Losing Hearts And Minds

A survey of Afghans confirms that NATO is losing support, Afghans feel less safe, the Taliban have grown stronger and support for more troops is waning:

-the proportion of Afghans rating their security positively dipped to 55 percent from 72 percent in 2005

-32 percent said the U.S. and coalition forces are performing well, down from 68 percent in 2005. And fewer than half, 42 percent, have confidence in coalition forces to provide security in their areas.

-More also blame the country's current travails on the United States, NATO or Afghan government than on the Taliban (36 to 27 percent), but the Taliban is viewed as a greater threat for the future.

-Fewer now say the U.S. or NATO forces have a strong presence in their areas, 34 percent now compared with 57 percent in 2006.

-73% believe Ignatieff was right to support the budget

- Few are hoping for the promised increase in troop levels, however, 44 percent said they want a decrease in the number of foreign forces in the country; 18 percent want an increase.

-More blame U.S. and coalition forces for poor targeting than blame the Taliban for keeping assets among civilians (41 to 28 percent); 27 percent said both sides shared the blame.

-For the first time, more Afghans have a unfavorable impression of the United States(83% favorable in 2005, 47% now)

-Taliban presence-But 22 percent say it has at least some support in their area, and this soars to 57 percent in the Southwest overall, including 64 percent in its home base, Kandahar. That’s up sharply from 44percent in the Southwest last year, and up from 41 percent in Kandahar.

Complete pdf here.

Run Free Kevin, Run Free

Too much media attention? Shouldn't be allowed to release "unilateral" reports? Kevin Page needs to be reigned in? I confess, Carolyn Bennett's musing on our budget officer are bizarre:

Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who last week warned that Ottawa's projections for climbing out of deficit within half a decade may be too optimistic and said the government's $40-billion stimulus package may have a smaller and less effective impact than billed, is garnering too much media attention and shouldn't be allowed to release his sensational reports unilaterally, says Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett.

Moreover, Ms. Bennett told The Hill Times that she's concerned with the tone of the massive media attention regarding Mr. Page's office budget and the public disagreement with the Library of Parliament chief librarian William Young, and said she believes it damages the institution of Parliament and the respect of the Speakers of the House and Senate.

The only reason that Kevin Page is "garnering media attention" is because he seems the only person in Ottawa that is giving Canadians the real numbers. Thank-god for Kevin Page, because without him, Deficit Jim would still be getting away with his shell game routine. As a matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a more valuable public servant, acting in the public's interest. That Bennett finds it necessary to take issue with Page, at this moment in time, is simply astounding.

I do understand some confusion about Page's role, the limitations, possible concern about how he's dealt with his own budget, but to criticize his public presence as though counter-productive really makes me wonder what's the real story with Bennett. I can't make sense of this perspective:

That wouldn't be in the best interest of some Parliamentarians who might ask for a study, get the results from the Parliamentary budget officer and then want to release it, say a month later with all the stakeholders and be able to actually make their point in the best possible way. If the Parliamentary budget officer sees himself as truly independent, then he would believe that he could release it whenever he wants to, as opposed to the wishes of the Parliamentarian or the Parliamentary committee that had commissioned the study," said Ms. Bennett.

Does Bennett mean the government of the day might delay certain findings, say like the expense of the Afghanistan mission, because of the optics during an election? What is the danger of someone releasing data independently, and why should Parliamentarian's be concerned about optimal presentation. Seems to me, if people are genuine, then you have nothing to fear from Kevin Page, as a matter of fact, he'll be there to support your assertions.

In my mind, during the past few months, Kevin Page stands for "accountability". Without Page, we would all be more confused by the confabulation, mixed signals and dicey math. Page has effectively moved the government, brought clarity to Flaherty's mirage. In addition, Page seems to be ahead of the government, when it comes to projections, you can't understate his value to the public. Rather than worrying about reigning Page in, Bennett should be looking at why there is such a disconnect between a non-partisan economic assessment and the one present by the Department of Finance. If Page is getting attention, it's because of that disconnect, a mere overlap of government facts and figures, nobody would notice, that's the issue, not the "attention". Run free Kevin, and the opposition should be doing EVERYTHING in it's power to ensure he CAN.

Separated At Birth?

I caught Coldplay's Grammy performance tonight. Noticed the talented lads were sporting a new look:



A reference only a parent would understand (you don't want to know):



Must be their Sgt Pepper period.

Disclaimer- I do like the band, the first one I mean.

On "Mild" Recessions And Quick Turnarounds

Sometimes a simple representation tells you all you need to know, when it comes to understanding the circumstance. For anyone who still clings to the notion that the current economic downturn will be short lived, or relatively "mild" in comparison to past recessions, this graph of the situation in American tells a chilling tale:


To put it into a domestic perspective, the Canadian economy has shed more jobs, per capita, than the Americans in the last three months.

Coalition Baggage

Janke "articulates" a very probable line of attack the Conservatives will use in the next election. Apart from the fact the post reads like someone who's played way too much RISK, this is the main thrust:

Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, has a problem. He can't rewrite the past. He did sign the coalition letter that went to the Governor General, and has spoken favourably of the coalition - this will all come back to haunt him.

Not really a revelation, we already know that if the Conservatives were defeated, and we had an election, the coalition would be the primary attack line, they've made that obvious. If, the strategy still holds true for a future election, I would suggest it's probably a weak one at best, because the counters are powerful.

The most compelling argument, is entirely based on "the past". Conservatives seem to be clinging to Ignatieff's signature on the coalition letter. That is a fact, which Ignatieff can't deny. True enough, but there are other facts, which tend to swamp the argument. The truth of the matter, Ignatieff rejected the coalition option, despite the fact it was there for the taking, almost universal agreement amongst constitutional scholars, that he had his chance to become Prime Minister. If Ignatieff were truly part of the conspiracy to usurp the results of the last election, as Conservatives will argue, and if he presents a real threat to revive a coalition in the future, then WHY didn't he do so when the opportunity presented himself? If it's all about a power grab, a deal with socialists and separatists, then it doesn't quite jive with the practical application. In FACT, Ignatieff resisted the "power grab", he didn't take the option staring him the face, so positing the "coalition threat" really flys in the face of reality.

The most common narrative we've heard, as it relates to Ignatieff and the coalition, he was always "cool" to the idea. That view has been expressed ad nauseum, to the point of concrete truth. If the Conservatives think that irrational howls, attempting to paint Ignatieff as vehicle for a future coalition will find resonance, then they misread sentiment. If they raise the spectre of national unity, attempting to fire up their western base, they actually play into Ignatieff's 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.

Stephen Harper has signed some "dubious" letters in the past, with separatists and socialists, but the real issue is the final manifestation. Ignatieff was forever "cool", he is not synonymous with the "three headed monster", in fact he's seen as the vehicle that disentangled the Liberals from the coalition. Nobody disputes that, and the letter is secondary to the events that followed. Ignatieff had a clear opportunity, nothing standing in his way, two years of government guaranteed, Harper turfed, it was all RIGHT THERE. When the Conservatives fear monger, Ignatieff has history on his side and he can turn the argument around. We don't need to entertain theoreticals, we already have the reality that played itself out, and that "fact" leaves the Conservative argument decidedly weak. I understand why the Conservatives will resort to fear mongering, after all they've sold their soul and they stand for NOTHING, but if the coalition is the centerpiece of the next "battle", I'd say you've picked the wrong target, because this guy has plenty of ammunition, and it just happens to be based on irrefutable practical evidence. Good luck.

Declawed, For Now...

I know many were nervous, that the new Liberal leader would be subjected to the same Conservative assault, as his predecessor. That view didn't incorporate a simple fact- this isn't 2006, the Liberals would surely adapt and respond much more forcefully, mindful of the lessons learned. Apart from lessons learned, I didn't see a Dion redux, because the political climate is such, the Conservatives simply can't go negative, in any high profile way. After the hyper-partisanship displayed in November, the Conservatives desperately need to appear serious, their entire focus on the economy, any overt attacks against rivals, only feeds a negative perception- a mean spirited, partisan driven entity, that doesn't have it's priorities straight. Wasting energy, attacking the opposition, would rightly be seen for what it was, and I have little doubt that strategy would backfire in a big way, the Conservatives would harm themselves, far more than their target.

It would appear, the Conservatives have reconciled themselves to the fact that attack ads aren't in the cards:

Stephen Harper is so concerned about the economy that the Conservatives are not launching any negative ads aimed at Michael Ignatieff, according to one well-placed Tory source. Although the Tories have lots of money and ammunition (example: Mr. Ignatieff's flip-flop allowing his Newfoundland MPs to vote against the budget), the Prime Minister doesn't want to appear to be playing political games in the midst of the economic crisis.

"The government is focused on projecting itself as serious about the economy. ... Anything that could make the government seem focused on other things [like an attack ad campaign] is being avoided," the source said.

As a side note, somewhat comical that even the Conservative knee jerk sleaze machine understands the public mood, while the NDP looks more partisan than ever, with their badly timed ads.

You can't take Jane Taber as gospel truth, but given the genuine reality of the times, it's pretty safe to assume we won't see any overt attacks on Ignatieff in the near term. Understanding the financial constraints, it would still be wise for the Liberals to consider some "introductory" ads for Ignatieff, nothing outlandish, a small buy, that can use free media to our advantage (last year, the Conservatives announced new ads, the media played them ad nauseum, but they never made it to the airwaves in any real way, HELLO).

Apart from the possibility of our own campaign, I have little doubt, that as things cool down in Ottawa, Ignatieff will begin more high profile tours of the country. Right now, there is clearly a measure of curiosity with our new leader, everything Ignatieff does tends to make it into the news. I say, we should capitalize on the honeymoon, and get Ignatieff out there, everywhere and anywhere, while we still have the media's attention. If there is a pause in Conservative gutter politics, we can fill the void with a positive presentation, further cement a sense that the Liberals are on the move, with a new direction. A trip into Bloc heartland would bring plenty of attention, electoral chances aside. Rural British Columbia, the Conservative bunker on the prairies, all the unusual locations, a hint of bold, a sense that Liberals are reaching out, rather than realistic "winning" opportunities.

“Ignatieff’s Clearly In The Game"

It's all about the trend line, and for Ipsos Reid, the Liberals have cut the gap in half:

The popularity gap between the government and the official Opposition has narrowed once again, with 37 per cent of decided voters supporting Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and 31 per cent behind Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals...

Conservative support nationally is down from the last poll by two points to 37 per cent; Liberals up three points to 31 per cent; the New Democratic Party down one point to 14 per cent; and the Green party down two points to seven per cent.

Liberals up in Ontario:

The Liberals lead Ontario with 39 per cent support, compared to 37 per cent for the Conservatives, 14 per cent for the NDP and 10 per cent for the Greens.

Compared to the election, Liberals up 6%, Cons down 2%, NDP down 4%.

Quebec, the Bloc up:

The Bloc has the support of 42 per cent of Quebecers, an increase of seven points, over the Liberals at 24 per cent, the Conservatives at 18 per cent, the NDP at 11 per cent and the Greens at 10 per cent.

The rest of the country:

Nationally, the Conservatives still hold a commanding lead of 48 per cent in British Columbia, 70 per cent in Alberta, and 55 per cent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals are on top with 48 per cent, followed by 25 per cent for the NDP, 24 per cent for the Conservatives and four per cent for the Greens.

Conservatives up in the Prairies, which is noteworthy, because the regional disparity is even more pronounced, the national numbers misleading in terms of seat distribution. Further evidence, that the NDP may be getting squeezed out of the economic conversation, and it looks like the Liberals are benefiting.

Wright:

“This is really the first poll since Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership where we’ve been able to measure the full effect of his stewardship of the Liberal party,” Wright said.

“His comment about putting the Conservatives on probation was astute, and probably echoed many of the people in this country who have wondered what the Conservatives are going to do about the economy and whether or not the Liberal party would act as an official Opposition."

We'll have to see if the Bloc bounce in Quebec is real. CROP showed an entirely different result, and as I was often reminded in the past, their sample size and accuracy history should be considered. That said, it isn't entirely hard to believe the Bloc would get a bump in the budget aftermath, particularly with a high profile convention to boot.

Overall, good news for the Liberals, pollster aside, the trends are positive.

“The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party ever made” Stephen Harper

Or maybe not so much:

OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million defamation suit against the Liberal party over the Cadman affair.

A terse news release says the prime minister and the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada have agreed to settle all issues related to the suit.

The action has been dismissed without costs awarded to either side and both parties have agreed not to comment further.

Harper launched the lawsuit last March after the Liberal party accused the prime minister of condoning immoral, illegal and unethical behaviour in the Cadman affair.

The Liberals charged that Harper was aware of an attempt by Conservative officials to bribe Chuck Cadman, the late independent MP, in return for his support during a crucial 2005 confidence vote.

On a Friday afternoon, no less :) Pretty much tells us who make the "mistake". Oh, tough guys...

Ezra Levant: Good Call

I confess, I rarely read anything Ezra Levant pukes out, because, well, he's not a bit right, plain and simple. However, yesterday someone linked to his latest turd in the comments, so my curiosity lead me to the "column". Ezra Levant February 5:

The recession is halfway over. That might sound surprising to those who are bracing for the return of the Great Depression, but it’s true...

Despite media hysterics, this economic downturn is much milder than the two recessions of the mid-1980s or the one in the early-1990s.

February 6:

The drop in employment in January was greater than any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s, Statistics Canada said.

Good call Ezra.

Ignatieff Gets Harper To Nibble, Kennedy Sets The Hook

Hat tip to Jeff for the video. Quite a clever display in QP today by the Liberals. Ignatieff begins with a seemingly easy question, asking the Prime Minister about fair dispersal of infastructure money. Harper rises, thinking he was handed a relative soft ball, a quick, terse response. Then the follow up, Kennedy delivers the evidence to completely contradict the just completed response:


We play chess too. At the very least, the tactic gets inside their heads a little. Well done.

Incoming

Wow, quite a day for the government. Watchdogs, from all quarters, piping in, none of it flattering.

Budget Officer Kevin Page, who is building an impressive track record for accurate predictions, unlike Deficit Jim:

Canada's parliamentary budget officer is casting doubt on the federal government's rosy projections in the budget, saying the recession will likely be deeper than expected and Ottawa's stimulus package smaller and less effective.

Kevin Page told a parliamentary committee Thursday the government's claimed $39.9 billion stimulus package over two years is effectively about 20 per cent smaller, at $31.8 billion.

And he adds that a portion of the smaller amount may not find its way into the economy because $10 billion is contingent on shared spending by other levels of government.

The difference will mean the extra spending is unlikely to create or save the 190,000 jobs projected by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Page said, estimating the number at closer to 120,000.

Our new Environment Commissioner, picking up where his predecessor left off:

"Due to the nature of federal-provincial trust funds, it will be difficult for the government to support its claim that the $1.5 billion it is spending on the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund will actually achieve the target it has set for lowering greenhouse gas emissions," Vaughan says.

Environment Canada "conducted almost no analysis to support that figure," he reports. "The little analysis it did undertake is based on flawed assumptions -- for example, that all provinces and territories face identical opportunities, challenges and economic conditions for achieving emission reductions."

"Since the basis for the estimate is flawed, we cannot determine what a reasonable range of expected results should have been."...

OTTAWA — When the Conservative government walked away from Canada's Kyoto Protocol targets, it argued its less ambitious plan was more credible and based on “real, measurable and verifiable results.”

Scott Vaughan, Canada's new Commissioner of the Environment, says the government has failed on all three fronts.

Adjectives such as weak, poor, negligible and disappointing pepper the scathing review of two central and costly pillars of the Conservative climate-change plan.

"Weak, poor, negligible and disappointing", sounds about right. More evidence of our "leading the world" approach on climate change.

During the last election, Stephen Harper bragged about the Conservatives record on food safety. Auditor General Sheila Fraser:

Auditor-General slams food inspections

OTTAWA — Federal inspectors spend more time certifying Canadian exports of fruits and vegetables than making sure that the plants and produce that come into Canada are bug- and disease-free, the Auditor-General has found.

In a report released Thursday, Sheila Fraser called for greater protection of Canada's crops and forests, given the associated industries are worth $100-billion a year.

Ms. Fraser pointed to the threats associated with invasive plants, seeds, pests and diseases, and was alarmed to report that “high-risk imported commodities … are sometimes released for distribution without being inspected....”

"Accountability", the Conservatives consistent nemesis.

Obama's "Don't Blink" Visit

Is it just me, or is Obama's visit being pared down to the point of poor optics? First, no appearance in Parliament, then no meeting with the GG, now we hear word of a 3 hour visit, that won't even get Obama off the runway in Ottawa:

The official Canadian visit by U.S. President Barack Obama is turning into a presidential pit stop.

The working assumption in the Prime Minister's Office is that Obama won't leave the vicinity of the Ottawa airport when he makes his first foreign trip two weeks from now.

The Obama visit, which is mainly to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper but includes a courtesy chat with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, is expected to take roughly five hours from landing to the president's return to Washington.

Technically, Canada can still take solace in the "first foreign visit" label, but really this visit hardly denotes any level of seriousness or priority. Low profile, to the point of second rate, the fact Obama will be back in Washington a mere five hours after leaving, really doesn't speak to the "special relationship", with you biggest trading partner, in the midst of serious bilateral issues.

Given all the initial hoopla, the forever diminishing itinerary is starting to look like your spouse's work Christmas party. You're obligated to go, but you can't wait for it to be over, and you're forever thinking of ways to deke out early.

Oh Look, It Was A "One Off" After All

From precedent setting marshmellow man to iron fisted tyrant in a matter of hours. So nimble:

Michael Ignatieff allowed his Newfoundland MPs to register a symbolic protest against the federal budget but he's insisting they now support legislation that will actually implement the measures they find so offensive.

Having cast their protest vote Tuesday, a spokesperson confirmed that Ignatieff now expects the Newfoundland MPs to support the budget on all subsequent votes, including the budget implementation bill.

Moreover, he's told the MPs they can't attempt to amend the bill, which is to be introduced this week.

Setting the record straight:

Moreover, sources said Ignatieff warned caucus he doesn't intend to relax discipline again in future.

"He said it was a one-time thing, alone, period, full stop, and for us not to get our hopes up too high because it would not happen again," said one caucus member.

My prediction, Williams plays it RELATIVELY cool and calls it a day in the end. The MP's never thought the budget wouldn't pass, so there's little reason to push further, point made, now it's time to join ranks.

NDP Voters Split On Budget

We now have two polls, gauging budget support, with one particularly noteworthy finding. Both the Strategic Counsel and Decima polls provide almost identical findings, when the question of budget support is put to NDP voters. Yesterday's Decima poll asked a question on the Liberal position, which provided a fascinating result:

The new leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, has indicated that the Liberal Party will allow the budget to pass, but has put the Conservative government on probation, and has indicated that the government needs to formally report on progress about how the new spending is stimulating the economy every 3 months. Do you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose the way Mr. Ignatieff has reacted to the budget?

A full 68% of NDP voters supported Ignatieff's decisions, while only a feeble 21% disagreed. This type of result explains the NDP's attack ads, more about shoring up their own base, rather than any realistic outreach (I suspect there was some knowledge within the NDP, that they were on the wrong side of this issue).

That result aside, on the very clear question of budget support, the Strategic Counsel poll found:

“The Opposition parties should support the federal budget”

NDP voters 47% agree, 53% disagree

A clear split, by any measure. What's striking, these results are replicated by the Decima poll:

Do you think the House of Commons should pass the budget or not?

NDP voters 41% pass, 41% don't pass

The numbers for overall support are ridiculously on side for passage, and this is borne out in the subset you would expect to see the most resistance, given the official stance. The fact that NDP supporters are evenly split, putting the Ignatieff decision making question aside, shows a real disconnect, when you consider all the partisan rhetoric we've heard. Two polls, identical results, the NDP needs to convince it's base first, before anyone dare entertain the "come join our cause" limp rallying cry.

Positive Sign Indeed

Even though it's only a subset, within a partial period, any indication that the Liberals raised a similar amount to the Conservatives is a positive sign indeed. That this uptick occurred, prior to any impact from the new fundraising strategy, is a reflection of the leadership draw. The Ignatieff effect:

In fact, observed Le Devoir, the Ignatieff effect was so pronounced that the Liberals managed to raise more money in December that the Conservatives, ($ 832 000 against 826 000 $, still considering only donations of $ 200 and more).

I wouldn't suggest that the Liberals can keep pace with the Conservatives in the near future, because that is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, but the above certainly validates a sense of optimism. Rossi and Ignatieff have both recently publicly referred to impressive fundraising in the "last few weeks", so the trend doesn't look a blip.

In terms of public perception, any indication that the Liberals are on the move under Ignatieff will serve us well. The importance of money is beyond obvious, but the optics of growth in fundraising allows the narrative of "resurgence" to continue, a sense that we are getting our act together. A simple thing like fundraising numbers are pretty important in terms of perception, and the linked article speaks to the beneficial presentation.

Liberals On Side

In terms of polls, this one would be classified as a slam dunk for the Liberal position (sorry ankle bitters). Rarely do you see such overwhelming sentiment, but these numbers only reaffirm the logic in the Liberal decision:

OTTAWA - A new poll suggests Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff struck a chord with the public by compromising over the federal budget.

Ignatieff's offer to support the Conservatives' fiscal policies in return for a pledge for regular status reports on the economy won majority support from respondents across the country.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found that 72 per cent of respondents supported the idea of quarterly updates, with only 20 per cent opposed.

The poll also suggested the Conservatives read people correctly in drafting the budget, with 62 per cent of respondents saying they wanted it passed and only 20 per cent opposed.

Support for Ignatieff's decision cut across all political parties, with 85 per cent of Liberal backers, 75 per cent of Bloc supporters and even 64 per cent of Conservatives saying it was a good idea.

The survey was part of a national omnibus phone survey which interviewed just over 1,000 people between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2, and is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

75% of Bloc supporters, but what of the coalition?

Clearly, absolutely no appetite for political machinations, this poll supports previous findings, people wanted the budget passed and saw little reason to vote against. The fact the public also supports the Liberal amendment shows that nobody is buying the weak spin of "propping up" the Conservatives, merely a serious response to an extraordinary circumstance.

In terms of public sampling, it doesn't get much more conclusive than the above. Must have been a push poll or something :)

UPDATE

Another sport metaphor from the pollster:

Jeff Walker, senior vice-president of Harris-Decima, said it looks as ifIgnatieff hit one out of the park in this case.
"That's exactly what I saw when I got those numbers,'' he said. "It seems that he struck the right tone ... he made the right decision."

Walker also said the data suggest that the idea of an opposition coalition to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is dead.

"Among Liberals, there was almost universal support for what he did and almost arguably absolutely no support among Liberals of going for the coalition."

The survey also suggested that Canadians are more insistent than ever that their politicians put aside partisan bickering.

The Appropriate Response

It's a good decision in the end, and the process speaks to leadership style. Ignatieff will allow Newfoundland MP's to vote against the budget, a decision which seems entirely appropriate.

Beyond the most obvious of optics, a party "divided", the usual kneejerk stuff from predictable sources, this decision actually works in the Liberals favor for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, the votes demonstrate that Liberal support isn't a blanket endorsement, the nonsensical notions of coalition and all the other superficial drivel. Having some MP's vote against, sends a clear signal that Liberals are conflicted, a decision made in totality doesn't translate into propping up anybody. There is little room for fallout, because Canadians overwhelming want the budget to pass, so this symbolic expression merely reaffirms our displeasure with the Conservatives. Ignatieff was right to speak with Harper, attempt to force changes, but no one, including Danny Williams, expected that recommendation to be a deal breaker. Nobody, including the participants, are arguing for the Liberals to bring the government down over this issue, they merely want to express their rejection and highlight an unfair, unilateral move by the Conservatives. The Liberal position is different, and a Liberal led government will re-visit and revise as appropriate.

The fact Ignatieff huddled with these MP's, in such a fashion that he was open to listening, rather than dictating, provides a positive on leadership style. Ignatieff could whip the vote, or sanction dissent, but by allowing a "one" off here, on a critical issue to Newfoundlanders, he sends a signal that he appreciates the concerns, in fact he agrees. Compare that approach to Harper's, when faced with a similar circumstance in Bill Casey, and Ignatieff looks relatively positive. Ignatieff allows these MP's to vote their conscience, but maintains the overall position, that allows this vote to pass. The final outcome remains the same, but the Liberals are spared the public spectacle of iron fist submission, fall in line or face consequences.

When the vote occurs tonight, obviously attention will be given to Newfoundland MP's. However, what seems to be absent, the rejection of the Conservative policy doesn't seem to translate to a rejection of Ignatieff's decision for the party. These MP's understand the different considerations, as do the most vocal voices from Newfoundland, the Liberals aren't damaged, it's Harper's decision that is at issue. In the end, I like the optics of Liberals wrestling with their decision, because it speaks to complicated consideration, it demonstrates clearly that we are no fans of the Conservatives, and a Liberal government would operate differently. This issue came up in the aftermath of the initial decision to support, and I would suggest that Ignatieff's handling and reaction have turned something potentially explosive into a net neutral circumstance, that brings little political consequence, and beyond that, benefit to these MP's in question, who stay true, without altering party direction.

Cue the ankle bitters...

On Justifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And That's The Way It Was

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

Sounds Like A Consensus To Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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