Ipsos Poll

New Ipsos-Reid poll, that shows little national movement, but a bizarre shift in Quebec:

The Ipsos-Reid poll says the Conservatives gained no immediate bounce in popularity, despite the relatively positive response to its mini-budget.

The survey, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, said the Tories have the support of 39 per cent of respondents, the same percentage as it got the previous week. The Liberals inched up one point to 28 per cent, the NDP dropped four points to 13 per cent, and the Green party slipped one point to seven per cent.

Quebec:

In Quebec, the scene is volatile. The Bloc Quebecois moved to 50 per cent, up 16 points from the previous survey. The Conservative remained in second spot at 22 per cent, down eight points from last week. The Liberals crept up one point to 17 per cent, while the NDP fell six points to seven per cent.

MOE 6.6%

Quebec results from the same outfit, last week:

In Quebec, the Bloc leads with the support of 34% of Quebecers (9% nationally), which represents a decrease of 2 points within Quebec since last week, while the Conservatives are not far behind at 30% support (an increase of 4 points in Quebec). The Liberals have the support of just 16% of Quebecers (decrease of 3 points), and the NDP trails at 13% support (increase of 1 point). The Green Party has the support of 7% of Quebecers (unchanged).

Put away the partisan lens for a moment, you just can't explain the massive shifts in Quebec, over such a short time frame. I'm just not buying the Bloc at 50%, nor do I think the NDP fell six points in one week. There isn't one other poll of Quebecers that shows anything close to these figures, with the exception of the Liberal numbers. Last week's numbers are far more reasonable, relatively speaking, this week looks like a 19 out of 20 scenario, it just doesn't add up.

As it relates to the national numbers, Ipsos still over-states the Conservative numbers, but it is noteworthy that Conservative hasn't increased support, despite another Ipsos finding, showing widespread support for the mini-budget.

We Have Nothing Positive To Offer

It's hard to keep track, but if memory serves the new Conservative attack ads are the fifth installment. For those keeping score, the Conservatives have yet to release ONE positive ad, highlighting their supposed accomplishments, the record of good government. Apparently, the ads are set to run this weekend, during some high profile NFL games, among other placements.

The ads focus on Dion and his recent remarks on the GST. The ads are the typical amateurish stuff we have become accustomed to, with a healthy dose of negativism. The ads will re-inforce two themes- one, that Dion "is not a leader" and two, that the Conservatives are a mean-spirited bunch. When you look at what demographics the Conservatives need to improve in, particularly support amongst women, attack ads might not pay dividends. Pardon the lack of a link, but I remember some polling that showed women are less responsive to negative politics, in fact it can be a turnoff.

While the Conservatives did get some traction with their first set of attacks ads, the last couple rounds didn't seem to move the numbers, in any substantive way. I would argue that this pattern of pure negativism, without the accompanying positive message is a risky proposition. When you think about it, what a terrific opportunity for the Conservatives to release a series of ads, highlighting their very popular tax package, or their crime bill, etc, etc. Quite curious that this government never seems to have anything good to say, it's just a steady diet of anti-Dion, anti-Liberal smears. Then again, these "new" Conservatives are primarily a contrarian entity, light on ideas, most of their passion built around despising the Liberals.

I'll say it again, the Conservatives frame themselves, as much as the Liberals, with these typical ads, that get older with every new installment.

3rd Quarter Fundraising

The fundraising numbers are out for the 3rd quarter. First the latest quarter:

Conservative Party
$3,152,985.38 from 32,812 contributors

Liberal Party
$793,835.78 from 7,849 contributors

NDP
$594,479.68 from 10,857 contributors

Green Party
$218,505.14 from 3,143 contributors

Bloc Quebecois
$31,520.06 from 310 contributors

Obviously, the Conservatives hold a MASSIVE advantage, approximately 4:1 compared with the Liberals. The NDP actually has more donors than the Liberals, the Greens quite respectable.

I would like to add the last two quarters for context. In the second quarter:

Conservative Party: $3.8-million from 36,800 contributors

Liberal Party: $1.3-million from 10,000 contributors

New Democratic Party: $720,000 from 11,800 contributors

Green Party: $200,000 from 2,800 contributors

Bloc Québécois: $27,900 from 360 contributors

This past result takes some of the sting out for the Liberals, because we see all the parties are down, with the exception of the Greens. That fact makes sense, given the fact the summer months occur in the third quarter.

First quarter:

The Liberals managed to raise only $531,141 from 4,365 donors, quarterly fundraising results posted Tuesday by Elections Canada show. The Conservatives raised almost $5.2-million from over 45,000 contributors, while the NDP attracted $1.2-million from nearly 15,000 donors. The Bloc Québecois, which gets money strictly from public subsidies paid to parties, raised slightly under $35,000.
The Green party, which has no representation in the House of Commons, raised almost $155,000.

What is concerning for the Liberals in the third quarter, the other parties didn't see a comparable percentage drop in the number of donors. However, it is interesting that the Conservative donor numbers have dropped in every quarter this year. Still, the numbers do show that the Liberals have a lot of work to do in re-inventing their brand, exciting the base and developing effective fundraising. Nothing in these results is surprising, but the longer things stay the same, the more it works to the Conservatives advantage.

One Step Forward, One Step Back

The Conservatives seem to have this uncanny ability to squelch any momentum with self-inflicted gaffes. A feel good week by any measure, whether it be the goodies or other's "disarray", the Conservatives look poised. Some quick electoral math, Ontario will be ground zero if Harper achieves his majority goal.

What does the Conservative braintrust do? The strategic "genius" turfs one candidate in Guelph, democratically nominated, in a riding with no incumbent, historically of the "swing" variety. Talk of a "star" candidate, which will go over with a gigantic thud against a hometown Liberal boy, with deep roots in the community.

On the same day, and an even bigger blunder, the Conservatives decide to dump a candidate in Toronto, in a riding that they were never going to win. Bob Rae is a sure thing in this riding, miracles aside. In other words, Warren was really just a name on a ballot, which makes the optics of removing a red Tory all the more perplexing. Newsflash, you leave the candidate in place, regardless of the minor deviations from head office, because to remove him brings unnecessary negative coverage, in a region the Tories are desperate to make inroads. You certainly don't remove someone for speaking about issues that matter to the constituents, one's that play well in an urban environment.

The Conservatives have really damaged their brand in the GTA, with this boneheaded decision. The spectacle of Warner telling reporters he won't vote Conservative, because they don't embrace the middle ground is a horrible frame for the party. It would seem the rigid, dogmatic approach of the party brass has sacrificied pragmatism and simple logic in this case. I guess the Conservatives aren't content to just lose this riding under natural circumstances, they find it necessary to highlight all their failings in the process. Good job.

Muzzled

All Canadians ask, that the government be straight with them on Afghanistan. Instead, the government reaction to Hillier's comments last week expose reality, the truth runs a distant second to political expediency:

Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, has been told to tone down his political interventions after he spoke out last week on the direction of the Afghanistan military mission, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

“He got his marching orders,” a senior government official said Wednesday. “He was reminded what his role is. His role is not to be the chief spokesperson for the mission.”

“He pulled in his horns, but there has to be a recognition that he may have gotten away with this once, he's not going to do it again,” the source said.

“He needs to do his job and leave the politics to those who are assigned to that task and who have the elected mandate behind him.”

Hillier's comments weren't political, they were simply an assessment of the situation. The government reaction demonstrates that message control and propaganda, sanitized for public consumption is the guiding force. Hillier isn't a "spokesman", he just so happens to be the leader of our military and his perspective should take precedent. Muzzling people in the field, because it doesn't jive with the spin in Ottawa is a very disturbing development. Another example of the Conservative hypocrisy on transparency and openness. Apparently the government has decided we can't handle the truth.

New Quebec Poll

Maybe this explains the big hurry:

Canada's Conservative Party has pulled even in popularity with the Bloc Quebecois in the province of Quebec, according to a poll published on Wednesday.

The CROP survey for the daily newspaper La Presse put the Conservatives at 31 percent, up 4 percentage points from a mid-September poll, in the mainly French-speaking province of 7.5 million.

That put the Conservatives level with the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party in Canada's parliament that fields candidates only in Quebec. The Bloc did not gain or lose points from September.

The federal Liberals were at 17 percent, down 2 percentage points.

The survey showed the Conservatives with 32 percent support among Francophone voters in Quebec, compared with 38 percent for the Bloc

A Decima poll yesterday showed a slight Tory fade in Quebec, but this is a much bigger sample, with a lower MOE, so it can't be discounted. First time I can remember a poll showing the Conservatives tied in Quebec, these types of numbers really open up the possibility of a majority.

Too Clever By Half

I think it’s an open question, whether or not the Conservatives have erred with this tax cut barrage. Obviously, the measures announced yesterday are good news for Conservative fortunes in one sense, but the timing might undermine the benefit. It would appear the Liberals have no intention of voting down the government, which effectively eliminates the prospects of an election this year. Given the fact that Flaherty has eaten up most of the surplus in the fall update, you have to wonder what the government can offer in the spring budget. Has the government mis-interpreted the terrain, delivering the goodies at the wrong time?

Flaherty didn’t have to commit yesterday, he could have spoken in broad terms, offered a few things and left the rest for the budget. Instead, the government put all its cards on the table, without the immediate return at the polls. I’m not arguing that the government doesn’t benefit from the announcements, more a question of maximization. Fast forward to the spring, Flaherty has left little room for himself, which means if we do have a non-confidence, the tax cuts are part of the equation, but they might not be the centerpiece of a campaign.

The Conservatives might be too clever by half here, over-estimated their chances to goad the Liberals, too anxious to embarrass, without looking at the longer term. I don’t think the government took full advantage here, benefit yes, optimal benefit no.

Stagnant, Lethargic, Stuck

The latest Decima Poll has some curious results, not the least of which, the Tories lead is actually shrinking:

That poll pegs the Conservatives at 33 per cent, the Liberals at 29, the NDP at 17 per cent, and the Green party at 10.

It suggests the Bloc Quebecois has increased its lead in Quebec to seven percentage points while the Tories have dipped slightly.

The Quebec numbers place the Bloc at 36 per cent, the Tories at 21 per cent, the Liberals at 19, and the NDP at 13.

Decima's poll from October 9th, had the following:

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey put support for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's governing Tories at 35 per cent - still well short of majority government territory and below what the Conservatives earned on election day in 2006.

The Liberals, meanwhile slumped to 28 per cent nationally in the wake of three dispiriting byelection losses in Quebec last month.

And it is in Quebec where the Liberal sky is truly falling.

The poll of just more than 1,000 Canadians last Thursday through Sunday put national support for the NDP at 17 per cent, the Green party at 10 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois at eight per cent.

But in Quebec, the Liberals were mired among the NDP and Green also-rans.

Some 35 per cent of Quebecers backed the Bloc, followed by the Conservatives at 26 per cent. The Liberals trailed with 14 per cent, the Greens were at 12 and the New Democrats at 11.

Decima hasn't published the Quebec margin of error, but usually it is a respectable 5-6%, so the Liberal rebound and Conservative fall is noteworthy.

A 7% Conservative lead is now 4%, which is strange, given the circumstances the last few weeks. What is even more staggering, a companion Decima poll(online) which shows Canadians overwhelmingly positive, which should be translating to the government:

Those stagnant numbers fly in the face of a separate Harris/Decima survey that suggests the state of satisfaction with the economy has reached historic levels.

An overwhelming majority of respondents - 82 per cent - characterized the economy as excellent or good while only 17 per cent described it as fair or poor.

Pollster Bruce Anderson says he's been polling since 1980 and has never seen such optimism about the economy.

"We can't recall seeing a situation like this," the Harris/Decima president said in an interview.

General satisfaction with the country's overall direction was also extremely high - 61 per cent of respondents said they were pleased with where Canada was headed, compared with just 38 per cent who weren't.

Anderson says the lethargic poll numbers could be cause for some concern for Tories hoping to capitalize from the country's good economic fortunes.

I first heard a report of this poll on CTV, with Bob Fife responding "I believe the Tory numbers are better". Translation- I'm a closet Conservative who can't except reality and will cling to the Ipsos-Reid result, not the other five polls that mirror this one. Anyways, how frustrating for the Conservatives to see the Liberals in such a state, the economy in overdrive and still NOTHING in terms of growth. I suspect if you were to reverse the roles, under similar circumstances, the Liberals would be in the mid to high 40's. Canada isn't Bush country, it just isn't.

Get Over It

Elizabeth May is set to have dinner with Jack Layton and has decided to bring Stephane Dion as a guest. Pretty innocent stuff in the grand scheme, in fact it would probably be a plus for our political discourse if leaders "mingled" from time to time. This reaction from the NDP is somewhat petty, not to mention childish:

A spokesman for Mr. Layton, Karl Belanger, did not sound keen on the May-Dion-Layton dinner.

"We didn’t talk about who this person might be," he said. "She won the auction, so we’ll see, but co-ordinating the schedule of three leaders . . . two leaders is already tricky. Three leaders could be even more tricky. But you know, it looks like the Liberal party would be well-represented at that dinner, since she’s the Liberal party candidate in Central Nova."

Just go to the dinner, shut your trap, stop with the political gamesmanship. Nobody is equating a dinner with a meaningful summit, simply an opportunity to sit down, chat, see if there is any common ground, on anything. When you think about which federal leader would probably cringe at the thoughts of this dinner party, it tells the NDP all they need to know. Get over it, what's the harm?

What's The Hurry?

Out of nowhere, Flaherty is set to deliver his fall economic statement tomorrow. The Conservatives are in such a hurry, they didn't even follow proper protocol:

Flaherty had wanted to present the economic statement in the House of Commons. But changing the House schedule on one day's notice requires the unanimous consent of all parties, and the NDP has refused, calling the late-notice announcement a political stunt.

One possibility, the Conservatives are merely trying to keep the opposition off balance, with a snap announcement. The other, another poison pill scenario for the Liberals, with a real desire to see if the government can force an election.

I lean towards the latter, and see the sudden move as a recognition of the closing window for a fall election. There is nothing else pending in the next few weeks, that could trigger a vote, if the Conservatives want to move, this statement may be their best chance. The timing of Flaherty's desire is curious, on the same day that Dion makes a strong case against a GST cut. I'll be shocked if we don't see particular emphasis on the GST tomorrow, with the intention of baiting the Liberals.

If the government had presented the statement this week, without the 3 hour notices and sense of urgeny, then it would have seemed more natural. The way this whole affair went down today suggests something else is afoot. Could be that decisions were made over the weekend, the Conservative strategists saw fertile ground and this statement was pushed up as a trigger. Should be interesting.

Dion and the "Middle"

Chantal Hebert's latest column argues that Dion is caught in the "middle" as it relates to Quebec, a tension between nationalist aspirations and the strong federalism, articulated by other "star" candidates:

In an open letter to Quebec newspapers last week, Dion expanded on those points. He described himself as a strong champion of provincial autonomy, a solid defender of the Quebec language laws and an early supporter of the concept of the Quebec nation. He also wrote that the social union he negotiated in 1996 gave the provinces even more leeway than Harper's throne speech promise to curb the federal spending power.

Those assertions are factually correct. But Dion's increasing insistence on his Quebec-friendly credentials is also at odds with the best-laid plans of some of his election strategists.

Trudeau's positions are closer to the federal Liberal mainstream than Dion's. Trudeau is also more in synch with the party's star candidates in Ontario than his leader.

Gerard Kennedy, the former rival to whom Dion owes his leadership victory, fought the concept of the Quebec nation last year. And in a recent letter to the editor, Bob Rae forcefully laid out a Liberal rationale for equating Harper's open federalism with an unprecedented bid to neuter future federal governments.

Dion's current attempts to make himself more palatable in Quebec go against the ideological grain of the very group that brought him to a leadership victory last year; in many Liberal minds, they also run counter to the party's larger electoral interests.

What I find entirely disappointing about Hebert's premise, she seems to take Stephen Harper at face value. Hebert correctly points out that Kennedy was against the nation resolution, but that doesn't extrapolate to opposing Quebec's aspirations. In fact, if memory serves, Kennedy was against the Harper government's poorly thought out, kneejerk, ambigious resolution:

The motion provides "official recognition to the idea of nation without defining it and that is irresponsible," Kennedy said at a press conference on Monday.


"It puts that official concept in the hands of the people who would use it for things that are frankly at odds with what most Canadians believe in," he said.


Kennedy said he felt obligated to voice his opinion.


"It's a wedge for future politics by Mr. Harper," Kennedy said hours before the vote, introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week, passed in the Commons.


"This is not a small thing -- this is about the identity of the country. It should not be played games with and I will not go along with that."


Part of the problem with Harper's "irresponsible" motion is that the notion of a "nation" is not defined, Kennedy said.


"How will it inform our challenge to bring this country together when there are four or five interpretations possible?" he said.


"This puts us into word-smithing, into semantics, and it puts us into games playing that I think has harmed this country in the past and should not be part of a future.''

Hebert assumes that arguing against Harper's charm offensive in Quebec is the equivalent of anti-Quebec sentiment. Hebert makes the same miscalculation, as it relates to Rae and his defence of federalism, compared to the Harper view. Again, my memory might be sketchy, but Bob Rae has always been a strong defender of Quebec and his record is quite clear.

It would seem, that the new measuring stick in Quebec is whether or not one agrees with Stephen Harper's view of the world. The fact that Hebert uses resistence to Harper's agenda as evidence of tensions seems a strange benchmark. It is simply intellectually dishonest to label someone, based on their opposition to Harper. You want to judge someone like Rae based on real initiatives, like Meech Lake, fairgame, but to frame someone because of a reaction to a vote grab, is pure and utter crap. Stephen Harper and his policies, the new benchmark in Quebec, lord help us.

All Talk

I suppose the best thing about Harper actually holding power, the more time that passes, the more the hypocrisy becomes pointed. Two separate stories, both of which demonstrate that for all the rhetoric about transparency and accountability, the Conservatives are all talk:

The federal government has rejected requests for the report on the Middle East penned by floor-crossing MP Wajid Khan by arguing that documents in the Prime Minister's Office are not covered by Canada's Access to Information Act.

The response suggests that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hiding his records behind a secrecy policy that he promised to change in the last election campaign.

The government's assertion that ministers' offices are not covered by the access law is not new: In 1999, Jean Chrétien's government began refusing access requests by saying that the minister's office is not part of the department they head.

That interpretation was contested in court by then-information commissioner John Reid, and sharply criticized by the Conservatives and their predecessor parties, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Harper promised in the last election campaign to scrap it. The Conservative campaign platform promised that the party's first task would be to pass an "accountability act" that would "implement" Mr. Reid's recommendations for reform.

Those recommendations include an amendment intended to dispel any claim that ministers' offices are not covered by the act. "This provision is included to clarify that the offices of ministers form part of the department over which they preside," Mr. Reid's recommendations state.

"It's passing strange how quickly they forget," Mr. Reid said in an interview.

And:

The Canadian Press made a request under the Access to Information Act last January seeking government briefing materials on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Among the 139 heavily censored pages produced last week by the Department of Foreign Affairs are a number of old documents that end with "talking points."

In every instance, some of the points previously prepared for public consumption (but never publicly delivered) have been blacked out

"Canada is very pleased with bilateral consultations with Australia on uranium and nuclear issues in Canberra on Nov. 20 (2006)," begins one set of talking points, dated Feb. 20, 2007.

"Our officials agreed to seek a trilateral meeting with U.S. officials . . . ," begins the next point, before blacking out the rest of the line.
The entire next "talking point" is black.

A document dated Feb. 10, 2006, cites five talking points and two "Responsive Only" points, prepared in case of specific questions from media. The responsive points are blacked out.

Accountability was always a transparent attempt to hurt the Liberals, more than it was an actual commitment to openness and reform. Under this government, information is harder to ascertain, roadblocks more frequent and secrecy the preference. What a joke, considering the pius indignation during the last election, as the lily white moralists argued for reform. In reality, whatever your measure, the Conservatives have turned out to be worse than their predecessors, which they chastized. How rich.

UPDATE
Another story, on the same theme.

Liberal Riding President Resigns

Some of the comments seem contradictory, but another sign all is not well on the good ship Liberal:

Saying she’s disillusioned with the leadership of Stephan Dion, the president of the Sarnia-Lambton federal Liberal association has resigned.

Anne Marie Gillis said Friday she’s disappointed that the party didn’t vote against the recent throne speech.

Had it done so, it would have sparked an election.

“Insiders have told me after the throne speech came down that Mr. Dion and 30 of his confreres were willing to go to the polls,” she said. “They were going to stand on their principles,” including their support for the Kyoto environmental accord.

But after meeting with the caucus, Dion backed away, she said. “The caucus all sat on their hands,” she said.

“It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees,” she continued. “The opposition’s role isn’t to survive, it’s to oppose. I’m a little disappointed.”

Gillis predicts bad times are ahead for the party.

I agree with this logic:

“The longer you delay (forcing an election) the weaker you become. People do not follow weakness, they follow leaders. They are setting themselves up for a real fall.”

Gillis blames Dion, but really her ire should be trained on the caucus and advisors, because Dion was ready to face the electorate. Gillis cites Chretien as an example of a leader consulting with caucus, but ultimately moving forward based on his own convictions. In fairness to Dion, he faced a maelstorm of opposition, given the precarious situation for his leadership, you can at least see the rationale in backing down.

I don't blame Dion for abstaining on the throne speech, I look at all those who spoke of suicide and threatened revolt if he forged ahead. What happens next will be Dion's making, because I believe Gillis' quote above is the bottomline that every Liberal should realize. Let's hope Dion's instincts don't leave him, and he pounces at the first opportunity, with the nervous acknowledging the losing proposition of neutered opposition. IMHO it's a guaranteed slow burn to a Harper majority, and everything I have seen in the last week re-affirms that viewpoint.

Manley Wants You

I saw a few clips of Dion's performance before the Press Gallery dinner last night, the reviews appear to be kind. The best moment I saw, when Dion went into his bag and brought one of John Manley's business cards, rolled his eyes and then threw it over his shoulder. A funny moment, but the symbolism was perfect, sending another message to the press that this panel is a public relations exercise, at taxpayer expense.

Apparently, the Manley panel is set to launch a website, to solicite opinions from Canadians:

John Manley's Afghanistan panel is setting up a website to take written submissions from the public, the head of a Canadian development group said Saturday.

The panel has said it had no plans for public hearings, but Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said the website will allow for public input.

Barr and representatives of about a dozen other Canadian aid groups met Manley and his panel on Saturday. They were told an Internet site will be running soon and will accept comments and recommendations.

"Plainly, if they put their address on the website and ask for submissions, they're going to get them from the general public," Barr said.

I can't wait to leave a comment, and I suggest other people do the same. It makes sense to solicite the opinion of ordinary Canadians, because after all, we have just as much expertise, or lack thereof, to speak on the subject as the panelists. I guess a quick draft of my thoughts would go something like this:

I'm sure the panel is aware that the average yearly income for a Afghan citizen is $260 dollars. Given the fact that the Prime Minister has already articulated his vision for the future mission in Afghanistan, rendering the supposed four options considered irrelevant, do you worry that the complete lack of credibility the panel enjoys comes at taxpayer expense?

Mr. Manley is being paid $1400 dollars a day, the other four in the neighbourhood of $800. Rough math, around $5000 a day, $25000 a week just for the panelists. The panel is too conclude at the end of January, which is roughly 15 weeks, with some holiday time included. That translates to around $375000 just to cover the five member panel. I understand some office space has been rented, obviously the website, staff for each of the panelists, travel expenses for hearings, surely a trip to Afghanistan, overhead, mundane expenses, etc, etc. Just to hazard a guess, it seems reasonable to assume the overall cost of this exercise will run into the millions. Let's just say 3 million, which is probably conservative, for arguments sake.

Back to my original comment, at a per capita income of $260 for Afghans, your panel's expenditure is the equivalent of 11538 Afghans total yearly income. I guess the question for the panel, is a public relations exercise, which has already been undercut by the government, panned by the opposition, held in suspision by the media, an efficient use of taxpayers money, when the money squandered could be used to influence the lives of the people we claim to protect? I recommend the panel immediately disband, and dismiss the vanity exercise that amounts to nothingness, then asks the government to re-direct the propaganda money to Afghanistan, with full knowledge that it will contribute to the ultimate goal the panel supposedly ponders.

Thank-you

Baird Acknowledges Failure

John Baird has always said:

"After 13 years of inaction and empty promises by the previous Liberal government, Canada is going in the wrong direction on the environment."

Yesterday, during Question Period, Baird finally acknowledged the Conservative contribution:

"Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the member that the Government of Canada did nothing for 15 long years."

And counting...

What If?

Having resigned myself to the fact Al Gore will not run for President, I still found this poll very intriguing:

DEMOCRATIC CHOICE FOR THE NOMINATION
(Among Democratic primary voters)

....Now... 9/07... 8/07

Clinton 51%.. 44%.. 45%

Obama 23.. 26.. 25

Edwards 13.. 17.. 14

All of the national polls show Clinton pulling away to a commanding position. What is different, the early primary states are now also showing the same Clinton trend. What is beginning to emerge, a feeling of inevitability, that may be hard to counter.

However, what if Gore was added to the equation?:

DEMOCRATIC CHOICE FOR THE NOMINATION
(Among Democratic primary voters)

Clinton 37%

Gore 32

Obama 16

Edwards 7

A pretty amazing response, Gore very, very competitive. What is also interesting, while Clinton has very high negatives, Gore's have dropped considerably:

OPINION OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
(Among registered voters)

Clinton:

All Voters..... Democratic Primary Voters


Favorable 43%.... 72%

Not favorable 41.... 15

Undecided/DK 16.... 12


Gore:

(Among registered voters)

Now.... 6/2007.... 1/2007.... 10/2000

Favorable 46%... 34%... 31%... 46%
Not favorable 29... 40... 49... 35...
Undecided/DK 24... 25... 20... 17

Gore is now far less divisive than Clinton, which will be a determining factor as the reality of her nomination sets in. Again, it will never happen now, but Gore's entrance would be a seismic shift, in a race that increasingly looks like a coronation.

Apples And Apples

Is there any way to attain the PMO's phone records? I'm willing to bet, a few calls to Afghanistan were made in the last 24 hours:

Canada's Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier today rejected accusations he has publicly contradicted the Prime Minister regarding the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

The general's spokeswoman, Holly Apostoliuk, said the General is flying back from Afghanistan and plans to issue a full statement later today that will clarify remarks that have generated a political storm in Ottawa.

Damage control:

Maj. Apostoliuk insisted the Throne Speech reference and the General's comments were about two different things.

“It's apples and oranges,” she said, promising the differences would be explained later through a statement from the General. “From Gen. Hillier's perspective, there is no difference of opinion.”

Actually, it's apples and apples, but I'm sure Hillier will offer semantics to cover for Harper's misleading of Canadians. It will be interesting to listen to Hillier perform verbal gymnastics to save the government's credibility.

Ignatieff, pretty much sums up the situation:

“You can't go out in a throne speech and, and say 2011 and then have your Chief of the Defence Staff saying well actually, it's 2017,” he said. “And then third, to make it worse, let's appoint a panel to look at a third set of options and then in the House of Commons, to hide behind that panel when you don't know what the heck you're doing. I mean this creates, this creates a very bad impression of incompetence and mismanagement. And the troops deserve better.”

Canadians deserve better, just the facts please.

All Over The Map

Talk about conflicting signals, the Conservatives are all over the map on Afghanistan. First they undercut the supposed "panel", and declare that Canada will need to stay until 2011, now they seem to have more knowledge of the situation than the military:

The Tories say Afghanistan should be stable enough to handle its own security by 2011 - a view reiterated late Thursday by a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But opposition parties pounced on far less cheerful assessments of the situation from two leading authorities: Canada's top soldier and the head of NATO.

Gen. Rick Hillier declared it will probably take "10 years or so" for the Afghan army to meet its security demands - and NATO's secretary-general suggested it could take far longer than that.

The opposition accused Harper of ignoring his own military experts and allies because the truth makes him politically uncomfortable.

How does the government respond to the glaring contradictions, they fall back on the "panel" for cover:

"This government has established an independent commission to study the issue and provide advice to this government," Tory House leader Peter Van Loan replied when pressed on the matter.

"It's headed up by the former deputy prime minister John Manley. We anticipate a report to this House which will give the House an opportunity to vote on the best course forward."

Then Sandra Buckler offers what amounts to an admission that the "panel" work is symbolic political posturing:

"Building up the capacity of the Afghan people so that they can defend their own sovereignty has always been our goal and we know this will not happen overnight," said Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler.

"However, our Government believes that this objective should be achievable by 2011."

All the mixed messages form a cowardly compromise of supposed principles, to minimize political consequence. How can the government offer a timeline on the one hand, then use the "panel" to sidestep any discussion on future plans? How can the government offer 2011, when their own military, not to mention NATO, offers an opinion that shows no relationship to their presentation to Canadians?

The government is playing a dangerous dance, because there is no coherence in the message. All the efforts to take Afghanistan off the table will backfire if the government looks manipulative and withholds basic truths for self interest. There is a clear opportunity here for the opposition to peel off the "panel" as a convenient rebuttal, reveal it for the rubber stamp distraction that it is, through the Conservatives own words. Also, the logic chasm between the military opinion and the government is a gift to the opposition.

As an aside, Allan Gregg foreshadowed the results of the newest Decima poll by saying the Conservative momentum in Quebec may be stalling due to Afghanistan. I doubt this muddled message will improve fortunes.

Crickets

Jeff's post on the federal NDP candidate for Fredericton's defection to the Liberals is interesting, for a number of reasons:

Saint John Member of Parliament Paul Zed on behalf of the New Brunswick Federal Liberal Caucus welcomes Fredericton NDP candidate Kelly Comer to the Liberal Party.

“We are delighted to welcome Ms. Comer to the Liberal Party,” said Mr. Zed. “The Liberal Party is a diverse, open party, and we are pleased that Ms. Comer has chosen to join us and our Leader Stéphane Dion as we work to build a better New Brunswick and a better Canada.”

Mr. Zed notes that Ms. Comer is the second federal NDP candidate to leave the party to join the Liberal Party. Terry Albright, the former President of the New Brunswick NDP and federal NDP candidate in Saint John in 2004 and 2006 left the party to join the Liberal Party in 2006.

“Clearly, people are very disillusioned with the NDP under Jack Layton’s leadership,” said Mr. Zed.

Comer described the NDP's policy on Afghanistan as "naive". The timing of this move is noteworthy, because it comes on the heels of Layton's outreach to disaffected Liberals.

What I find curious, the complete lack of media coverage for this defection. I've scanned all the usual news sources, nary a peep, nothing, nada. Let's pretend that this was a Liberal candidate defecting to another party. You can just imagine, another series of opinion pieces, every outlet using the story, another cycle of negative Liberal coverage. In the spirit of fairness, if you want to point out the Liberal failures, should you not also point out the positives? Where is the journalistic balance in this instance? Seems to me, we heard a great deal about Layton targeting soft Liberal support, doesn't this development speak to that theme?

Economists Pan Conservatives Tax Policy

I'm not sure you can make an anti-GST cut argument politically attractive, but clearly the Liberal position on the government's flashy tax policy finds foundation here, in a big way:

The Conservative government's plan to trim the GST for a second time has been soundly rejected as a top tax-cutting priority by a large group of economists surveyed by The Globe and Mail.

All 20 economists said other tax cuts would be better for the country than trimming another percentage point from the goods and services tax, which represents more than $5-billion in revenue.

It's a remarkable show of unanimity on public policy, given that the responses were from organizations as diverse as the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Bank of Montreal and the Halifax-based Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.

Mr. Drummond and others have plenty of ideas about where that $5-billion could go.

Personal and corporate income tax reductions, “if properly structured,” would be one, he said. Another would be reversing the earlier GST tax cut and shaving every Canadian's marginal personal income tax rate by two percentage points.

All told, 16 of 20 respondents to The Globe's survey called the government's announcement to cut the GST a bad move, while two said it was irrelevant and two said it would be good for the economy.

The Conservatives have the easy soundbites to deflect any criticism of their tax policy. The only way the Liberals make an impact is if they hammer the point at all turns, and the media does something extraordinary- give Canadians a meaningful discussion, beyond the obvious spin. That said, when you have such universal opinion amongst economists, it provides powerful backing for a somewhat counter-intuitive political position.