The Ignatieff Factor

As others have mentioned before me, it appears that the Liberals and the Conservatives are in a dead heat right now - according to the latest Strategic Council poll for CTV and the Globe and Mail. The Conservatives' leads has drastically fallen around Canada, including in Western Canada and Ontario.

Of course, the threat of an election has been cast aside for a while, so when asked about an election "tomorrow" respondents are answering in a bubble. But still, those numbers are not encouraging and signify the time for some hard, hard work from the Conservative government - if they hope to make up that lost ground.

CTV explains that having ditched the coalition was probably very beneficial for Ignatieff and the Liberals, and his tone and phrasing about keeping the government "on probation" makes him seem like a tough alternative (unlike lame-duck Dion).

As well, the current economic situation has not helped out the government, who has been left scrambling to provide an acceptable economic plan and has been looking inconsistent in its future projections. Let's not forget the fact that many small-c conservatives have been left with a bad taste in their mouth following the presentation of the budget, which may have them protesting by denying their support (at least in survey form) to the Conservative Party.

What can the Conservatives do at this point? Obviously, Ignatieff is not likely to have himself pushed around like his predecessor. However, he is more open to the government's ideas (or so it has seemed so far). The government will have, I believe, to show the strong leadership it has prided itself on since 2006 - by continuing to move forward and proving that its plan is effective.

There is also a need to lay low for a while, as much as a government can, by focusing on business rather than confrontation. Perhaps Ignatieff will respond to that by putting his foot in his mouth. But the truth is, he is seriously threatening the Conservatives nationally.

Of course, as mentioned earlier this is all happening within a bubble. We would have to see how the Liberal leader runs a national campaign to know if the Ignatieff Factor is going to return Canada's natural governing party back to power.

At this point, I am feeling almost as disillusioned as some of my other fellow conservative bloggers. I am still hanging on to Harper's leadership and the current Conservative Party, but am hesitant in this view. The reason I started being active in supporting this government was because I truly felt the party was moving in the right direction. Not to say that I would vote Liberal if an election were held "tomorrow" but I would have to think twice about the party's accomplishments and forward looking promises before crossing that X in the voting booth.

Why the Liberal accusations don't hold water

Today's news has the Liberals, in the form of MP Gerard Kennedy, accusing the Conservative government of targetting most of its infrastructure project to CPC held ridings.

"The majority of Canadians living in opposition ridings have been massively short-changed so that the Conservatives can get far more than their share," Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park) said in question period.

In my opinion, these accusations simply don't add up. If in fact the government was trying to make some subtle political gains through these specific infrastructure projects - other than the obvious demonstration that they have Canada's economic future at heart - the Conservatives would certainly have opted for another strategy.

If local political gains were really the goal here, they would not be mostly focusing on Conservative held ridings, but on swing ridings where they could pull the rug from under an opponent's feet. While it may look advantageous to Kennedy that the government is funding projects where their support lies, a better mid-to-long term political strategy would target non-conservative ridings, in a bid to gain ground in those areas in a future election.

The government has nothing to gain by "punishing" ridings that did not vote for them. This would go counter stream from the expansion efforts of the CPC, towards an eventual majority.

I think this is another case of Liberals hunting for a scandal. Only three days after supporting the government and its budget, it appears the Liberals are already getting antsy and looking for a fight - by manipulating the facts. Shameful.

Liberals support government on the budget, despite critics

The Liberals, through their leader Michael Ignatieff, have informed Parliament yesterday that they will support the Conservative budget, minus an amendment requiring that the government present updates to the House regarding their budget promises to verify funding actually goes out the door.

The Conservatives have told the House, through the Government House Leader Jay Hill, that they feel this amendment is acceptable, and in fact is an accountability measure that similar the ones they would have taken in either case.

"It does nothing that we don't normally do, which is report back to Parliament upon the progress that we intend to make in ad-dressing the economic situation that faces our nation," government House leader Jay Hill told reporters.

The Calgary Herald elaborates on that point:

“…In any case, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already promised regular updates: on Page 72 of the budget document, the government commits itself to providing "an initial report on progress this summer, and responsible ministers will provide an update to Parliament the first week following the summer recess. The government will reassess and, if necessary, reallocate funding in the 2009 Economic and Fiscal Update.”

The Conservatives are, so far, satisfied with the Liberal position. Jay Hill is quoted in Sun Media as being “very pleased” with their support. "We look forward to working co-operatively with them," Hill also said.

Ignatieff says that these reports to Parliament will hold the Conservatives “on probation” and on a “very tight leash,” vowing to defeat the government after the presentation of any of these reports, which will be considered confidence motions, if the Government’s response is deemed inadequate.

However, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe argued outside the Commons following Ignatieff’s press conference yesterday that the Liberals would likely avoid bringing the Conservatives down at these times, by saying that Canadians need an election “like a hole in the head,” in reference to an earlier statement by Ignatieff.

Many have criticized Ignatieff and the Liberals for not having had the guts to seek more in their amendment, for example the softening of the eligibility rules for those seeking Employment Insurance. NDP leader Jack Layton openly criticized Ignatieff, saying the coalition was now between Harper and Ignatieff. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe also said that the coalition, agreed upon in December, was formally dead. A humorous “obituary” is even featured in the Toronto Star.

The Star has officially rallied with Ignatieff’s position, in an editorial published today. Though their position was slightly nuanced, saying that the Liberals could have tried pushing for more substantial changes to the budget, their choice was the best to hold off rushing to power by defeating the Conservatives on this budget.

“Yes, the budget fell short of the accord's demands in other areas, including the easing of eligibility requirements for employment insurance (EI) and an early learning and child care program. So it was less than perfect. It was, instead, a compromise – the basis on which minority parliaments are supposed to work.

“Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is right, therefore, not to rush to the barricades with the other two opposition parties to defeat this budget and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government with it. That would mean either putting the coalition in office (which, unfortunately, many parts of the country would see as illegitimate) or forcing yet another election (which would be the fourth in five years).”

Yet, the Star also featured conflicting views on the subject with one article saying that Ignatieff and the Liberals had missed a chance to help the country. Thomas Walkom writes:

…He has missed a chance to force Stephen Harper's government to markedly improve Tuesday's budget – to plug gaping holes in its approach to recession and
eliminate small, but loathsome ideological leftovers slipped into its back pages.

[…]

Instead, the Liberals could have insisted on substantive conditions. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has signalled that he's open to reasonable amendments. His only proviso is that they not contradict the budget's overall thrust.

[…]

Having listed the budget's flaws, he said his party would support it anyway.

"We are in the opposition," he explained. "We are not the government. It is the responsibility of the government to govern."

[…]

Had Ignatieff's Liberals cared enough, they almost certainly could have forced the government to back down here. But clearly they did not.

Instead, they took what, in more normal times, would be the standard opposition approach: Don't take responsibility; avoid being identified with policies that might not work; focus on the next election.

What Ignatieff forgets is that these are not normal times."

Then again, Ignatieff keeps playing the spin to his advantage, hoping Canadians will forget his actions leading up to the budget. Despite his initial attitude during pre-budgetary consultations with the Prime Minister, where he explained it was up to the government to come up with a plan, this despite the multiple attempts by the government to seek suggestions from the opposition, Ignatieff argues today that it is thanks to them that some of the good measures in the budget have been brought forward.

The Calgary Herald writes:

“…When Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff comments on the budget that anything bad belongs to the Conservatives, anything good is there because of the opposition and that the Liberals have the government "on probation"--well, what else would one expect him to say?”

Ignatieff is building himself quite a "legacy"…

You think you know… But you don’t

I am probably proving my light weight as a political observer with this post, but some of the things I have been hearing and reading are leaving my panties in a bunch.

I am growing increasingly tired of some of the comments made in regards to our Prime Minister. Of course, mud-slinging is to be expected by those who share opposing views to those of the PM or the Conservative Party, but some of the assumptions being made simply blow my mind.

Here are a couple of these statements, which I am becoming allergic to hearing:

1- Stephen Harper does not care about Canada, he is only power hungry and clinging to power.

I could not disagree more. I can’t say I know everything that goes on in the PM’s mind, but neither do most political observers. However, I can say the research and readings I have done about Stephen Harper bring me much closer than these opposition naysayers to understanding the PM’s motivations. Reading such books as Tom Flanagan’s Harper’s Team brings a lot of insight into Harper’s mentality, and if there is one conclusion to be drawn it is definitely that Stephen Harper loves our country and is doing what he judges to be in its best interest, period.

2- Harper is turning his back on what real conservatives want.

This accusation mostly comes from other conservatives who feel the PM is not addressing grassroots concerns in his policy, on subjects ranging from abortion, to gay marriage and even cutting the funding to the CBC. I realize that many conservatives feel very strongly about these issues, but the fact that they remain unaddressed testifies of Harper’s incremental and moderate approach. We cannot forget that the Conservatives are working under a minority government, and that they should not be expected to rule as a majority nor would the opposition let them.

Some may even argue that by remaining neutral on certain issues, Harper is in fact proving his demagogy and power hunger. But I beg to differ. This is larger than having Harper as the Prime Minister, even for him. There is evidence to that in the risks he had to face when trying to unite the right too. He does this to make sure that the conservative voice remains alive and relevant, in the Canadian political ring. By giving in to a vocal yet minority views demanding specific intervention in certain files, Harper would effectively alienate a majority of right-leaning Canadians who share broad conservative values but do not necessarily see the need or the usefulness in acting in these files. As well, by remaining distant from these controversial positions, the Conservatives are getting the chance to be recognized as a valid governing alternative to the “natural governing party” in Canada, i.e. the Liberals.

3- Harper cannot be trusted with his promises.

Again, those who say this are usually ideological opponents to conservatism. They have a short memory, and purposefully remain blind to the real accomplishments which were the fruit of electoral promises made by Harper and the Conservatives. These same opponents usually refer to three items in their “broken promise” spiel: fixed election dates, Senate reform and his partisanship.

He is called a hypocrite, a liar and is demonized left and right. However, one must consider the reasons behind these so-called broken promises before judging them. Again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

On the fixed election date, I believe the idea behind this move was to give a defined mandate to a majority government, preventing it from calling an election when the public opinion was favourable. I don’t think it was created to deal with a minority government, since in these circumstances, the opposition would continue to have the power to defeat the government on confidence votes. When Harper called the last election, he felt (and I truly believe this) there was no way forward in the current Parliament. With the opposition intent on stalling government initiatives and the Liberals under Stéphane Dion refusing to bring down the government, despite their clear opposition to most of its measures, this left the PM with few other choices. He gave the opposition many opportunities of defeating him, while standing for what they believed in, yet they preferred abstaining while making it impossible for the government to advance many of its objectives.

The same goes for Senate reform. By nominating 18 senators last month, Harper did not act against his promise to work towards an elected Senate. But again, the opposition left him little choice in governing. He could have maintained his stance, but then would have been put in a position where there would be no chance of ever bringing change to the Senate – and this because, in order for Senate reform to happen, the Senate itself must support it. There is little chance that an “entitled,” mainly Liberal Senate would ever accept to short-change itself, so the only possible solution was to add reform-friendly Senators to the Red Chamber, to shift – however slightly, and with whatever time it does take – its balance of power.

Finally, regarding his partisan politics Harper is being regarded as a liar for vowing that he and his caucus would be civil in the House of Commons. The media rapidly focused their attacks on the Conservatives for breaking this promise. However, we should not forget that the opposition promised the same thing, and from my viewing of Question Period in the House of Commons, I feel they were the first to break this promise – whether the MSM was ever willing to admit or even realize it. And now that Harper is promising again more civility and cooperation, the opposition say they can’t believe him. They are giving him no chance and are proving that they themselves prefer partisan obstructionism over making the effort to collaborate with the government.

All this to say, I realize more and more that people on both side of the divide tend to speak about many things which they know little on. It reminds me of something a friend used to say in high school, when people would gossip… “You think you know… But you don’t.”

New survey shows Harper inching ahead

The Toronto Star presents results of poll prepared by Angus Reid, which shows that Stephen Harper is slowly increasing his lead over Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff as the best leader for the country.

[The] survey shows 27 per cent of Canadians think Harper is the best choice for prime minister, with 24 per cent preferring Ignatieff.

Last month, the two leaders were in a virtual tie, with Ignatieff slightly ahead at 28 per cent compared with Harper at 27 per cent nationally.

Party support for the Conservatives is also slightly on the rise.

The Conservatives are at 39 per cent support nationally, compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the NDP, 9 per cent for the Bloc and 5 per cent for the Greens. In the Oct. 14 election, the Tories garnered 37.6 per cent of the vote.

Finally...

Only 20 per cent of respondents said Ignatieff could manage the economy effectively, compared with 34 per cent for Harper.

Federal deficit does not necessarily need to be so heafty: Duceppe

Bloc Québécois leader, Gilles Duceppe has come forward saying that the federal deficit needed to prop up the Canadian economy does not necessarily need to be as high as projected. This comes as a surprise, considering the many demands and accusations of inaction on the economy from the opposition in December.

However, Duceppe is quoted in La Presse yesterday as saying that cuts to the government apparatus could yield many savings, and produce a deficit of only $3 billion dollars, instead of $40 billion.

Duceppe gives the example of the Ministry of Justice whose budget grew by 115% in recent years as evidence there are savings to be made. However, the BQ leader said these cuts should not impact jobs.

Duceppe also took aim at Ignatieff saying that the Liberal leader should not support an unsatisfactory budget, by fear of an election, because he would then become just like Stéphane Dion - who avoided bringing down the Conservative government on 18 confidence votes.

The Bloc leader continued to say that the opposition coalition was the best alternative for the country, and that Michael Ignatieff would have a very likely chance of becoming Prime Minister should his party decide to defeat the government on the January 27 budget. He strongly believes the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, would let a coalition of opposition parties govern rather than send Canadians to the polls again.

Flanagan denounces unelected coalition government

Conservative strategist and professor of political science at the University of Calgary, Tom Flanagan, signs an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail this morning, denouncing the lack of democratic legitimacy of a coalition government brought to power without a voter mandate. He brings us his educated perspective on the matter of strengthened democracy in Canada, and the evolution of conventions.

The coalition's apologists glory in the supposed fact that Canada's Constitution is not democratic. Responsible government, they say, means only that the cabinet has to maintain majority support in the House; it doesn't mean the voters have a voice. Canadians, in their view, are just deluded if they think Canada is a democracy.

Obviously, the apologists didn't pay attention in Political Science 101. Here's why they're wrong.

[...] Canada changed from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional democracy as the franchise was extended to all adults and political parties became national in scope. That evolution was recognized in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 1 characterizes Canada as "a free and democratic society," and Section 3 grants the right to vote to "every citizen of Canada."

[...] The most important decision in modern politics is choosing the executive of the national government, and democracy in the 21st century means the voters must have a meaningful voice in that decision. Our machinery for choosing the executive is not prescribed by legislative or constitutional text; rather, it consists of constitutional conventions - past precedents followed in the light of present exigencies. The Supreme Court has said it will expound these conventions but will not try to enforce them. The virtue of relying on conventions is that they can evolve over time, like common law, and can be adapted to the new realities of the democratic age. [My emphasis]

I agree, and I think most Canadians do too. The context of our democracy has changed. With a new day of information and all its associated technologies, the public is much more aware of issues of importance, and do not simply rely on "their voice in Parliament" to decide what is best for them. Canadians demand ownership of their right to decide.

The coalition partners, moreover, did not run on a platform of forming a coalition; indeed, the Liberals' Stéphane Dion denied that he would make a coalition with the NDP.

Right on the nail, of course. The leading concern with this coalition is that they cannot be held accountable, because they have taken no specific engagements towards Canadian voters.

The Governor-General, as the protector of Canada's constitutional democracy, should ensure the voters get a chance to say whether they want the coalition as a government.

Yes, she should.

In the news... a medley

Lorne Gunter tells us this morning that Layton is the biggest loser of his coalition scheme.

...it was Layton who suffered most.

First, he had a chance to do in the Liberals and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP has the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals; instead, he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.

With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist with no compunction about making a deal with separatists, even weeks before the Tories lit the match on the crisis. And with the coalition's demise, Layton is now even further from power than he was before.

He also reminds us of a sad political reality in Canada, when it comes to the "natural governing party"

...Ignatieff will be aided [in having his mistakes forgotten] by the infinite malleability of the Liberal conscience. Anything a Liberal does can be forgotten by all other Liberals (and the vast majority of the parliamentary press gallery), if shoving it down the memory hole is in the best interest of the Liberal party.

For instance, in Saturday's Toronto Star, senior Liberal strategist Tom Axworthy wrote that Ignatieff's selection gives the Liberals their best chance in a generation of "democratic renewal of the party," even while admitting that Ignatieff's selection marked the first time since the 19th century that the Liberal rank-and-file played no direct part in choosing the party boss.

Chantal Hébert writes that all parties are quietly preparing for a spring election.

...the prospect of a popular Conservative budget only acts as an accelerant on the election flames.

That's because the opposition suspects the Conservatives are preparing for war even as they overtly seek peace, by crafting a budget designed to become the stepping stone to a spring campaign. Having consolidated their advantage in public opinion with a well-received budget, they would be free to engineer their defeat on an issue of their own choosing later in the session.

[...] If there is a community of interest between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc at this point, it is in bringing the Liberals to an election battle before the party has had time to regroup under a new leader.

Where is Ignatieff these days, wonder Lawrence Martin? This so-called "man of magnitude," as the columnist dubs him...

Michael Ignatieff has been completing a book over the holidays, the last chapter in a family saga. That's fine and well, but there are Liberals who wish he'd chosen another time - a better moment than the immediate aftermath of becoming party leader.

[...] By comparison to his predecessor, he is a man of magnitude. But where is the new dynamism? And where is he? At a volatile political juncture when the moment needs be seized, Iggy's off to a quiet and rather unremarkable beginning.

[...] There was no leadership race. That meant no high-profile campaign, no media-saturated convention, no hallmark speech. His overnight enthronement served the good purpose of quickly terminating the Dion stewardship. But coronations cannot be said to be democratically edifying. Rather than bolstering credibility, they can bleach it.

[...] Public opposition to the coalition idea has been allowed to cement. No concerted attempt by Mr. Ignatieff or his followers has been made to discredit misconceptions surrounding it. [...] The coalition question is one on which Mr. Ignatieff has to fish or cut bait, lest he be Dionized. He has to get himself out of the early limbo. It needs to be emphasized that he has only just begun his leadership journey. But it also needs to be emphasized that opening steps are steps remembered. His low profile speaks too much of a party inclined to stay the course, as opposed to being in a rush to change it.

While Hassan Arif, in the Telegraph Journal makes the point that Ignatieff and the Liberals' fate is out of their hands.

If the Liberals vote to support Harper's budget (or at the very least abstain) while the NDP votes against it, then Ignatieff's standing as leader could be severely damaged. For progressive-leaning Canadians, he will be seen as "collaborating with Harper" and "abdicating his role as Official opposition leader," both of which would gravely damage the Liberal Party among a crucial group of voters.

This would open the door for Jack Layton and the NDP to be the dominant voice of progressive Canadians.

The Coalition may not have caught on with the public at large, but it does enjoy a significant degree of popularity among progressive and left-leaning Canadians.

[...] The only way he could plausibly support the Conservative budget is if the NDP supports it too.

This does not seem likely unless Harper strikes a truly multi-partisan tone and offers substantial government intervention to help stimulate the economy.

This important and decisive federal budget is now 20 days away. Speculation is fine and dandy, but only the true power plays ahead will be of importance. Stay tuned...

New poll numbers show Conservative momentum slumping

I do not like where this is going...

A brand new poll prepared by Angus Reid for the Toronto Star shows that while the Conservatives continue to lead the Liberals in voter intentions, their margin has shrunk significantly since last week. Released Sunday, it consulted with 1004 Canadian adults between Dec 11 and 12.

The numbers show that Conservative support has dropped by five points, to 37%, while the Liberals support has risen by nine points to reach 31% in a week. With a 3.1% margin of error, the numbers could be even closer.

This is partly due to the coronation of Michael Ignatieff as new Liberal interim leader, giving the party a bit more bite. Preferred leadership numbers show Harper and Ignatieff neck to neck, sitting at 27 and 28 respectively.

However, Harper does lead Ignatieff on a number of characteristic traits, according to the poll.

While Ignatieff posted significantly higher numbers than his predecessor, Harper continues to dominate as being a strong and decisive leader (45%), an effective economic manager (35%), and a person who understands complex issues (42%).

But 34% said Ignatieff inspired the most confidence, leading both Harper and Jack Layton.

The full survey results can be found here.