Politics in 2013

[a_majoor]

giant inforgraphic on govvernment spending in the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/22/graphic-the-governomics-of-canada/

Much interesting data and information

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are two articles, today, about a smallish, but still, I think, significant revolt within the Conservative Party:

    First, in the National Post - John Ivison says The backbench revolt is the closest thing to a revolution Harper's seen; and

    Second, in the Globe and Mail - Gloria Galloway says Conservative MPs close ranks on house muzzling.

The issue is that Prime Minister Harper is muzzling his caucus. They are forbidden to use the "Members Statements" period to talk about their own pet issues - like abortion. Some, especially those with deep roots in the Reform Party, and even more especially those with no hope of a seat at the cabinet table (because there are too many Alberta MPs), have had enough.

Personally, as most people who read my posts know, I have no sympathy. I think Prime Minister Harper, and his successors, must drag the CPC, kicking and screaming, into the political centre; the alternative is to cede perpetual power to the Liberals and NDP. I know many social conservatives don't like that; I don't care what they like; they have alternatives. What Canada needs is a system wherein two major parties in the centre and a few minor parties on the left and right fringes contest for power so that power will, always, reside in the centre - sometimes a bit right of centre, sometimes a bit left of centre but never in the hands of doctrinaire parties like the Greens or the Christian Heritage Party.

But, this is a revolt and, eventually, Prime Minister Harper will need to quell it.

Asking Speaker Scheer to intervene in internal party tactical matters, as Conservative MP Mark Warawa has done, is silly - I'm being charitable - and proves that Mr. Warawa is not front bench material.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... The issue is that Prime Minister Harper is muzzling his caucus. They are forbidden to use the "Members Statements" period to talk about their own pet issues - like abortion. Some, especially those with deep roots in the Reform Party, and even more especially those with no hope of a seat at the cabinet table (because there are too many Alberta MPs), have had enough.

Personally, as most people who read my posts know, I have no sympathy. I think Prime Minister Harper, and his successors, must drag the CPC, kicking and screaming, into the political centre; the alternative is to cede perpetual power to the Liberals and NDP. I know many social conservatives don't like that; I don't care what they like; they have alternatives. What Canada needs is a system wherein two major parties in the centre and a few minor parties on the left and right fringes contest for power so that power will, always, reside in the centre - sometimes a bit right of centre, sometimes a bit left of centre but never in the hands of doctrinaire parties like the Greens or the Christian Heritage Party.

But, this is a revolt and, eventually, Prime Minister Harper will need to quell it.

Asking Speaker Scheer to intervene in internal party tactical matters, as Conservative MP Mark Warawa has done, is silly - I'm being charitable - and proves that Mr. Warawa is not front bench material.

I like your previously-shared COA ....

.... (The PM) should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the nuclear option open to every party leader.)

 

[ModlrMike]

The real irony is that the same people frothing at the mouth over Mr Harper's discipline of his members would lose their minds if those same members were able to champion pet causes like abortion etc.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But that's exactly why "they" froth over message discipline; "they" want to "lose their minds" - which is to say, they desire Conservative MPs who might say something outlandish (or something which can be twisted to seem outlandish) to speak freely so that "they" can work themselves up into a state of outrage and propagandize the off-hand remarks of a few to represent the beliefs of the whole.  Harper's tight message control deprives "them" of oxygen.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have some, actually a lot of sympathy for the argument that MPs need to be able to express their views, and the views of their constituents, on a range of issues. But the desire to represent constituents' views must, always, be tempered with Edmund Burke's sage letter to teh electors of Bristol.

But politics has come a long way since Burke sat in the House of Commons (1765 to 1794), not always for the better, and party discipline is, now, a very necessary part of the process.

But ~ another but ~ there can be, and in my personal opinion is too much discipline on too may issues. There is no question that every MP on the government side must support his party on every single treasury bill or be, immediately, drummed out of that party. No discussion, no exceptions: the treasury is at the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy and the treasury is always the main business of parliament. If one is elected as a member of the governing party and one cannot support its treasury bills then one was elected under false pretenses.

But ~ a third but ~ no other issues, not even the Constitution or law and order or the defence of the realm, require the same loyalty and members may disagree with, speak against and even vote against their party, even when it is the governing party, so long as: they make clear, in every speech, that they understand that speaking against the policies of their own party and that they are prepared for the consequences of so doing.

"But," you ask, "what if the government fall?" My answer is that, the government should not allow confidence to be an issue on any matter that is not tied to the treasury. There are too many confidence issues, tied to a quite recent notion that everything laid out in the Speech from the Throne, the government's legislative agenda, must be a matter of confidence. That's silly. I repeat: the treasury is the very foundation stone upon which our system of parliamentary democracy rests - and has since, at least, the time of Henry I (1100 to 1135) and the establishment of the royal exchequer - and the right to control the national treasury is the only meaningful test of confidence for any government.

Prime Minister Harper has a chance to use this peasants' revolt to reform parliamentary democracy in Canada, but i doubt he will; he is not fond of the bold stroke.

 

[ModlrMike]

I have to agree, Edward that there is too much control these days. Not every issue has to be a confidence matter. If we take our cue from other Westminster style houses, government bills fail all the time - it doesn't result in a change of government. Our system has grown too acrimonious and confrontational to be effective.

That being said, I firmly believe that this instance is nothing more than an attempt by these MPs to reignite the abortion debate. They failed before, and they will likely fail again. That some of our more ardent left leaners support their so-called free speech claim should serve as warning. They're just waiting to pounce when the inevitable anti-abortion commentary follows.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Except when you throw in everything under a budget bill including the kitchen sink. If a bill to change an act can't survive parliamentary debate on it's own feet, then it does not deserve to be law. I have seen first hand the making of a new bill in recent times and frankly I would not trust the drafters to do my laundry, much less make law.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Except when you throw in everything under a budget bill including the kitchen sink. If a bill to change an act can't survive parliamentary debate on it's own feet, then it does not deserve to be law. I have seen first hand the making of a new bill in recent times and frankly I would not trust the drafters to do my laundry, much less make law.

And the National Post's Matt Gurney (and I) agree with you. His views are in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/04/matt-gurney-memo-to-the-tories-stop-being-jerks-before-its-too-late/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Memo to the Tories: Stop being jerks before it’s too late

Matt Gurney

13/04/04

A rather interesting poll shows that the federal Liberals have pulled ahead of the federal Conservatives. Hypothetical matchups between potential Liberal leaders and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have previously shown that a Liberal party led by Justin Trudeau could potentially defeat the Tories in 2015. But that’s not with this poll is showing. The Liberals’ margin of support increases with Justin Trudeau slotted in as leader, but they’re winning even without him.

A few provisos: So far it’s only one poll. The margins within it are quite tight — Liberals without Trudeau lead the Tories 33-29, which is pretty tight in a poll with a 3% margin of error. And, of course, it’s a poll that’s out two years before an election. There’s some time left on the clock.

Granted. But the Tories still ought to be worried. The Liberal Party of Canada, right now, is essentially a placeholder. It exists as an institution — it has executives and riding associations and the like. But it has few policies, as those will be determined by the incoming leader. Ditto a strong agenda. Until they have their new boss, the Liberals are essentially in a holding pattern.

And they’re winning.

This a far greater warning sign for the Tories than the poll showing that Trudeau would positively blow them out of the water if he were leader, 40-28. Sure, that’s a much wider margin, but it’s also pegged very much to one man. We can infer from the poll that 7% of the Liberals’ support is essentially Trudeau’s support. All of it could go away in an instant if Trudeau, a relatively inexperienced candidate with a habit of saying stupid things, had some catastrophic flame out in public. And if Trudeau inconsiderately declines to self-destruct, the Tories can go after him with attack ads. A good enough Tory campaign, or a little good luck, could wipe that 7% out.

But how can Tories feel good about the fact that their government is losing to a political party existing in self-induced stasis? There is clearly no particular reason for Canadians to be shifting their support to the Liberals at this moment; anyone who’d suggest that they’re getting a bump from their leadership race hasn’t been paying attention to that snoozefest. The best bet is that Canadians are doing what they’ve long done — parking their (hypothetical) votes with the Liberals because they’re not inspired with the other options (the poll gives the NDP even less to feel good about than the Tories).

The Tories have always counted on winning the next election by balancing the budget and then implementing all of the marvelous tax credits and other goodies they promised last time, but only once the country was back to black. They’re still going to try, of course. But with the economy growing slowly, and even Alberta’s oil wealth underperforming, the Tories must now confront the possibility that their whole plan might not be achievable. A good place to start, and start immediately, would be softening the image. Bluntly, not coming across as such jerks.

That means no more omnibus bills rammed through Parliament. No more nickle and diming veterans. No more comparing the opposition to child pornographers (pretty much no more Vic Toews whatsoever, actually). No more helicopter rides back from fishing trips. No more pretty gazebos. No more shutting down your own MPs when they want to debate a contentious motion. If it’s at all possible to avoid the appearance of not caring about Africans dying of thirst, that’d be great, too. And let’s not even get started on Senator Brazeau.

None of the above issues are fatal in and of themselves. But they, and many more, add up. It turns people off, even conservatives who might not be particularly wild about the kind of mushy middle policies Harper has so far preferred.

It’s way too early to start guessing what the 2015 federal campaign will be about, or what issues the election will hinge on. If the Tories can’t balance the books, though, it’s fair to say they’ll be at a disadvantage no matter how many photos Stephen Harper tweets of his cat. But that’s no excuse to keep racking up dumb errors. When your main plan to win the next election is suddenly in doubt, that may be a good opportunity to minimize how often your party comes off looking like a bunch of jerks.

National Post

Matt Gurney: • mgurney@nationalpost.com

The Conservative front bench is not bad, maybe not as good as Mulroney's in 1984, but, all-in-all, competent. I think one thing Prime Minister Harper might try is to trim his cabinet by merging several ministries into fewer "super-ministries," each under a strong, trusted minister and each with enough associate (junior) ministers to satisfy all the Canadian regional, ethnic, linguistic, racial and whatever else requirements. Then he should let the trusted few run their portfolios, guided by a fairly public "master plan." He needs manage a careful balance between the ill conceived but popular law and order agenda, with which part of his constituency is very happy, and a broader socially moderate agenda that is needed to regain and retain the trust of suburban Canadians. He can write off the major urban cores of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver but he must retain and even strengthen his hold on rural Canada and make more, real gains in the suburbs, too. Vic Toews is a hazard in suburban Canada, so, albeit to a lesser degree, is Tony Clement. But Clement is a very good political tactician and manager; Toews needs to be appointed to the Manitoba Bench.

There is time to turn things around, but Stephen Harper has been prime minister for over six years. He's not past his "best before" date ... yet. But nothing can destroy a government faster than growing stale.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Problem is they believe Canadians when they say; "We want less red tape" What they are really saying is : "I want less red tape effecting me, but by Jesus you better deal with that fellow down the road that causing me problems!!!"

 

[Edward Campbell]

And a poll, in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/11/pol-nanos-liberals-ahead-of-conservatives-in-new-poll.html

Federal Liberals lead Conservatives in new poll
Nanos poll suggests NDP drop to third as number of undecided voters plummets

By Laura Payton, CBC News

Posted: Apr 12, 2013

The federal Liberals have topped the Conservatives for the first time in years, with the NDP dropping to third, a new Nanos Research poll suggests.

The poll, which comes more than two years before the next federal election, has the Liberals in first place at 35.4 per cent. The Conservatives are 4.1 percentage points back, at 31.3 per cent and the NDP are at 23.6 per cent.

The difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is greater than the margin of error for the poll. The numbers are considered accurate to within 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

That puts the Liberals up several percentage points from the last poll two months ago, when they sat in second place at 29.1 per cent. The Conservatives were ahead in that poll with 31.5 per cent and the NDP in third at 27.2 per cent.

The number of people polled who said they were undecided has plunged since the last survey, from 28.3 per cent last February to 11.2 per cent this month.

The Liberal Party has had substantial media coverage in the past few months as they ramp up to reveal their next leader this weekend.

"It is too early to tell whether this increase in Liberal support is the new trend or a direct result of the focus on the Liberal Leadership race," Nik Nanos, the president and CEO of Nanos Research, told CBC News.

"What is clear is that the focus on the Liberal leadership is having reverberations on the political landscape," he said.

The last three times the Nanos poll suggested the party had surpassed the Conservatives were:

    In early 2006, just after Stéphane Dion won the party's leadership.
    In fall 2008, just before that year's federal election.
    In spring 2009, when Michael Ignatieff won the party's leadership.

Nanos Research recruited 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, by phone and then administered an online survey. The survey was conducted April 4 to 8, 2013.

People polled were asked: "For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences?"

The February poll was considered accurate to within 3.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The Liberals, especially M. Trudeau, have dominated the media for the past few weeks - with, by and large, favourable coverage - so it should not be surprising that they have a bounce in the polls. But note the (indented) history - a leader bounce does not translate into electoral success.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I hope there is enough bounce to make the Conservatives sweat, in fact I would like to see them in a minority government or the slimmest of majority next time around. I am less than impressed with many of their current practices. I hold no illusions about what the other side has to offer either.

 

[OldSolduer]

Problem is they believe Canadians when they say; "We want less red tape" What they are really saying is : "I want less red tape effecting me, but by Jesus you better deal with that fellow down the road that causing me problems!!,!"

The Canadian public is very fickle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Canadian public is very fickle.

While the Globe and Mail has been a celebrity obsessed as all other media, its editorial board still has its head screwed on as it demonstrates in this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, which is, rightfully, very critical of Justin Trudeau's silly, adolescent level comment about "root causes:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/justin-trudeau-and-the-problem-with-root-causes/article11402107/

Justin Trudeau and the problem with ‘root causes’

The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Apr. 19 2013

With the identification of two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, it may not be long before the world learns who the perpetrators were and what, if any, affiliations they had. The only thing that is clear right now is that there is little appetite for a discussion of “root causes,” something Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said should be examined in the wake of the bombings. It was a poorly timed and misinformed statement that suggests Mr. Trudeau has a learning curve ahead of him.

“We have to look at the root causes,” Mr. Trudeau said the day after the bombings. “Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue.

“But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?”

Contrary to what Mr. Trudeau claimed, there is, in fact, a great deal of question as to whether the bomber or bombers felt “excluded,” a word that implies the perpetrators were victims of society. Is Mr. Trudeau saying that, if the world made everyone feel included, there would be no such acts? Being “completely at war with innocents,” as he put it, is not the necessary outcome of marginalization. In the case of terrorism, the willingness of a non-state actor to murder innocent people can be the result of many other factors, including calculated political ambition.

The term “root causes” is also problematic. In one sense, Mr. Trudeau is correct. Societies should always try to understand the root causes of the problems they face. But terrorism is not an internal societal ill; it is a political ill, and often external, at that. The Boston bombers likely did not have a more complicated motive than the criminal desire to see people die and/or be maimed, but like all terrorists they could undoubtedly come up with a long list of grievances if asked.

Mr. Trudeau should have known that, in the absence of any information about who had carried out the bombings, his words would come across as an ill-timed scold. He did not display much sensitivity or diplomatic maturity. More problematically, his use of the term “root causes” raises the question of what he thinks those root causes are. Is he referring to American foreign policy? We need to hear more from Mr. Trudeau on this issue.

Despite his good looks, appealing, genuinely pleasant personality and celebrity status, M. Trudeau is a lightweight.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Didn't take him long to drag out the campfire circle and start singing Kumbaya  :

He, obviously, hasn't bothered watching much real news for the last 20 years and is disconnected with the way the real world works.

Probably the outcome of living in his little self absorbed bubble all his life.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Despite his good looks, appealing, genuinely pleasant personality and celebrity status, M. Trudeau is a lightweight.

Yes, unfortunately I'd have to agree that his quotes in the article you shared indeed show is juvenile (not said to be insulting to him, but more as an accurate view of his ideals) sense and inexperience in the "real world," as Recceguy stated.  I'd like to think that it isn't a precursor of attitudes and disillusionment to come, but I feel it might be.

 

[ModlrMike]

Personally I think that Mr Trudeau`s focus on "root causes" is no more than thinly veiled blame the victim. That the victims in this case happen to be Americans, then that fits well with Liberal party history.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"Mid-term malaise" is shaping up to be the "mot du jour" for the media and here are two contrasting views on the subject, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from, respectively, the Toronto Star and the National Post

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/19/attack_ads_part_of_tories_midlife_malaise_hbert.html

Attack ads part of Tories’ mid-life malaise: Hébert
With attacks ads on Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are focusing on the consequences rather than the root causes of their drop in popularity.

By: Chantal Hébert National Affairs,

Published on Fri Apr 19 2013

MONTRÉAL—With attacks ads on Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are focusing on the consequences rather than the root causes of their drop in popularity.

They are assuming that undermining the credibility of yet another Liberal leader will necessarily shore up their own. That assumption turned out to be valid in the cases of Trudeau’s two immediate predecessors. But two years into Harper’s third mandate, it rests on shakier ground than in the lead-up to the last general election.

Independent of leadership developments within the opposition parties, the Conservatives’ own standing has steadily deteriorated since their 2011 majority victory.

If anything the anti-Conservative core vote has become more solid while core support for the governing party has become softer.

From the religious right to libertarians and fiscal conservatives, the key constituencies that make up Harper’s coalition are finding that majority rule is not what it was cracked up to be.

But judging from the slump in Conservative fortunes, the centrist voters who bridged the gap between a minority and a governing majority two years ago feel that Harper’s government is not living up to their expectations.

With every passing month it is becoming harder to address the frustrations of the former without alienating more of the latter, and vice-versa.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least some of the voters who say they would switch or return to the Trudeau-led Liberals in an election are doing so with their eyes open.

It is not that they are blind to his potential shortcomings but that they are increasingly willing to overlook them to take the Conservatives out of government.

If the Conservative black ops against Trudeau succeed, a significant chunk of those voters could be as likely if not more to turn to a centrist-led NDP as to want to help Harper secure a fourth mandate.

That trend is not based strictly on a cyclical tide for change.

At this juncture an overwhelming majority of Canadians — around 70 per cent — agree as to the prime minister that they do not want, even if it means replacing Harper with an untested Liberal leader or an untried federal NDP.

Harper’s predicament is more akin to a multiplication of slow leaks than a major puncture. That could make it harder to fix.

To reduce the current battle to a personality contest that can be won with attack ads is to miss the central point that it is also unfolding on the field of values.

Polls suggest that despite sustained Conservative efforts, Canadians are more likely to identify with Liberal- or NPD-inspired policies such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and medicare than with the favoured icons of the Canadian right.

Trudeau’s core strength rests in the fact that many voters project their fundamental political values onto his leadership, while Harper often comes across to them as a threat.

The attack ads are as likely to cement an already strong anti-Conservative resolve as to chip at Liberal support. And many Conservative supporters would rather be defending solid government policy than partisan ads.

For that to happen, the government would have to work itself out of an ongoing mid-life malaise. That should presumably start with a mid-term cabinet shuffle this summer. But in a government whose ministers have been expected to be faceless, does it matter who is sitting where at the cabinet table?

And then governments are like big ships. They do not turn on a dime or on a 20-page throne speech. On climate change, on foreign affairs, on health care, on the economy the Conservative course is set and could not be easily altered even if the current crew wanted to.

Last week a senior Ontario Conservative suggested that the only viable path to another Harper majority victory involved putting a kind face on a consistent Conservative agenda. On both scores we agreed that it is becoming a tall order.

While, in contrast:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/19/john-ivison-despite-conservative-malaise-only-spectacular-collapse-could-keep-stephen-harper-from-winning-next-election/

Despite recent Conservative malaise, only spectacular collapse could stop Stephen Harper

John Ivison

13/04/19

Stephen Harper has been having fun. How can anyone tell? The man is as inscrutable as destiny. But people who know him say he has been more relaxed, less tense since winning majority government.

Some nervous Conservatives are concerned that he’s become “disconnected,” even as Justin Trudeau rises. One Tory MP, though, had a different explanation: “He’s not disconnected, he’s just not been on a war-footing.”

That changed on Wednesday when the Prime Minister served notice that his two year hiatus from bare-knuckle political brawling is over. Mr. Trudeau gave Mr. Harper his opening by suggesting that the Boston Marathon bombing was perpetrated by “someone who feels completely excluded.”

The language was similar to that used by then-prime minister Paul Martin, in the immediate aftermath the Jane Creba shooting outside Toronto’s Eaton Centre in December, 2005, when he talked about “the consequences of exclusion.”

Then, as now, Mr. Harper was unforgiving. “When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it, or figure out its root causes,” he told reporters in London, where he was attending Margaret Thatcher’s funeral.

Mr. Harper was trumpeting what he considers the “moral neutrality” of the Liberals. This is the core of the Prime Minister’s social conservatism – politics as a moral affair. As he wrote a decade ago: “Without clear values ourselves, our side has no purpose, no meaning and no chance of success.”

Mr. Harper has now served notice that the way to solve a problem like Justin is to leap on the inevitable gaffes the inexperienced new leader is bound to make. There will be no deviation from the approach that has worked in the past – steady, serious, safe and always quick to point out the shortcomings of opponents.

“It would be a real mistake to fundamentally change who we are. To alter our approach in a meaningful way would be to run the risk of not standing for anything,” said one Cabinet minister.

And yet, the problems arrayed against Mr. Harper are mounting.

There is, according to one MP, a “significant” body of cranky caucus members who are unhappy with the “command and control” tactics being exercised by the Prime Minister’s Office, limiting the capacity of individual MPs to even read out their own members’ statements before Question Period.

This reform caucus has been meeting for over a year and discussing ways to loosen party discipline for backbenchers. “No one is suggesting removing the whip’s ability to discipline members but this has to happen after an infraction takes place, not before,” the MP said.

Meantime, the polls are showing a softening in Conservative support and, even prior to Mr. Trudeau’s coronation, an uptick for the Liberals.

In Question Period, the new Grit leader was brazen in his  pursuit of votes from tricycle and little red wagon buyers in the suburbs, the “bread-basket” of the Conservative Party. Most of the 30 new ridings being created by redistribution are in these areas, making the suburbs even more coveted than usual.

To lure these voters, Mr. Trudeau may want to dial down the standard opposition rhetoric that there is somehow an illegitimacy to Mr. Harper’s mandate. Conservative voters may be persuaded to switch but may be less inclined if their previous choice is presented as incomprehensible.

The NDP is chasing the same middle class votes and this week held a cheeky press conference in the same Ottawa bike shop where Finance Minister Jim Flaherty highlighted the benefits of his budget last year. This time, the owner of Joe Mamma’s was upset by the price increases caused by the Conservatives’ decision to increase tariffs on goods from countries including China. “I feel misled more than anything,” said Jose Bray, referring to Mr. Flaherty’s pledge not to raise taxes.

This has become a habit of late for the Conservatives – unforced errors that allow their opponents to make them look foolish.

Things don’t seem to be thought through the way they used to be – accusing the NDP of wanting to impose a “$21-billion carbon tax” is cutting across the Tories’ plans to regulate the oil and gas sector.

One party veteran said the government has hit a “policy air pocket” where it doesn’t know what to do or say next.

He compared the current malaise to the period just after the 2008 election, when the Tories misinterpreted what voters wanted and nearly lost government to the opposition coalition. “That was a big air pocket,” said the senior Conservative.

The Conservatives are undoubtedly experiencing some turbulence yet they remain favourites to win the next election. The race doesn’t always go to the party with the most seats going in, or the party that raises more money than its rivals combined. But that’s the way to bet.

In my unscientific poll of Cabinet ministers, MPs and senior staffers, there remains a conviction that Mr. Harper will see off his fourth Liberal leader in 2015.

“He has the recipe to get to 50% plus one in the House of Commons and he won’t shape that strategy around who is across the aisle,” said one party veteran.

A Cabinet shuffle, prorogation and a fall Speech from the Throne are all but guaranteed.

“We are a serious party, with a serious leader, and we always do well when we represent the aspirations of the middle class,” said one Cabinet minister.

Success will require the Prime Minister to burnish his credentials as a good steward of the public purse – and that will require balancing the budget in two years time.

The good news for the Tories is that the Bank of Canada this week forecast relatively robust growth numbers for next year and the year after, based on improved trade with the U.S., while downgrading growth this year.

Projected growth of 2.8% next year is higher than the 2.5% consensus in the recent budget. If the economy grows in line with those forecasts, and commodity prices don’t tank, Mr. Flaherty should be able to announce the government is back in the black in 2015.

If the numbers are sufficiently strong, the Finance Minister may even be able to commit to income splitting for families with children in the 2015 budget. It would cost $2.5-billion, but it would allow them to go into the next election campaign daring their rivals to repeal the legislation.

The math suggests it will be difficult for either NDP or Liberals to get to 170 seats in 2015. The NDP currently hold 100 ridings and many of its 59 Quebec seats are likely to come under pressure from the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals, with 35 seats, may be competitive in around 10 of those and will likely pick up the odd seat in Atlantic Canada from the Conservatives. But for either opposition party to offer a serious threat, they will need to sweep the seat rich suburbs. The Tories have 164 seats and it would take a really spectacular collapse for them to lose government. For that to happen would require the economy to not just slow but grind to a virtual halt.

“People vote with their wallets – they place value in jobs, mortgages and their lifestyle. I don’t think the middle class will be impressed by rhetoric, versus cold facts. No Justin Trudeau is going to change that,” said one veteran campaigner.

National Post

That the CPC is down in the polls in undeniable; but it is mid-term and my sense is that's the norm for all governments. (I'm happy to be corrected on that by someone with access to good data.)

The question is: can Prime Minister Harper use the next two years to stiffen and then expand his popular support and win another majority? My answer is and unqualified "Yes." The "senior Ontario Conservative" who suggested that what is need is "putting a kind face on a consistent Conservative agenda" missed two points:

    1. Canadian don't really care that Prime Minister Harper is less than lovable, they don't really "like" him but they do respect him. They want competence; and

    2. Which "Conservative agenda?" Social conservatism is a loser; law and order conservatism gets mixed reviews; fiscal conservatism is risky. Most Canadians vote in the mushy middle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html

Justin Trudeau: the gift that keeps on giving

 

[Edward Campbell]

And a poll, in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/11/pol-nanos-liberals-ahead-of-conservatives-in-new-poll.html
   

Federal Liberals lead Conservatives in new poll
    Nanos poll suggests NDP drop to third as number of undecided voters plummets

    By Laura Payton, CBC News

    Posted: Apr 12, 2013 ...

The Liberals, especially M. Trudeau, have dominated the media for the past few weeks - with, by and large, favourable coverage - so it should not be surprising that they have a bounce in the polls. But note the (indented) history - a leader bounce does not translate into electoral success.

"Polls are a snapshot in time," says a Conservative insider in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Hill Times, in which a Liberal insider posits that while there is unlikely to be much of a "bleed" from the CPC to the Liberals the Liberals are well poised to suck a lot of support away from the NDP:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/04/22/tories-ndp-not-worried-by-polls-but-liberals-say-they-should-be/34462?page_requested=1

Tories, NDP not worried by polls, but Liberals say they should be
Federal Liberals say the national political landscape has changed and all parties say they’re now in permanent campaign mode.

By BEA VONGDOUANGCHANH |

Published: Monday, 04/22/2013

The Liberals say the federal political landscape has changed now that Justin Trudeau is their party leader, but the Conservatives and NDP say they’re not worried about public opinion polls showing the Grits on the rise and say anything is possible in the lead up to the next federal election in 2015.

“I’m not worried,” said John Capobianco, vice-president of consulting firm Fleishman-Hillard and a former Conservative Party candidate. “Polls are always only snapshots in time. We’re not even halfway through an election cycle. It’s been all Justin Trudeau for the last couple of weekends, culminating in his leadership win Sunday [April 14], so there’s no doubt that’s front and centre in people’s minds. When Thomas Mulcair won the NDP leadership, there was a significant bump for the NDP and you see where they are now, in third place. As you’re seeing already, day three, Justin’s made some mistakes and I think Canadians will realize the expectation they may have had with Justin are going to wane over time.”

A Forum Research poll released last week showed under Mr. Trudeau’s (Papineau, Que.) leadership, the Liberal Party would win 43 per cent support if an election were held, while the Conservatives would have 30 per cent. The poll, conducted on April 14 by automated phone with 1,764 people, found that the NDP held 19 per cent support. The poll is accurate to within two percentage points.

An earlier poll, conducted by Nanos, also showed that for the first time since 2009, the third-placed Liberal Party was polling ahead of the governing Conservatives. The Liberals had 35.4 per cent support, according to the poll released April 12. The Conservatives were in second place with 31.3 per cent support and the NDP at 23.6 per cent support. The poll, taken between April 4-8, is accurate to 3.3 percentage points.

Éric Grenier, a blogger at ThreeHundredEight.com, aggregated all of the recent polling results and also found that the Liberal Party is up at 34.7 per cent with the Conservatives following closely at 30.4 per cent. According to the weighted aggregate, the NDP have 23.1 per cent.

“If an election were held today, there would be a 87 per cent chance that the Liberals would win the popular vote, based on past polling error,” Mr. Grenier wrote on April 16.

Warren Kinsella, a Liberal pundit and former adviser to former PM Jean Chrétien, said last week that the NDP should be worried about those numbers because the Liberal bounce is coming at their expense.

“There’s very little vote that I can see that will bleed from Harper to Trudeau. But, from Mulcair to Trudeau, there will be plenty of voters shifting allegiance. The Dippers need to do a lot more than remove the word ‘socialism’ from their constitution,” Mr. Kinsella told The Hill Times in an email, referring the NDP’s policy convention at which delegates voted to rewrite the party constitution’s preamble to remove reference to socialism and add references to social democracy instead.

“The notion that the NDP will ever form a government, now, is a joke.  If that’s what NDP spinners are saying, they need to get their heads read.  They’re in trouble,” said Mr. Kinsella.

A Liberal lobbyist, who did not want to be identified for this story, echoed those sentiments, saying the NDP is still riding an “orange wave,” but that the recent polling shows the other parties need to start looking at them seriously.

“I don’t think there’s enough substance at the NDP level to justify their level of support in the last election. If they get stalled, they’ve got nowhere else to go but down. The Tories aren’t worried yet, because I think they still think the traditional attack ads will reduce him to rubble. As we get closer to an election, I think everybody gets worried. But, a day is a lifetime in politics,” the lobbyist said. “When you’ve got a leader who’s this popular, you’re attracting money, and you’re attracting volunteers. That’s going to be a tough thing for the NDP if they’re competing for the certain overlap of supporters. Who’s going to win that battle? I think they will go with whoever they think is going to win, and that’s a tipping point that’s huge in people’s mind. And the latest poll certainly doesn’t help the NDP.”

But Robin MacLachlan, a former NDP staffer, and now a consultant with Summa Strategies, said it’s the Liberals who should be worried about their fortunes going forward because it’s not their party leader, Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.), who the Conservatives are painting as “in over his head,” referring to the attack ads on Mr. Trudeau that the Conservative Party released last week.

“You don’t see Conservatives attacking Mr. Mulcair for not being ready to govern. You don’t see Conservatives attacking him for being inexperienced or in over his head because that would be a ridiculous narrative. They’re trying to establish a narrative on Trudeau hoping that he won’t be able to shake it,” Mr. MacLachlan said. “Of course, the Liberals were squeezed enormously in the last election on the right from the Conservatives, and with progressives from the NDP so they have to carve out some space for themselves in the Canadian political spectrum.”

Mr. MacLachlan said the Liberals will try to improve their brand in Quebec because the ground game there “has been decimated” and is “still tainted from the sponsorship scandal.”

“Yes, I expect the Liberals to go after NDP supporters, but the NDP will continue to do the hard work of engaging Canadians in the community and standing up for their interests in the House,” he said, noting that the NDP is used to being written off, but enjoys proving people wrong. “I would wonder what Warren Kinsella would say about the NDP forming the official opposition in the winter of 2011. I’m pretty sure he would’ve thought that was a joke as well. I think he should hold his breath on that [NDP forming government in 2015].”

Kathleen Monk, Broadbent Institute senior adviser and former NDP staffer to former leader Jack Layton, agreed. She said the NDP will remain focused on contrasting itself with the Conservative Party on its way to the 2015 election.

“The NDP will demonstrate their experience and how Mr. Mulcair has a different vision than Mr. Harper to move Canada forward. I think they will leave it up to the media and civil society to hold Mr. Trudeau accountable for his comments and strategies,” she said.

The Liberal camp went on the defensive last week after two bombs were set off at the Boston Marathon on Monday and Mr. Trudeau responded to a question from CBC by saying that “over the coming days” the “root causes” of the attack should be looked at. “We don’t know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue—all those questions.But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society,” he said after offering his condolences.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), while at former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in London, England, jumped on Mr. Trudeau’s comments, saying that he should not be “rationalizing” or “making excuses” for what happened.

Mr. Harper said the correct response should be to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that’s what this government would do if ever faced with such actions.”

The NDP also noted Mr. Trudeau’s comments as a rookie mistake and shows that the Conservative ad about his inexperience is effective because it’s true.

“Attack ads work best when they reinforce impressions that people already have. Trudeau wasn’t elected based on his experience as a Member of Parliament. He didn’t become leader based on his performance in the House of Commons, so he’s got a lot of ground to make up in that respect,” Mr. MacLachlan said. “He’s a popular figure, there’s no doubt about that, but he’s popular for being a likeable, friendly guy, not for his impressions of political leadership.”

Mr. Kinsella said the Conservatives did a good job in coming out early to define Mr. Trudeau before he could define himself, and their advertising aimed at swing voters could work against the Liberals.

“Political spots aren’t about information, they’re about emotion—they’re designed to elicit an emotional response, not foster a robust intellectual debate or provide ‘facts.’ No successful political party will ever put a spot on air if they haven’t tested them first to see where their opponent is weak. Those ads will work because they focus, like a laser, on what even Liberal voters see has Trudeau’s weak spot: his lack of experience,” Mr. Kinsella said. “They are defining him, among swing voters, before he can define himself.  I think it may just work, unfortunately.”

Mr. Kinsella said, however, that if the Liberals are to make gains, Mr. Trudeau needs to work on internal party mechanics to drive up fundraising, and membership numbers.

“Trudeau doesn’t need any lessons in how to get publicity. He’s more successful at doing that than any Canadian politician in recent history. What he now needs to do is the nuts and bolts stuff: membership, fundraising, policy, election readiness. He needs to focus on those things, now, and less so getting headlines,” Mr. Kinsella said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Capobianco said the Conservatives won’t be changing their game plan and will continue to focus on managing the economy and differentiating itself from both the NDP and the Liberals.

“When Thomas Mulcair became leader and had a little bit of a bump, they focused on him and of course they didn’t have to focus on the Liberals much because they had an interim leader and going through their own leadership process. Now that Justin has been picked to be leader, they’re focusing on them,” he said. “At the end of the day, the Conservatives will always do what they think is best for themselves and the country. They will ensure that Canadians know what the NDP and the Liberals are up to by way of policy issues.”

Mr. MacLachlan said the NDP would be doing the same.

“Holding the government to account and presenting an alternative progressive vision for Canada, counter to the regressive Conservative policies will both continue to damage the Conservative reputation as managers of the economy, at the same time demonstrating to progressives that the only alternative to replace Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is Thomas Mulcair’s New Democrats,” he said. “Nobody has any idea of what the Liberal vision for Canada is and for that reason, I think progressives will continue to see themselves in an NDP vision rather than whatever vision Trudeau is going to have to craft in the days and months to come.”

For all intents and purposes, Mr. MacLachlan said all the parties are effectively in “campaign mode” even though the next election is two years out.

“We know the timing of the election, but that doesn’t change the fact that just looking at the Conservative attack ad machine that’s coming out, clearly, we are in election mode,” he said.

“I think Canadian politics has sort of shifted into this perpetual campaign mode, and I would expect with a Cabinet shuffle expected this summer and perhaps a throne speech in the fall, the government will be desperately trying to reset their agenda and present themselves with a focused Parliamentary agenda, so I think at this two year mark, I think we’re very much in pre-election mode. The government has two budgets to try to fix the problems they’ve created in the Canadian economy and the unemployment situation and the opposition has two years to continue to show that this is a tired government that’s out of steam,” Mr. MacLachlan said.

bvongdou@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

I doubt that even the most optimistic Dippers believe that the NDP can hold all or even most of its support in Quebec. Despite being a Quebecer, M. Mulcair is unlikely to be a popular in Quebec as is M. Trudeau (and neither will, likely, match the late Jack Layton's popularity). My guess is that the Liberals will make some gains at the NDP's expense and a revitalized BQ (or another Quebec nationalist party) will also eat into the NDP's seat count.

I agree with Warren Kinsella that the CPC is unlikely to lose much to the Liberals, but a few seats are vulnerable - more likely the Liberals and CPC will be more competitive in some ridings and that may allow a few NDP candidates (or even a Green) to "come up the middle," in a tight race.