Facts to Brighten Your Day and the Road Ahead

So it seems that with the election speculation out of the way, many in the media have moved on to the next favourite past time which is obsessing about the latest polls. Since these stories are already getting a bit repetitive, here are some facts it would be nice to see some reporters bear in mind that might just add a little more context to those Liberal "doom and gloom" /"Harper can't be stopped" themes that are being peddled:

1) Liberals fall 2009 meet Conservatives circa fall 2005: The Conservatives started the 2005/06 election campaign farther behind the Liberals in the polls than the Liberals are behind the Conservatives now. NANOS/SES had them down by 15 points (41%-26%) 11 days into the campaign and the Conservatives were still down 10 points even 25 days into the campaign. Remember Harper and Co. did force a Christmas election "no one wanted". Well we know how that campaign turned out and NANOS was by far the most accurate in predicting the final result.

2) Voters are up for grabs right up till E-day: In the last election campaign the Liberals bounced between 21% support to 31% support and Conservatives bounced between 31% to 42%. The Conservatives even led 40% to 21% at one point, only to have the gap narrow to 34%-31% within just one week of E-day (only to see the Conservative lead widen after that infamous CTV interview). So it's safe to say what happens in a campaign influences public support a lot more than anything in between.

3) Massive leads have collapsed in past campaigns: Just ask Paul Martin or David Peterson (who didn't even come away with his own seat in the 1990 Ontario election that was supposed to give him another majority). Even Kim Campbell's PCs started out the 1993 campaign slightly in front of the Liberals (ending with 14% and 2 seats) and John Turner's Liberals led Mulroney's Tories when the 1984 campaign began (and the PCs ended up with 50% of the national vote). Which is why I don't put much value in non-writ polls (or ones any more than a couple weeks before E-day) to begin with.

4) Polling trends still have Liberals gaining seats and everyone else losing them: If you must listen to current polls, then even as the media tell us the Liberals are in deep trouble (and admittedly the Liberals have had a rough couple weeks) if you look at seat projection sites (that don't just rely on one poll), the trend still indicates that the Liberals are likely to win around 100 seats. Every other party is on pace to lose seats.

5) Ontario traditionally doesn't look too fondly upon a party that's dead in Quebec: That isn't registering now, but if E-day is nearing and the Conservatives are looking to lose all (or almost all) their Quebec seats, we will very likely see a shift away from them in Ontario.

6) Stephen Harper's career is still on pace to end with the next campaign: Harper's career depends on winning a majority in the next election and not a single poll since January has shown the Conservatives with the numbers that would actually translate into one (again see 308's projections). Remember Harper has to make up for the collapse of the NDP vote (which always helped the Cons more than anyone) and his horrible numbers in Quebec. If Stephen Harper thought he could win a majority, he'd have forced an election by now. He hasn't and it looks like he won't be. As the media talk about how "Conservative fortunes are on the rise" the Cons are still overall on pace to lose seats. Then we'll see who has the "leadership woes".

7) The NDP are down in the dumps and are truly horrified of facing the voters: As their finances, support levels, and party morale keep sinking, their leader has to explain to his supporters why he has "formed a coalition with Stephen Harper" and given Harper a "de facto majority" (Jack's words, not mine), while endorsing him as our representative at the most important climate change conference ever in Copenhagen in December. Increased NDP support in elections has helped elect a fair number of Conservative MPs as they came up the middle. As the NDP are down to their lowest support levels in many years, it seems we won’t have to worry as much about that next time.

8) Harper can't run from his record forever: Stephen Harper promised us no recession and no deficit and we have had the worst of both. He'll have to finally explain himself about that and so much more come campaign time. I'll give him full credit for his Beatles performance, but that will be ancient history once the writ drops and we will be back to the real issues he'll have to answer for. He won't have a piano to save him at the debates.

9) The Liberals will be looking more and more like an alternative government: Now that we no longer vote with the government, we can oppose their policies in House while simultaneously proposing alternatives or even formal amendments to confidence measures. The NDP would have to oppose popular Liberal alternative proposals and have to explain themselves later. The extremely lazy and false argument that "there's no meaningful differences between Liberals and Conservatives" will fade away with each passing example.

10) Liberals remain in excellent organizational shape for the campaign: The Liberals will go into the next campaign with considerably more money in the bank than last time (to spend $24 million instead of approx. $14.5 million), three times as many members (and likely more), more centralized/streamlined organization, better on the ground operation, excellent voter tracker software we never had before, many new star candidates, and as a party more united (right across the country despite some reporters' spin) than we have been in recent memory.

So some can keep up with their doom and gloom all they want, but it doesn't change these facts that leave Liberals with lots of reasons to hold our heads high. If Stephen Harper wants to believe the Liberals are finished like some (though far from all, to be fair) reporters are spinning, let him, Steve will be in for a surprise when the campaign gets underway.

So where does this leave us?
Are the Liberals experiencing a bit of a downturn lately? Do they still have some problems to deal with? Yes and yes. But as I've said before EVERYTHING must be kept in perspective.

Doesn't mean we should completely ignore the media, put our heads in the sand, and pretend that getting back into power will be easy or that the government will simply defeat itself. But stories and polls like those of the past week can be a blessing in that it reminds us that we must always have our A-game on and that we must act as if we are behind and needing to play catch up (even if we get ahead). We must always have in mind how we are best suited to win the next campaign and keep our eyes focused on gaining back supporters from the Conservatives..

We can't afford to let lazy spin win. We need to do a better job of conveying the strength of our party and our ideas and how we would govern much differently than Stephen Harper. We need to do a better job of reaching out to those middle of the road Canadians who have lost faith in our federal politicians and who opt to stay home at election time. We need to make sure all our messages resonate well outside the Ottawa beltway. We need to do a better job of winning over Western and rural Canadians who abandoned our party long ago.

That work is now well under way and I know it will continue in the months ahead, but it can't for a second be let up.

We now have lots of time it would seem to organize for the next campaign and promote our ideas, party and leader. And when the campaign comes, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal team will present a strong positive vision for Canada that will put Stephen Harper's pettiness and lack of vision and ideas to shame.

It will be the campaign who will decide who wins.

We may start out from behind but I know we have what it takes to win the hearts and minds of Canadians and give them the government and leadership they deserve.

Recommend this Post

Why the NDP Should Go Now

It seems the NDP is between a rock and a hard place. While I don't feel so much for Jack Layton who helped to put Harper in office in the first place, I do have some sympathy for many NDP supporters who's hearts are often in the right place. So let me just give 10 sincere reasons why it's not in the NDP's interest OR Canada's interest for the NDP to be propping up the Harper government. I hope they are taking these things into consideration before making up their mind.

1) You prop up Harper now, he will pull the plug on himself right after the Olympics with a poll-tested budget with a poison pill or two (elimination of public financing perhaps) anyways. Don't believe me? Harper's strategists let that cat out of the bag months ago, and when Con House Leader Jay Hill's newsletter says: "History has demonstrated that voters are less likely to vote for change and against an incumbent government when feeling patriotic and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics in February will undoubtedly inflame a greater sense of patriotism and excitement across the country", you can rest assured they will do all they can to ensure that's when they get their election. Do you really want to go at the preferred time of the guy you voted against 79 times?

2) A six month reprieve is hardly much new time to fundraise and if opposing the Harper government constantly for almost 4 years didn't bring in new money, you really think propping up this guy your supporters hate will?

3) Playing into Harper's hands increases the risk your party will be killed by the end of public financing. The Liberals have shown they can survive without public financing. Your party clearly can't. If Harper wins the next election, public financing is gone. He'd rather go in March than now. The Liberals could still likely win then too, but why would you help Harper's chances even in the slightest when you know him winning would be the end of your party?

4) You've said yourself again and again, Harper can't be trusted. You will get nothing from him in return for your support he wasn't going to do anyway, because you know even moving an inch towards your real stated priorities would be toxic to his base. If he did give you something that looked like a past NDP priority, it's pretty likely it would die on the order paper when he pulls the plug in March. What would you run on then? "We tried to get results for people, but Stephen Harper fooled us and gave us nothing for the support we gave him." Not really a winner I'd say.

5) Copenhagen. The environment has been a major issue for the NDP for years now. Propping up Stephen Harper means HE will be OUR representative at the most important Climate Change Conference in history this December in Copenhagen. Michael Ignatieff has pledged his support for a REAL cap-and-trade system with absolute caps and a 1990 baseline for emissions targets. He will propose more of what I'm sure the NDP would agree with in the campaign. Isn't it obvious, Ignatieff would bring to Denmark a position that's much more in line with the interests of Canada, not to mention your party as well? The main obstructionists at Bali were Japan, the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. and Japan now take climate change seriously, so that leaves just one hold-out left. One can be enough to significantly undermine whatever consensus based agreement comes out of the conference. Wouldn't the NDP want to see Copenhagen succeed?

6) Putting Your BC Seats at risk. You know all those seats you hold in B.C. where the Conservatives have traditionally finished second? Well just where might Harper's Conservatives' see its greatest boost in support in a post-Olympics election?

7) You throw away your entire message of the last 4 years. So you were the "only party that can truly be counted on to oppose Stephen Harper" and now your message would be "we opposed Stephen Harper until that would actually have consequences and then we folded like a cheap suit". Not sure that would sell. You think after you called Liberals supporting a Conservative budget a "Liberal-Conservative coalition" (which it wasn't) wouldn't make it difficult for you to explain how you haven't just formed a "NDP-Conservative coalition"? Well I don't envy who would ever be left to do the explaining.

8) It doesn't pass the smell test for you to claim now all of a sudden you want to "make Parliament work." You've been voting constantly for new elections for the past 4 years. You think the public has that short of memories or that Stephen Harper won't mock you for it at every turn?

9) The proposed Con EI Reforms are nowhere near what you claimed would be essential needed EI Reforms. As Jeff and Steve note, they do not address eligibility, regional differences or access, and it's very hard to square why would you support these but so vehemently opposed the Conservative budget. You would take EI off the able entirely with a proposal that's nowhere near as comprehensive it should be and doesn't truly help the people you said you were fighting for. That's not the results for people you've been promising. By supporting these reforms WITHOUT asking for SIGNIFICANTLY MORE beyond them, you surrender all credibility on an issue you've fought on for years.

10) You know the only way to get real "results for people" is with a Liberal government. Facts are facts, Jack Layton has more in common with Michael Ignatieff in his views that he does Stephen Harper. You will NOT get a coalition with the Liberals, but at least you could have a government who actually listens to all parties and won't reject a good idea just because it came from a party who Stephen Harper's base calls "crazy socialists". On education, health care, the environment and foreign policy, the NDP can find far more common ground with Liberals than Conservatives.

So you want to actually make a real difference in the lives of Canadians? Let's help give Canadians the government they deserve now. You may worry about losing seats now, but you'd be likely to lose more in March, at least now you can hold on to your credibility and still have a good expectation of influencing policy with a Liberal minority government (something that really boosted your profile the last time).

The NDP deludes itself if they think they'd ever have any clout with a Conservative government.
I and so many others have already stated why it is in Canada's interests to have an election. I know in their heart of hearts, many NDP supporters agree with those same reasons. It's narrow considerations that are getting in the way - the party is broke, Jack Layton wants to keep his leadership position awhile longer, Tom Mulcair wants to keep his seat awhile longer, maybe some others want to save their pensions.

Well that's not good enough for Canadians and I would hope that's not good enough for the grassroots of the NDP either.

Now NDP supporters could flood this post with comments talking about how Liberals were propping up the Conservatives in the past (which I've said before was justifiable) as if that somehow absolves the NDP, but really how does that discussion help us forward?

Let's focus on the future now before any decisions are made: what is in the best long-term interests of your party and your country NDP?

Here's hoping they come to realize that theirs and the country's interests lie with ending Stephen Harper's reign in power now.

UPDATE 10:55 PM: If there was ever any doubt that Harper doesn't intend to embarrass the NDP with each new confidence measure, the actual wording of Friday's Ways and Means Motion should make his intentions pretty clear. You still think you can trust this man NDP? This is your ticket to filling your coffers? To vote for things you've given fiery speeches opposing before? Well get ready, Stephen Harper is just getting started with you.

UPDATE 2 Sept. 15 @ 1:45 PM: "the NDP says an email sent last week to Mr. Giorno by NDP Leader Jack Layton's chief of staff, Anne McGrath, has so far been ignored.
'It is telling. It is their modus operandi,' NDP spokesman Karl Belanger said. 'They don't want to work with other parties and they're trying to minimize the contact with other parties. That's been the case with the Prime Minister and his team since they got into power.' "
But yet seems like you will be supporting them anyway. I'm guessing at this point, Harper could come out and say "I will not speak to the NDP and I will offer them no concessions" and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Recommend this Post

The Case for Change

As Parliament returned today, so does this blog. And as the Harper government returned to Question Period for another round of evasive non-answers, ask yourself do we really need more of this? What does Stephen Harper have to show for his almost four years in office? Deficits, Debt, Division, Deception and Disarray.

Stephen Harper was so obsessed with banishing "surprise Liberal surpluses" and yet now he wants us to cut him slack for ever rising surprise new Conservative deficits.

Stephen Harper boasted about how much debt he was going to pay down, only to pile up more than had been paid in the last decade.

Stephen Harper said when he was first elected that his he would "govern for all Canadians" only to be the worst wedge politician Canada's ever seen as he writes off 60% of the population completely.

Stephen Harper said he would bring open, honest and accountable government, only to give us the opposite.
He promised us no recession and no deficit and we got the worst of both.
He tried to take credit for the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, only to blame everyone else but him when he faces the highest.
He railed against Liberal patronage and cronyism and felt compelled to top it.
He promised sincere cooperation on EI this past summer and turned the whole thing into a charade.
He accused the opposition of wanting to raise payroll taxes on EI (which we were told would be a "job killer"), only to do so himself.
That kind of deception is tough to top.

And he's left our country in complete disarray with no vision or long-term domestic or foreign policy goals. Can someone point to anything Stephen Harper has planned for even next year? As every other major industrialized country makes targeted investments and restructures to compete in the global economy, Stephen Harper just puts his head in the sand. Does anyone still listen to Canada with Stephen Harper in power? When Stephen Harper says Canada is "back" under his leadership he must mean back of the pack.

It's really quite the legacy to leave behind and that's just the short list!
Well we needn't let him add to it any longer.

Canadians deserve better.

We face the toughest times in a generation with a Parliament Stephen Harper refuses to make work (Overdue EI Reforms still don't make the grade).

If you give Stephen Harper your hand, rest assured he will do everything he can to tie it behind your back (Jack Layton take note...).

Every day more Harper is in office our potential as a country is further squandered as he obsesses over crushing his opponents instead of governing the nation.

There is little positive to be gained by keeping this government in office any longer. We can do better.

We need a government willing to actually govern and make Parliament work rather than one focused entirely on electioneering and trying to come up with the best "plausible" lies about their opposition.

We need a government willing to lead on the world stage, rather than one that's happy to be a bit player.

We need a government with a team of strong capable ministers, rather than a one-man show who forces the rest into hiding.

We need a government that listens to research and science instead of one driven only be ideology.

We need a government willing to stand up for women's and minority rights and the disabled, instead of one that sees them as "left-wing fringe groups".

We need a government that protects Canadians abroad instead of abandons them.

We need a government that believes in our institutions, from public broadcasting, to the courts, to Elections Canada, rather than a government trying to tear them down.

We need a government that knows we must invest more in post-secondary education, instead of one who mocks those with a university education.

We need a government willing to show real environmental leadership at the largest ever Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, instead of one that would go with the goal of being the biggest holdout.

We need a government that knows that good child care policy is good economic policy, instead of one that is seemingly proud not to have created a single child care space.

We need a government willing to level with Canadians and give straight answers instead of one that stonewalls and deceives at every turn.

We need a government that's fiscally responsible and has a social conscience to replace one that's neither.

We need a government that's focused on building the Canada of the future to take over from one that can't see beyond the next election.

We need a Prime Minister that unites Canadians rather than divides them.

Only Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party can provide this kind of government to Canadians. A Prime Minister and government that provides real vision and leadership we can all be proud of.

A majority of Canadians may say they don't want an election now, but that's because they are not yet convinced an election would change much or that there's no single defining issue. But an election can give us the real debate about our future we didn't get in the last and that we really need as economies restructure across the globe.

Liberals will present a truly alternative compelling vision for this country and Canadians will see we can be so much more than we are.

Stephen Harper was given another chance by Canadians almost a year ago and in every way, he's blown it. The stakes are too high to grant him another reprieve. These tough times demand better.

When Canadians are faced with a choice of positive change and more of the same, the choice will be clear.

Canada needs a new direction and it can't come soon enough.

------------------------------------------------
For more on why we need an election, see here

Recommend this Post

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern"

Wise words, spoken by none other than Stephen Harper on April 18, 2005. Can a single Conservative really say that if there was a Liberal PM today under similiar circumstances that you would be applauding the Governor General's decision to allow the porogation of the House of Commons? Thanks to the Harper-Jean precedent (which Harper is SOLELY responsible for and never should have forced the GG to choose between two troubling precedent setting choices) that day is much more likely to come under a future PM who doesn't wish to test the confidence of the House. At least I will remain consistent should that day come, but I trust the Conservatives will be about as consitent with their statements and past positions as Stephen Harper has been throughout this whole crisis. In the end for Conservatives it's all about putting Stephen Harper and the Conservative cabinet minister's jobs before everyone else's.

Stephen Harper still doesn't enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. These petitions signed by every MP from the opposition parties delivered TODAY to the Governor General clearly demonstrate that. These MPs must hold together. If there was no coalition waiting in place then Harper would never have backed down on his fiscal update. If divisions start to form Harper will make NO or very minimal concessions on his budget. And in the end if his budget doesn't reflect the policies that 62% of Canadians voted for and represent a DRAMATIC departure from what was in his fiscal update then he should be brought down and replaced. I don't expect him to do that because it's not in his character and Harper has completely betrayed the trust of all opposition MPs. But Harper is gambling that this opposition will crumble or cower away.

For all the talk of "belt tightening" a large sum of taxpayer money was spent on this past session of Parliament to be the least productive in Canadian history and accomplish absolutely NOTHING. I imagine Conservatives are proud of how they "put the opposition in a corner" on this one though and are hoping that millions spent on ads over the next few weeks will help Canadians forget how much they are interested in preserving their own power than doing what Parliamentarians are supposed to do.

But we shouldn't give in to his strong arm tactics, the man has shown a complete lack of respect for the Parliament Canada elected and to let his get away with it all and come back stronger to laugh at the success of his gamesmanship later (which will happen if he passes a budget with very minimal concessions) is not in the best interests of this country and nor is it the best solution for this economic crisis that Canadians most want their Parliamentarians to deal with right now.

Canadians could have had a budget and response to the fiscal crisis before the end of this month. Harper instead wants them to wait two months when people need help NOW.

Canadians could have had a government that brought in common and economically sound policies 62% of Canadians voted for. It appears they won't get that before the New Year, but it is my hope they still will.

This is justice delayed, let it not be justice denied.

Recommend this Post

Calgary Grit Has it All Wrong on the Coalition – Reasons Why We Should Never Listen to Dan Arnold Again (Unless of Course He’s Right)

So I see that Calgary Grit Dan Arnold has taken on the role of official downer of the Liberal Party (don’t listen to him! You’ll see why below).

Dan don’t you know the Liberals have been so starved for good news these past few months (or even years!)? Yet now we may be on the cusp of finally coming back to power and you choose to rain all over our parade. Shame! How dare you try to be a voice of caution!

If this coalition falls apart or never comes to fruition, I’ll be holding you responsible. Just like I still firmly believe that you choosing not to give your Victory Fund dollars to Brant was the only reason the Liberals lost that riding (in your heart you know I’m right!).

So I see you’ve come up 11 reasons why we may want to re-think or be more cautious about this whole coalition business. And you say you MAY write some rebuttals to your own points? Time is of the essence Mr. Arnold, what if the Liberal or NDP brain trust decides to pack it all in because they are unable to think of any rebuttals? Well then it falls to the rest of us to make up for your reckless behaviour.

So below I’ve listed each of Dan Arnold’s 11 feeble points of caution in italics and listed my rebuttals below each point. And yes these are serious rebuttals, but I do encourage other Liberal bloggers to shamelessly gang up on Calgary Grit as well and show him we aren’t the party of pessimism! It’s time for Hope! Change! Caution to the Wind!

Seriously now…

--------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Allienation: As other Alberta Liberals have pointed out, the backlash in Alberta and across Western Canada is going to be huge. You thought the "No! No! No!" headlines were over the top today? Well you ain't seen nothing yet.

Western alienation is probably the biggest issue in my view. I don’t doubt the backlash in the West will be huge. It will likely take months (maybe even close to a year) to subdue and reverse it (in fact I predicted the coalition will start out relatively unpopular across all of Canada at the beginning). But we can recover and make this into winning conditions in the West in particular.

3 Things will be important to be successful
1) Make sure Westerners are well represented in cabinet. Harper obviously has way more Western MPs than the coalition will have, but seriously I’d be surprised if most Westerners could even name 10 of them.
2) Find some issues that are most popular out West and bring them in (ok you’ll have to consult someone who knows the West better than I do but there must be some that the coalition could agree on)
3) Start running ads about 8 months to a year into the coalition government comparing how the new coalition has done MORE for the West than Harper ever did. We value the West, Conservatives took them for granted, etc. etc…

2. The NDP is Legitimized: The one thing which has always kept the Liberals ahead of the NDP, even when the LPC sinks to it's lowest of lows, is the widely held perception that the NDP is not up for the job of being in government. By placing the NDP in Cabinet, you're implicitly admitting that they can handle the job. Plus, I have this rule of thumb that any move that makes Jack Layton grin from ear to ear like a Cheshire cat is a bad move.

This cuts both ways. The NDP’s main talking points about the Liberals will be damaged too. No more “13 years of inaction, blah blah”. And no longer being able to just blindly oppose everything the Liberals do. The NDP used to like to have it every which way as they never had to make a responsible decision. That will change now as they’ll have to wear the decisions made by the coalition.

I think the Liberals will still always outpoll the NDP in the popular vote because we will always be presenting more moderate mainstream policies. As evidence of that, aside from the Green Shift (which we simply do not have a mandate to implement, even though I still believe it’s the right approach) I can’t think of any policies from our platform we had to concede to make this coalition deal work. Meanwhile the NDP had to give up their biggest policy from the last campaign which was raising corporate taxes by $50 billion (instead we’ll get corporate tax cuts as Liberals planned). I’m sure the NDP cabinet ministers would do a good job in the coalition government, but it will be the policies they propose in the next election that will keep their party down below ours.

3. The Coalition Precedence: Similarly, the NDP is going to expect Cabinet posts in any future minority government. So if we wind up with a Liberal plurality in the future, the NDP is going to be demanding seats at the Cabinet table as a condition of support.

Perhaps, but after the Rae-Peterson accord, the Liberals won a majority (if that happened federally the Liberals would just have to make sure they played their cards A LOT better than Peterson did with his majority mandate). Even if they didn’t win a majority, if it’s a strong minority they should be able to govern soundly on their own on an issue by issue basis as Paul Martin did.

As the largest non-Conservative party it will be the Liberals choice to make whether to accept the NDP as coalition partners and I’m fine with that. The amount of seats the NDP would get in a cabinet (or if they get any at all) would surely always depend on how many seats they had relative to the Liberals. A Liberal-NDP coalition still beats Conservative government by a long shot.

4. The Coalition Precedence II: As Stephen Harper's 2004 letter shows, what's good for you one day, is not so good the next. And I have strong doubts that Liberals in love with the idea of a coalition government now would have welcomed one back in 2004. It's highly possible that a future Liberal leader who wins a plurality of the seats might find himself or herself in Stornoway.

Unless the Conservatives start moving to the left of the Liberals or a new strong opposition party comes about I can’t quite see how the Conservatives could really come to a deal with the other opposition parties as the Liberals have. By virtue of their “uniting the right” they have much less common with the remaining parties than the Liberals do. If the 2004 deal had come to pass and they toppled Martin and Harper took over without an election I don’t think his government would have lasted very long with NDP/Bloc support.

5. The End of Strategic Voting: Since I've been following politics, the final week of every campaign has featured a Liberal leader appealing to other progressive voters to vote Liberal in a bid to stop the scary Conservative bogeyman of the day. Once voters have seen a progressive coalition take power, they're going to laugh at any Grit who tries to make the case that a vote for Layton is a vote for Harper. While it might be good for democracy to see this argument disappear, it's a potent argument to surrender.

No strategic voting still makes perfect sense under a FPTP system. In 3 way races where the NDP is running clearly 3rd, a vote for the NDP could lead to a Conservative being elected in that riding. Only if we change electoral systems does strategic voting no longer make sense (something I will be posting about at another time, as I do favour electoral reform).

6. Coalition Times are Tough Times: If we do hit a recession, do you really want to be in power when it happens?

I believe we will hit a recession, but after 18 months hopefully we will be out of it and can claim credit for governing through the storm. And in reality I believe the policies we are proposing are actually a better means of getting out of the storm than what the Conservatives would do. If the economic crisis is not over in 18 months, well hopefully we can manage to extend the deal until the recession is over or at least on the mend (and if Conservatives were in power under similar circumstances after 18 months you can bet they would try to sustain their government in a similar manner).

7. The Race for 24 Sussex: With 30 month and 18 month deals signed, Dion has given his successor the keys to 24 Sussex as a parting gift. But Dion has also handcuffed whoever wins the Liberal leadership race to this contract. Sure, they can break it, but that would be a political hit in and of itself.

All Liberal leadership candidates agreed to the deal. Dion showed the deal to them before the Monday caucus meeting and they all signed on. And why wouldn’t they? As I've said before, it will be FAR easier to combat the inevitable Conservative fear mongering ads in government than from the opposition benches.

Dan I know this means you have to change the name of your Liberal leadership series from the Race for Stornoway, but I hope you don’t mind taking one for the team.

8. The Black Swan Effect: Sure, these parties can probably find common ground on the economy. But what happens when the unexpected happens? Will the Liberals and NDP be able to find ground on foreign policy? And, taking point number 7 to one of its three possible outcomes, could the NDP and Michael Ignatieff find common ground on foreign policy?

The accord lays out what they will focus on and says they will govern on a “no surprises” basis. I think in the end the cabinet will discuss matters as they come up and come to a consensus. The Liberals and NDP already agreed on Afghanistan to stay till 2011 which was another major concession by the NDP. If they can give up that (which was a MAJOR rallying cry for them), then I think the NDP will, for the most part, be willing to cede foreign policy (particularly the most “hot button” issues) to the Liberals (I presume the Foreign Affairs minister will be a Liberal). But with a few exceptions (e.g., positions on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where I imagine the Liberal position will be the official position of the coalition government) the Liberals and NDP have a fair amount in common with the NDP on foreign policy as it is. The NDP have basically been decrying these past few years the move away from our “proud record on the world stage”, which for the most part is a Liberal record, so I think there’s a lot of room for common ground.

9. No Bloc Party: Yes, I know they've worked with other parties before. And I know nothing has been promised to them. And I trust Stephane Dion more than anyone else to stand up for Canada and to not cave in to Bloc demands. But I hate the Bloc Quebecois with a fiery passion. So this just feels wrong. Especially when the first letter from the trio talks about "a majority of Canadians and Quebecers".The only way to ever stop these kinds of arrangements is for the Liberals and NDP to have a combined majority in the House and for Quebecers to start voting for the Bloc is much smaller numbers.

It’s just an unfortunate reality that in the current House we have to choose between Conservatives propped up by the Bloc, or Liberal-NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc. I’ll choose the latter and it will be a lot better for Canada and the functioning of Parliament than the former.


10. Voter Reaction: Maybe voters will grow to love the coalition. Maybe it will lead to a Liberal majority - a common result of past Liberal/NDP cooperation. But you have to at least recognize that it could backfire. You also have to recognize that after seeing the craziness of the past week, the stability of a Conservative majority will sound appealing to some voters (then again, so could a Liberal majority).

Ok this one is easy, I say voters will “grow to love the coalition” :). Canadians are for the most part centrist or left-of-centre. 62% of them voted for parties that offered what this government will give to them. Again I don’t think the Liberals really surrendered anything other than the Green Shift so I see no reason why anyone who voted Liberal should oppose what they get. The NDP and Bloc supporters seem to be on board with what’s on offer as well. I predict that after a year in government at least 45-55% of Canadians, and hopefully more, will be very happy with the government the coalition provides which is a lot higher than the satisfaction level Canadians would have with a Conservative government one year from now.


11. Mandate: Yes, I know the leader with the fewest seats can govern. Yes, I know we elect parliaments, not Prime Ministers. But at the end of the day, Stephen Harper got 38% of the vote and Stéphane Dion got 26%. The Conservatives got 143 seats and the Liberals got 77. Heck, even the Liberal-NDP coalition only got 114. So, from a purely conceptual point of view, this doesn't feel completely right.

We can’t just focus on the Liberal numbers, this will be a Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals and NDP got 44.4% of the vote, the Conservative 37.7% that’s what we should be mentioning again and again. More Canadians voted for our parties than his, that’s a fact they can’t deny. If they want to talk about how they have more seats while at the same time pretending we don’t have a Parliamentary system and that we directly elect the PM their contradictions will eventually catch up to them.

And the Greens and Bloc also support the coalition so that makes 62% of Canadians that should theoretically be behind this. Beats Stephen Harper’s 38%!

--------------------------------------------------------------

So take that Dan “Stephen Harper is a genius” Arnold! Your pessimism is unwelcome. Only sunny skies ahead!

Unless of course things end up going horribly wrong in a way only Dan Arnold could have predicted, in which case this post may quietly disappear…

Recommend this Post

Canada NEEDS a NEW Prime Minister

Ok so I've said this before, but I say it again now for much different reasons. We have a clear way forward and much to justify it (for an exhaustive list see below).

Our economy faces its worst crisis in decades and this calls for putting personal partisan interest aside and working in a spirit of inter-party co-operation to give Canada the BEST policies to help our country through these trouble times. It’s clear now we won’t get that from this Prime Minister who’s fiscal update was all about pandering to HIS party’s base rather than helping Canadians who are most in need. Using an economic crisis to try to bankrupt your opposition parties was bad enough, but Harper at least had an opportunity to try and propose real solutions for the economy. He failed miserably.

- Weakening pay equity and public service worker’s rights isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Claiming there will a razor thin surplus these next few years when EVERY economist says otherwise is not a solution to the economic crisis

- Promising massive cuts to social spending without specifying where those cuts are going to go isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Having a firesale on government assets isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

- Proposing NO stimulus for the economy, when EVERY OTHER world leader is, isn’t a solution to the economic crisis.

A much better solution to the economic crisis is a NEW government. This one recklessly managed mismanaged the economy for 2.5 years and when given another minority it has failed to change its ways. It has failed to act as all western governments have. It has failed to reach beyond its base as Canadians EXPECTED it to do.

It’s too late for death bed conversions, it will be obvious it’s just a façade. It’s time to bring this government down and give Canadians a better one.

I think the best, most practical and least divisive solution would be to have this government led by Stéphane Dion until the time a new leader is crowned and with the NDP receiving 7 or 8 cabinet posts in a trimmed down 26-28 member cabinet. To pressure Dion to resign would badly divide the Liberal Party when it needs to be united and, in particular, to install one of the other leadership candidates would be deeply resented by members of all other camps (and neutral Liberals like myself).

NO ONE can say Dion isn’t ready or fully qualified to lead as PM. He has over a decade in cabinet, he knows the issues this country is facing, and I think would work very well with members of other parties in this minority climate. If he is only to lead until May then no one can say he has ulterior motives other than what is in best interests of the country. We NEED that right now. McCallum and Goodale would be preferable to the current leadership candidates as PM, but as far as I understand they are each already committed to one of the candidates in this race (Goodale for Rae and McCallum for Ignatieff) so other Liberals would be more likely to question their motivations. Nor is it clear that either one of them isn’t one day interested in ultimately formally seeking the Liberal leadership.

For those that say Canada shouldn’t have a lameduck PM, the next 6 months may be the MOST crucial time in dealing with crisis and we need to have a PM who is willing to devote himself solely to bringing the BEST solutions foreward and that the public sees as having no ulterior motivations (e.g., positioning for the curren, or a future, leadership race or for the next general election). We won't get that from Harper, but we would from Dion. There are other countries that have tapped caretaker PM’s (usually with undeniably impecable qualifications) to deal with crises who later passed their job on to a successor and this would be no different and an orderly succession could be arranged in May to the next Liberal leader.

It is important to get all 3 leadership camps to agree to this though, but I would hope they would see it in their interest to be all now campaigning to be PM instead of opposition leader. If this deal falls apart due to the Liberal caucus unable to agree on who would be PM then whoever wins the leadership race would be certain to face a barrage of attack ads full of fear-mongering (e.g., “Bob Rae will ruin the economy”, “Michael Ignatieff is a Bush clone”, “LeBlanc isn’t up to the job”) that in reality could have been best countered by already being in government. If any of the leadership candidates could become PM upon winning the leadership then they would INSTANTLY be able to counter the smears (e.g., Bob Rae would bring in a competent budget, Ignatieff would show himself to be much more moderate, LeBlanc would show himself to be a sound economic manager as PM). This in turn would give that leadership candidate a much better chance of winning re-election as PM. So I hope cooler heads can prevail here and see how this works out best for ALL progressives, Liberals and NDP alike.

But what of all those who will howl that this is “undemocratic”? Well here are some facts:

- The Liberals and NDP together received 44.4% of the vote in the last election compared to 37.65% for the Conservatives. The coalition would be supported from outside by the BQ and Greens who received a further 16.76% of the vote.

- The Liberals and NDP may only have 114 seats between them, but opposition parties received more than 50% of the vote in more than half the ridings across Canada.

- The NDP and Liberals hold seats in EVERY region of the country.

- The first two Conservative budgets and the softwood lumber deal were ONLY supported by the Cons and the Bloc Quebecois so talk of this “aiding the separatists” is merely a sideshow. Conservatives had no problems being propped up solely by the BQ for the first two years of their government and NO ONE is talking about the BQ formally joining this coalition so this arrangement would be no different.

- In 2004, when Stephen Harper was opposition leader, he signed a letter with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying it would appropriate for a new government to be formed without an election should the governing party be voted down within a few months of the last election.

- Coalition governments that are decided after the election are the norm in countries with economies much larger than ours such as Germany, France, Japan and India. Coalition governments are also the norm in over a dozen other Western countries whose economies are doing comparatively well (e.g., the Scandinavian countries). Often these coalitions last several years so the argument that coalitions would necessarily be unstable or bad for the economy doesn’t fly.

Will there be a backlash if we get a Dion led coalition? Of course, but so would there be if there was a coalition led by someone else (in fact the Tory talking points already have adapted to that possibility of slamming a PM “voters never had a chance to vote on”). We can’t let a possible short-term backlash deter us here. Stephen Harper faced a large backlash over the appointments of David Emerson and Michael Fortier to his cabinet. It lasted a few weeks and (unfortunately) it blew over. Harper is facing a backlash now, but we can’t back down this time.

Any public backlash over a coalition will surely dissipate if we PROVIDE GOOD GOVERNMENT. The best way to counter way to counter all the fear mongering is provide the public with a dose of reality and the beauty is that, in government, we can do that. We will have a strong rational PM with a cabinet that puts the interests of Canadians ahead of their parties for once. The public will see that within a few months time and come to support what we’ve done. Let’s be prepared for some short-term opposition, but we can prove the skeptics wrong in the end.

So it’s my hope (and it may never come to pass I realize) we will see no backing down by the opposition and that ALL Liberals and ALL NDP members can get thoroughly behind our parties’ leadership here for the good of the country.

We will face an onslaught of opposition this week in the form of TV and radio eds, op-eds and anything else the Conservatives will throw at us.

Let’s be ready, we know what we are doing is right.

Recommend this Post

What Would Another Year of Harper Mean? How Progressives Vote Tomorrow Could Shape the Next Decade

I’m convinced that IF the Liberals run a great ground game, place their final ads well, AND (more importantly) rally additional Green and NDP supporters to their side in the final hours of the campaign then we will see the most progressive PM in Canadian history, Stephane Dion, elected to lead our country. But part of that involves getting the message out about what an even miniscule victory for Harper would mean for Canada and the future prospects of ALL progressive parties.

If Harper comes out with the most seats on election night I believe he will strike a deal with the Bloc Quebecois, seeing it as his only opportunity to regain favour in Quebec after badly blowing it there this time. That means Harper would have a blank cheque on votes in the House for likely up to two years and there’s not much Liberals and/or the NDP could do to defeat his legislation.

So what would this mean policy wise? Well it would mean that for at least two years there would be...
- No progress towards any new child care spaces or a national program
- Increased poverty levels across the country with the government having no plan to address it
- No new investments in post-secondary education, leaving Canada ill-equipped to compete on the world stage. Each year that goes by we would fall further behind
- Further embarrassments on the world stage as a successor to the Kyoto protocol is formally drafted and we are left with an even worse environmental stance than the United States
- Continued rises in greenhouse gas emissions as Conservatives continue to hold to intensity based targets only to please the oil sands
- Further backsliding on human rights: ignoring the practices Canadian mining companies in the 3rd world, ignoring our own citizens facing the death penalty abroad (and possibly bringing it back here), and continued opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples
- Further head in the sand economic management so that our financial situation ends up like how Mulroney left it
- Extending of the Afghan mission beyond 2011 despite the fact that we will have done our part and likely could be used in other troubled regions of the globe
- Further gutting of press freedoms
- Further gutting of the Access to Information Act as Harper's penchant for secrecy reaches new bounds
- Further cuts to Status of Women
- Further weakening of the Gun Registry by stealth
- A continued carbon copy foreign policy that takes cues from elsewhere (remember most foreign policy decisions are not even subject to votes in Parliament)
- Paltry contributions to foreign aid and abandonment of Africa just as they need our help more than ever
- The final elimination of any spending room left to ever launch without needing to raise taxes (which no political party is ever willing to do) and much more that will have progressives realizing his second term is even worse than the first.

Now if you are a progressive and you think you can live with that for at least two years (possibly more) thinking that as long as Harper is defeated in the NEXT election after this one things would be fine and easily reversed, you would be mistaken to think the effects wouldn’t be linger long beyond another year or two mandate or that wouldn’t be even more difficult to defeat him in the next election.

The reason for this is that Harper would make every effort to spend the cupboard bare with further focus group inspired tax credits, maybe even another cynical 1% cut to the GST. That’s not only bad economic management, but it would leave ALL parties with less to offer in the next election.

For Liberals that should be obvious just look at how much financial room there was in our platform this time for child care, Kelowna and education compared to last time. There was less on all fronts because of Harper’s GST cuts and all his focus group tax credits that did nothing for our economy. Given the reality that no leader of any party (except the Greens I guess) is going to promise to raise taxes to create fiscal room for the aforementioned priorities any new tax cuts would likely not be reversed.

For those NDPers who think corporate taxes could be raised this election makes clear that that’s a non-starter for 80% of the Canadian population, not to mention all the recent NDP provincial leaders, who realize we need to corporate taxes to get our economy going again. I guarantee if Layton is around next time he won’t be promising to raise corporate taxes as he’ll follow the lead of every other NDP leader in the country. Even this time Layton has gone around claiming that he will never raise corporate taxes just cancelled planned ones.

Which means if Harper gets in this time, even for just one more year, it could take 6 or 7 years to bring us back to a financial situation where a national child care program, meaningfully investing in post-secondary education, a real poverty plan, and tackling the infrastructure deficit would and a host of other programs all progressives believe in become financially possible again.

So with less money available Liberals (and all progressive parties) would have less to offer Canadians in the next election and Harper would have ample time to re-tool just like Jean Charest did in Quebec when everyone counted him out. And he would obviously have no shame in calling another election at the most opportune time. Of course the potential is always there to defeat him next time (and all of us will hard just as hard to do so), but it’s naïve to think it would be any easier than this time and it’s naïve to think that whatever he did in his next mandate could be easily reversed.

Plain and simple many people will suffer under another Harper mandate, our reputation will worsen, and Canada will fall further behind compared to other countries who seem to better understand that fostering a green economy and investing in PSE and child care are essential to being competitive in today’s world. It would be very hard to catch up with each year that goes by with Harper in charge. I don’t think any progressive wants to see this happen to our country.

So it should be clear that the stakes are VERY high for all progressives this time out.

We can work together to elect a progressive PM that would work with the NDP (and any Green) MPs to work on common priorities in a minority Parliament. Harper will NEVER listen to NDP and Green priorities and Dion definitely will, they would have far more influence than if Harper was PM.

We could have the most progressive Prime Minister in Canadian history or the most regressive one.

I hope NDP and Green supporters realize that all our parties and, more importantly, all Canadians, would be better off if Stéphane Dion becomes Prime Minister tomorrow night rather than Stephen Harper. Only one of those two can come out with the most seats.

So if you were thinking of voting NDP or Green but live in a riding where they finished 3rd, 4th or 5th last time, if you vote Liberal this time, I know that a year from now you will not regret that decision and see that in fact your own party has played a bigger role in Parliament than ever before. For Green supporters this is exactly what Elizabeth May has asked you to do, and for NDPers you should know your party will have far more influence if you did the same. If this happens we will definitely have a progressive Prime Minister elected tomorrow night.

We share a lot in common and I hope we can work together bringing progressive policy for Canadians in the next Parliament. But that all depends on how things go tomorrow…

N.B.: I’ll be back later tonight with my last two posts of this election.

Recommend this Post

"Vote for the Party You Think Can Actually Run the Economy"

Thank you Stephen Harper for letting all Canadians know that they really should be voting Liberal in this election. Any objective consideration of which party has had the best record managing the economy and which party has the best plan to get our current economy rolling get would see the Liberals come out on top. Are there any economists who would argue otherwise? Many have endorsed the Green Shift as being good for the economy (in fact Stephen Harper commissioned a government report that said as much), even the very recent TD report issued to the McGuinty government recommended this approach. Yet not a single economist has said it will be bad for the economy like Harper claims.

The Liberal platform as a whole has also been endorsed by economists, environmentalists, agricultural groups, student groups, police forces and municipal leaders. Can any other party say the same?

The Liberals also have a plan to deal with the current economic crisis within the first 30 days of taking office:

1. Call upon the heads of Canada’s financial regulatory agencies – the Office of
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), Canadian Deposit Insurance
Corporation (CDIC), the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Bank of Canada – to evaluate the status and appropriateness of Canada’s
financial regulatory framework within the context of the new global economic
circumstances.
2. Convene a meeting of leading independent private sector economists to report on the state of the economy and assess both domestic and international trends for the coming year.
3. Direct the Department of Finance to prepare an Economic and Fiscal Update to be presented no later than the end of the third week of a new Liberal government.
4. Convene a Meeting of Canada’s first ministers to address the new realities of Canada’s economic situation and to ensure the best possible coordination of efforts with the provincial and territorial governments.
5. Work in partnership with the provinces and territories to identify infrastructure projects and opportunities in the manufacturing sector that have the greatest potential to stimulate investment and create jobs. Support will then be provided through the accelerated flow of funds under our infrastructure program and the Liberal $1-billion Advanced Manufacturing Prosperity Fund.

Number 1 and 2 the Conservatives refuse to do because they don’t seem to listen to experts and economists, Number 3 the Conservatives would likely delay, Number 4 is long overdue and Harper said he would likely postpone for several more months, and Number 5 the Conservatives refuse to do. In reality both the Conservatives and NDP have no real plan to deal with the economic crisis (in fact the NDP says their first act would be to raise taxes on the kinds of companies most hard hit by the crisis leading to even more job losses) so obviously they can’t help us through it.

Economists have also validated the Liberal platform numbers, can any other party say that? With revelations that there are many uncosted portions of the current NDP platform it's clear they can't be trusted to manage the books. The Conservatives meanwhile have cobbled together a platform at the last minute in response to being slammed on this during the debates. That hardly signifies confident economic management.

I remember the day the Liberals released their platform Harper's response was "if this was a CEO of a company he (Dion) would be fired" Well if Harper really wants the economy to be the main issue in this campaign let's run with that metaphor for a second thinking of Harper as the CEO of Canada. If a CEO took over a company that was a leader in its field and its stock plummeted and high company profits turned to being near the red and the company became dead last in its field what would happen to that CEO if their only response was "don't worry be happy"? Well Harper inherited a government that had never been in better financial shape and that was first in the G7 in economic productivity and it's now gone to the brink of deficit, the former $3 billion fiscal cushion is gone, we are now last in the G7 in economic productivity, forecasts of a recession are mounting and Harper's response is that nothing needs to be done. If Conservative supporters don't think that's a reason for being fired when their own leader believes economic management to the key issue in this campaign, I certainly hope they don't end up being CEOs one day. After all Harper obviously agrees with the CEO metaphor for a PM.

So Stephen Harper I agree with you: Canadians should vote for the party you think can actually run the economy. If they follow your advice Stéphane Dion will be the next Prime Minister.

Recommend this Post

Substance Please

Is it too much to ask that in the homestretch of this election we start hearing more who would actually make the best Prime Minister for this country? Watching the aftermath debate coverage yesterday it seemed instead the focus was on whether Harper "survived" despite the fact that he laid out no plan for the country (even as advance polls were opening yesterday) and who got the best "quips" in. Essentially the message is that substance shouldn't matter. Yet it was obvious that Stéphane Dion who laid out the most detailed and practical plans for moving this country forward. Harper could not defend his record and has no plan and Layton's plans would be disastrous. Raising taxes on employer's at the worst possible time and abandoning our allies and the Afghan people with hardly any notice would demolish our economy and standing on the world stage. And his nice little "quip" did nothing but try to provide a free pass to Harper's disregard for our democratic institutions. Not to mention Layton's claims that he could more effectively oppose Harper are a joke as he has nothing to show for his "opposition" and even NDP Strategist Gerald Caplan admits that no matter how many seats the NDP gains in this election they would completely cower from opposing the government in any fashion in the next Parliament because they'll have no money to wage another campaign.

If this NANOS poll is correct though Canadians do want to hear more, not less, substance from the party leaders. Stéphane Dion's leadership numbers and his party's standing soared the night after the debate, while Harper and Layton's did not. Instead though the media focus was on a shoddy poll that was taken as if the second hour of the debate never happened (at least there was one columnist who called them out for it). I know it's hard for the media to break a narrative they have been running with all election, but with 1.5 weeks left I hope we can hear more about who has the best ideas (is there a single economist or environmentalist endorsing the NDP or Conservative policies?) rather than who had the best sound bite for the day. The race is far from over. The stakes are high in this election and this country's economy is in serious trouble so Canadians deserve no less.

Recommend this Post

Reality Check: The NDP Seat Challenge

So with Layton saying today that he believes he's the best option to "STOP HARPER" I thought it about time for a real reality check here since the press at large seems content to give Layton on free pass on all things (as at least one columnist has noted). I challenge any NDP supporter to provide a list of at least 100 ridings the NDP thinks it could win. Never mind 100 wouldn't be enough to form government, but I've set the bar low to see if ANYONE can meet the challenge. If not then we can only assume that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Layton to stop Harper from gaining another mandate and ONLY Stephane Dion can replace Stephen Harper as PM. I could give a list of well over 100 ridings that the Liberals currently hold or lost by 5% or less last time that would be in play for them, so surely if the NDP is serious they could up with a list of at least 100 no?

So Dippers, is anyone up for the challenge or is it a fact that the NDP never intended to target more than 60 ridings? That they never intended to form government and that everything over the past week is just postering to score a few more seats?

So given that's the case and you claim to want to STOP HARPER how exactly do you expect to stop him?

The reality is the only way to do so is by ensuring Stephane Dion becomes the next PM.

UPDATE: A "reader" has provided a list, though the very list defies credibility with dozens of ridings where the NDP finished 3rd and more than 20% back and will at best finish 15% back this time. It almost seemed like it was just ridings picked out of a hat. This person even thinks the NDP will win ridings where they got 2% of the vote last time and that they'll even take Stephane Dion's riding too (where he got 60% of the vote was 53% ahead of the NDP)! Is this what NDP supporters really think? This is exactly why all the seat projections show they never go above 45 seats and that's why Jack Layton's claims he can be PM are ludicrous. So how does he expect to Stop Harper then?

Recommend this Post

Dion Leads, Harper Lags

Over the past few months and in this campaign, Harper has had many chances to show himself to be a “strong leader”, but time and again he has failed. Instead, despite the media narrative, it has been has been Stéphane Dion who has stepped in to fill the void and act as a Canadian Prime Minister should….

- Dion was the first to release the costing of his environmental platform and spell out what it would cost Canadians and what it would achieve. Still waiting for Harper to do the same….

- Dion has put forward a plan endorsed by environmentalists and economists. Meanwhile, environmentalists are ashamed of Jack Layton and surely economists are appalled by Stephen Harper.

- Dion was the first to call for an inquiry into the Mulroney-Shreiber affair. Harper railed against the idea before caving (but of course shows real leadership by stalling the inquiry until after the election).

- Dion led in Montreal to establish a 182 country consensus on post-Kyoto framework. Stephen Harper and John Baird instead obstructed an over 100 country consensus at Bali and earned us condemnations across the globe.

- Dion called for Maxime Bernier’s resignation as Foreign Affairs minister for months. Harper relented only after a dozen more embarrassments.

- Dion was the first to call for a public independent inquiry into the listeriosis outbreak. Harper still insists on a private closed door one and staunchly defends his incompetent and horribly insensitive Agriculture minister despite calls from numerous scientists and food safety representatives for strong action.

- Dion was the first to raise the troubling practices of the Conservatives relating to the In and Out scandal. Harper has stonewalled at every turn trying to prevent Canadians from having all the answers.

- Dion was the first party leader to call for the repatriation and a fair trial for Omar Khadr (as every other western leader has done for its citizens), while Harper stands essentially alone in the world in his belief that Guantanomo Bay is a place where 'justice can run its course" (not even McCain and Obama believe this).

- Dion was the first to come out in favour of having Elizabeth May in the leader’s debates. Harper waited till he stood alone before caving.

- Dion was the first to call for a Commissioner for Gender Equality and his party has fielded the highest percentage of female candidates (36.7%) in this election. Harper is dead last in his commitment to women’s issues and giving an equal voice and equal representation in the House of Commons.

- Dion has proposed economic solutions to get our economy rolling again, while Harper offers no plan and says only "don't worry, be happy" when more and more experts are saying Canada has serious troubles ahead that need to be tackled.

- Dion has stood firm in casting out any candidate who have run counter to basic Liberal party principles. Neither Jack Layton nor Stephen Harper can say the same. Or do these candidates they are hanging on to actually reflect their party’s principles?

- Dion was the first major party leader to release his full platform and its costing in this election and economists, environmentalists and numerous stakeholders from across the spectrum (cities, infrastructure, education, crime, farming) have endorsed the numbers and the plans. Harper may not even have a platform, let alone a costed one. When Stockwell Day was asked for the costing of some of their proposals his response was “Doing the math on these things isn't easy.” That’s the steady hand for our economy? That’s Conservative leadership?

With Canada’s economy in trouble, our standing on the world stage never worse, and a climate crisis worsening we need a Prime Minister who leads, not lags.

A Prime Minister who would govern with convictions and purpose, not through focus groups and polls.

A Prime Minister who leads a team ready to do the heavy lifting of running a government along with him, not a one-man show.

A Prime Minister who promises serious solutions, not pie in the sky ideas that aren’t affordable and won’t work.

A Prime Minister who has a plan for the next 10 years, not just until October 14th.

Canadians deserve a lot better than the Prime Minister we have now and only Stéphane Dion is ready and able to take his place.

We just have got to be reminding Canadians who the real leader is in this race and who is the one that is obviously most prepared to get down to work on tackling this country’s challenges after all the votes are counted.

For all the talk of the media the fact remains that a large majority of Canadians do not want Stephen Harper as their next Prime Minister. I hope that majority can work to see we don’t still end up with him on October 14th, but Liberals need to keep working to ensure that more and more Canadians see over the last half of this campaign that Stéphane Dion would be a Prime Minister we could all be proud of.

Recommend this Post

Jack Layton: All Things to All People

I won't be talking much about Layton this campaign, but since he did do an online discussion this past afternoon with the Globe I thought it was worth covering (see here for the transcript). I'll do the same if/when other leaders follow suit. Overall, I think Jack got some pretty easy questions and handled them well, but a couple answers really grabbed my attention just because they get to one major problem I have with Layton: he seems to want to try to tie himself to anything that he thinks is popular (e.g., Obama) regardless of how it fits with his supposed principles or reality. It's quite the contrast with Stéphane Dion who even Layton admits is a man of principle who has consistently taken bold stands on many issues regardless of their popularity at the time.

For instance in the forum when Layton was asked about how the NDP could be trusted with the public purse he shockingly started claiming "his party" has the best record on balanced budgets. Of course he's referring to provincial NDP governments that for the most part governed much farther to the right than the current federal NDP platform. But still I would think it quite odd if Dion started taking credit for Dalton McGuinty or Gordon Campbell’s accomplishments. Though if Jack wants to claim credit for the successes of past NDP provincial governments, surely he's willing to wear their failures too then?

Even more galling though was Jack trying to tie himself directly again with Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba. He implied again he'd manage the economy just like Premier Doer if he were actually Canadian Prime Minister. Now I remember last November Jack Layton actually literally said "Doer's policies are the same as ours". Well as I recounted at the time, Doer is someone who CUT corporate taxes, opposes legislation to ban replacement workers, supports a continued troop presence in Afghanistan, supports the Clarity Act (which Layton wanted to repeal), and has been a strong supporter of the "Third Way" (public-private partnerships) and the right wing Tony Blair in particular.

So which is it Jack? Would you be like Gary Doer and cut corporate taxes and reverse many of your other positions? I thought you were gonna take on the board rooms though? Or are you just trying to dupe people into thinking you are more centrist than you really are?

Who are you trying to fool, your own base, or the rest of Canadians?

Again Jack wants to be all things to all people. But that's the joy I guess of being a permanent opposition party: you'll never have to make any tough choices, be held accountable, or take a real stand on anything. Just promise the world and say you’ll be just like whoever you think your audience wants you to be, knowing you'll never have to deliver. Must be nice...

Recommend this Post

Gut Check Time for Progressives: We Need a PM that Cares about Progressive Issues NOW!

Liberal and NDP supporters have a lot in common in terms of what kind of policies we’d like to see at the national level, but for that reason I just can’t understand why so many NDP supporters seem perfectly content to have Stephen Harper remain Prime Minister. If Jack Layton can’t be PM, and he can’t, then one would think NDP supporters would want a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power and be working to make that happen. For all those NDP supporters who will claim that it doesn’t matter if Stephen Harper gets to stay PM – I wonder how they’d answer the following questions.

1. Who would work better with Jack Layton in a minority government context Stéphane Dion or Stephen Harper?

2. When has more progressive policy passed, with a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority government? Forced to choose between the two isn’t it obvious which one has been better for progressives?

3. What does Jack have to show for his “opposition” to Stephen Harper this term? Did he elicit a single concession? Did a single piece of progressive policy pass since Harper has become PM? Why would another Harper minority be any different?

4. Having to choose between a Conservative minority government with an NDP gain of 5 seats over a Liberal minority government with an NDP loss of 5 seats which would you choose?

5. Which of those two options would lead to more progressive legislation being passed?

6. Does anyone believe any of the following would EVER be undertaken with Stephen Harper as PM?
- a real plan to combat poverty
- a real national child care plan
- a real plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
- re-introduction of the Kelowna Accords
- meaningful increases in foreign aid
- fighting against the death penalty everywhere
- advocation against Guantanomo Bay
- re-instatement of the Court Challenges Program
- re-instatement of funding and mandate to Status of Women
- a Commissioner for Gender Equality

Yet we all know all those things in 6. would happen with Stephane Dion as PM - even Jack Layton acknowledged Dion to be a “man of principle and conviction” who you can trust. But every year more Stephen Harper is PM, more people suffer. Even so, Jack is unfortunately pursuing a strategy (by saying Stéphane Dion can’t be PM) that helps Stephen Harper who will never be a friend of progressives.

No matter what Jack says the evidence is clear - the race to be PM is between Stephen Harper and Stéphane Dion and pretending otherwise in no way helps progressives. It’s right in Tom Flanagan’s book – the Conservatives love the NDP because they’ve been instrumental to helping the Conservatives win ridings that were essentially two-way fights between Liberals and Conservatives.

Why is it so hard for NDPers to admit that Stéphane Dion would be a much more progressive PM than Harper? Did the Liberals and NDP not vote together on numerous private member's bills that Harper ended up ignoring? Why must NDP supporters resort to the same arguments that Ralph Nader supporters make in the U.S.? (While ironically backing Obama at the same time who makes the same arguments the Liberals do about how the stakes are too high to flock to a third party)

NDP supporters always seem to dodge the questions above, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if none of them honestly answer them, or instead just take one snippet and ignore the rest as they usually do.

The results of the last election led to a trashed child care plan, Kelowna abandoned, Court Challenges program eliminated, and massive backtracking on human rights, the environment and foreign aid. If you are progressive and you want actual progressive policies passed by a principled PM there’s only one party poised to do that in government and that’s the Liberals. There is too much at stake to have this election be 1988 all over again, I would hope the NDP realizes that.

UPDATE - 4:15 PM: Credit where credit is due, this is a well-done ad by the NDP. Though it does make the case well why we need Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister. Still waiting on the FIRST commenter to answer the questions asked above. I guess we all agree on the answers then :).

Recommend this Post

NDP Image Make-Over Destined to Fail

So I guess Stéphane Dion is the only major party leader who wants to present a genuine picture of himself that is consistent with how he’s been as a politician. Meanwhile, Jack Layton is following Stephen Harper’s lead in presenting a completely new image, despite this also being his 3rd election as party leader. Both he and Harper must really think Canadians have short memories. But I’m real curious what NDP supporters think about Layton trying to portray himself as being like Barack Obama when Obama is to the RIGHT of the Liberals. Maybe Jack Layton doesn’t realize this, but Obama staunchly backs Afghanistan, is against same-sex marriage and is all for private health care. Is that the direction Jack Layton is hoping to go in too? Jack Layton actually said he has the EXACT same environmental plan as Barack Obama who DOES NOT use a 1990 target for his 80% reductions target and who didn’t support Kyoto. What do his supporters think about this? Obama is definitely the best option in the U.S. but his policies are certainly not extremely progressive by Canadian standards. So where is Jack going with this new “hope” angle? The only hope Jack Layton offers this election is that of another Stephen Harper government. No one believes Jack can be PM so he really offers no change, no hope. Therefore, in the end, this image make-over will fail.

I predict Jack’s dreams of being PM on Obama’s coattails will fade about a week into the election period as he’ll fail to break 20% in the polls. Then he’ll be right back to bashing the Liberals. Ultimately, Jack’s strategy has always been about one thing a bigger caucus above all else. His goal is to be opposition leader, not Prime Minister. As the leader of the NDP I’m sure he prefers Stephen Harper as PM, because he knows a Liberal government will get the job done and he’ll no longer ever be able to use the “13 years” line ever again. The NDP would slowly disappear with Dion as PM so I know when it comes down to it Jack will do everything he can this time around to ensure Stephen Harper continues to be PM. No matter all the moaning he’ll do this time about how bad a PM Harper is, Harper suits Jack’s interests just fine - after all I remember Jack acting as if it was a "great day for Canadians" when Stephen Harper won in 2006.

You really want to “oppose” Stephen Harper Jack? Then work to defeat him this election instead of playing exactly in to Tom Flanagan’s strategy of making this election 1988 all over again.

Recommend this Post

Still Waiting…But I’m Not Holding My Breath

It’s now been over two weeks since the Green Shift was launched and much to the chagrin of the opponents of this plan I’m still waiting for some things to happen…
- Still waiting to see the FIRST respected non-partisan affiliated economist to say the Green Shift will be bad for the Canadian economy. Perhaps Stephen Harper should stop calling himself an economist…
- Still waiting to see the FIRST respected non-partisan affiliated environmental group to say the Green Shift won’t likely result in significant decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the NDP should clue in...
- Still waiting for John Baird (you know our Environment Minister) to make his FIRST public comments on the Green Shift plan. After losing all credibility with the rest of the world, I guess Baird has lost credibility with his own party as well. Either that or Baird knows well enough that his party is wrong on the Green Shift and can't bring himself to parrot the Conservative talking points.
- Still waiting to see the FIRST sign of real global leadership from Stephen Harper on climate change. Harper's "you first" attitude is driving Canada's reputation down the toilet
- Still waiting for the FIRST public poll that shows that public support for the Liberals has been hurt by the Green Shift like all the naysayers claimed it would. Guess Canadians are a lot smarter than the pundits gave them credit.
- Still waiting for the alliance of Liberal Premiers to come out against this plan like had been predicted…
- Still waiting for anything to be up on the NDP website about the Green Shift SINCE the plan was released (the release they put out before the plan was released on taxing the poor was completely debunked and not even Layton parrots those talking points anymore). I guess the cat has caught the NDP’s tongue…I saw Layton on CTV’s Question Period and all he could say was that he feared the Green Shift wouldn’t reduce emissions (which no environmental group agrees with him on) and that Stephen Harper’s comments about the plan were unbecoming and wrong. I can see Jack is struggling here…
- Still waiting for Jack Layton to explain how his cap-and-trade plan can be implemented “right now” as he claims. Do you know who is in government right now Jack? Do you know how cap-and-trade fared in Europe? You’ll get a real effective cap-and-trade system (like the one the Liberals proposed over a year ago that includes absolute targets) with a Liberal government, no sooner, that’s just reality.
- Still waiting for Jack Layton to acknowledge that he is completely off-side with the entire environmental community with his criticisms of the Green Shift (when confronted with this on QP all he said was basically “I like debate” but couldn’t name any groups that support his view of the Green Shift). The best approach is going to be implementing the Green Shift as soon as possible and then working to set up an effective cap-and-trade system. That’s what the Liberals have proposed and what everyone who is serious about the environment agrees on. The NDP would rather we dither and even then only want to tackle half the problem (GHG emissions from big business, but not from individuals).
- Still waiting for Stephen Harper to stop cowering from a debate with Stephane Dion on climate change. With Harper even afraid now to debate Dion in Calgary it's obvious to everyone that Harper knows he's got nothing intelligent to say or propose himself on the environment.

Something tells me I should stop waiting for all these things to happen… In the meantime I’ll continue to be glad to be supporting a plan that all the experts, and an ever growing cross-partisan coalition, agree is the best plan for our environment and economy.

While the NDP and Conservatives remain in denial about this plan, Stephane Dion will continue to be the only adult in this debate telling Canadians how it’s well past time for Canada to show leadership on this issue and how he'll get the job done.

At the G8 conference in Japan this upcoming week (July 7-9) I think it will be made painfully clear why Canada needs a leader like Stephane Dion as our Prime Minister.


UPDATE: There’s been a Baird sighting! He’s come out of hiding to remind us why he's been kept hidden all this time. Thanks John for lending even more credibility to those economists who are most supportive of the Green Shift! I guess it was too good to be true to expect Baird to remain in hibernation forever (though the Conservatives may soon regret that they let him out), but still waiting for all the rest of these things to happen...

Recommend this Post

The Green Shift: The Right Plan to Make Canada a World Leader Again

Yesterday Canadians saw a party leader willing to take the necessary steps to protect our environment and economy in the most fair and equitable way. The Green Shift stands miles ahead of anything else other parties have on offer as the most effective way to combat climate change, while transforming our tax system in a way that makes the most sense for stimulating work and investment in the kinds of technologies we want our companies investing in.

Opponents will continue to fear-monger and engage in semantic debates in an attempt to distract, but those who believe there could be a perfect policy that is painless for every Canadian are delusional really don’t have business being in government. With the Green Shift in place the ONLY people that will pay more will be those who pollute more than they should. The plan creates a strong incentive to be environmentally friendly and given the ample evidence that people respond to appropriate price signals will therefore decrease our greenhouse gas emissions and SAVE many Canadians money overall each year of this plan and that’s the bottom line. I think each of the arguments coming out against this plan are easily addressed and one can see this is about the most balanced plan you could possibly put forward to accomplish the goals it sets out to do.

The Conservative Arguments

It would seem the Conservative response is to pretend they didn’t praise Gordon Campbell’s revenue neutral plan and call Stephane Dion a liar who can’t be trusted when he says all the money collected from a carbon tax will be returned to tax-payers. I think Stephane Dion was good to call them out on this when he asked blatantly today “are they calling Gordon Campbell a liar too?” You can’t have it both ways Stephen Harper. B.C. showed it can be done and the Liberals will enshrine IN LAW that all dollars raised by a carbon tax MUST be returned to taxpayers. This is little different than Conservative promises to return all money saved on interest on Canadian debt paid off through future tax cuts (so any money saved on interest is returned to taxpayers). Liberals will similarly enshrine in legislation that added any added revenue must be returned to taxpayers. To say the Liberals would go back on such a central platform claim of doing just that is really hard to believe given Stephane Dion’s reputation for sound integrity that is recognized by ALL parties. And if Conservatives want to turn around and say tax credits are really spending programs and therefore the plan isn’t literally “revenue-neutral” well then the Conservatives are going to have to go back and re-write all their press releases on past budgets of theirs that called tax credits “tax relief” or even “tax cuts”: they may want to have it both ways but Canadians are smarter than that as we know the Conservatives were the kings of putting in place tax credits. The difference is for Liberals there is a compelling rationale for each one based on need and fairness and encouraging investments, while for Conservatives their tax credits come largely from focus-groups and polling in a bid for a few extra votes.

Also to act like Stephane Dion changing his mind on carbon taxes is some big sign of his dishonesty is a bit rich coming from the man who famously promised not to tax income trusts and then with no prior notice did so anyway: bankrupting many families’ savings in the process. I disagreed with the way that was done and prefer the Liberal plan on income trusts, but Harper did provide justifications for why he changed his mind and Stephane Dion has provided justifications for why he changed his. For Conservatives to accept one and reject the other is patently dishonest. People aren’t rigid automatons embedded with same beliefs for decades, Stephane Dion has observed what’s happened in Europe (where they have been problems getting a formal cap-and-trade system up and running and where some countries have had demonstrated successes with carbon taxes) and had lengthy discussions with his caucus on the best environmental and economic plan to put forward. Many politicians have also changed their minds on same-sex marriage in recent years, people can change their opinions and as long as they can justify the change of heart we should be fine with that especially if they have come around to the adopting the best approach (like allowing same-sex marriage and combating climate change with a Green Shift).

The reality is many small c-Conservatives and economists back this plan and deep down probably many members of the Conservative Party know it is the best approach as well. In opposing the Green Shift and calling it “insane” and “crazy” Conservatives have abandoned their principles in favour of pandering for votes based on a disinformation and fear campaign. When you have NO worthwhile plan (not a single independent group thinks it will come close to meaningfully decreasing greenhouse gas emissions) of your own I guess there’s little else you can do though.

The NDP Arguments

The NDP response I saw today from Tom Mulclair was just to say that you had to pick between cap-and-trade and carbon taxes and you couldn’t do both, that they can’t be complementary. Somewhat surprising to hear from a former Quebec minister of the environment since Quebec IS doing both, as is B.C. Not to mention that Kyoto is global cap-and-trade and many countries with carbon taxes participate in it. The NDP I think has many members who would favour a Green Shift in combination with cap-and-trade like the Liberals do, but Jack Layton has thrown down the anchor and therefore they have to make due with what they have. They claimed the Liberal plan would harm the most vulnerable and that’s clearly NOT the case. Now the NDP is left opposing a plan that goes to some length in combating climate change and does so in a very fair and equitable way. The Liberals have also made a clear commitment to both cap and trade and a Green Shift. Environmentalists are lining up to say the Liberals have the better plan and I think the NDP is just at a loss right now for what to do (I note that as of now they have no response to the plan on their website). As a party that seems to like using Conservative talking points against the Liberals I’m sure disinformation will be their ultimate chosen approach as well.

The Outside Sceptics’ Arguments

Now I know there are some people that are mostly supportive of this plan, but have some reservations. I think again that it is impossible to have a perfect policy, and any meaningful environmental policy will have some costs passed on to the consumer, but I think this has the best balance. If you stuck to the rigid idea that “revenue-neutral” must mean that all amounts raised must be literally returned through income and corporate tax cuts proper then you would be clearly creating a situation where those with low or fixed incomes, live in rural or northern areas or have more children in the home would be clearly disadvantaged by a carbon tax relative to other Canadians. Liberals believe in balancing social justice with the economy and the environment and this plan does that with the tax credits component and it is still giving the money back to taxpayers as promised. So this plan has very substantial personal and income tax cuts proper but it definitely needed more than that and I’m glad to see it does.

Each of the tax credits such as those for seniors, low-income Canadians, families and rural and northern Canadians ensures that there will be a level playing field so that if those individuals are just as environmentally friendly as other Canadians they will save just as much money. There will be no “grannies freezing in the dark” as some people liked to claim under this plan the most vulnerable are CLEARLY protected against losing money under this plan as they should be. The plan is also well designed to minimize any administrative costs as carbon is taxed at the wholesale level and rather than creating many new tax credits as Stephen Harper has done (which adds more administrative costs), the plan mostly enhances those tax credits that already exist.

We also need to protect our industries so having a carbon tariff would be important in ensuring we don’t face unfair trade conditions. France President Sarkozy proposed taxing countries that didn’t meet their Kyoto targets and I believe the WTO allows for you to impose duties when you can demonstrate you face an unfair trade environment so I don’t believe is something completely novel being talked about here.

Finally it is very important that we be creating extra incentives for individuals to green their homes and invest in green technologies because if Canadians did this on a large scale then we would see dramatic reductions in energy consumption and those same Canadians will save even more money as an added bonus. Liberals will be doing this as well.

The reality is that to leave out all these kinds of incentives and tax credits would be creating a flawed and unfair plan that would go against what Liberals stand for.

So this plan does as it should: encourage environmentally friendly behaviour and investment while re-structuring our tax system in a way that will make us more competitive in the global market. It also commits to returning all the money raised back to taxpayers and ensures most Canadians will reap large savings as a result.

With the Green Shift Dion has finally unveiled the perfect mesh of his three pillars of social justice, economic prosperity and social justice and I am very glad to see this come to fruition.

Now the real campaign begins: getting past the spin and lies of the other parties and vested interests against this and communicating to Canadians why this is the plan we need, why it is fair, how it gets the job done and how the Liberals are the only party that is serious about taking on the challenges we face ahead of us.

Recommend this Post