Finally: Harper makes a mistake

The Globe and Mail reports today that Stephen Harper "almost dared" the opposition parties to continue their calls for a public inquiry on Brian Mulroney's alleged tax evasion. From the CBC:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dismissed calls by opposition parties for a public inquiry into reports about cash payments made to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, saying allowing the government to launch probes against former political adversaries was "extremely dangerous."

"Do they really want to say that I, as prime minister, should have a free hand to launch inquiries against my predecessors?" Harper asked reporters Friday in Halifax following a speech to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

The answer to this is easy: Yes. Launch inquiries against any member of government, former or current, who is suspected to have committed a crime.

This, in my view, is a rare political mistake for Harper. His statement implies two things: 1) that Mulroney is guilty of something, but that Harper wants to cover it up, and 2) that former Liberal leaders are guilty of something, and that Harper has known about it but done nothing.

If I were Dion, I would illustrate those two implications loudly. "If Harper has evidence that any former Liberal leaders committed a crime, he should do his duty and bring them before an inquiry!" I'd shout. "Anyone who betrays their public office, from any political stripe or on either side of the aisle, should have to answer for it. But the Prime Minister is obstructing an inquiry into a suspected crime against the Canadian public. Why? Doesn't the Prime Minister believe in public oversight? Who is he protecting? And what does he know about former Liberal leaders that he hasn't acted on? If he has information, disclose it. I have absolutely nothing to hide."

I think those criticisms would stick, and make Dion look ethical and decisive. Harper has given the Liberals so few openings. Capitalize on this one.

And for my two cents on this: if any Liberal leaders are indeed guilty of tax evasion, or any other crime, show them no mercy. Public office is a sacred privilege. No protection for anyone who betrays that, regardless of what party they're from.

Stormy thoughts, hectic schedule

Loyal readers:

My mind is a stormcloud of cynical thoughts. My Liberal party, it seems, cannot find unity in its opposition status. At every turn, they have allowed themselves to be outfoxed by Stephen Harper, and have, in the face of adversity, allowed petty rivalries, grudges, and outright selfishness to erode their unity and besmirch their public image.

How else can you explain the fact that Jamie Carroll's misguided Quebec/China comment was leaked to the press by members of his own party? Or that John Manley agreed to chair a high-profile panel on Afghanistan, exonerating the Conservatives on one of their only areas of electoral weakness in the process? Or that Jean Chretien, one of our supposed elder-statesman, chose, on what could have been the eve of a federal election, to tear open the recently-stitched wounds of the Chretien/Martin feud , just to suit his book-signing schedule?

My party is in disarray. And my thoughts on this are many.

But, loyal readers, the schedule of my Master's program is keeping me from chronicling my ideas. I find myself with little time to do this blog justice. So for the time being, at least over the month of November, my political commentary will be sparse.

I will of course pick up my blogging responsibilities come December. But for now, postings will only be made when inspiration and leisure time coincide.

Harpers hilarious non-ultimatum

Well, it's official. For those of you who have been sitting on the fence for the past few years, the results are finally in:

Stephen Harper has a sense of humour.

How else could you explain the ridiculous ultimatum he posed to the opposition parties yesterday? From today's Globe and Mail:

While insisting he doesn't want an election, the prime minister said that if opposition parties vote in favour of his throne speech he will consider all future votes on priorities listed in it to be confidence votes as well.

“We're going to ask Parliament for a mandate. Once we have that mandate, we're going to consider that basically gives us the right to consider those matters confidence going forward and to get results and get things done,” Mr. Harper said.

Yep, you read that right. If the throne speech passes, Harper will take this to mean that his government can pass any legislation it likes, and that any dissenting voices will be illegitimate and grounds for an election. The opposition members can just sit quietly and draw while his government unveils proposal after proposal; after all, that's what they were elected for, right? And think how nice it will be to take the pesky "opposition" out of "opposition parties."

And everything will be a no-confidence motion! What fun! The opposition doesn't like the government's legislation on fishing boundaries? Down comes the government! The opposition thinks emissions targets should be higher? We go to the polls! Yessir, this will be a government of tremendous suspense and drama: no nuance, no negotiation, just brinksmanship all the way!

Yep, Harper officially has a sense of humour.

This has got to be unprecedented in Canadian politics. But what it really means is that the Conservatives are dying for an election right now. Who can blame them? The Liberals seem more concerned about petty infighting and who-said-what than they do about preparing for a national campaign.

So Harper is trying to embarass the opposition into voting against his throne speech, and has also signalled that "he wouldn't be satisfying all their demands to change his political agenda."

So that's it. I don't see how we can avoid an election anymore.

The sad truth about verbal gaffes

From today's Globe and Mail:

A major rift has opened in the Liberal Party between its senior Quebec ranks and the entourage of Leader Stéphane Dion.

Two senior Quebeckers on the party's national executive called yesterday for the resignation of Liberal Party national director Jamie Carroll, one of Mr. Dion's handpicked loyalists, over remarks he is reported to have made when pressed to hire more Quebeckers.

***

The furor was caused by a news report about Mr. Carroll's response when members of the party's management committee called for more Quebeckers to be hired in Mr. Dion's office and at the party's headquarters.

“If I hire more Quebeckers, will I also have to hire more Chinese?” the Journal de Montréal quoted him as replying.

There's something fishy about this whole story. Some people present at the meeting claim Carroll has been quoted accurately. Others claim to have never heard him make the alleged statement, or that he phrased it differently than cited. More suspicious still is why the quote, which was made at a closed-door meeting, was leaked to Le Journal De Montreal. Who made the leak? And why do they want to hurt Liberal fortunes in Quebec?

Is the situation suspicious? Yes. Was Carroll misquoted? Maybe. Was his comment taken out of context? Almost certainly. Should he be fired?

Yes, he should. It's a sad truth about electoral politics: sometimes saying the right thing the wrong way is enough to get you fired. There's just no room for verbal gaffes this close to an election, particularly a gaffe that fuels anti-Liberal sentiment in Quebec. As I've said again and again, the Liberals have to reclaim the hearts and minds of Quebeckers if they want to reclaim their status as Canada's most successful political party. Carroll's quote, real or alleged, is damaging to the party in a serious way.

It would be nice if Dion could give Carroll a stern talking to and send him on his way. But he shouldn't. His ability to suppress internal dissent, not to mention his party's political future in Quebec, will be damaged if he doesn't.

But Dion's a nice guy. A nice, stubborn guy. From the CBC:

Stéphane Dion has rejected calls by some senior Liberals that the party's national director be fired over comments he allegedly made regarding hiring more francophone Quebecers.

***

...others at the meeting have said Carroll was taken out of context.

Speaking in Halifax on Friday, Dion agreed, saying he believed Carroll's comments have been misinterpreted and that he has full confidence in him.

Sigh. This is a political mistake.

In other news, Stephen Harper announced a tax cut today. In Toronto.

Would anyone like some beer and popcorn?

Throne Speech showdown (part 2)

As promised in part one of this two-part post, I will here finish my analysis of the fall Throne Speech showdown, and attempt to answer this fall's big political questions: will the opposition parties bring down the government? And will the Harper Conservatives be looking to compromise, or go to the voters?

Part 2 examines the Liberal and Conservative perspectives on the issue. On to the showdown!

The Liberals

The Liberals, of course, have enough seats to save the government from collapse. But whether they will do so is far from obvious. The Liberals have a lot to consider here: the perceived weakness of their leader; their apparent weakness in Quebec; whether or not they can afford to let Harper build up a green image; whether or not they can afford, financially, to conduct an election; and on and on and on. There is a storm cloud of political considerations swirling around the Liberal party right now, and a mis-assessment of the current political climate could at worst lead to a Harper majority or, worse still, a long, cold winter of Liberal shivering in Quebec.

As for where we stand right now, a lot has changed since I published part 1 of this analysis just two days ago. At that time, Dion was declining to set any mandatory conditions on the Throne Speech, thus signaling to Harper that he was willing to make a deal. But I read today on the CBC that Dion has taken a harder line:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives must make major changes to the upcoming throne speech or the opposition Liberals will vote against it, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion warned Wednesday, adding fuel to speculation there could be a fall federal election.

"This hidden agenda will be stopped," Dion said after a meeting with Quebec caucus members in Montreal.

Dion is demanding two major items, discussed by me in a previous post:

The Liberals want the Tory government to make a firm commitment to withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan in early 2009 and to re-introduce clean air legislation, Bill C-30, that failed to make it into law during the last session.

Dion also said he wants more help for families and combating poverty, as well as a better plan for the Canadian economy as it faces the uncertainty of dollar parity and the unpredictable U.S. market.

If you read my previous post, you'll know that I think the Conservatives are unlikely to bend on these two items (Bill C-30 in particular). But more on the Tories in a second. First, I want to briefly list some of the pros and cons, from the Liberal perspective, of a fall election.

Pros of a fall election:

1) By voting against the Conservatives, Stéphane Dion will appear decisive.

2) The Conservatives will be denied the chance to build up a greener image, and will have to face Canadians with a poor environmental record.

3) The Liberals will be able to tap into growing public dissatisfaction with Canada's role in Afghanistan. If they support a Throne Speech that fails to set a solid 2009 withdrawal date, they will lose their ability to criticize the government on this issue.

4) A campaign will give Dion a great deal of public profile at a time when he desperately needs it. He'll be able to make the news virtually every day, and not have to pay for it (the Liberals can afford little, if any, television advertising).

5) If the current political situation persists, Dion is likely to face increasing dissent from his party ranks. A campaign could act as a rallying point for the leader, or at least cause other party members to sheathe their knives - especially if Dion eats his wheaties and campaigns effectively.

6) The Liberals can campaign like bastards in Quebec, and try to stem this tide of Quebecois dissatisfaction with the party. In the grand scheme of things, rebuilding the Quebec stronghold is far more important to the Liberals than winning the next election.

7) For the time being, the Liberals and the Conservatives are polling neck and neck, even though Harper is overwhelmingly more popular as a leader. That's something, and the Liberals might need to strike while the iron's hot.

8) Dion has lot of room to defy public expectations right now.

Cons of a fall election

1) Stéphane Dion has a weak public image and is unpopular, as shown by public opinion polls.

2) The Liberal war-chest is all but empty, and they will be overwhelmingly out-financed in a campaign.

3) The recent Outremont debacle reveals that the Liberals are facing a potentially historic moment of weakness in Quebec.

4) A majority outcome for the Conservatives could lead to Dion's resignation, and another leadership race would be tiresome and divisive for a party that desperately needs to be unified.

I have to admit, the Cons are powerful, and loom large. But Dion seems to have made up his mind: he simply can't afford to support the Conservatives if they slap him down on Afghanistan and Bill C30. He would appear too weak for words. So he's put the ball in Harper's court, and has signaled his willingness to roll the dice this fall.

I think that's probably the best move. If the Conservatives fail to include the 2009 troop withdrawal or the Clean Air Act in their Throne Speech, then the Liberals can raise holy hell and claim the moral high ground. If the government bends and meets Dion's demands, then he can claim victory and flex some political muscle.

A fall campaign for the Liberals could result in disaster, or it could turn the tide of Dion's leadership. One thing's for sure: it will be an upstream swim.

The Conservatives

Stephen Harper has the ball now. He has heard the demands of the Bloc, and almost certainly considers them flatly unacceptable (the elimination of all federal spending powers in the provinces? Ha! He'd sooner tax the oil sands). He knows the NDP wants an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and that they are expecting something concrete on that file. And he has heard Dion's recent demands. What now?

I don't think Harper is likely to bend. Why would he give Dion the opportunity to appear leader-like? He's certainly not afraid of an election, given his fundraising, his inroads into Quebec, his progress in the GTA, and his generally popular legislative record. And, as I've said before, allowing a vote on the Clean Air Act would be a major victory for the opposition. He already has a poor green image; refusing to allow that vote probably won't make him much worse off on that file. And besides, he can use an election campaign to roll out all kinds of environmental agenda items.

So I think that Harper will, true to form, read a Throne Speech of breathtaking ambition and fiscal generosity, while quietly ignoring the demands of the opposition parties. Let them vote against all his other goodies, or let them appear spineless. He won't care which; he's in a very strong position.

And of course, rather than swallow this insult, the opposition parties will have to take their chances with a campaign.

So get out your pencils, Canada. I think we're going to the polls.

MMP: The Commies aren't coming (probably)

Over numerous discussions on the Ontario referendum, I have noticed an interesting trend: many people are worried that the MMP system will hold the Parliamentary door open for Communist party members in the Commons. This is an interesting, and surprising, objection. I have two reactions I want to briefly outline:

1) Remember that a party is only eligible to win List Member representation in the House if it wins 3% of the Party vote or more. I did some poking around online, and have discovered that the Communist Party won exactly 2,187 votes in the last Provincial election, or 0.05% of the province-wide vote. So not even close. I agree that a Communist candidate is more likely to pick up a seat under MMP than under the current system. But let's not get nuts here: the Communist Party would have to do 60 times better in future elections to make the grade, which could fairly be called 'unlikely.' Unless global capitalism collapses. In which case the Communists might elect a guy.

2) And besides, if Ontarians vote for them, shouldn't the Communist Party get the representation it deserves? If we truly value democracy, we can't design our electoral process to exclude parties we find distasteful. Preserving FPP to prevent fringe parties from winning seats is the tyranny of the majority come to life.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not a communist, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, far, far from it. Just ask my portfolio manager. And indeed, I don't think any old party should be able to run for office. Neo-Nazis, for instance, should be restricted from the ballot, as should any party that promotes violence. But the Communist Party is a legal and registered political party in Ontario, meaning they have conformed to the rules of the game. And if people want to vote for them, well then dammit, they should be given every seat they're entitled to. And if our current system doesn't reflect the true will of the people, then it might be time for a change.

Of course, if you don't value democracy in the first place, that's a discussion we can have too. Far be it from Frökspoke to ever defend an argument on purely ideological grounds.

Commie.

***

Here's another item of interest that was brought to my attention on the comments section of this blog. Marilyn, a faithful reader (I assume) critiques MMP by asking:

Who loses the elected seats? If history is any indication, these seats would come from the less populated parts of Ontario. This would give even more power to the 905 area.

Wow, great comment Marilyn! Thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't even thought about this.

Indeed, under MMP, the number of riding seats will decrease from 107 to 90, meaning 17 Members will, theoretically, be out of work. And indeed, I don't know how the new, larger ridings will be drawn up. I can only assume that a Parliamentary committee will redefine the ridings according to a standard population target, and the parties will hold new candidate nominations for each. This means some current Members will get squeezed out, and yes, maybe from Northern or sparsely populated areas of Ontario. I imagine the parties will probably compensate squeezed-out Members by making them List Candidates, but I can't say for sure.

So something else to keep in mind for when you vote on the 10th. Thanks again Marilyn.

Throne Speech showdown (part 1)

As discussed in a previous post, the Harper Conservatives will read a throne speech this fall, in hopes of launching a new parliamentary session and breathing some life into their otherwise stale legislative agenda. But because throne speeches are considered “confidence” motions in the House, the opposition parties will have the opportunity to bring down the government and call an election.

The big question: will they do it? Will they pull down Harper’s temple?

Now, I argued previously that an election was likely, and that there was “a good chance we’ll be going to the polls this fall.” I based this view on the fact that I saw two issues (the revised Clean Air Act and the scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2009) as being intractable between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I thought it was likely that the Liberals would put forward a vote of no-confidence.

And indeed, this could still happen. But a lot has happened since that last posting: the Conservatives stole a seat from the Bloc in the Quebec by-elections; the Liberals likewise lost the bedrock riding of Outremont to an NDP candidate; NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe have signalled the withdrawal of their support for the government by making laughable demands for the Throne speech; and Dion’s camp has been careful not to make any non-negotiable demands whatsoever, thus signalling a Liberal willingness to negotiate a Throne Speech that they can support.

Whew! So in light of all this, my original analysis appears overly simplistic and in need of some… rethinking.

So rethink it I shall! Call me a flip-flopper. But as they say in South Park: “changing your mind is a Canadian custom that we hold quite dear,” and one that I feel compelled to exercise. And in fact, from this day forward, the freedom to change your mind will be cemented as a bedrock right of Frökspoke: unalterable, inalienable and unapologetically utilized!

So here we go: how are the parties likely to respond to the Throne speech? And are the Conservatives going to be gunning for an election? I want to briefly take the perspective of each party to determine how they are likely to vote. Let’s have a look!

The NDP

The NDP actually have enough members to form a government-saving coalition with the Conservatives. But I wouldn’t worry about it: Layton has demanded the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. And that dog just ain’t gonna hunt, as they say in, umm, Manitoba. Plus, the NDP is riding high after its Outremont pickup, and is likely gunning for an election to make inroads in Quebec and capitalize on Liberal weakness. So I think it’s highly likely that the NDP will vote against the Throne Speech.

The Bloc

The Bloc have more than enough seats to save the government. But from the sounds of things, they don’t intend to: Duceppe has “unveiled a list of five ‘non-negotiable’ conditions for the Bloc to support the Throne Speech, including eliminating all federal spending powers in provincial jurisdictions and complying with the Kyoto Protocol's tough greenhouse-gas-emission reduction targets.”

As tall orders go, this one could play college basketball. And Harper has already publicly criticized Duceppe for making “reckless” demands. So what we can garner from this is that the Bloc is interpreting their bi-election defeat as a message that they need to be tougher on Harper’s Conservatives. They might be right, but they might be taking a bit of a gamble here: Quebec appears pretty soft for the Conservatives these days. And even if Duceppe can stem the Conservative tide in Quebec, the Conservatives could win a majority overall. This would, of course, weaken the Bloc's bargaining position.

At any rate, Duceppe has chosen to take a hard line. I thus consider it highly likely that the Bloc will vote against the Throne Speech.

Oh boy, I know you're on the edge of your seat, and we haven’t even gotten to the juicy parties yet! But it’s late, and I have early-morning class tomorrow. So that analysis will have to wait for another day.

To be continued…

Dion: finally taking control of his image

Wow. After allowing the Conservatives to define his image for him, after months of floundering outside the public eye, after losing the key Liberal riding of Outremont and suffering the criticisms of pundits and party members, Stephan Dion is finally talking straight, taking ownership, and redefining his image.

And frankly, I love what I hear. Dion has taken total ownership over the by-election losses, which is not only the right thing to do, it's also good politics. The worst thing Dion could have done in the aftermath of this Outremont debacle would have been to try to pass the buck or duck from the spotlight. This would have served only to perpetuate the public's misguided perception of him as a limp-wristed waffler- a description that doesn't sit well with me, or with Dion himself. From the CBC:

"I'm taking the responsibility," Dion told the CBC's French-language television program Téléjournal Wednesday night.

"I've always focused on the stakes … but I've never put myself on the line and I understand now that a leader must do that.… A leader has to put himself out there and I didn't do it," he told Radio-Canada host Céline Galipeau during a candid interview in French.

***

He believes people don't understand him or his goals.

"I have to have that conversation with all Quebecers so that they understand what I can do if I become prime minister. Up until now I haven't been able to do that.… I'm not what I seem to be."

Now, I'm not a Dion cheerleader, per se. I think his hesitance to utilize the media and capture the public imagination is a real weakness, one that squandered a lot of Liberal momentum after a very healthy, exciting, and high-profile leadership race. But I also think Dion is a very thoughtful, principled, and determined leader. The Conservative characterization of him as a damp-eyed, stoop-shouldered pushover is just flatly inaccurate. Everyone who works with the man says that, if anything, he's too driven, too focused, and too self-assured to bring other people into the fold. His co-workers find him to be dogged and stubborn; a far cry indeed from his current public image. This, after all, is a man who diverged from friends and family to fly the flag of Confederation in an environment of overwhelming Separatist intellectualism. Limp-wristed he just ain't.

So maybe now, after an extremely weak showing out the gate, Dion is finally grabbing the reigns on his public personae. It's long overdue. But bear in mind that he possesses, now, one of the most important and elusive assets of electoral politics: the room to defy expectations.

Can the same be said of Harper?