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

A Tale of Two Harper's

Below is a comparison of Stephen Harper and his party’s election statements with their post-election ones on a range of issues. What we are seeing with each passing week is a Stephen Harper slowly reversing everything he said in the last election. Yet amazingly he seems to have reversed himself on so many fronts without having to openly admit he was wrong or mistaken in his original view. In some cases he had the wrong position in the election and a better one now and sometimes the opposite, but is it too much to ask that the media actually call him to task when he contradicts himself so quickly? That Harper be forced to own up to the mistakes he’s made? So here’s just a small number of examples…

	Election Harper Conservative Positions	Post-Election Harper Conservative Positions
On Deficits	"Stephen Harper, who's vowed to avoid a deficit in any circumstances – without raising taxes – says he considers questions about how he'd therefore cut spending to avoid going into the red as the economy weakens 'a ridiculous hypothetical scenario.' " (Oct 11 2008)	"it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term" (Throne Speech, Nov 19 2008) [Canada – now faces] "the classic circumstances under which budgetary deficits are essential." (Nov 22 2008)
On the Seriousness of the Financial Crisis	"if we were going to have some kind of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.” (Sept 15 2008) "I think there's probably some great buying opportunities emerging in the stock market as the consequence of all this panic" (Oct 6 2008)	"The financial crisis has become an economic crisis, and the world is entering an economic period unlike, and potentially as dangerous, as anything we have faced since 1929" (Nov 21 2008) "We may well be in a technical recession the last quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year" (Jim Flaherty, Nov 23 2008)
On Dion’s Proposed First Minister’s Conference	"Stephen Harper swiftly dismissed the proposals as a flurry of needless meetings" (Oct 1 2008)	“The prime minister called for the meeting the day after winning his second minority government on Oct. 14, adopting part of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's plan for dealing with the financial and economic crisis. During the election, Harper dismissed the Dion plan as an indication he was "panicking." (Nov 10 2008)
On Dion’s Proposed Accelerated Infrastructure Spending	"Leaders need to have a plan and not panic. You panicked, Stephane'' (Oct 1 2008)	"Stephen Harper said he's confident that billions of dollars in funding for big-ticket projects - such as roads, transit and sewers - will be accelerated in the next year." (Nov 10 2008)
On Dion’s Proposed Review of Canada’s Regulatory System	"It seems the Liberals are making it up as they go" (Oct 4 2008 - Conservative War Room mocking John McCallum saying that it would be due diligence to do such a review)	“I have initiated, since the election campaign ended, a pretty comprehensive internal evaluation of Canada's own domestic systems of regulation in response to the international financial crisis” (Oct 30 2008)
On Afghanistan	"While there may be a few Canadian soldiers who stay on after 2011 as advisers, the bulk of the troops will be home by then, Harper said" (Sep 10 2008)	"We are in Afghanistan for the long term under a United Nations mandate for as long as we are needed and welcomed by the Afghan people." (Peter Mackay, Nov 21 2008)

Most of those were said by Stephen Harper himself (or his comments paraphrased by the media), but I’ve noted where it came from one of his Ministers or his War Room, but as we all know almost nothing comes from the party without his approval (bird poop incident notwithstanding). I’ll update this list over time as I discover new contradictions (please feel free to post more in the comments), or Harper unveils more for us.

There are surely many more (I hope the Liberals are keeping a running tab), but with it being not even a month and a half since the election what does this say about a man who reverses himself on so many fronts so quickly? How do his supporters defend this? Why should we believe anything Stephen Harper says in the future?

I wonder what Stephen Harper’s response would be if he were ever confronted with such a table. Thankfully for him the media have short memories and likely won’t call Harper on his all of these contradictions at any of his press conferences when they have the chance. It would be nice to be proved wrong on that count for once though.

UPDATE: BC'er also traces Harper’s “evolving” views on the deficit here.

UPDATE 2: More of the Harper government’s ever-changing views here, here, and here.

Recommend this Post

The Media Lockdown in Winnipeg

That sign above is the sign that popped up this morning to greet reporters, in case we forgot during our night’s sleep that we’re not allowed to witness the true Conservative party – their grass roots.

Yes, the media has been shut out, as many of you you are all aware. The media is none too pleased about being it though, as this was also a shock to them. Yesterday the media filling room was packed, and today it seems less so. I swear some reporters just didn’t bother to show up this morning. I hear from Dawg that one reporter complained to Harper this morning that the media accessibility is similar to that of Beijing and Moscow, and Harper’s reaction was “so???”. One reporter even acknowledged that things have gotten so bad, that the bloggers have resulted into interviewing each other! It’s no wonder Liberal leadership news has gotten so much attention here. This should be a weekend of Tory news, you’d think the Tories would welcome that and welcome any news away from the potential next leader of the Liberals, but no…

What blows my mind is that this is a bad pattern from the Conservative side: during the recent campaign, some days Harper would not take any questions at all from the media. He had one media availability a day, sometimes none. And when he did talk to them he was extremely picky about questions. Contrast that to the media’s accessibility to the Liberals: media avails at least twice a day, free range on questions. And even through all that, I would argue that the media still favoured the Tories. This is the same government that years ago, the Toronto Star uncovered that they wanted to erect a multi-million dollar war style media room to replace the press theatre to attempt to control (or influence) the media.

It’s odd though because as I write this, delegates have been walking into the media room and even raiding our one perk – soft drinks. It seems they can go everywhere, do anything. We media may complain about our accessibility, or lack thereof, but at least we respect it our boundaries.

We have basically been life with no idea what is going on here. We are just waiting here hoping someone will tell us that “A Tory MP is going to walk by the doors, maybe you can get some questions”, in which the response will be the standard Tory press release. A Tory staffer came into the media room and said, “If you want Tony, he’s out there, go quickly to get him”. Tony sees us all coming and his eyes widen. We’re not going to run him over. He seems a bit flattered but he doesn’t have time for us, he’s late for a fancy reception. “Call my press secretary, she’ll arrange something”. A few moments later, Peter Mckay walks out to actually take some questions (maybe he was told to go out because he can he was told we’re bit annoyed at the bones we’re getting). I’ll have more on his “insightful” scrum later.

You have to be creative here, you have to aggressive to get some scoops and interviews with the people who know what is going in on the inside. I think the blogger’s here are at an disadvantage. All the big time reporters have contacts on the inside, and the name recognition to attract the odd interview (though it does seem that even the delegates are avoiding the press and are refusing to speak to reporters. I asked one delegate to show me the contact of his delegate pack, and he refused!).

Reporters are accustomed to rules and working around them. Most still like the traditional writing of pieces. I even just found out that the media have been getting a few tid bits from the PMO’s Press secretary. I’ve asked to be put on that list. But bloggers like writing off the cuff, and giving details of what’s being said and done. Blogs are to report from the ground directly out, with no filters. Well now we got more than filter going on here.

I went to a hospitality suite last night, which was hosted by the Canadian Private Copying Collective. I thought this was going to be THE hospitality suite of the weekend, considering who its being put on by and their support of the controversial Bill C-61. They were thrilled to have a media person attend their event, and I was happy to hear from them. They must have thought there was no media at this convention. By the Conservatives keeping us separate, these groups that are here and are even welcomed by the party, aren’t getting the publicity they want. And they should get it, both sides. The Copying Collective put on an expensive suite, and the media are no doubt paying a very pretty penny to be able to “cover” this event. Such groups are here helping to support the convention because they want to meet not only individuals, but the media to give their perspectives and get into a debate. After the convention ends, I’ll discuss a little what I discussed with the reps from the Copying collective, but I did find it extremely ironic that while this is the group that wants to ban the idea of copying music (free music) they gave out several artist’s CD’s to those who visited the suite, and I was glad to meet the artist of ONE of those CD’s. And of course their opponents in this debate don’t have the riches to put on such events to give their side either.

While we’re supposed to be having access to tomorrow’s floor debates, I hope that’s not all we have access to tomorrow. And I do hope that while we can’t attend the “serious” part of the convention, that they’ll at least let us attend the celebration with Paul Brandt. But hey, if I ever wanted to know what it would be like if I were to professionally take up journalism, I can only assume that these are the types of things I would be looking forward to right???

Recommend this Post

Some Perspective: Where Were We At This Point Last Time? Part 2

UPDATED: Strategic Counsel (including tonight's poll added)
I don’t generally like to blog about polls, but with it being so close to e-day they take on a lot more relevance. But we should also take into account how the polls were at this point last time and I remain disappointed that no media outlet has done so. So to give a more balanced view of the polls here are the polling results from the main companies at the equivalent point before E-day(Jan. 20th, 2006) last time compared to today:

Polling Company	Conservative	Liberal	NDP	Green	Bloc	Lib-Cons Diff
Nanos	36.2	29.4	17.3	6.1	11	6.8%
Ipsos-Reid	38	26	19	5	11	12%
Ekos	37.1	26.9	19.5	4.6	11.5	10.2%
Strategic Counsel	38	28	17	7	11	10%
Decima (Jan. 15)	37	27	18	---	11	10%

And here are the results as of today:

Polling Company	Conservative	Liberal	NDP	Green	Bloc	Lib-Cons Diff
Nanos	32 (-4.2)	28 (-1.4)	22 (+4.7)	8 (+1.9)	10 (-1)	4%(-2.8%)
Ipsos-Reid	34 (-4)	29 (+3)	18 (-1)	8 (+3)	9 (-2)	5%(-7%)
Ekos	34 (-3.1)	26 (-0.9)	19 (-0.5)	11 (+6.4)	10(-1.5)	8%(-2.2%)
Strategic Counsel	35 (-3)	28 (NC)	19 (+2)	9(+2)	9(-2)	7%(-3%)
Decima	35 (-2)	25 (-2)	18 (NC)	11	9 (-2)	10%(NC, but poll was taken 8 days before e-day last time

I couldn’t find the regional poll numbers from 2006 it would be interesting to compare how those compared as well, if anyone can find them please put them in the comments.

But with respect to the national numbers what’s changed compared to 2006? Well Conservative support is actually more down now in the polls than at this point last time than the Liberal vote is. The good news for Liberals is that Conservatives ended up doing worse on e-day than most of the pollsters pegged them and the Liberals ended up doing better.

NDP supporters might find it interesting to see that, with the exception of Nanos (ironically Dippers have been slagging the accuracy of Nanos all election and were talking up Decima not too long ago), they are exactly where they were last time despite having spent far more money and having run a much stronger campaign this time out. The Greens are the only ones
consistently up from where they were before.

But one thing is clear: the polls are showing a closer race between the Liberals and Conservatives than last time at this point. But it would seem that this time voter’s preferences are even more volatile as we’ve seen much more wild swings in support in the past week of the campaign this time around.

In the end though only Liberals or Conservatives can win and whichever one has the better final weekend, makes the most effective ad buys AND (most importantly) gets out the vote best on e-day will win.

Be back later with much more...

Recommend this Post

Some Perspective: Where Were We At This Point Last Time?

While the press are out making all sorts of predictions, I thought it might be a good time for some responsible reporting about the race as it stands compared to last time. Below are a sample of poll numbers from all firms from the last election. Amazingly the SES/NANOS numbers are EXACTLY reversed, Liberals were up 38-30 at the exact same point in the race. They even took a 15 point lead 3 days later. Though I don't remember seeing a single media outlet saying the only possibilities were a Liberal minority or majority, in fact I remember blogging Tories and the National Post columnists remained quite confident of an impending Conservative victory. Why is the media coverage so radically different this time? The Conservatives didn’t close the gap on the Liberals in a single poll until 3 weeks into the campaign (which was actually before the income trust bombshell after which the Liberals never had the lead again) and the media never counted them out, so why the bias this time? Why are polls instead of issues dominating campaign coverage? It would be nice to see at least some major reporters address this.

It's obviously not debatable that the Conservatives are ahead now, but there are 30 days left in this campaign. I agree with Paul Wells, campaigns matter and getting all riled up by polls this far out is a needless distraction. It will take hard work to win this thing, but it is far too soon to start making predictions about the outcome about the outcome. Stéphane Dion and his team need to do everything they can to make sure they get their message out loud and clear of the stark choice faced in this election, why we cannot afford another term with Harper as PM, and why he and the Liberal Party will provide real leadership we can be proud of. But every week they must learn the lessons from the last. The rest of us Liberals need to do all we can to help from the ground and spread our party's message.

But let's not worry about the media coverage, for whatever reason the press seem to want Harper to win and are constructing the narrative accordingly. But the media won't decide this election - there's a lot of hearts and minds out there still to win and they can be won. Despite what Harper says, the majority of Canadians' views are far more in line with the Liberal party than his - Canadians want a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government, not a fiscally reckless and socially regressive one like we have today. It's a long road, but with hard work and focus we can pull ahead and give Canadians a government they can be proud of.

Be back soon with my week 1 recap (here).

UPDATED: Two good reality checks: On the polls and on why Harper would start criticizing the NDP (hint: it’s not because he believes Layton will ever crack 20% in the polls).

POLLS - 2006 CANADIAN ELECTION

SES/NANOS DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/03/06 DAY 37	36	33	15	13	4	±3.1	-
12/30/05 DAY 33	35	35	14	13	4	±3.1	-
12/29/05 DAY 32	34	35	14	13	5	±3.1	-
12/28/05 DAY 31	32	38	14	13	4	±3.1	-
12/22/05 DAY 25	29	39	15	12	5	±3.2	-
12/08/05 DAY 11	26	41	18	11	4	±3.2	-
12/07/05 DAY 10	26	40	18	11	4	±3.2	-
12/06/05 DAY 9	28	40	17	11	4	±3.2	-
12/05/05 DAY 8	30	38	16	11	4	±3.2
STRATEGIC COUNSEL DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/04/06 DAY 38	32	32	17	13	6	±2.5	-
12/31/05 DAY 34	31	33	17	14	6	±3.1	-
12/22/05 DAY 25	30	33	18	14	5	±2.5	-
12/08/05 DAY 11	30	36	15	14	5	±2.5	-
12/07/05 DAY 10	29	35	16	13	6	±2.5	-
12/06/05 DAY 9	29	35	16	14	6	±2.5	-
12/05/05 DAY 8	29	35	16	14	6	±2.3	-
IPSOS-REID DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/05/06 DAY 39	35	31	18	10	5	±2.2	-
12/31/05 DAY 34	33	32	18	12	5	±3.1	-
12/22/05 DAY 25	32	33	16	13	5	±3.1	-
12/12/05 DAY 15	27	36	17	14	5	±3.1	-
12/08/05 DAY 11	30	34	16	14	5	±3.1	-
12/03/05 DAY 6	31	33	17	14	5	±2.0	-
EKOS DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/03/06 DAY 39	35.5	32.0	19.1	9.7	3.1	-
12/03/05 DAY 6	27.4	34.1	18.4	14.0	6.0	±2.7
LEGER DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/04/06 DAY 38	34	32	16	11	5	±2.5
12/21/05 DAY 24	28	36	17	12	5	±3.1
12/07/05 DAY 10	27	39	16	12	5	±2.2
DECIMA DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
01/08/05 DAY 42	36	27	20	11	-	±3.1
12/31/05 DAY 34	30	32	18	14	-	±3.1
12/09/05 DAY 12	27	36	20	13	4	±1.5
12/06/05 DAY 9	26	34	20	14	-	±1.5
POLLARA DATE	CON	LIB	NDP	BQ	GREEN	MOE	-
12/19/05 DAY 22	34	37	17	10	-	-
12/11/05 DAY 11	30	38	15	12	-	-

Source: nodice.ca

Recommend this Post

Harper Skirts Spending Limits as His “Team” Grows Weaker

This story if true is quite telling. It says Harper will wait until Sunday to call the election, wasting the maximum of TAXPAYER’S money so he can spend the maximum of his PARTY’S money before an election call. Will the media call him on this? Doubt it. It’s not illegal of course, but it is a gross abuse of power and definitely unethical. How can Harper go into an election saying he’ll be the steady hand for the economy when he has such reckless disregard for taxpayer’s money. Even if Harper called the election today this concern would remain. With Stephen Harper every time it is party before country – he simply can’t be trusted to have the best interests of Canadians in mind.

Then there’s the other story of some of the stronger members of his team heading for the exits. Emerson was no doubt the biggest fish in a small pond, while Hearn was the only member of the team from Newfoundland deemed cabinet worthy. So the weakest bench in generations would be even weaker if re-elected – Can Canadians really afford that in tough economic times? There will be a big contrast between the Liberal TEAM and the Conservative lack of a team in this up coming election for sure. Not to mention Stéphane Dion’s integrity and positive vision will compare favourably against Stephen Harper’s constant deception and his appalling record. . I like how we stack up.

Recommend this Post

The Green Shift Carries On As Planned

So I know the media like sensational stories and all, but really the new benefits for farmers, truckers, and fishermen are exactly in line with Dion said he was going to do - he said he would consult with Canadians over the summer. In fact before publishing such stories perhaps members of the media could look at the plan itself and see that these benefits are actually allowed for right in the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. It says on p.38-39:
Contingency offset
We will set aside $1 billion over four years ($100 million in the first year growing to $400 million in the fourth year) which will be reserved for tax cuts designed to off-set the impact of the carbon tax on groups such as not-for-profit organizations and charities. This contingency offset will also be used to design tax relief to address unanticipated and unavoidable costs associated with the new price on carbon for the most vulnerable in society.

So the plan remains just as solid as before, backed by environmentalists on the left and economists on the right – any sensible analysis says it is the approach we need for the environment and the economy. And the plan has been improved based on consultations with Canadians. That IS the leadership we need for Canada.

UPDATE: Jason, Jeff, and Big City Lib also have thoughts on this

Recommend this Post

Conservative Image Make-Over Won’t Fly

So the Conservatives have re-modeled their website so it’s no longer all negative-all the time. I guess they thought it was about time they started talking about the guy they wanted re-elected as PM. They've done their best to make Harper into such a nice, friendly, middle of the road guy, but unfortunately for them, everything he has done on record as PM is exactly the opposite of what they are trying to portray. This would be a good website if Stephen Harper were running the first time, but sorry this is not the Stephen Harper we all know. Will the “Liberal media” swallow it though? I know Warren has argued in the past that the media is itching for its revenge on Stephen Harper but so far I’ve seen NO evidence of that, in fact the opposite – when there are 4 polls out there this past week, with 3 favouring a Liberal victory, the media focuses on which one? Maybe they like having fights with Stephen Harper as PM and don't want a more open PM in Dion? We shall see once the writ drops how the coverage goes but if I had to bet now I’d say the media will be much more friendly to the Conservatives than the Liberals in the upcoming campaign.

At the least though I don’t think it’s too much to ask that media newspapers DO NOT accept letters to the editor that you can plug in for them that come directly from the new conservative.ca. I guess if the other parties do the same thing during the writ it’s fair game, but so far I haven’t seen that, so I would hope newspapers would do the ethical thing here and not accept letters submitted directly from the Conservative website. I wonder if a single media outlet will report on this tactic of the Conservatives though. Regardless, in this election it will be up to Liberals to get the real story about the Conservatives through – Stephen Harper is NOT on your side. I know we will and the image make-over the Conservatives are trying to pull off just won't fly.

Recommend this Post

In and Out Grows More Scandalous By the Day

So if these were local ads then why (as was reported in Le Devoir and then by Paul Wells) do we keep getting more evidence that all the decisions regarding the transactions were being made by the national campaign without consulting the local ridings themselves? The Cons seemed to just have no regard for the national spending limit or the concerns of their local candidates.

Not to mention that there are now suspicions that another “In and Out” operation may have been done with the Cons polling as well.

What will be Pierre Poilievre’s response to all this?

Given that all the Con talking points have been completely shot down one by one, maybe finally we’ve gotten to the point where all he can say is “no comment”.

Then again, it certainly doesn’t hurt the Liberal cause whenever he opens his mouth :)

Maybe they should just get MP Mike Wallace as their new spokesman, clearly he's been paying close attention these past two years (as evidenced by his comment "We have been running a solid clean proactive government since we were elected in January 2006" (h/t BC'er)). I think we might all appreciate someone even more delusional than Pierre in charge of Conservative communications.

At the least I hope the English language media does their job and picks up on how much worse the "In and Out" scandal is getting, not to mention all the other scandals Harper and the Cons are embroiled in.

Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper and the Quebecois Nation Part 2

My hiatus notwithstanding I couldn't resist this story about Harper wanting to "bolster" Quebec in the constitution.

When this last came up over the Christmas holidays this was what I had to say:

"I was a bit alarmed to read this over at Paul Wells' blog. Stephen Harper apparently has been telling the Quebec media (in La Presse specifically) the following:“Stephen Harper souhaite que la résolution qui reconnaît les Québécois comme une nation soit incluse dans la Constitution canadienne”

Translation: Stephen Harper hopes that the resolution recognizing the “Québécois” as a nation can be included in the Canadian Constitution!

I didn’t support this when Ignatieff proposed it (too divisive and not what we should be focusing on now), but this is even worse, at least Ignatieff was proposing to recognize Aboriginals at the same time, I seriously doubt Harper would do that.

But my main gripe here is that Ignatieff got hell over this proposal in the English media for weeks with countless editorials slamming it and saying the Liberals would doom themselves if they followed it.

Now when Harper proposes the exact same thing the only English journalist we hear from about this is the French (France) columnist from Macleans?And people say we have a “Liberal media” in Canada?"

So it seems the English language media is now finally starting to pay attention, but what I said over 3 months I think still applies equally as well. I would be extremely surprised to see the kinds of condemnatory editorials written about this topic when Ignatieff proposed it be written in reference to Harper's proposal. At the least, if Harper is criticized at all for this, the criticisms will be quite toned down from what Igantieff received because Harper essentially has the media his in pocket these days (I bet this week both James Travers and Chantal Hebert pen columns this week praising this latest gambit as "genius").

As it to why this is being raised again, I would guess it's another attempt by Harper to sow divisions amongst the Liberals and try to get them divided over this issue, while also trying to put them on the defensive in Quebec. However, I think Liberals can come to a consensus that we can't ignore the concerns of Quebecers by any means but that solutions can be found OUTSIDE the constitution and I think that view would be supported by a large majority of Canadians (and even a good chunk of federalists who remember how Meech and Charlottetown ultimately bolstered the separatist forces).

As well, I think we can't forget about Aboriginals here, why recognize Quebecers and not Aboriginals? Let Stephen Harper answer that question (I imaigne no one in the media will ask him though).

Also Harper should be asked, what 7 Premiers (governing provinces making up at least 50% of the population) will he be getting to support this? Would they even come to the table? If not, what's the point of this grandstanding? Because after all, I think that's all this is: Harper promising something he will never deliver - anything to try to get his majority (I hope in the end enough Quebecers will see through this).

That said, as I have indicated before, I think going back into constitutional discussions will be extremely divisive across the country and will almost certainly end up where we were the last time this was tried: negotiations collapsing and the country being more divided and Quebecers more angry at the rest of the country than they were before. So I hope Liberals aren't tempted to support Harper's latest proposal.

I just hope the media can do their job on this and be as critical as they should be of this.

Back to the books....

UPDATE: It seems Harper's ministers are contradicting each other now, so maybe the glowing revivews from Travers and Hebert will be put on hold.

However, this does mean that Harper should be asked pointed questions on exactly where his government stands. He can't get away with having one minister promise something and having another say "oh, maybe later". Harper himself has said he wants Quebec's demands recognized in the constitution so he needs to make his position clear one and for all and not be allowed to play all sides on this issue.

And while they are at it, why not ask Harper what Rona Ambrose is up to these days as the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister? As BC'er points out it seems she's been pretty busy on this portfolio of late.

Again I hope the media does its job here....

Recommend this Post

Good Policy, Sad Distortions

I have to say Stephane Dion’s infrastructure plan is the right approach we need for an issue that sorely needs government attention. Infrastructure and transit are in dire need of more federal funding. Bridges, tunnels across the country are crumbling and it would cost more later to fix them then it would now. As well, governments should be doing everything they can to prevent tragedies like the falling overpass in Quebec from ever happening again.

We also need to be building up strong public transit networks in the big cities of Canada to cut the number of cars on the road, decrease smog and decrease CO2 emissions so that Canada can start taking a lead on combating global warming. Unfortunately the right amount of funding is not there to do this and in fact some cities have had to cut back their transit networks. The Conservatives have provided some funding for infrastructure but not nearly enough and if they are allowed to stay in power longer our infrastructure and public transit systems will only get worse.

While Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper don’t care, I’m glad to see Stephane Dion does. His plan is fiscally conservative but also as generous as it should be. At a time of economic uncertainty the right approach is not to make billions and billions of dollars in promises and risk a deficit, but to say that we need to be paying down at least $3 billion a year in debt, but beyond that, additional surplus funds should go to infrastructure. So in tough times we won’t be draining the treasury but when a Liberal government helps get Canada back on its feet again economically and we get a reasonable surplus again, the infrastructure needs in this country will be fully met.

We won’t get this under a Conservative government because they have the wrong priorities for this country, don’t know how to manage the economy, and just don’t care about the needs of cities.

Though you’d think the policy was pretty clear and straightforward: only money over and beyond a $3 billion surplus goes to infrastructure. Still that hasn’t stopped the media from having misleading headlines and people like the NDP making stupid statements based on bad spin.

The headline from CTV: “Dion promises to spend billions on infrastructure”

You’d think from that headline that Dion has made an iron clad promise to spend billions each year no matter the economic forecast and no matter if it puts us into deficit.

Then of course the NDP chime in with their nonsense:
“The NDP says they are not sure where the Liberals will come up with the money to pay for all of their promises....Where is the money going to come from," asked the NDP's national capital commission critic Paul Dewar on Mike Duffy Live.”

I’m sorry but I guess Paul didn’t actually pay attention to what Dion said, it would come out of surplus money, so in good economic times there would be more and in bad times there would be less. So it’s pretty clear where the money would come from. Surely next the Tories will say “Dion is going to have to raise taxes to pay for this promise”

Well Dion’s plan is much more sensible than the media or the other parties lay out, you can’t say it’s not fiscally responsible and you can’t say this issue doesn’t desperately need to be addressed.

When the Liberals put out a great policy, like the carbon budget, like the poverty plan, like this infrastructure plan, the response from the other parties (and sometimes even the media) is always the same, pretend Stephane Dion said something else, throw in some scare tactics (“this plan wil ruin the economy, he’s gonna raise your taxes, boo!”) and spin every way possible.

Anything but admit that the Liberals once again have it right.

Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper and the "Quebecois" nation

I was a bit alarmed to read this over at Paul Wells' blog. Stephen Harper apparently has been telling the Quebec media (in La Presse specifically) the following:

“Stephen Harper souhaite que la résolution qui reconnaît les Québécois comme une nation soit incluse dans la Constitution canadienne”

Translation: Stephen Harper hopes that the resolution recognizing the “Québécois” as a nation can be included in the Canadian Constitution!

I didn’t support this when Ignatieff proposed it (too divisive and not what we should be focusing on now), but this is even worse, at least Ignatieff was proposing to recognize Aboriginals at the same time, I seriously doubt Harper would do that.

But my main gripe here is that Ignatieff got hell over this proposal in the English media for weeks with countless editorials slamming it and saying the Liberals would doom themselves if they followed it.

Now when Harper proposes the exact same thing the only English journalist we hear from about this is the French (France) columnist from Macleans?

And people say we have a “Liberal media” in Canada?

Recommend this Post

Sorbara and Opposition Nonsense

So with McGuinty’s new cabinet being sworn on Tuesday, it’s back to Provincial politics. Of course the big news this week was Sorbara saying he wouldn’t sit in cabinet. He cited deep personal reasons and wanting to spend more time with his family, which is a reason we accepted for several female Liberals who recently left politics, so I take him at his word that has nothing to do with political issues or differences. At the same time, he can still serve his constituents (after all you don’t have to be unemployed to spend sufficient time with your family).

Though I’ve been disappointed with some of the coverage of this and the response from the opposition. Adam Radwanski usually has some great things to say that from time to time I agree with, but I don't buy what Radwanski is suggesting about this resignation. Sorbara has been one of McGuinty’s biggest allies over the past 8 years and has worked his ass off to help him. McGuinty in return repaid him with the top cabinet post. There was certainly no Chretien-Martin like animosity between the two whatsoever so suggestions that Sorbara is doing this to plot leadership ambitions I think is false given that this would not be the way to go around doing that anyway (you would stay in cabinet and continue to show yourself to a team player and strong performer). So again I think Sorbara has personal reasons to resign and probably would have actually wanted to return to Finance but was persuaded otherwise by his family.

But then there was the shameful response from John Tory and the NDP. First Tory:
“I think the average IQ around that cabinet table just crashed with his departure, and I’m concerned about that for the sake of the province,” said Tory ...I just wish he’d announced he was leaving before the election. I think people would have taken a different look at the McGuinty government without the brains of the operation being there.”

This is BS. First of all, was Tory saying this the last time Sorbara left cabinet? No Tory was insinuating that the RCMP had good reason to investigate Sorbara (of course the RCMP were strongly rebuked on this and Sorbara was completely removed from the investigation) and that McGuinty should distance himself as far as possible from him. Meanwhile, McGuinty’s cabinet carried on just fine and Dwight Duncan brought down a great budget. Don’t get me wrong, Sorbara was an excellent finance minister and would have deserved the post again, but the Liberals managed fine without him before and will again. It’s still a loss though for sure but not anywhere near the level Tory insinuates.

Then there was the even more ridiculous comment from the NDP:
New Democrat Rosario Marchese believes the resignation will be ``a huge blow to the Liberal Party,” and said Sorbara should also resign his seat if he really wants to spend more time with his family.
“If he wants to be a full-time granddad, then I think the riding deserves a full-time member,” said Marchese.

Ridiculous! So is Rosario saying that you can’t be a good grandfather unless you are unemployed? The ones that actually left politics it was to spend more time with their children. Has anyone ever left for grandchildren? Anyways, Sorbara is saying that his cabinet duties took too much time away from his family, so he is scaling back his work to spend more time with them. But that doesn’t mean he can’t still hold a job representing the citizens of Vaughn. Marchese should apologize. Like c’mon have a little class, Sorbara just resigns and the very next minute he’s out attacking him and making outrageous statements. He should really know better.
Shame on the opposition for trying to score partisan points out of what is a very personal matter for Mr. Sorbara. They’re not off to a great start this session, that’s for sure.

I'll be back later with a full list of who I would pick for McGuinty's next cabinet.

UPDATE: Radwanski takes it back. Says that he’s been informed that there were real personal issues that happened recently (death of Sorbara’s sister-in-law) that have led Sorbara to ultimately take this decision. Good for Radwanksi for correcting himself. This further bolsters my view that Marchese should apologize though, does he still think Sorbara should resign his seat?

Recommend this Post

Polls and Shoddy Reporting

The polls these days seem to be a mess and media coverage of them usually pretty bad. Three polls came up this week showing the Conservatives to have a very narrow lead over the Liberals nationally and the Liberals having a solid lead in Ontario. (h/t to Scott: here, here, and here).

Meanwhile, Ipsos comes along for the second week in a row showing the Tories in “majority territory” . I’ve got some serious questions about this though.

Why is it ALWAYS Ipsos that has the Tories polling higher than the other polling companies? Is there something we should know here? I mean the last Ipsos poll of the 2006 Election (1 day before Election Day) had it as Cons 38 – Libs 27, pretty far off the mark of what happened the next day, I’d say.

Second, where does this magic 40% national number called “majority territory” really come from? It’s total nonsense considering a party could have 40% nationally just because they’ve got 90% support in Alberta for instance. So the overall national number means nothing without reliable regional breakdowns, which none of these polling companies really ever provide because the MOE for each region is too large, so you end seeing like 10% regional swings in the span of week (which is really impossible).

Basically this kind of coverage is just really shoddy reporting trying to make a poll sound more interesting and pump up the election hysteria (“oh Harper’s in “majority territory” he must be itching to go to the polls now!).

Finally, I’d like to call one particular deceptive article to account today that really twists things: "Fears of Harper majority waning: poll”

Take a look at the article and you see that: “A majority of 58 per cent said the best outcome of the next election would be a majority government,” and “Fifty-eight per cent of those in favour of a majority would rather have Harper as the prime minister in such a circumstance, compared to 28 per cent who preferred Liberal Leader Stephane Dion”

What’s 58% of 58% CanWest? Is that actually slightly less (33.6%) than the percentage of Canadians that voted for Harper in the last election (36%)? How can you say fears of a majority are “waning” when you’ve got no baseline to compare it to. 33.6% is still not that high given that I'm sure the Conservative support in this sample is grossly inflated (definitely at least in Ontario). I don't have any faith in these numbers given Ipsos' history.

I think reporting of polls in the media has always been pretty shoddy in general (ignoring MOE's and so on), but at least report the straight findings of them correctly, don’t give us misleading headlines and torqued spin.

And that goes for Bricker (the Ipsos guy) too because lines like “When you've got the other guy hiding under the bridge like a troll…” don’t really come off like you don’t have an agenda here do they?

What gives with Ipsos and CanWest media that report on them?

Recommend this Post