Canadians See Ourselves As "Laggards"

An interesting study on Canada's climate change policy, that passes the sniff test:

On the eve of major UN climate change talks next month in Copenhagen, a major survey of Canadians has found that more than three quarters of the public feel embarrassed that the country hasn't been taking a leadership role on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

The finding that most Canadians are dismayed over the country's record on climate change is a message to federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice and the Conservative government, says Jim Hoggan, president of Hoggan & Associates.

Even in Alberta, 65 per cent of respondents agreed with a statement that “it's embarrassing that we are not doing more to curb emissions.” Support for the view favouring more action was highest in Quebec, at 86 per cent.

The Prentice view, that Canada just wait on the sidelines until others step forward, isn't supported by Canadians. That copout approach, wherein they continually delay regulation, doesn't seem to hold water with Canadians.

This study was supported by various groups, and Conservative apologists will seize on the David Suzuki connection, as evidence of "flowered" numbers. That criticism doesn't hold water, when you look at some of the other numbers. For instance, the "denier" camp is clearly represented, maybe even over-stated:

The polling also found an overwhelming majority of the public shares the assessment of the scientific community that global warming is a major threat to the planet. A total of 72 per cent thought the impacts of climate change “are going to be very serious,” compared to 28 per cent who agreed with the statement that such concerns “are exaggerated.”

There was also strong support for the view that “most scientists agree that human activity is the primary cause of climate change,” a position held by 62 per cent of the public, compared to the 38 per cent who felt there was “still much debate” among researchers.

The above is a testament to a fair study, the last thing a pro-environment piece would put forth is clear evidence that not everyone is buying into the climate change message.

The study also confirms the normal dynamic in 2009. While the environment is a priority, it lags far behind the economy and health care. However, these findings show that Canadians can walk and chew gum at the same time, concern for certain issues, doesn't equate to indifference on others.

This issue is still a clear achilles heel for the Conservatives. With the looming embarrassment in Copenhagen on the horizon, that may well CEMENT our status as a laggard, the opposition would do well to really focus on our reckless approach. Baird had promised to deliver a regulation regiment in the summer of 2008, after many previous delays. The Conservatives then announced another delay when the election was called. All this prior to the new nonsense of waiting for Obama, and we are still waiting for those regulations, now told it may be years. If one were to document the chronology on this file, I suspect Canadians "embarrassment" would only be confirmed.

Angus Reid

The latest AR poll shows a huge gap between the two principles, Liberal support eroding. The first pollster to peg Liberal support below 30% in Ontario, teens in Quebec. I'd wait to see if these results are replicated by anyone else before inferring anything substantive.

What is interesting about this particular poll, Harper does seem to be enjoying a rebound, in terms of perceptions. This uptick is accompanied by a large downturn in opinion regarding Ignatieff:

Approval Rating: Harper 34%, Layton
24%, Ignatieff 12%,

Momentum: Harper -9, Layton -10,
Ignatieff -41

Ignatieff is now a drag on the Liberal brand. I will say this again however, Ignatieff isn't a "known quantity", at least not to any concrete degree, so the numbers aren't fatal. I'm sure Cons would disagree, but that type of conclusion is just silly, given historical precedent, as well as the length of exposure.

That said, Harper may have benefited from his "tickling the ivories" routine. It's the kind of humanizing event that tends to resonate on a superficial level. Particularly when you're seen as wooden and bland, anything that adds color and commonality works to advantage. It seems strange to say, given all the substantive issues available, this performance is at the root of the rebound. In addition, the failings of Ignatieff have made Harper more attractive relatively.

On the question of the economy, good numbers for the government. 53% are satisfied with their performance, only 40% are not. Given the current economic position, these numbers are surprisingly positive. Part a sense that we've turned the corner, part a lack of alternatives, the Conservatives are in solid shape. In terms of how they view Harper personally, it's an even split, 46%-46% trust his judgement on the economy. By contrast, Ignatieff scores 22%, versus 64% who think he would do the right thing on the economy.

If Liberals are looking for a strategy to turn it around, McKenna offers "great advice".

Why Do The Conservatives Allow An Incompetent Access To Sensitive Files?

The entire Conservative torture "defence" is obliterated by their own confidence in the unbelievable one. Quite a risky strategy- actually a testament to their own "unbelievability" on this score- to attack the messenger, when the messenger is a trusted government official. Summed up succinctly by the Globe and Mail:

Tories attack credibility of diplomat
who blew whistle on torture

Defence Minister cites ‘incredible holes' in testimony by Richard Colvin alleging Canadian government's complicity in the abuse of Afghan detainees...

Defence Minister Peter MacKay led the charge during Question Period today, saying the testimony from Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin can't be believed.

The awkward fact for the Conservatives however, is Mr. Colvin is otherwise trusted by the Canadian government on sensitive matters. He is currently a senior intelligence officer for Canada in this country's embassy in the United States.

There is no way to square the circle here. IF, you believe the Conservative retort, they voluntarily put their own judgement into question. Why is Colvin privy to very sensitive information, when he clearly has credibility problems, prone to wild exaggerations and half truths? Why has the Harper government shown such confidence in Colvin, when by their own admission, he is of questionable character? How could the government allow an incompetent to hold a high level position, involving top secret material? Why did Peter MacKay just say after QP that Colvin's job in Washington is secure, and then say he isn't "credible, his evidence doesn't hold up"? Contradiction much.

I note MacKay is being asked I as I type about the dueling logic of attacking a man you have such confidence in.

Interesting defence, one that looks ridiculous and DESPERATE.

Gun Registry Poll

Another poll that samples opinion on the gun registry. Somewhat similar to a previous finding, the poll finds Canadians don't think the registry has been successful in preventing crime and a majority support its abolishment. The supposed rural/urban divide isn't very pronounced, both subsets support abolition. These numbers, despite overwhelming opinion that sees gun violence as a "serious" matter.

On whether the registry has been a success:

Just 11 per cent of Canadians think the Canadian Firearms Registry has been successful in preventing crime in Canada, while 32 per cent believe it has had no effect in crime, and 46 per cent brand the effort as unsuccessful.

Part of this is the "boondoggle" effect, but it also speaks to a complete failure in justifying this initiative.

When asked if the registry should be abolished, the results might surprise some:

Half of respondents (51%) support scrapping the long gun registry, while one-third (34%) disagree.

Support for abandoning the registry surpasses the 50 per cent mark in every Canadian province, with the exception of Quebec.

Some regional breakdowns, in Ontario it's 54%-29%, which is actually more than B.C at 50%-30%. Atlantic Canada has it 68%-27%, the other provinces predictable results. In Quebec, the exact opposite, 56% want the registry, 31% want it scrapped.

A pretty clear margin support abolishing the registry. When you breakdown the rural/urban split, you find more rural residents support abolition, but urban voters reject it as well:

Do you support or oppose scrapping the long gun registry?

Rural

support 55%
oppose 33%
don't know 14%

Urban

support 50%
oppose 35%
don't know 15%

In line with the results from the HD poll, the supposed "split" isn't near as pronounced as people assume, given the rhetoric. Only when the general question of gun ownership legality is asked, do we see the traditional "divide".

What is also surprising, a full 80% of respondents think gun crime is serious, which highlights a resistance to the gun registry as a vehicle to deal with this issue.

Using the two polls in tandem, there doesn't seem to be much public backlash to scrapping the registry. In fact, proponents could argue its abolishment would reflect public will, no matter where people reside, with the obvious exception being Quebec. Even on that score, the Bloc failed to get any traction on this issue in the recent by-elections, so it might not "stir" as hoped.

People can dismiss polls all day long, but I guarantee you that all the people who make decisions in this country don't (whether that is a good thing or not, another matter entirely). What will be interesting to see, do the Liberals and NDP offer up "symbolic" resistance as this legislation moves forward, or do they fight hard to keep it?

Thoughts On New OLO

My overall opinion, a fairly strong thumbs up. When you first review the constant references to former regimes, you wonder if we aren't trying to create past glory. However, experience isn't exactly a negative, particularly this mix of seasoned people, some with an apparent edge.

Part of the equation here, the statement these appointments make. The initial reaction seems to suggest that Ignatieff has attracted a talented team, which is a positive given our current circumstance. The ability to bring Donolo in, now several other "heavyweights", sends a message of optimism- people aren't running from the good ship Ignatieff. As Don Martin commented, it was surprising that a "loser" could put together such a team.

Staff changes don't resonate with the public, it's inside Ottawa stuff. However, if people denote a air of competence and skill, then the conduit may alter their perceptions. It would appear these appointments are "going over" well, so there is room to take advantage of this fresh reality. Clearly, we've hit rock bottom, in terms of polling and perceptions of the Liberals under Ignatieff. These changes allow for a new sense to develop, if crafted properly. A shakeup often has the secondary effect of breaking out of cemented narratives.

Donolo did well to draw from all the former "factions". There is a unifying generality to the appointments, which is a positive.

One quibble, the lack of a "western" presence. I would categorize this as a missed opportunity to send a message. This absence has been noted, I would have preferred more regional balance. Talk of francophone appointments, with their Quebec expertise, some sort of western "tsar" may have been advantageous.

All in all, an objectively impressive team.

Gone Fishing

Literally :) See you in a few.

NANOS

The latest NANOS poll is pretty much more of the same electorally, with a worrying trendline for Ignatieff. The NDP do appear to be enjoying a slight uptick, particularly where it matter most to them. Nationally, the Cons and Libs both down poll to poll, NDP up:

Cons 38% (39.8%)
Libs 28.8% (30%)
NDP 17.9% (16.6%)
Greens 4.6% (5.9%)

Nanos gives the Cons a 4.5% lead in Ontario, not much change. The NDP rise above their 2008 total, for the first time I can remember. That is a very important number for their side, because for months the NDP were mired in also ran status, many seats appeared to be in danger. It also makes the job tougher for the Libs, as vote splitting becomes more pronounced. We'll see if this holds.

Nanos actually gives the Libs a relatively respectful 27.2% in Quebec. That would seem a touch high, based on other findings. Due to the timeframe, Nanos didn't really capture any impact from the by-elections (3 of the 4 days prior to the vote), so we'll wait and see if there is any change.

On the leadership front, Ignatieff's numbers have plummeted. What was a strength is now a liability that needs to be addressed. A opposition leader doesn't best a sitting PM (mainly because one guy has the job, it's a loaded question), but Ignatieff had been within striking distance. That is no longer the case, as Harper doubles Ignatieff on this core- 34.8% to 17.7%. When a Liberal leader is within the same terrority as a man everybody knows won't be PM, Layton, it's a very poor result. Harper also scores his best result since the last election.

On the plus side, it's not like Ignatieff is seared into the minds of Canadians. Ignatieff can rehabiliate his image, he isn't a completely known quantity that's forever wounded. That doesn't dismiss these results, but there's no need to be fatalistic at this point.

What can you say? Work to be done, on every score.

Wise Advice

It's almost strange, coming from this source, primarily because I've viewed his Liberal "shadow" as part of the problem with current mentality. As Liberal minds wander, I know there is some longing for the next messiah, which is odd in one sense, given the current guy was supposedly just that. Frank McKenna offers some good advice:

Frank McKenna has some sobering counsel for federal Liberals: They could be in opposition for a long time and there is no Messianic leader who can lead them quickly out of the wilderness.

The advice from a man once thought to be the party's best hope for a speedy return to power...

"I never thought it would be easy and I never thought I was a Messiah," he said.

Indeed, his decision to stay on the sidelines was at least partly due to his realization that rebuilding the party would take years of painstaking, relentless work.

"When you've been in power for a long stretch, the tide goes out and it goes out a long way," he says now.

The next messiah rejects the messiah scenario. Perfect.

I appreciate the "years of painstaking, relentless work", because accepting that probable reality will put the focus where it needs to be, rather than short sighted strategies that are mostly opportunistic, not particularly substantive.

For the Liberals to win the next election, we will need a certain amount of luck that works to our timely advantage. That's the realistic landscape, the "odds" will never be in our favor, at least not for some time. Appreciating the gravity of the challenge, without waving the white flag, that's the trick for the Liberals.

I firmly believe the Liberals should adopt a "five year plan" style strategy, a two election template to put together a winning coalition. A simple review of the electoral map, the margins, the intangibles, natural incumbent advantages, it's hard to see a full return in one fell swoop. A return to 2006 seat breakdowns should be a quiet goal, let the unpredictability of campaigns allow for more optimism.

When Ignatieff first took the helm, I thought he was correct to reach out to the less fertile Canadian subsets. Somewhere along the way, decisions were made to mostly abandon the "308" mentality, election fever undercut a slow, plodding vision. Maybe it was the recognition that it would take years, whatever, it was a mistake. Sacrifing a sound logic, on the basis of immediate dividends, the minority mentality wins out. Accepting the fact that Liberals face a tough road, then we start to get to the core problems that haunt the brand. In some respects, a Conservative majority last election was probably the best outcome, because it would allow the Liberals to breathe and re-energize themselves, without the hopeful lure of a quick return.

A solid first step, is to use what you have to advantage. Ignatieff isn't part of the Liberal lineage, so let's stop inserting all these great fawning tributes to past leadership. Ignatieff needs to be a vehicle for a changed identity, and this is never achieved by reminding everyone about the tired brand. Liberals might like it, the public sees it all as STALE. No more rehashed policy positions, no more nostalgia, Ignatieff needs to break from the succession. The good news, Ignatieff isn't part of the old order, he actually possesses the pedigree to frame as the outsider, with a new vision. Embrace his political "rookie" status, people don't like slick, career politicos, it's actually attractive to speak FREELY. Be controversial, step on some toes, stop pandering like Paul Martin, stop taking so much advice you render yourself a two dimensional, TYPICAL politician. Above all else, the leader's primary goal now is to set the tone, that there's something new or different about the Liberal Party, post governance. Almost four years out, and we still haven't made the transition.

Accept the wilderness, get a route back and know it's laborious and long. If the time is shorter, accept the fruits of your fortune, but don't operate with that "hope" polluting your decisions.

Gun Registry Findings

The results from the Harris Decima poll, on the gun registry, reveal slightly surprising results. A large percentage of Liberals favor abolition, the supposed urban/rural divide isn't as pronounced as people assumed, and a wide majority don't think it helped to reduce crime.

Decima finds a slight plurality favor abolishing the registry- 46% of people thought it was a good idea, while 41% didn't. Only one region, by a healthy margin, supports keeping the registry, Quebec. Everywhere else, a majority want it gone, even in Ontario it's 42% for, 40% against. When you break it down by party affiliation, not surprisingly 64% of Conservatives support killing it, only 27% don't. In a testament to the divide within the NDP, 44% want to keep it, 42% don't. Maybe most striking, 39% of Liberal voters want it abolished, although 48% want to keep it. The latter finding suggests that the registry isn't the great legacy that people assume, a sizeable portion don't see the merit.

This whole debate has centered around this rural/urban divide. While Decima does find a difference, it's not the wide chasm previously thought:

A majority of those in rural Canada (52%) believe abolishing the registry is a good idea, while 36% think it is a bad idea. Among urban Canadians, this split was 42%-44%.

Not exactly overwhelming support from urban Canadians, revealed as something of a myth. I found the above somewhat surprising, given that opposition MP votes suggested a great polarization.

In terms of the registry's usefulness, it's hard to argue that Canadians think it's made a difference:

3 in 10 Canadians believe that the long gun registry has helped reduce
gun crime in Canada. Overall, 31% were of this view, while a majority
(56%) believed the long gun registry had not helped reduce gun crime in Canada.

Quebec again the lone exception, but this fact when incorporated, means English Canada has a very firm opinion. Even amongst Liberal voters, a statistical split on the question of the registry reducing crime.

When you consider the almost baseless hysteria about violent crime in this country, a dynamic the government has used to full political advantage, these results stand out. You would think that we would see more of a kneejerk reaction in favor of this registry, because it speaks to the issue of gun crime. That sentiment doesn't translate, despite this supposed inherent "boost", the registry just isn't terribly popular.

The Bloc will try and use this issue, although that has been put into question, given what just happened this week. Apart from that, it may be that the registry goes out with a wimper, as opposed to a...

SHOCKER

A quick refresher course, to put it all into perspective. On September 18th, the NDP sided with the Conservatives to pass the ways and means measure, averting the first threat of an election. On October 1, 2009, the Liberals non-confidence motion was defeated in Parliament, again averting an election. There was great speculation during this period that an election was inevitable, Ottawa buzzing about a looming campaign, the "pre-writ" period had begun.

I'm truly shocked, note the DATES:

The Conservative government spent more than $3 million of taxpayers' money in September on an advertising campaign that amounted to little more than self-promotion, a Liberal critic says.

The newspaper and web campaign, called Creating Jobs, didn't attempt to inform Canadians about how infrastructure stimulus spending was creating employment opportunities – only that the Conservatives declared it was, Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale) said Wednesday.

"That offends me and it should offend all taxpayers," she said.

Hall Findlay said she could understand if the money was spent educating Canadians about H1N1 flu, "but patting yourself on the back and making big pronouncements is not part of what taxpayers' money should be spent on."

The Liberals have been focusing on money the Conservative government has been spending on what the Liberals call "meaningless" advertising campaigns, estimating the figure this year could reach $100 million.

They have also been pressing the government to prove that infrastructure stimulus spending has created jobs.

A government document shows that Cossette Communication Inc., solely responsible for Ottawa advertisement buys since 2003, spent $3,111,877.44 from Infrastructure Canada on advertising from Sept. 14 to Sept. 29.

This finding verifies what my eyes and ears told me. You couldn't turn on a television or the radio during this time, without being bombarded with these dubious government ads. It was a blitzkrieg, and the timing wasn't an ACCIDENT. The question for the government, why exactly did your RAMP up advertising, just as election talk reached a fever pitch? Shouldn't there be a consistent advertising agenda, why the SUDDEN saturation? Through their own advertising history, the government has effectively proven that these ads do have a partisan advantage, they were viewed as an asset in appealing for support. It's so bloody offensive that this ABUSE can occur, with little hint of recourse. It's time for some pointed questioning, because the degree and "coincidence" rise to scandalous proportions, that is not an overstatement. Money destined for stimulus was diverted to promotional ads, at taxpayer cost. How many jobs were lost, so Harper could "pad" his popularity?

UPDATE

More HERE.

New EKOS Poll

The latest EKOS poll shows little change week to week, but a continuing trend of lower Conservative support. This week:

Cons 36.6%
Libs 26.6%
NDP 16.8%

Tracking the Conservative vote over the last month, we see the following week to week:

Oct 15 40.7%
Oct 22 38.3%
Oct 29 38.4%
Nov 5 37.4%
Nov 12 36.6%

A steady, slight decline in Conservative support, as they return to minority status. What is interesting as well, there is really no corresponding Liberal uptick. The Liberal vote has remained static, with virtually no movement week to week. The Liberals have hovered between 26-27% the past four polls. The Conservative support is going elsewhere for the most part, the NDP up 2.5% over this period. I find this a bit concerning for the Liberals, because previously, much of the ebb and flow has been between the two principles. It would appear that voters are hesitant to return to the Liberal fold, despite some Conservative erosion.

Of note, heaps of caution notwithstanding, the last night of polling from EKOS, taken after the by-elections gives the Conservatives their best result 39.4%, Libs 25.4%. While you don't want to read to much into this potentially flawed number, it's hardly surprising that a day of positive/negative press would have some effect. We'll have to wait until next week to see if that was a blip, or if the Conservative slide has countered.

Fortune Favors The Bold

The sky isn't falling, but the cloud deck is low. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of lying to yourself. There are many scenarios available for the Liberals, particularly when you realize that only 5% of the population needs to move, for us to be a viable option again. In other words, down but not out, but aware that the status quo is probably a recipe for defeat. If you were to sample the opinion of non-partisan observers, you would get some insight into the Liberals greatest challenge. That challenge is completely obvious to me, based on the feedback we see time and again. The Liberal Party is hampered by a lack of identity, Canadians don't necessarily "relate" to the party, it has failed to re-invent itself in the aftermath of it's fall from grace.

If you accept that our CORE problem is an identity crisis, then all energy should be directed towards countering that perception. Forget about references to the past, particularly with a leader that could actually use his lack of Liberal lineage to his advantage. While Liberals love to bathe in the past achievements, that brand is tarnished in the eyes of Canadians, it represents a mixed bag. Accepting the rejection, as more than just a historical anomaly that will naturally rectify itself, is the first step towards a rebirth. Forget about the "natural governing party", that lingering entitlement, and realize that the new realities effectively LAUGH at this presumption. The signs are everywhere, in various regions, the Liberals are becoming an afterthought. This is a dangerous reality.

I'll go back to the word BOLD, because that is nucleus of any potential. Bold does bring risk, but it also gets people's attention, it shakes up the status quo, it strives. Playing it safe relies on outside forces for success. Given that Harper has somehow managed to navigate his way through a serious recession, that should serve as a wake up call for those that rely simply on circumstantial turnaround. In my view, that dynamic has largely passed, and the reality is Canadians are becoming decidedly more comfortable with the Harper Conservatives- not fondness, but some acceptance. This means, if one is using odds as a guide, the probability of a medium long run for the Conservatives is the likely result. "Kick the bums out", that's not a winner for the Liberals.

If you abandon the "government's defeat themselves" as your primary thrust, you are left with ATTRACTION as your only option. This doesn't mean you don't stop attacking, but you realize that this is only part of the overall mix- you must undercut while offering an alternative, in tandem, with equal voice.

Yesterday, we heard another sobering report on the future of the Canadian economy. This serves as the perfect example of how the Liberals can redefine themselves with Canadians. This issue of the deficit and future growth linger in the background. The government is coming under increasing criticism for its vague plan to deal with a sobering reality. Their credibility on this file is vulnerable, but it can only be exploited fully if the Liberals gain a measure of their own. As a matter of fact, the questioning is largely muted, when people entertain the alternative, who's "plan" is equally vague and politically tame. The conversation is blunted, because you have mutual delusionary propositions.

What's the Liberal plan to deal with the deficit? What's the five year plan that will balance the books? And no, the ambiguous politically correct rhetoric isn't a plan, it's more of the same denial we hear from the government. You want to get traction, then lay down some rubber on the road. Tell us where you would nip and tuck, lay out a sequence of events, that considers ANY solution, should circumstances require. You want to position yourself as a different kind of politician, maybe a dose of honesty might be refreshing. Clearly, platitudes that dance around the elephant in the room aren't resonating, made all the more silly by the concurrent future expenditure announcements.

Instead of reacting, why aren't we shaping? Instead of living in fear, being pro-active is actually the best way to "turn it around". People crave an element of truth, it's absence is part of the reason for the current disinterest. People question what the Liberals stand for, seems to me that is rectified by standing for something. I'd start with the number one issue that is sure to dominate the next campaign. The odds are long, no matter the approach, so take no comfort in the timid alternative. I'd rather go down on a principle, than watch the SS "Wishy Washy" drift aimlessly on the horizon, waiting for some fortuitous waves.

Back In The Day

CBC just put this old video of Ignatieff up a few days ago. Thought it was interesting:

No Spin By-election Rundown

Yesterday, I saw the by-elections as pretty much a big nothing, in terms of Liberal party fortunes. This view assumed one thing, that the Bloc would hold on to their two seats in Quebec. That assumption was obviously wrong, and because of that I'd like to revise my earlier opinion. The Conservatives victory has, by extension, hinted toward Liberal failure. Had that riding stayed with the Bloc, the punditry would be left to chasing crumbs, around mostly empty storylines. The minor erosion in Liberal support, mostly meaningless "gains" by the NDP, pretty thin stuff that lacks "legs". The Conservatives winning a traditional Bloc seat, only a couple months after being declared dead in Quebec, well that does matter in the grand scheme (and perhaps rightfully so).

Last night was never going to be a good one for the Liberals, the terrain didn't lend itself to much. However, this poor performance does appear more noteworthy, when one considers a 2 seat pickup for the government. Generally, government's don't pickup support during tough economic times, so there is a useful narrative here. The fact the Conservatives went into Bloc heartland and siphoned off a seat- that completely changes the conversation in Quebec. Unfortunately, the "quirk" factor of by-elections, the low turnout, doesn't get proper credit- the headline speaks to a Conservative win, in a part of the country considered lost. That's big, no matter how you slice it, that allows for "resurgence", "game changing", "new battlegrounds", even a realistic reference to "majority".

With the damage done by Denis the Dufus, coupled with a rising Conservative presence, Quebec is a changed dynamic. Liberals on the decline, Conservatives rebounding, I'm afraid we're back to square one in Quebec. To say that is shocking for me, because I firmly believed the Conservatives were completely and utterly dead in Quebec. Now, holding onto their seats seems realistic, a new focus for expansion surely being considered within the PMO. Not overstating, because it's just a by-election, but the power of the symbolism shouldn't be lost on anyone, nor should one discount how this emboldens the Conservatives. We won't be hearing anymore stories from Quebec Conservatives about "giving up", "all is lost", we will hear spin which actually has a certain practical application.

The Liberals lost, because the Conservatives won, where it actually hurts the most. There's no denying that one.

Quite The "Test"

Is tonight really a "test" for the Liberals, or a test to see just how bored the media really is, desperate to find a storyline? Here's some advice- just because a party hack floats a ridiculous narrative, it doesn't mean you have to take it seriously and digest the "implications".

I do believe that by-elections can be indicative, and I don't automatically fluff them off for the respective parties. People may recall my focus on Outremont for the Liberals, because I felt that was a potential watershed moment, that would have long term ramifications. I reference that, because I'm not engaging in the spin game, genuinely I believe these by-elections represent a gigantic YAWNORAMA, in terms of Liberal fortunes or "signs". There are a couple intriguing storylines for other parties, the only items of value.

Why? Well, pardon me if I don't over-analyze results in by-elections where the Liberals are a complete afterthought. There's a reason Harper fast tracked these by-elections, because he knows none of them hold optimism for the Liberals. The hope was, that the media would latch on to results, furthering a negative trendline for Ignatieff. It remains to be seen whether the media will resist the ridiculousness, but the track record doesn't leave me encouraged.

Anyways, in an attempt to pierce through the haze, let's look at these contests. Did you know that in the last election, the Bloc received 2.5 times that of the Liberals in Hochelaga? Did you know that the Bloc received 3 times the vote of the Liberals in Montmagny? Did you know that the Liberals received a paltry 20% and 15% respectively?

It gets worse. Did you know that the NDP received nearly 4 times the Liberal vote in New Westminister. A whopping 11% for the Liberals, only 29% behind the second place Conservatives. I'm cautiously optimistic. Maybe at bit less in Cumberland, where we received a credible 8% of the vote, only 8 times less than the victor.

So, I'll be glued to the results come 10pm, because clearly the Conservatives are right, this is a huge test for Ignatieff, really a referendum on his leadership. The fact these by-elections occur on such fertile Liberal ground, all the more telling. Gods speed Michael.

On "Poaching" Voters

I'm not so sure I agree with the advice given to the Ignatieff Liberals by Nik Nanos. At the beginning of Ignatieff's tenure, I might have argued that the votes the Liberals would need were on their left flank, looking towards soft NDP and Green support advantageous. There's a simple math to it all, 62% of Canadians didn't vote for the Conservatives and a large majority of those are anything but "right". The perceived "pool" to expand support is obvious, so the Nanos observations have inherent merit.

However, I don't believe in universal arguments, which is why I think Nanos is wrong using this argument, with this leader, at this time. Quite simply- and I reconciled myself to this fact long ago- you can't "re-invent" Ignatieff to make him a champion of the left wing. While Ignatieff isn't Harper-lite, like his kneejerk critics blather on about, he is very much a middle of the road politician, with a certain confounding quality when issues are looked at in isolation. I believe he has a large progressive streak, but that is offset by other positions, which generally give a centrist flavor. In other words, Ignatieff is what he is, to now try and dress him up as something else, more dangerous that staying put. All that move would achieve, cynicism and a furthering of the "say anything" persona that plagued a guy like Paul Martin.

If you look at the current poll dynamics, the old arguments don't quite hold. The Nanos line, that the NDP prosper when the Liberals are down, and vice versa, doesn't seem to be in play. In actuality, at present, both parties are down, there is no inverse relationship. Particularly in all important Ontario, the voting pattern has consistently shown a back and forth between the two principles, the NDP largely relegated to marginal status. When the Liberals faultered, the NDP vote didn't rebound in concert, it stayed virtually flat, despite a 10% swing. When the Liberals were riding high, there was some erosion, but mostly the co-relation was with Conservative support. This isn't to say that the Liberals don't need to poach votes on the left, but clearly in Ontario (ground zero for this argument), at the moment, it seems a battle for the mainstream.

It is noteworthy, that when the Liberals had a slight lead last spring and early summer, the NDP vote was essentially the same nationally as it is now. The Liberals dropped 7-8%, and yet the NDP vote showed no rebound, the Conservatives benefitted. Given that the previous dynamics translated to a pretty healthy Liberal minority, it counters this view from Nanos, something else would seem to be in play.

To be perfectly honest, I would prefer if the Liberals did move to the left slightly. Dion didn't succeed, but I don't think that's a statement on the wisdom of his spectrum positioning. Ignatieff was always something of a compromise for me, a choice I was more than comfortable with, because it's a complicated consideration and it had situational merit. I also never quite bought into these past Liberal analogies as a template for future victory. "Where you win" didn't seem as cut and dry as some proponents argued. There are different ways to skin a cat, which brings us to the present reality.

Ignatieff does need to build a coalition. To assume that Liberals will only succeed if we drive the NDP to 10% seems a bit of pipe dream, given what we have, what the record reveals. With THIS leader, within the current political climate, the Liberals are probably best to straddle the center, with a sprinkling of progressive policy. Ignatieff doesn't need a hard left turn to win. I've already documented Ontario, and let's not forget that hard right Harpo was on the cusp of a big breakthrough in Quebec. It's not always a left/right question with voters.

If I could start from scratch, in another environment, then I'd support the Nanos argument. However, when you have a situation where the Liberals are down, NDP support getting close to core levels, I'm not sure the former "pool" is as attractive as normal assumptions might conclude. Factor in WHO the leader is, and it starts to look to cute to be taken seriously. You've already planted your flag, about all you can do now is flesh it out and broaden it.

Time To Connect The Dots

The first step in defeating a government, undermine their credibility. The notion of an out of control Conservative Party, showing complete disregard for taxpayer money, is something that will resonate, particularly if examples are PLENTIFUL. If I could offer one piece of humble advice, the Liberals should consider attack ads, revolving around the narrative of partisan self promotion, using OUR money.

Two more items today, for the file. One further confirms an already validated theme. The other paints a distasteful abuse of public funds. The Conservatives are spending 3X what the previous government did on internal polling, focus group testing, all in the name of messaging and selling the government agenda. The Conservatives are spending 3X what any previous government has on "close to the line" partisan advertising, promoting themselves. The Conservatives are engaged in a strong arm campaign to force municipalities to pony up taxpayer dollars, to promote the Economic Action Plan in their communities. The Conservatives are blanketing the country with partisan junk mail, spending 500% more than when they took office:

The price tag for sending flyers from MPs to homes across the country has soared during the past couple of years with Conservatives outstripping MPs from all other parties.

In some cases, Conservative MPs are spending more than 500% more on flyers than they did just two years ago.

An analysis by Sun Media of spending figures tabled in the House of Commons this week for the year ended on March 31 shows that the cost to taxpayers for MPs printing has soared to $10 million in 2008/09 compared to $5.9 million in 2005.

NO MAXIMUM

Under the rules of Parliament, MPs are entitled to charge the cost of printing two types of flyers to the House of Commons. There is no maximum spending limit.

In the past, Conservatives have defended their decision to take advantage of the flyers program to promote their party's positions, saying it is open equally to all MPs.

However, an analysis of spending on printing by each MP last year shows that the bills racked up by MPs from other parties pales in comparison to spending by the Conservatives. In fact, out of the 100 highest-spending MPs, all but 18 were Conservatives.

Graph (source Sun Media):


Apart from partisans, people generally view these flyers as unnecessary junk mail. I'm not sure most have connected the dots, and realized that not only are these flyers annoying, THEY are paying for them.

The Liberals need to tie all these items together, because the sheer mass becomes very compelling, denoting a consistent pattern of a Conservative Party wastefully spending taxpayer money for selfish gain. The beauty of this line of attack, it also brings into focus the issue of the deficit- how can the government justify such waste, when Canada is awash in debt? There is a certain detached arrogance at play here, and history tells us that Canadians don't take kindly to this sort of waste. The fact this government has NO PEER in this regard, something that needs to be argued with passion and REPETITION.

There is no compelling counter for the government, their retorts are obliterated by the simple math, and any conversation will find independent validation for the Liberals. I think it's time for a donor outreach, to support a sizeable campaign, addressing this issue. This attack line speaks to the whole idea of good government, it undermines the Conservatives and it addresses a core complaint about political excess. What are we waiting for, it's all right there, sitting in our lap?

I Want More Duffy

Are people really upset about Duffy's lastest "incident"? There was a time when Duffy used to infuriate me to no end, when he was disguised as a journalist. I remember many of us clammoring for opposition MP's to refuse to appear on his show, his slant so obvious, to make any discussion pointless. I still contend that Duffy's last act cost the Liberals a handful of seats. I also recall many other people calling people "whiny" for pointing to his bias, it was all a manufactured criticism.

The best thing that has happened, was when Harper appointed Duffy to the Senate. It lifted the veil, it confirmed what are eyes already knew. But, even then, there was still a measure of an old Ottawa soldier being rewarded for a respected career. Of course, most of us didn't buy it, but there was still some cover for Duffy, he was called the "reluctant partisan".

Since he began his tenure in the Senate, Duffy has voluntarily destroyed his supposed reputation, becoming the most noticeable low grade HACK in the Senate. He has essentially validated every single criticism that was ever hurled towards him. What's more delicious, he's done this without prompting, he's become unglued with little provocation.

I don't get mad at Duffy anymore, I relish every appearance or comment. With each successive "incident", he reduces himself to a cartoon figure, so embarrassing his former colleagues now shake their heads at hyper partisan ramblings. No respect from former peers, no respect within the chamber, no reputation, except as a growing laughing stock.

I want more Mike Duffy. Thanks for reaffirming everything we always said about you, thanks for REVEALING yourself for all to see. You always were nothing more than a Conservative shill, and now the period on your "career" will forever leave a pungent SCENT. It's just perfect.

Colossal Waste On YOUR Dime

I had assumed that this 100 million dollar self promotion exercise, under the guise of the Economic Action Plan, included all "expenses". That assumption was wrong, because on top of the gross misuse of public money previously exposed, we now find an addition 45 million allocated for signage, ceremonies, etc, so Harper can look good, and the kicker- most of the cost is put at the foot of the municipalities. That's right, want stimulus cash, then pony up and promote the Conservatives. I would recommend a read of the Schedule G attachment, which outlines what municipalities MUST do for the CASH:

The Harper Conservatives continue to put partisan priorities ahead of the public interest, as Liberal MPs revealed today that local property taxpayers are being forced to pay a share of the estimated $45 million price tag for unnecessary Economic Action Plan vanity billboards.

“Instead of focusing on priorities like public health, the Conservatives are forcing provinces and municipalities to pay for flooding the country with giant partisan billboards,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale. “With no help from Ottawa, local governments are grappling with challenges like H1N1 under tight budgets. Yet the Harper government requires them to spend property taxes on boosting the image of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

Schedule “G” and other provisions contained in contribution agreements for the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund in Ontario reveal that municipalities are required to produce, erect and pay for Economic Action Plan signs at each project site – costing as much as $4,250 a piece.

I`ll give the Conservatives credit, because they`ve managed to bury additional expenditure for partisan gain onto someone else`s balance sheet:

Siqns and Plaques

The Recipient agrees to produce and install temporary and permanent Project signage to communicate the nature of the Project and the involvement of the Governments of Canada and Ontario and the Recipient, as outlined in the ISF Style Guide.

The recipient is required to give the Conservatives 15 days notice, for any ribbon cutting exercises. This approval ensures that various members of the Conservative Party can show up to curry favor. Another kicker, all this ``communication`` is paid for by the municipality:

For the purposes of events, Eligible Costs include the following:

- Printing and mailing invitations
- Light refreshments, such as coffee, tea, juice, donuts, muffins, snacks
- Draping for plaque unveiling
- Project material for display and/or media kit
- Temporary signage
- Rentals such as:
- flagpoles
- Stage
- chairs
- podium
- PA system

All those events Harper chases and organizes across the country. I wonder how the local property taxpayers would feel if they knew it was at their expense.

I had wondered how much these signs cost, quite flashy, well beyond any other government promotion I`ve seen. A small sign could run you as much as $2250, a large one $4250. The government provides the recipient required labelling for all signs. Quite a price tag, particularly when you comprehend some of the MEASLY endeavors where these signs have popped up. I would say that`s more than the DOORKNOB Mr. Easter :)

Cash strapped municipalities shouldn`t be required to invest in decadent signage, as part of any stimulus agreement. In essence, the government is siphoning off money for partisan gain, that would otherwise be used for the infrastructure it was intended for. The municipalities would obviously agree to any provisions, because they want the stimulus money, but there is something unethical about demanding signage and other promotion.

Next time you drive by one of those pretty signs, just remember you`ll get the bill hidden in your property taxes. We are all DONORS to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Funny, But True

As an aside, the latest EKOS poll (pretty much the same horserace wise, although people may note the graph trend of Conservative support waning) shows overwhelming support for stimulus spending fairness.