• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2010?

I have a hunch that, while most reporters and editors are trying to spin a story that is detrimental to Harper and the government of the day, the end effect is to help the Tories by suggesting that a vote for Harper's Conservatives is a vote for your own pocketbook.

Certainly Wayne Easter and Prince Michael have had all kinds of TV, radio and print exposure over the past week as they harp on and on about partisan stimulus spending, but the Ekos and Nanos data - taken over the past week or so - shows the two parties are roughly steady in a range of support that, translated into election results, would produce a HoC with a seat distribution very much like what we have now.

The Tories need polls that show a consistent level of Conservative support of 40% or more and that tell them that the Liberals and the Dippers are duking it out for the left. That will mean that the Conservatives can secure a slim majority because it means that several BC and ON seats will fall to them as they come up the middle in three way races.
 
The big question even in 2010 is going to be "what is the issue?"

There are a lot of potential issues which are lying under the carpet, including:

The economy:
How do we get the deficit under control and stop passing a huge debt problem on to our children?
How do we get real productivity increases out of the Canadian economy?
How do we reduce our dependance on the US economy as our single biggest export destination?
Do we have a plan to deal with massive inflation in the United States?

Afghanistan:
Did we accomplish our goals?
Should we stay in Afghanistan, and if so, in what role? (all options on the table)
Is the CF capable of carrying out missions like this in the future? If not, how will it get fixed?

Demographics:
How will the economy function with the Boomers starting to retire?
Do we have a means of getting enough skilled workers to power the economy in the future?
Will our society be able to adapt to the changing demographics (including immigrents) and shifting political power?

Diplomacy
How do we deal with demands to implement "Cap and Trade" or other international wealth transfer schemes which are detrimental to Canada's self interest (or even hostile acts aimed at us?)
how far should we go in defending our position on human rights, free speech etc. when many powerful nations are openly hostile to such concepts? Are we willing to restrict trade etc. to support our positions?

You can think of many more, but perhaps we should take the time to assemble these questions and send them to our MP's and the varous party leaders and see what their answers are. Any takers?


 
This, reproduced from Norman Spector’s blog on the Globe and Mail web site, is some news on what may become an election issue - Language ”rights” in Québec:

In Le Devoir, we read a couple of reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision on Québec’s language law that may come as a surprise to English-only ears.

Who would have known that Justin Trudeau supports Québec’s objective of franco-ising immigrants, and thinks the only problem with the PQ government’s law was that it was not sufficiently subtle? He also tells reporter Helene Buzzetti: "Immigrants to Québec should learn French first and foremost" — a sentiment that we did not often hear from his father, who tended to put the accent on the bi when it came to lingualism. I’m also betting that my neighbours and I won’t hear many B.C. New Democrats hewing to deputy leader Tom Mulcair’s line on the Court decision:

"The Supreme Court talks a good talk about Québec’s right to protect French, but it says the measures are excessive. So what can the government do?" Repatriation of the Constitution without Québec’s agreement "caused the problem."


This issue helps only the BQ. If any of the federalist parties try, hors de Québec, to argue the case against the supremes’ decision,  as Trudeau and Mulcair have done inside Québec, then they will pay a price in New Canada - West of the Ottawa River.
 
Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

I think that many in the "New Canada" are getting more and more peeved with the continued opting out of Canada, with the retention of full benefits of being part of Canada, by a very large majority of the population of Quebec. And the continued on the knees, frontal position of politicans of all parties, especially the LPC and CPC.

Soon I hope, everyone will wake up, especially the younger generations.
 
The answer to "Quebec,Quebec, Quebec" is the ever increasing demographic shift of people, jobs and economic power towards the New Canada. The government has been working on creating new ridings in Ontario and the West, and even in the absence of legislation in the near future, new seats will have to be created based on the data from the Census (probably to take effect around 2014).

As noted in other threads, it will be possible to create a majority government without any seats in Quebec within a decade; at which poit I think the voters will abandon the PQ in droves so they will still continue to have the ability to affect the governance of Canada.
 
Ironic that Quebec praises decisions from the SCC that go in the province's favour, while claiming those that don't were decided by "the Supreme Court of another country".
 
Thank -you Thucydides.

The QQQ symbolizes my frustration of constantly hearing the wailing. I am aware of your points and understand. I just wish Canadians, especially the new generations, would stand up now and say enough is enough. Either your in or you are out.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report that indicates the Liberals are trying to get ready for a 2010 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-moves-to-replace-top-aide/article1341069/
Ignatieff moves to replace top aide
Former Chrétien staffer Peter Donolo to become Liberal Leaders new chief of staff

Campbell Clark and Jane Taber

Ottawa

Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2009

Jean Chrétien's smiling spin doctor will take the reins in Michael Ignatieff's troubled opposition leader's office, as the Liberal Leader moved to replace the circle of advisers that brought him into politics.

Peter Donolo, known as the Chrétien communications director who relentlessly aimed the Liberal message at main street without cracking his veneer of good cheer, will become Mr. Ignatieff's chief of staff.

Mr. Ignatieff, under fire after conflicts within his party and a steep fall in the polls, is changing his top aide amid criticism from some Liberals that the team that helped him get into politics didn't have the experience to guide the party to an election victory.

Several Liberal sources said he had fired his chief of staff, Ian Davey.

“I am pleased to announce the arrival of Peter Donolo, who has accepted the role of chief of staff,” Mr. Ignatieff said in a statement last night. “Mr. Donolo brings a wealth of experience to this role through his long service as the director of communications for prime minister Jean Chrétien and in his leading role at [the polling firm] The Strategic Counsel.

“Ian Davey has my gratitude for his enormous service in building this OLO team, and I am grateful for his continuing counsel.”

Liberal sources said that Mr. Ignatieff asked Mr. Davey to stay on as an adviser, but they didn't expect that he would.

Two others close to Mr. Davey, deputy chief of staff Dan Brock, and communications director Jill Fairbrother, who is Mr. Davey's partner, were not fired, but many Liberals believed they might leave.

The staff change came in a messy internal scene, according to Liberal insiders. Mr. Davey and Ms. Fairbrother saw reports on TV, and Ms. Fairbrother denied to reporters that anything was happening – but Mr. Ignatieff confirmed it to them later last night.

Mr. Davey had known about efforts to recruit Mr. Donolo to play some role for more than a week, but did not know it was for his job until late Tuesday.

Liberal sources said that about 10 days ago, it became clear that Mr. Ignatieff was taking advice to reach out for help to party veterans, and started asking not just Chrétien veterans like Mr. Donolo to join his team, but former advisers to Paul Martin like Tim Murphy and Elli Alboim to play a more important advisory role.

Mr. Donolo said in an e-mail last night that he is happy to be back with the Liberals.

“Michael Ignatieff is an outstanding Canadian who I believe would make an excellent prime minister,” he said. “I am fortunate to be building on the work initiated by Ian Davey.”

The changes come after heavy criticism from inside the party.

Critics said Mr. Ignatieff's staff pushed him to declare that he would attempt to defeat the government as soon as possible, a move that backfired with an election-weary public.

And his advisers took the brunt of the blasts when he overruled his Quebec lieutenant, Denis Coderre, to allow former justice minister Martin Cauchon to run in the Outremont riding, which had been promised to another candidate. Mr. Coderre quit the post, saying the Leader's Toronto advisers were giving poor advice on Quebec.

A fall in the polls – the latest Ipsos-Reid survey showed the Liberals with 25 per cent support, compared to 40 per cent for the Conservatives – made the clamour for change louder.

Mr. Davey and Mr. Brock were instrumental in bringing Mr. Ignatieff back from his Harvard career as an academic and pundit to run for Parliament, and then the leadership.

Mr. Brock, working in the early 1990s as a producer for CBC radio host Peter Gzowski, met Mr. Ignatieff when he was an on-air guest and was impressed. He and Mr. Davey, son of legendary Liberal strategist Keith Davey, had worked briefly on the short-lived 2003 leadership campaign of former deputy prime minister John Manley, and joined forces to persuade him to return to Canada.

Mr. Ignatieff clearly took to heart the criticism that the staff who win the leadership cannot always steer the course to winning government: He courted Mr. Donolo for several weeks, including a long lunch meeting last week.

Some said they expect the new chief aide to bring a major shift of style and operations.

Until this week, Mr. Donolo was a pollster with The Strategic Counsel, which conducts surveys for The Globe and Mail and CTV News, was known in Mr. Chrétien's PMO as the strategist who deflated grandiose strategies with an insistence that the Liberal message had to connect with mainstream voters.

He was also known for keeping a smiling face of good cheer with the media even when the news was bad – although some who know him insist that behind the scenes, he can be tough.

As communications director to Mr. Chrétien in opposition, he saw his leader repeatedly written off as Tuesday's man, but the party's relentless focus on a job-creation message in the 1993 election campaign, and Mr. Donolo's efforts to humanize the man – he always tipped reporters when the leader was taking a ride on a scooter or water-skis – helped turn that tide.


And here, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail website, is the best comment I have seen thus far:

Dept. Of Communications: Great Moments

Dan Cook

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:17 PM

Illustration_238041a.jpg

Illustration by Anthony Jenkins / The Globe and Mail.



Tuesday evening: "Just trying to get a note out to staff. There is no news. No resignation(s). No new chief of staff." — Jill Fairbrother, spokeswoman for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff

Tuesday evening: "I am pleased to announce the arrival of Peter Donolo, who has accepted the role of chief of staff." — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff


Jean Chrétien had a formidable political team. If, and it’s a big IF, Iggy Iffy Icarus can reassemble some of it he will get ready to fight and maybe even win an election. But it’s not clear, to me, that this is much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Well, next I fully expect the announcement of Peter Mansbridge and company as a secondary communications wing of the Liberal Party.....that way, nothing will have to change on the CBC National broadcasts.....
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is more on the changes to Prince Michael’s political front office:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/this-is-a-game-changer/article1341425/
'This is a game-changer'

Jane Taber

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Politics is a brutal business. The extent of the brutality was on full view last night at a Liberal gathering in downtown Toronto.

It was the annual Walter Gordon Circle dinner and Ted Sorensen, the legendary special counsel and adviser to JFK, was the guest speaker.

Every important Liberal in town was there, including Premier Dalton McGuinty, Senator and co-chair of the national Liberal campaign David Smith, party president Alf Apps and veteran pollster Michael Marzolini. But there was one conspicuous absence: Peter Donolo, the former communications director to Jean Chrétien, national pollster and huge JFK-phile, had cancelled at the last minute.

People were talking. Word had been leaking out that Mr. Donolo, a popular and well-respected Liberal, was about to be appointed Michael Ignatieff’s chief of staff. That meant that Ian Davey, 51, son of legendary rainmaker Keith Davey, was out after only several months at the helm in the OLO.

The buzz was one of relief and elation, according to some of the dinner participants.
“This is a game-changer,” said one of the dinner guests.

While Mr. Donolo was not answering his phone or returning messages, it wasn’t long before the knives came out for Mr. Davey.

“Someone described Ian as the ‘Keith without the Davey’,” the insider said.

That says it all. Mr. Davey never came close to living up to his father’s potential.

A member of the troika who successfully encouraged Mr. Ignatieff to leave his post at Harvard University to run for Canadian politics, Mr. Davey had only been in charge for several months. It had been a very rocky ride.

In those few months, Mr. Ignatieff lost almost all momentum, lurching from crisis to crisis, boldly threatening to take down the government and then tentatively pulling back.

The Liberal Leader's message was confused; the party was sliding in the polls as Stephen Harper's Conservatives consistently flirted with majority support. Nothing seemed to be working.

“A lot of people felt that from both a content and strategic messaging perspective what he was trying to communicate wasn’t coming through,” a senior Liberal official said.

Mr. Ignatieff clearly felt that, too. For the past few weeks, he has been consulting broadly within the party, calling and meeting with Liberals for their advice on what needed to change.

He got an earful.

“I think there was a feeling his office lacked the experience and depth in terms of the party roots, Ottawa roots,” the official said. “They weren’t drawing, filtering, synthesizing advice.”

Former prime minister Jean Chretien talks with his communications director Peter Donolo in this June 20, 1999, file photo.

There was a view that Mr. Davey and his close-knit group of OLO insiders were too Toronto-centric and had no sense of the rest of the country. They were accused of not consulting and deliberately keeping long-time Liberals out of the loop.

Something had to give.

Insiders say that Mr. Ignatieff made his decision to replace Mr. Davey, his friend and long-time adviser, by himself. It was not made quickly or lightly.

Through talking to grassroots Liberals and others, Mr. Ignatieff spoke to Mr. Donolo and, one official believes, he liked what he heard.

As recently as last week, the two met for lunch and the deal was struck for Mr. Donolo to come back to Ottawa. He is to start his new job tomorrow, according to a source.

Sources say that Mr. Donolo will have carte blanche to assess his office. It is not clear if principal secretary Dan Brock or communications director Jill Fairbrother will remain at the OLO.

While Toronto Liberals were chuffed - congratulatory emails have been exchanged throughout the night - the mood was entirely different in Ottawa.

Word began to leak out in the nation’s capital just after Question Period, with senior campaign people receiving calls about Mr. Donolo taking over and Mr. Davey’s departure.

But the rumours were consistently denied by Ms Fairbrother, who is also Mr. Davey's girlfriend.

Finally, at 9:40 p.m. a statement was released from the Liberal Leader, who had been in what was described as an “important meeting with Liberal MPs,” about the changes to his office:

“I am pleased to announce the arrival of Peter Donolo, who has accepted the role of Chief of Staff. Mr. Donolo brings a wealth of experience to this role through his long service as the director of communications for Prime Minister Jean Chretien and in his leading role at The Strategic Counsel. Ian Davey has my gratitude for his enormous service in building this OLO team, and I am grateful for his continuing counsel. I know that we are a stronger Liberal Party because of his contribution and leadership.”

But even the communications around Mr. Davey’s departure were handled poorly. He had been encouraged to get out the statement to clear up the rumours. Liberals, he was told by senior advisers, deserved the facts.

“It was a bittersweet day,” an Ottawa Ignateiff insider said. “While many staff had been brought into the team by Ian, many also knew there was a big need for change.”

Warren Kinsella, the Ignatieff war-room strategist who had also worked for Mr. Chrétien, took about 20 Liberal staffers, some of whom were upset and worried, to a nearby pub to cheer them up.

He told them, according an insider, that “our job was to do our job.”

The source added: “We listened to old Stones tunes and the mood was pretty good considering the circumstances.”


This might be a game changer:

• IF Donolo is still as connected (to what matters to most many enough Canadians) as he used to be – i.e. IF Donolo still understands the issues;

IF Donolo can bring back enough of that powerful, highly effective ‘old’ team or recreate it from new blood;

IF the Toronto gang do not rebel, as the Québec gang did and, thereby, recreate the problem that brings Donolo on board to replace Davey;

IF Iggy Iffy Icarus will listen to his new team and do something; and

IF the Conservatives are asleep at the switch.
 
Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.
 
Some sort of clear message is a must, although some messages (i.e. the "Green Shift" ) are not likely to be accepted. The firestorm over the recent Suzuki Foundation/TD Bank report on the true costs of "climate change" legislation should be a clear indication.

The Government needs some clear messaging as well: a detailed road map of the post stimulus economy would be nice.

I suspect the Christmas break, the Olympics and waiting for the Obama Administration to stop dithering on issues like Afghanistan and what sort of Carbon Tax they will implement will put election fever aside until late spring as all sides digest the new information and make new plans.
 
Ho-hum, according to this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/back-where-we-started/article1351941/

Gable_-_Hallowee_317083artw.jpg


Thursday, November 5, 2009

Back where we started

Jane Taber

1. Déjà vu all over again. A new national opinion poll by EKOS has the political parties exactly where they were after last year’s election - the Tories are at 37.4 per cent, the Liberals at 26.8 per cent, 16.3 per cent for the NDP, 10 for the Greens and 9.4 for the Bloc.
And pollster Frank Graves says “it’s actually scary.” He says after a year that was “chock o’ block” with coverage of a new Liberal Leader, prorogation, a near constitutional crisis and plenty of political fury, we are back in exactly the same place we were after the election. “It certainly seems to point to the fact that there is a lot of stability, or the less polite term is political stagnation,” he says. Mr. Graves adds that the numbers show Canadians are happy with the direction the country is going and that no political party has put anything new or different in the window that is causing the electorate to change its views.
However, there is some good news here for the Liberals as the Harper Tories have slipped out of majority territory. Three weeks ago, the EKOS poll showed the Conservatives at 40.7 per cent and firmly in majority government territory. But no more.
And one other interesting issue: Mr. Graves polled on infrastructure spending, asking whether it was “okay for communities who had voted for the ruling party to get greater benefits” from the stimulus program. He found that 13 per cent of Canadians said it was “okay to allocate based on riding’s party” but 59 per cent said it shouldn’t depend on the party’s riding. It’s not clear if this would be an issue that would change votes, he said. The poll was conducted between Oct. 28 and Nov. 3.


<yawn>


Conservatives - 37.3%

Liberals - 26.8%

NDP - 16.3%

Greens - 10%

BQ - 9.4%


 
Yet another reason we are unlikely to see an election anytime soon,* according to this bit, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
Follow the leader? Not these Liberals

Jane Taber

Friday, November 6, 2009

Michael Ignatieff needs to get a grip – on his caucus, on his party and on his staff. Too many of his Liberals are going rogue.

Eight of his MPs voted with the Tories this week to kill the long-gun registry. The Chrétien Liberals created the registry, spilling political blood to frame it into law. Privately, in the closed-door caucus meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff urged his MPs to stand together and vote against the government. His pleas fell on deaf ears. However, Mr. Ignatieff reminded reporters that he was allowing his MPs to vote freely, and that it was a private member’s bill, not government legislation.

This week, too, Liberal president Alf Apps sent a note to colleagues and party supporters comparing the H1N1 vaccine crisis to the Bush government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. More than a few Liberals were upset with the Apps hyperbole.

Then, Mr. Ignatieff’s hand-picked national party director, Rocco Rossi, was on Twitter, joking about swine flu and party patronage, saying “pork before swine.” A veteran Tory strategist called the Rossi joke “offensive.” Mr. Ignatieff didn’t offer any comment on the Apps/Rossi controversies.

It doesn’t end there: Ignatieff senior staffer Mark Sakamoto appeared on national television as an “ordinary citizen” complaining about the supply of the H1N1 vaccine. His cover was blown; the incident was embarrassing.

Mr. Sakamoto denied he was a plant. As parents of a newborn, he and his wife are on the priority list for the vaccine, and were waiting in line at a clinic when the interviewer approached. However, some believe the Ignatieff adviser should have known better.

Clearly, this behaviour is unnerving the Grits, with one Liberal describing the unwinding of the Ignatieff Liberals as being of “biblical proportions.”

Perhaps a slight exaggeration. But it is still instructive as it is happening when no one is in charge.

Mr. Ignatieff’s new chief of staff is Peter Donolo. His ETA on the Hill is Nov. 17. Mr. Donolo’s predecessor, Ian Davey, a close friend and adviser to Mr. Ignatieff, is on a beach in Florida with his girlfriend, Jill Fairbrother, the very capable director of communications to Mr. Ignatieff.

The two are mulling over their future. It is not clear whether they will return, and if they do, in what capacity.

Amid all this uncertainty is an undercurrent of restiveness in the caucus about Mr. Davey’s treatment. His imminent departure was leaked to the media before he even had a chance to speak to Mr. Ignatieff, and while Ms. Fairbrother was still denying it. Some MPs wonder where is the loyalty of the leader, who has been silent about the situation.

This rogue behaviour, meanwhile, is providing great fodder for the government, which is accusing the Ignatieff Liberals of being so base as to exploit the flu pandemic.

“It is very sad and unfortunate that the Ignatieff Liberals are desperately attempting to politicize the H1N1 preparedness efforts of the federal and provincial governments,” the PMO said in its “Alert” response to the Sakamoto television appearance. And in Question Period this week, Tory cabinet ministers repeated that same “politicization” refrain.

Have the Liberals lost their way?

EKOS national pollster Frank Graves says not yet. But they need to walk a fine line. Handled properly, the flu issue gives the Liberals an opportunity to show their stuff by keeping the government’s feet to the fire. He cautions them not to “wheel out the heavy artillery” until they are sure the government has grossly mishandled the situation. So far that does not appear to be the case.

“To do that at this stage you may end up looking basically disingenuous,” he said.

Mr. Graves has some sympathy for the Grits. “They are having a bad time in the polls, and they see a lob ball coming in and they just take a wild swing at it. … You kind of feel a little sorry for them.”

He believes that with Mr. Donolo’s experience, Mr. Ignatieff can rein in the Liberal outliers:

“Certainly a guy like Peter will be able to sort through what’s a real opportunity and a real exposed flank versus what’s just a story of the day.”

We’ll see in a couple of weeks.


Taber appears to be on the verge of panic over the fate of her beloved Liberals. The End Is Near!


----------
* Soon = spring/summer 2010
 
The future of the Liberal Party:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/11/justin-trudeau-demands-10000-speaking-fee-from-liberals/

Justin Trudeau demands $10,000 speaking fee… from Liberals

From Saturday’s Times Transcript,

    A Who’s Who of Metro Moncton and, indeed, the province showed up and raised $35,000 for projects promoting increased literacy. And the crowd of about 500 attendees heard a ‘passionate’ speech by Justin Trudeau, son of PET.

    Trudeau told reporters he loves visiting New Brunswick whenever he can: “I love it here. The people are so nice and hospitable,” he gushed. But what was that grumbling behind his back?

    Highly respected attendees say the event could have raised a lot more than it did. . . $10,000 more. It seems that was the personal appearance fee young Justin charged local Liberals for his ‘passionate speech.’ Tell us again why he likes visiting . . . please!

Justin is also available for sweet 16 birthday parties, club openings and bat mitzvahs. Please call his booking agent for details.

Heh
 
What happened to the family money?

This guy is a waste of rations just like his father.

I wonder if CBC will report this item. Probably it will be reported that he personally forked over $10 K as well as speaking.
 
Certainly today's results can't be good news for the Count.
 
A bit of a diversion via Jerry Pournelle. If you are disturbed by the "Liberal Lite" philosophy that is currently running the CPC, then here are some lessons from the NT-23 election that people who are thinking about a principled approach to government can use:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view595.html#Wednesday

Newt Gingrich said last night that he had endorsed the Republican candidate in upstate New York because she was the unanimous choice of the eleven Republican County Chairmen in the District. Precisely why they endorsed someone who would later withdraw and endorse a Democrat candidate is not known to me, and I doubt that Newt knows either. His advice to local party officials in New York state (where the Conservatives get to run a candidate or can endorse a candidate of another party; that's not a common situation in most states, and makes New York state politics unique) is that the Republican Party has to pay at least some attention to the local Conservative Party people in choices like this.

My observation is that parties and movements who can't generate party workers generally don't win. The ground game -- getting out the vote on election day -- remains fairly decisive, and one key to political influence remains: become a party activist and you get some influence. It is no longer true as it was in the 1950's and much of the 1960's that the US is in effect governed by about 50,000 self-selected Party Officials. Their influence and power have been greatly diluted by fund raisers and professional campaign people .

The so-called expertise of the army of mercenary political experts can be questioned. So can their commitment to any given political philosophy. It's hard to make a living as a political consultant unless you are willing to make fairly extensive compromises; it's easy to get in the habit of making compromise a goal, not a means to an end. The pay isn't all that good between campaigns, unless like Lyn Nofziger (whom I knew fairly well and admired) you do other consulting work. Lyn even co-wrote a couple of Western novels back in the slow times of Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter before the Reagan resurgence.

The self-selected party workers still have influence over party philosophy. It's one reason why the "social conservatives" have the influence they have: the can turn out the shock troops, people who will stand in the rain at a shopping mall, drive voters to the polls, organize people in assisted living facilities to get absentee ballots and fill them out, and all the other not very colorful work that goes into the ground game. Most conservatives don't want to do that. As Russell Kirk used to say, "conservatism is enjoyment." Conservatives believe that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but it's not a price so many of them are prepared to pay. Vigilance, yes; but sporadic, intense vigilance. Supreme effort, then "I lie in possession. Let me sleep."

The self-selected Party Workers -- of both parties -- no longer have the influence they once had, but they have some.

Meanwhile, the gloves are off, and we have seen that the Change We Can Believe In -- health care 'reform', cap and trade, enormous deficits, nationalization of industries, regulations without limit imposed by regulators who are beyond any regulation but the Iron Law -- has awakened some of the sleepers.

Tuesday's by-election has had a large influence on the future of the health care and carbon tax bills; the great shift of Independents from Obama has them scared. This must not be exaggerated. Back room politics will still have great influence, and the news media are already spinning the by-election shift to minimize it. But by and large there is reason for joy if not great rejoicing.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an interesting, somewhat insightful and slightly bitter column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-only-been-a-decade-but-the-conservative-way-is-redefining-us/article1368762/
Lawrence Martin It's only been a decade, but the conservative way is redefining us
The celebrated advent of Barack Obama makes Canada's trend line look all the more remarkable

Lawrence Martin

Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009

Last week's issuance of the Harper government's new citizenship guide came as a fitting capper to the first decade of the new century. With its emphasis on the military, law and order, the monarchy, with expressed limits on cultural tolerance, this was a document that affirmed Canada's new conservative way.

Rarely, if ever, have the Tories had it so good. For the Liberals, the past decade has been the lost decade. For the Conservatives, it's been gold. Trends of all sorts are working for them – political, demographic, media, geographic.

Canada has had an image as a liberal Eden since Thomas Edison did his light-bulb thing. The image is not yet undone. One need only look at the big-spending, deficit-building spree of today's government. But the old conception of Canada is at risk, threatened by an emerging conservative consensus that no one 10 years ago could have foreseen.

Under Jean Chrétien, the Liberal fortress looked impregnable. But starting off the new millennium came the trauma of 9/11. It shifted the political spectrum rightward. It led to the war in Afghanistan, to a redefinition of Canada's military role, to a glorification of the armed services and men such as Rick Hillier whose agenda was to get out there and kill, as the general put it, all those “scumbags.”

harper-hillier_340721gm-a.jpg

Harper and Hillier: Canadian foreign policy has moved away from soft power.
REUTERS


The backdrop eased the way for Stephen Harper's government to reshape Canadian foreign policy away from the soft-power Liberal inclinations of the previous half-century. Our old voice of moderation – on the Suez crisis, on Vietnam, the arms race, the Cold War, on peacekeeping – is no longer much in evidence. And Canadians don't seem to mind.

Abroad, it was war, while, at home, the heightened security climate played to the Conservatives' law and order agenda. Civil liberties seemed to take a back seat – Canadians, for instance, showed a willingness to forgo principled judicial norms and let one of their citizens rot in Guantanamo. Last week, they applauded a Conservative initiative to dismantle the gun registry.

The decade's critical development for conservatives was the unification of parties on the right that made electoral victory possible. Meantime, the left, with the onset of the Greens, fractionalized further. The Liberals made it hard on their own brand and easy for the Tories by falling into scandal and picking wobbly leaders.

The decade saw the right gain a stronger foothold in the media with the advent of a flagship conservative paper, the National Post. Maclean's magazine turned right. The CBC continued to struggle.

Another significant boost for conservative interests was the continued decline in influence of statist, left-leaning Quebec. Much to the chagrin of westerners, this province had set, with one Quebec prime minister after another, the Ottawa agenda going all the way back to the 1960s. But, in this decade, the focus went west, where the resource riches lay and where the population was moving. For the first time, Canadians elected what could truly be considered a western-rooted government, one highly attuned to the free-market spirit of Alberta.

Demographics worked in the Tory favour. Older voters tend to vote Conservative, and the population was aging. The youth cohort, where green and left-wing urges reside, stayed turned off and tuned out.

Free-market tendencies were upholstered by the undermining of the tax base with reductions in the GST and corporate taxes. Old-style nationalism took a further hit as the continuing hollowing-out trend bled the country of big-name national champions.

Not everything had a conservative lean. The Harper government's minority stature forced it into moderate territory on many an issue. At the provincial level, the Conservatives didn't make great strides. And as for Canadians themselves, the jury was still out on whether they were really moving to the starboard side. They loathed George W. Bush. They loved Barack Obama.

The celebrated advent of Mr. Obama made the trend line in Canada look all the more remarkable. We had customarily tacked left of America. Now that dichotomy was seemingly disappearing. The liberal rise in the United States had little or no reverberation north of the border, where the Harper Conservatives appeared to becoming more entrenched.

It was another indication of how Canada was being redefined, of what a decade could do to an identity, of how the old Canadian consensus had become imperilled.


The nub of Martin’s concern is that ”the old Canadian consensus had become imperilled.” Of course there never was a Canadian consensus; there was an urban Central Canadian consensus built around Montreal, Ottawa/Gatineau and Greater Toronto with 22±, 13± and 35± seats in the HoC, respectively. During the post St Laurent era, the past 50 years, the Liberal Party of Canada (led by Mike Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff) has, studiously, divided Canada into new making Canada and old taking Canada* - making Canada lies West of the Ottawa River and taking Canada is East of that river (Québec and Atlantic Canada take more from Canada - economically, socially, politically, productively - than they contribute).

What Martin fails to discuss is that immigration is also driving Canada towards a more Conservative position. Most immigrants, especially those from South and East Asia but also Middle Eastern immigrants, are fiscally prudent and socially conservative; they are less and less attracted to Liberal positions. The deep political roots that some immigrant communities have had in the Liberal Party of Canada are weakening. Prime Minister Harper is offering a newer, more comfortable face:

harper-temple-cp-wd-7678046.jpg

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, second from left, gestures as Punjab state deputy chief minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, third from left, looks on in front of the Golden Temple, Sikhism's holiest site, in Amritsar, India, on Wednesday.
(Associated Press)


The “funny hat” photo-ops can and do translate into political support back home when they show some sensitivity towards the aspirations of ethnic groups. See here, click on the Video “Political reaction in Canada.”

The Toronto 18 are an aberration. Most Muslims in Canada are relatively secular – less secular than, say, most Christians, Jews and, of course, irreligious Chinese and, probably, more secular than e.g. some Sikhs. There are Islamic extremists in Canada, just as there are dangerously extremist Sikhs and nutjob fundamentalist Christians. We should not tar any community with allegations of being terrorists just because a few members of that community insist upon adhering to extreme ‘values’ and want to “fight” old, foreign wars here in Canada.

Canadians are not irredeemingly Conservative but a very large minority of them are, now, comfortable with the Conservative (liberal) values that Stephen Harper enunciates and demonstrates. (But, many died in the wool red neck Reformers are less and less happy with Harper’s directions - few of which lead towards imposing on us all the collectivist social/religious ‘values’ they hold.) The Liberals can recapture the centre if they cast aside their particularist wings: gays, feminists, etc, etc, etc. But that’s a dangerous proposition because they will migrate towards the NDP which is already making inroads in the Liberals’ urban ‘base.’

All of which makes a 2010 election more and more problematical for Iggy Iffy Icarus but, conversely, may make it essential to go sooner rather than later because failing to pull the trigger (if he can the BQ and Dippers to join in) just serves to strengthen the Tory’s growing base of support.


---------------
* As described by Brian Lee Crowley in Fearful symmetry: the fall and rise of Canada’s founding values, Toronto, 2009


Edit: punctuation and grammar
 
"Civil liberties seemed to take a back seat – Canadians... applauded a Conservative initiative to dismantle the gun registry. "

What an odd mindset that man has.  Untrammelled ownership rights are more liberal than constraints and restraints.
 
Back
Top