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.

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.

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?