rumors are a good sign for the Liberals under Ignatieff, a sign of potential appeal.

A visit to Quebec City, a meeting with the mayor, also conveys positive optics, and getting in front of microphones whenever you have the chance, should heighten the focus.

If there is any latent resistance to the Liberal position on the budget, this visit should afford Ignatieff an opportunity to move past and create some fresh buzz. Good stuff.

Weasel

Stephen Harper Oct 23 2007:

"Clearly, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who knows that he makes such allegations in this chamber under the protection of parliamentary privilege, and encourage him to have the courage of his convictions," Harper said. "If he believes what he said, he should make these accusations outside the chamber where those whom he is libelling and slandering have recourse to the courts to hold him responsible."

That was then, this is now:

"Mr. Poilievre slipped out a back door and avoided reporters waiting to speak to him."

More "Kitchen Table" Feedback

I guess maybe it is a good idea to read the budget before you take a "principled" position against it:

Make It Stop

The Ignatieff love affair continues, and you know it's real when NP's John Ivison joins in. Ivison has a few more internals from NANOS, including Ignatieff's "coat tails", but the thrust of the piece is a party united and upbeat:

the Messiah-like arrival of Michael Ignatieff seems to have reduced the appetite for rebellious mischief to record lows...

In the meantime, the Liberal team around Mr. Ignatieff is over-joyed at the progress made since he became leader. “It feels like 1993 all over again,” said one veteran, referring to the period before Jean Chrétien became Prime Minister. MPs say the mood in the party is the best it has been in six or seven years.

There are few signs of internal division, even among Liberals who supported other candidates in past leadership campaigns.

But no-one should be in any doubt - Iggy is this year’s model. In a matter of weeks, he has succeeded in building what he calls a “culture of belief” in a fractious, if desperate, Liberal Party. The suggestion from the new Nanos polls is that he is piquing interest right across the country. “He should be cautiously optimistic but not doing a victory lap just yet,” said Mr. Nanos.

Cautiously optimistic indeed Mr. Nanos. Moments in time...

Nanos also finds, what we already know, Ignatieff did well during the budget debate:

with 35% of those surveyed saying his performance was good or very good, compared to 14% who thought he did poorly. Stephen Harper was also given pass marks for his handling of the budget, with 40% thinking he did well or very well, compared to 24% who thought he did badly.

On the importance of the leader, Ignatieff, at the moment, would have the advantage over Harper:

But there was less encouraging news for Mr. Harper when respondents were asked whether leaders would have a positive or negative impact on local party candidates. Thirty-eight per cent thought Mr. Ignatieff would have a positive effect, against just 19% who believed he would be a negative influence. He recorded positive numbers in every region of the country.

By contrast, while 37% felt positively about Mr. Harper, 32% felt negatively, with much of the ill-will concentrated in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

“That’s a problem,” said Nik Nanos. “If you were developing an election stratey in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, you would run on the local candidate, not the leader. Michael Ignatieff has coat-tails across the country.”

You can't expect hostile media to remain friendly, but when you see pieces like the above, it's a statement on objective respect. The new swagger Liberals have is undeniable, projecting confidence, all oars rowing together, and even the most slanted, once and while must take notice. Couple that, with the most amazingly lame attempt to cobble together a feeble attack line against Ignatieff, and you know these are positive days for the Liberals.

And, I have no doubt of this from Ivison:

The clever money is on the Conservatives going on the offensive at the first sign of economic recovery.

No signs yet, haven't even touched bottom. In the meantime, Ignatieff is framing himself, before the Conservatives try to do it for him. I'm thinking June should be seriously considered as the election prepardness goal.

What A Joke

Remember all those hard hitting GHG "regulations" that the Conservatives pledged to bring forward A YEAR AGO ? Remember, just prior to the last election, when pressed on the regulation delays, the government said they would wait until after the election?:

But asked about the indirect costs to consumers of the Tory plan to regulate emissions, Mr. Kenney said that calculation will have to wait until later this fall, when the regulations are published.

Environment Minister John Baird later told The Canadian Press that the regulations will not be published during an election campaign.

Regulations to be published in the fall? I was simply dumbfounded that, during the last election, the Conservatives were allowed to take shots at other party plan's for GHG's, without presenting their own plan. That aside, the government intimated that the regulations were almost complete, after a wide consultation process.

Today, we get the latest round of crap from Jim Prentice, who has basically admitted the government has nothing, and needs directions from foreigners, for it's "Made In Canada" plan:

Prentice, who was appearing before the committee to defend his department's need for about $36 million in additional funds, said the government needed more time to consult with industry and the provinces.

More time?

Good question:

"We've gone from 'Made in Canada' to delayed in Canada and made in the USA. Where is your plan for the three-and-a-half years you've been in government?" asked Ottawa Liberal MP David McGuinty.

It's only been 1115 days since this government came into office, and all we have to date is "more time" needed. What a joke.

Toss Up

Three polls this week, all show a statistical tie, NANO brings the latest numbers. The good news for the Liberals, further evidence that Ontario is trending back and Ignatieff is very well positioned, relative to Harper. The poll also supports other findings, showing that Layton has taken a hit, in the budget aftermath.

The horserace numbers are virtually identical to the last NANO poll:

Cons 34%
Libs 33%
NDP 16%
Bloc 10%
Greens 7%

The only change of note, a 3% drop for the NDP.

Although the national numbers are virtually the same, there is some variation in the regionals. Volatility in Quebec, with the Bloc gaining, the Libs coming back to earth, but still well ahead of the Conservatives:

Bloc 38% (plus 9%)
Libs 28% (minus 11%)
Cons 16% (minus 1%)
NDP 14% (unchanged)

I read the above as a combination of the budget and the Bloc convention, but it's also a statement to fluidity. However, it does appear the Conservatives have serious problems in Quebec, all the polls show very low numbers, which leaves room for Ignatieff to truly take the mantle of the federalist option. The Liberals may have taken a temporary hit, but if that still leaves us above our election total, it's a good sign. I'm not particularly worried about the Bloc bounce, Ignatieff has opportunity, and it will all demand on how he performs, what kind of coherent message he develops to "sell" the Liberals in Quebec.

The counter-balance to lower Quebec numbers, an uptick in Ontario. We are starting to see a trend, taking all the polls into consideration, wherein the Liberals are taking the lead, in some cases a sizeable one. NANOS has a tidy 9% lead now for the Liberals:

Libs 43% (up 4%)
Cons 34% (down 1%)
NDP 16% (down 1%)
Greens 11% (down 2%)

These numbers represent a 9% gain for the Liberals since the election, a 5% fall for the Conservatives. NANOS isn't the only one to show the Liberals now in the 40's, if these hold, it represents a big swing in seat totals.

Atlantic Canada always brings high margin of error, but given the universal agreement of all the polling, it's a pretty safe bet to say the Liberals are doing quite well.

In the "west", the only thing of note, the Liberals have opened up a considerable gap over the NDP for second place, which may be a reflection of the coalition fallout.

What is particularly encouraging for the Liberals, Ignatieff is doing very well. Harper still maintains a lead, but the name of the game for any opposition leader, just look a credible alternative. This poll, coupled with other findings, confirms that Ignatieff is a serious challenge to Harper. Some of this uptick for the Liberals is probably the "not-Dion" factor, but given the relatively positive coverage, with impressive volume to boot, part of it is probably a reflection of Ignatieff himself. Harper's numbers are largely static, slight erosion, but on all measures Ignatieff is credible.

NANOS also reinforces a clear trend, seen elsewhere, Layton is taking a hit. Particularly concerning for the NDP, Layton has always enjoyed personal popularity, the combination of a perceived weak Liberal leader gone, coupled with his own problems, have left Layton a distant third. For the Liberals, a lesser stature for Layton could be critical, because it means the predictable "in bed" with the Conservatives, the NDP the "real opposition" might not resonate as in the past, some evidence that Layton might be getting tuned out in the discussion.

It will be interesting to see, moving forward, if anyone can break out, or if stalemate is the new reality. These numbers probably translate to a slim Liberal minority, but really we seem to be in "too close to call" terrority, which I would submit is a good circumstance, considering where we were just a few months ago.

The Worm Has Turned

If anyone would have told you three months ago that the Liberals would now appear relatively more stable than the Conservatives, you would have rightfully scoffed at the mere suggestion. It's almost amazing on one level, reading more glowing stories about the impressive Ignatieff team taking shape, while at the same time a mood of doom and gloom hangs over the once-respected Conservative machine.

It's all about optics, and clearly the Liberals are starting to get the upper hand on the Conservatives. Harper does seem down, the Conservatives bravado evaporating and a real sense that the government isn't on steady ground. All this talk of the inner circle regrouping only feeds a sense of vulnerability and weakness.

On the other hand, I can't count how many times I've heard media reporters, even unlikely sources, commenting on the impressive team that Ignatieff is assembling. A real measure of respect, for a perceived formidable group, it's clear that part of this honeymoon is a result of the appearance of talent and competence. Liberals no all too well, that the media "senses" weakness, so if they are buying into the seasoned and capable team narrative, it will serve us well moving forward. That reverence is only helped, when compared with the government side, their "exodus" and regroup supports our relative strength. And, it's not just the media, in some respect, I think the Conservatives are spooked, looking at the strengthened opponent.



The important thing moving forward for Ignatieff, an almost "no news is good news" posture, wherein the Liberals simply convey a sense of purpose, a team hitting it's stride, professional and focused. The media's gaze has clearly turned to Harper, tired of beating up on Dion for two years, no longer given a pass, the hunter is the hunted. Ignatieff has to avoid self-inflicted wounds, stay above the fray and keep looking like a PM in waiting. Present a united party, with a common purpose, while Harper is under the microscope, people now looking for any further evidence to suggest failing fortunes. There's a new carcass on the plains, and the fickle are circling.

Of course, everything could change on a dime in an instant, so this is no time to be over-confident or complacent. Merely, a recognition of this moment in time, which clearly shows, the worm has turned.