Politics in 2014

[Edward Campbell]

As 2013 drags its sorry arse towards the finish line, I'm guessing that the dominant force in 2014 will be Justin Trudeau.

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, suggests, and I agree, that M. Trudeau has managed, perhaps despite himself, to face the New Year with both equanimity and confidence:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-has-cannily-cast-off-liberals-chretien-era-baggage/article15978294/#dashboard/follows/

Trudeau has cannily cast off Liberals’ Chrétien-era baggage

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Dec. 16 2013

The airy success of Justin Trudeau, unburdened by specific policies, must be maddening for his opponents. But that vague, light touch accomplished a key goal in 2013: he’s discarded baggage that’s weighed down his Liberal Party for years.

Friday’s arrest of a key figure in the sponsorship scandal, Jacques Corriveau, serves as a reminder of the biggest negative the Liberals long faced, their own past. But so many years later, Mr. Trudeau’s caucus has only three Chrétien ministers left, none implicated in the scandal. Liberals will hold their breath and hope they’re moving on.

Mr. Trudeau, their rookie leader, has managed to spend eight months waving aside calls for details on where he stands. He skated through year-end interviews, deflecting gaffes with claims he’s unscripted, and absence from the Commons by arguing he gets more done by touring.

But aside from vague and light, there’s also been shrewd.

He and his party will tiptoe out of 2013 without a tie to reviving the long-gun registry, a ball and chain in ridings outside cities for 20 years. And he’s got a pro-pipeline, pro-resources policy in the oil patch, shedding the legacy of Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift and his father’s National Energy Program, which helps tell middle-Canada voters he’s pro-business.

It won’t be so easy in 2014. The vague environmental policies Mr. Trudeau promised to detail will complicate his resource-sector embrace, one of many fences he can’t sit on forever. The Conservatives and NDP will make him their primary target.

But don’t underestimate the value, in pure political terms, of what he’s done already.

His novelty, famous name and charisma played a big part in his good fortune, allowing him to revive interest in the Liberal Party, revitalize fundraising and attract a few high-profile figures like retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie and new Toronto Centre MP Chrystia Freeland. But offloading millstones was job one.

The long-gun registry was an icon of Liberal policy since 1993, but an unpopular symbol in rural communities across the country. Mr. Trudeau, flying high in a leadership race, performed an incredible feat of political escape, managing to declare that he supported keeping the long-gun registry, but also that now it’s gone, it’s too divisive to bring it back. Presto, a policy that weighed down the Liberal vote in small towns and rural areas – not just in the Prairies but in northern Ontario, B.C., and Atlantic Canada – disappeared.

And then Mr. Trudeau and his strategists re-positioned the party on resources. As a leadership candidate, he supported the Chinese takeover of Nexen. As leader, he went to Calgary and Washington to declare his support for the Keystone XL pipeline, and oil-sands development.

This, too, made some Liberals nervous. But it wasn’t a quixotic quest for victory in Alberta, it was a symbol for middle-income voters, worried about jobs, that Mr. Trudeau’s party will be pro-business and pro-trade. It was designed to shed the legacy of the NEP and Mr. Dion’s Green Shift, and the notion that grand Liberal plans might threaten growth.

Mr. Trudeau positioned his party in the middle – unlike Stephen Harper, he opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline to the B.C. coast because of an environmentally risky route. The NDP opposed Keystone, which the Liberals portray as akin to supporting a shutdown of the oil sands.

Mr. Trudeau’s position rests on a vague and implausibly artful environmental-policy-to-come that will include carbon pricing, but not the Green Shift, and regulation that won’t hamper the oil sands, but will persuade the world that emissions won’t run amok. In the meantime, he’s shed baggage.

It’s certainly frustrating for opponents. The Prime Minister’s father-knows-best image as a steady hand in uncertain times, in full control, puts him increasingly on the hook for the past and current scandals. The NDP’s Tom Mulcair, able in Question Period and press scrums, with sharp political instincts, established himself as a leader, but hasn’t yet gained. They must find the lightness of Justin Trudeau unbearable, because so far, it has worked.

Even before Mr. Trudeau, both parties had more interest in attacking Liberals than each other. Surely his vague policies are a target. They’ll redouble their efforts to damage him in 2014, and pin him down. But in the meantime, he’s already succeeded in ditching some weight.

Campbell Clark is a columnist in The Globe’s Ottawa bureau.

Prime Minister Harper, is still stuck, à la the Tar Baby, in the Senate Scandal®. Thomas Mulcair, who should be gaining ground at the prime minister's expense, is, instead, slowly losing ground to M. Trudeau - in part based on personality. Mt. Trudeau is nice while M. Mulcair is a bully.

I think the prime minister will have little room to outflank M. Trudeau and the Liberals: he must remain focused on balancing the budget in the late winter of 2014/15 ~ in time for the 2015 budget ~ so he cannot practice old fashioned retail politics and buy our votes with social programmes. At the same time his, Harper's, room to manoeuvre on social issues is constrained by the right wing of his own party ~ so it will be hard to appeal to e.g. women and younger voters.

But, Mr Harper has one advantage: Messers Mulcair and Trudeau must, first and foremost, fight each other (and maybe a resurgent nationalist party, too) for dominance in Québec, leaving Mr Harper freeer to pursue gains in New Canada ~ the part West of the Ottawa River.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is more about next year, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/16/tory-mps-speak-out-as-pmo-loses-credibility-ministers-become-potential-leadership-rivals/

Tories speaking out as PMO loses credibility, ministers become potential leadership rivals

John Ivison

16/12/13

There was a plaintive tone to the Prime Minister’s tweet: “2013 has been a very productive year. RT [retweet] if you agree we’re on the right track.”

John Baird, the Foreign Minister, did just that, which was good of him.

There were probably others but they are growing ever fewer in number. Support for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives is lower than it’s been at any time since they came to power in 2006 (the November average of public polls is 28% and that number is trending downwards.)

Peter Van Loan, the Government House Leader, sounded like Comical Ali at his session-closing press conference.

Just as the Iraqi Information Minister denied the presence of Americans in Baghdad, even as reporters pointed to U.S. army tanks sitting along the Tigris river during the Iraq War, so Mr. Van Loan last week extolled the virtues of the 34-day fall session, which started late because of prorogation and was adjourned early. He said 2013 was the most productive year on record, with 40 bills receiving Royal Assent.

But that suggests that it’s business as usual for the governing party — laser-like focus, metronomic precision, iron discipline.

Closer to the mark were the words of NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen. “They’ve lost their focus. They’re tired,” he said.

For free thinkers in the Conservative caucus, their time in government has been like Narnia after the White Witch cast her spell — always winter and never Christmas. But the spell has been broken, the melting has begun and it’s Christmas already for every disgruntled Tory whose personal agenda has been stifled.

Michael Chong’s reform bill to re-dress the balance of power between party leaders and the parliamentary caucus is but one manifestation of the transformation within this government.

In the wake of the Wright/Duffy affair, the hub-and-spoke command structure has broken down — few are prepared to take direction from a Prime Minister’s Office that has been so discredited.

“Nobody is scared of the centre any more. Nobody is scared of Ray [Novak, Mr. Harper’s chief of staff],” said one Conservative.

Nowhere is this more true than in Cabinet, where long simmering rivalries are now breaking the surface. Neither Jim Flaherty nor Jason Kenney has denied a report that the Finance Minister hinted to his colleague that he should: “Shut the f—- up” about Rob Ford, the Toronto mayor.

There has been tension between the two ministers for years. Mr. Flaherty turned down Mr. Kenney’s requests for $1-billion in funding while he was at Citizenship and Immigration, according to one source. The Finance Minister is also said to be irate at how open Mr. Kenney was in campaigning for his job prior to the last Cabinet shuffle — not to mention that he is favourite to succeed Mr. Harper, a job Mr. Flaherty long coveted for himself.

But to remonstrate so publicly on the floor of the House of Commons suggests Mr. Flaherty considers himself untouchable. That is a conclusion being reached by a growing number of his colleagues.

The prevailing belief in Cabinet is that the Prime Minister will lead the party into the next election. But it is conceivable that he may not and that prospect, remote as it may be, has caused a disturbance in the Force.

Whispers are spread about this minister who has a fondness for the grape and the grain; or that one, who is acting out because he doesn’t like his new job. Others say this minister is insufferable after a promotion; or that one is deluded in thinking he will be Prime Minister.

The schadenfreude over James Moore’s musing that it is not his job to “feed my neighbour’s children” — for which he apologized on Monday — will be felt widely, judging by scathing comments he has attracted from his colleagues of late. “That’s the type of arrogance that brings governments down,” said one old Conservative hand, who then made a catty comment about Mr. Moore’s size.

Internecine sniping is inevitable in the hard-scrabble world of politics.

But this is different — the trash talk is designed to wound. The mindset has changed around the Cabinet table, as colleagues become potential leadership rivals.

Curiously, none of it is directed at the Prime Minister, who remains the undisputed primus inter pares. Even his critics in caucus consider him insightful and always underestimated.

Yet, periodically, he retreats into himself and has to be persuaded to come out fighting. People who were there say this happened after his election defeat in 2004 and again during the coalition crisis in 2008.

He appears to have gone to ground again, likely retreating to his Harrington Lake home for the holidays and surrounding himself with uber-loyalists like the party’s new executive director, Dimitri Soudas.

He has prevailed before, after emerging from seemingly hopeless situations. He knows that Justin Trudeau’s eight point lead in the polls may crumble when people are forced to confront whether they think he has ability to go with his undoubted celebrity.

But to have any chance, Mr. Harper has to arrest the nose-dive in his party’s fortunes. To do that will require deeds not words — more jobs, balanced budgets and tax cuts.

People laughed at Comical Ali when he said the impact of Cruise missiles on the Gulf conflict was “trivial.”  The idea that this paralyzed and divided government is on the right track deserves a similar response.

National Post

I agree, wholly, with NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen: the Conservative part of Canada, especially this Conservative government, has lost its focus and it, the government, is tired.

The challenge, for 2014, is to shore up the base. That may be easier said than done. The "law and order" agenda is ill conceived, in my opinion, maybe even totally back asswards, and judges are challenging the law. 

The "laser like focus" is, as far as I can see, one two issues:

    1. How can they, the CPC, "manage" the Senate Scandal? and

    2. A balanced budget is 2015.

The latter is, I suspect, fairly easy ... the former is not.

I believe the only way to "manage" the Senate Scandal is to campaign, now, for a simple choice: an elected Senate or no Senate at all. Since I am about 99.9% sure that the Supremes will not allow abolition, not without a full blown Constitutional amendment, with all that implies, anyway, that means bullying the provinces into agreeing to an elected Senate ... or, maybe, risk not being represented in the Senate. (I'm not sure the Supremes[ would allow that either, but they might accept it for a while, until recalcitrant provinces (ON and QC, I expect) get onside.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, because it is a national, political issue, Jeffrey Simpson gets it right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/for-two-years-conservatives-are-all-about-the-10-per-cent/article16059597/#dashboard/follows/

For two years, Conservatives will be all about the 10 per cent

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Dec. 21 2013

Almost all you need to know about Canadian politics in the next two years can be summarized in one simple number – 10 per cent.

Ten per cent is the share of the electorate that has deserted Stephen Harper’s Conservatives since the last election. In that contest, the Conservatives captured a shade less than 40 per cent of the votes. For months now, polls have given the Conservatives about 30 per cent.

At 40 per cent, the Conservatives would win again, likely with another majority; at 30 per cent, they would lose power. Their aim – and it will drive almost everything they do in the next two years – will be to recapture all or most of the difference.

What about the other 60 per cent of the voting public? The Conservatives could care less about them. The overwhelming majority of those people aren’t going to vote Conservative, period.

Nik Nanos, the pollster, asks this interesting question on an ongoing basis: Could you imagine voting for a given party? He consistently finds that 60 per cent of voters reply that they could not imagine voting Conservative. The party’s ceiling, therefore, is 40 per cent.

No matter what the Conservatives have successfully done in office, no matter how hard they have tried and how much money they have spent, no matter how favourable the economic circumstances, no matter how inept the other parties, the Conservatives have never shattered that 40-per-cent ceiling. But if they don’t crawl back close to it by the time of the next election, they will struggle to be re-elected, let alone to win another majority.

Given this strategic imperative, you might think that midway through a majority government’s term, a party mired at 30 per cent would be rethinking its strategy. That would be to misunderstand the Harper government.

Instead of rethinking, the Prime Minister has doubled down on his long-term strategy, which depends on polarizing the electorate and identifying and mobilizing the Conservative vote. He reshuffled his cabinet to add younger ministers of the same type as the more experienced ones: hard-edged communicators and sharp-elbowed partisans. He regrouped people in his office and at party headquarters who are unreserved loyalists. There are no even mildly discordant voices, let alone fresh faces or new views, in Mr. Harper’s inner political circle.

Of critical importance to this strategy is identifying in great detail where possible Conservative voters lie and how to motivate them. The party’s vast data banks, its impressive fundraising lists and its years of experience in government give the Conservatives a precise picture of their potential electoral world – the 40 per cent.

Therefore, domestic and foreign policy will be bent with even more relentless direction and energy at hitting the issues to swing that 10 per cent back into the fold. (They also hope, not unreasonably, that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will continue to provide them with gaffes to be used at an appropriate time.)

This micro-identification of departed or possible Conservative voters will be seen in foreign policy, as in more wooing of Jewish voters through blind support of every Israeli government position, helping Toronto’s Tamils recall the boycott of the Commonwealth Conference, reminding Filipinos about Ottawa’s efforts after Typhoon Haiyan. As an ambassador of a traditional ally recently remarked privately, never had the representative ever seen a government whose foreign policy was so driven by local ethnic appeals.

In domestic affairs, there will be all sorts of micro-initiatives directed at the 10 per cent: action to “protect” consumers against high wireless fees and cable charges, little tax breaks for this group or that, income-splitting mostly to benefit the middle to upper-middle class, protection against bank charges or whatever focus groups reveal Canadians don’t like about the banks.

This political strategy involves finding out what irks the 10 per cent and acting on it. It has nothing to do with vision. The Conservatives know they enjoy a rock-solid base of 30 per cent, and the 60 per cent who dislike them now won’t change.

It’s all about the 10 per cent, and that’s all you need to know.

He's right: the simple, unassailable fact is that 60% of Canadians will not vote Conservative, no matter what. But, and equally unassailable fact is that, in a five party system, 40% equals a majority government. The Conservatives don't need the 60% so long as their vote continues: to split 25+% Liberals, 20-% NDP, 10-% Quebec nationalists and 5-% Green.

Recent results were:

2011:
          Cons: 38% ~ majority
          BQ:    6%
          Grns:  4%
          Libs:  26%
          NDP:  31% 
2008:
          Cons: 38% ~ minority
          BQ:    10%
          Grns:  7%
          Libs:  26%
          NDP:  18%
2006:
          Cons: 36% ~ minority
          BQ:    10%
          Grns:  4%
          Libs:  30%
          NDP:  17%

 

[Haletown]

Can't wait to see how the Liberals will do after they have some actual policies. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Can't wait to see how the Liberals will do after they have some actual policies.

They don't need them. The media will support Trudeau without him actually having to have a platform. I've yet to see him make a stand on anything other than legalizing pot (surprise, surprise).

"You're doing it wrong, we'll do better!" isn't policy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prostitution is going to be an issue ... and it's not just the "old whores" in the Senate of Canada.

Part of the Conservative base will be enraged by the very recent SCC ruling on prostitution and that will put the bConservatives in a bind.

By the way, I agree with FJAG:

...

While I'm generally a Conservatives supporter, I just haven't seen any good and balanced legislation coming out of the Dept of Justice for quite some time. Everything seems to be extreme and designed to increase police powers to intrude into private affairs. I have my doubts that they'll get this one right.

:subbies:

I expect more bad law from the Harper Government.

 

[ModlrMike]

I expect more bad law from the Harper Government.

The real question is do you expect worse law from the Liberals and NDP?

 

[Edward Campbell]

The real question is do you expect worse law from the Liberals and NDP?

Worse? No, not really. But, better laws? No, again, and that's why I will vote CPC in 2015.

 

[ModlrMike]

Worse? No, not really. But, better laws? No, again, and that's why I will vote CPC in 2015.

As will I.

I wager that the CPC will lose some ground to the Liberals, the NDP will lose a great deal of ground to the Bloc, but that the Torries may yet be able to squeeze off another majority. It is much harder to gain new seats, than to prevent the loss of seats already held. From that thesis, the Conservatives may have the advantage.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Blue majority is safe in 2015 if, and only if, voters continue to believe that a Red/Orange (or Orange/Red) coalition is the alternative and that the Red and Orange leaders are not sufficiently honest about their willingness to create one.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, if this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Star is to be believed, young M. Trudeau may be on the right track:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/31/justin_trudeau_promises_full_reboot_of_liberal_party.html

Justin Trudeau promises ‘full reboot’ of Liberal party
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says current and past MPs will have to fight to run, as part of the party “reboot” for the 2015 election.

By: Susan Delacourt Parliament Hill

Published on Tue Dec 31 2013

OTTAWA—All current and past Liberal MPs may not like it, but they are going to have to fight in 2014 for the right to run in the next election, says Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

As the federal Liberals gear up to begin choosing candidates in the new year, Trudeau is warning that there are no safe seats or free passes for anyone who wants to wear the party banner in the 2015 campaign.

“Canadians need to see that the Liberal party has understood the lessons of the past and is willing to completely reboot,” Trudeau said in a year-end interview with the Star.

“We have to offer a full reboot, and that means that every candidate for the Liberal Party in 338 ridings in 2015, or whenever the election does come, will have been chosen in a free vote by the Liberal members of that riding.”

Trudeau admits that the open-nomination rule is making some current and past MPs unhappy, especially those who believe they’ve paid their dues to the party by past electoral battles won and lost.

“Some of them have never had to fight nominations before. Others fought very bitter nominations,” he says. “So there’s a range of experiences there, but we come out stronger when we have a direct mandate from Liberals, and that’s just the way the true Liberal Party . . . this Liberal movement, is going to be built.”

Trudeau’s strict, open-nomination rule comes from his own experience in 2007, when he decided he wanted to take the leap into politics. He had hoped that he might find a safe Liberal riding in Montreal for the 2008 election, but found himself instead having to fight for the nomination in Papineau, a riding then held by the Bloc Québécois.

“I didn’t have any of the advantages of incumbency that my colleagues now have, and I came out of it a much better politician,” Trudeau said. “Everything that I’ve managed to achieve in politics, the hard work I’ve put into it up until now, has flowed directly from that first nomination fight.”

So a party famed for its past infighting is going to plunge into some more internal battles in 2014, as Trudeau and his Liberals start building their electoral machine.

The final few months of 2013 saw a flurry of fundraising efforts, with members getting several emails a day, all underscoring the importance of beating the Conservatives in fundraising and donation numbers in the final quarter of the year.

A goal to solicit $1 million in donations was met in December and Liberals were also boasting that for the first time in many years, their party in 2013 had more individual donors than the Conservatives did.

Though the next federal election isn’t scheduled until 2015, Trudeau and his advisers have decided that the campaign has already started.

In a video sent out in December to Liberal party members, campaign co-chair Katie Telford says it bluntly: “The campaign has begun” — citing this fall’s attack ads from Conservatives as evidence of the electoral battle already under way.

Liberals have been asked to donate funds to help retaliate on the advertising battlefront, but Trudeau says he remains convinced that the party can’t fight negative ads with more negative ads.

“Yes, we do have to be aware that we need to be able to respond to vicious attacks, but how we respond is very much something that I have very strong opinions on,” Trudeau says. “We don’t stoop down to the gutter level that they have, because honestly we can never out-gutter-politics people who have become so adept at it.”

Trudeau says he doesn’t completely buy the idea that past Liberal leaders were defeated by attack ads.
Interestingly, while he says he has been talking to past Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin for advice, he hasn’t read the new book, Fire and Ashes, by former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, which dealt with how attack ads were used with devastating effect against him.

“I’ve read excerpts of it, but I haven’t read the book,” Trudeau said.

“There’s an awful lot of Liberals that feel that we lost the last elections because of attack ads,” he says. “That’s a simplistic answer that doesn’t actually stand up to heavier scrutiny. There’s no question that they were damaging, but ultimately people became convinced, perhaps justifiably, that the Liberal party was more focused with its own success than with the success of Canadians, and had begun to take people for granted.”

Trudeau, however, is facing some similar criticism himself — that he’s taking his own popularity for granted and using it as a way to avoid nailing down any policy proposals in advance of the next election campaign.

Unlike Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives — or the New Democrats, for that matter — Trudeau doesn’t seem to have one of those handy, five-priority lists of policy proposals to put before Canadians yet. He says that right now, he has just one priority.

“I have one thing that I want to do, and I’ve been crystal-clear about it from the very beginning, which is to figure out how to build an economy in this country that works for the vast majority of Canadians, middle-class Canadians, and everything else flows from that.”

Asked who is looming as his biggest adversary, Harper or NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, Trudeau says he feels he doesn’t need to choose.

“I loop them in together,” he says. “They’re both of a particular approach to politics, very top-down, very controlling of their caucuses, of their agenda; very much focused on their authority and their strengths. And they are, both of them, strong politicians in a very classic sense. But, what I’m seeing from Canadians across the country is the desire for a different approach to politics.”

Trudeau says he has spoken to Harper only once since becoming leader last April. They ran into each other near the entrance to the Commons last spring and the prime minister offered him brief but friendly words of congratulations.

Trudeau might have had a chance to talk to Harper at greater length if he had chosen to take the seat offered to Liberals on the flight to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s memorial service. But he declined, giving the seat instead to Montreal MP Irwin Cotler, who had served on Mandela’s legal team decades ago when the anti-apartheid icon was in prison.

Trudeau says he’s not sorry he made that decision. “Absolutely. I’m 100 per cent at peace with that because Irwin needed to go,” he said.

However, he agrees it would have been fascinating to be on the Canadian plane filled with dignitaries, especially former prime ministers Chrétien, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell.

If he had been on the plane, and had an opportunity to talk to the current prime minister for more than a brief chat, Trudeau says he would not have wanted to ask about the Senate scandal or negative ads or any of the other contentious issues separating Liberals and Conservatives these days.

“No, no,” he said. “That would have been inappropriate on that plane.”

Instead, he says, he would have looked for a topic on which he and Harper agreed: Canada-European trade, for instance, or the Keystone pipeline, which Trudeau and Harper support as a way to move Canadian oil to the United States.

“I would have tried to find a way to engage him on an issue where we were more aligned, so that I could perhaps actually have an influence and have him hear me, rather than come at him on a point of antagonism,” Trudeau said.
Looking forward to next year, Trudeau’s most important month — personally and professionally — may well be February, when he presides over his first policy convention as Liberal leader in Montreal from Feb. 20 to 23.

Around the same time, he and his wife, Sophie Grégoire, are expecting their third child, which is due in late February or early March.

As some wag put it, in the Star's comment section: rebooting the computer doesn't really help much if the operating system is the problem, and, the LPC being quite devoid of policy, I'm not sure that the Liberal OS has changed at all. It appears that some of the Liberal brain trust believe that charisma will work this time. As far as open, contested nominations go, this is from the guy who came as close as damn is to swearing to appointing Chrystia Freeland to be the candidate in Toronto Centre.

What he needs to do in 2014 is develop a manifesto, a policy base that will be the 2015 election platform. then we'll see if he has "rebooted" the Liberal Party.

But I, honestly and sincerely, wish M. Trudeau well. We need a government in waiting because the CPC is getting stale and tired and, and, and ... and I cannot imagine that the NDP will provide a viable, acceptable alternative so the choice falls to the LPC. I hope the CPC will hang on in 2015, but by 2019 I expect we will want and need a replacement.

 

[ModlrMike]

So let me see if I understand. The guy who was acclaimed to his position in the party wants every other MP to fight for theirs? I he going to open his nomination to contest? If so, are there any in the party who would openly oppose him?

 

[GAP]

Bob Rae is still interested.....

 

[a_majoor]

Being consistent isn't a huge priority for the Liberals or the Young Dauphin.

Of course, we could always put this to the test. Any Army.ca members willing to join the LPC and contest their riding in a nomination battle?  >

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, the Globe's staff takes 16 "looks" at the key political issues for 2014: one for each province and territory and one for each of the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-16-most-important-political-stories-to-watch-in-2014/article16176802/?page=all#dashboard/follows/?page=2?page=NaN

The 16 most important political stories to watch in 2014

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Staff
The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Jan. 03 2014

From deficits to devolution, the Globe’s team of political journalists give you the low down of what to watch for across the country this year.

In federal politics:

Conservatives: Prime Minister Stephen Harper is undoubtedly glad to put 2013 behind him. Dogged by a scandal in the Senate that reached far into his office, his party’s popularity has slipped well behind that of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, who are also gaining the edge in fundraising. But Mr. Harper’s Senate problems did not end with the flipping of the calendar. Criminal charges could be coming against people who he, himself, appointed. And the opposition parties will not stop pulling at the threads of the controversy until they are convinced there is nothing more to unravel. That leaves the Conservatives hoping that the bright lights of the 2014 economy will outshine the gloom that has befallen them. The Canadian dollar is down, the Americans are in recovery mode, and the deficit is targeted for elimination – all of which presages good news for Canadian pocketbooks. So Mr. Harper’s job, in this year before the next federal election, will be to convince swing voters to keep their eyes on the fiscal positives and away from the other less savoury issues that will be swirling around Parliament. (by Gloria Galloway in Ottawa)

Liberals: The first nine months of Justin Trudeau’s leadership proved he has enough charisma to rise nimbly out of political pratfalls that would have been the undoing of someone with less star power. But these things have a way of adding up. And the other parties are keeping careful notes for use on a campaign trail. If Mr. Trudeau continues to suffer from gaffe-itis, the healthy lead in the public opinion polls that has Liberals smiling could start to disintegrate. The challenge for the party will be to keep its leader talking with Canadians in the natural and engaging manner that serves him well, while ensuring that he stays on script and out of trouble. And, while it makes little sense to release a full range of policy until an election is within sight, the Liberals need to put more in the window than a promise to legalize marijuana. Especially important will be a push to convince Canadians that the tiller of the economy would be well-steered in Liberal hands. (by Gloria Galloway in Ottawa)

New Democratic Party: Poor Thomas Mulcair. He’s the only federal leader who will admit he watches public opinion polls. Which means he has seen his New Democrats slide from first in mid-2012 to a solid third by the end of 2013. Mr. Mulcair won broad praise for his performance in the House of Commons, especially for his grilling of the government over the Senate scandal. But the NDP Leader knows he must convince those Canadians who are willing to vote for anyone but the Conservatives that he is the most competent alternative to Stephen Harper. He has to knock the feet out from under the Liberals without sending all that support back to the Tories. That’s a tough order when the NDP and Mr. Mulcair seemingly scrape for every bit of media coverage they get. The New Democrats can’t do a lot to attract voter attention with shiny new policies because the major planks of their platform – reversing corporate tax cuts, support for a west-east pipeline, a national system of childcare etc. – are already on the table. So they will just keep poking a stick at their opponents and hope for something to burst. (by Gloria Galloway in Ottawa)

The provinces:

British Columbia: The political landscape in B.C. will get a makeover in 2014 when the New Democratic Party picks a new leader to succeed Adrian Dix. It is a critical decision for a party that most thought would form government in 2013 but instead lost yet another election, cementing its reputation as the province’s perpetual opposition. Many political observers believe this may be the NDP’s last chance to get it right; another failure at the polls may be the party’s last. The upcoming year is also pivotal for Premier Christy Clark who will have to begin delivering on the big bet she has made around LNG development. So far, she has failed to announce a single deal to back her claim that there are billions to be made from the province’s LNG riches. Next year, she’ll need to produce more than talk. (by Gary Mason in Vancouver)

Alberta: 2013 saw massive southern Alberta floods from which the province is still recovering, public sector labour strife and stories of children who died in the province’s care making headlines – so Premier Alison Redford is likely hoping for a quieter 2014. In a December cabinet shuffle she demoted some of her shoot-from-the-hip type cabinet ministers (Doug Griffiths and Thomas Lukaszuk) in favour of steady-as-she-goes types, like party stalwart Dave Hancock, and cabinet rising stars Robin Campbell and Manmeet Bhullar. The Progressive Conservative government is also looking to quell some of the criticism of its financial management with a close-to-balanced budget and pension reform legislation early in the year. Market access for Alberta’s increasing bitumen production from the oil sands will remain a key focus of Ms. Redford’s government in 2014. But with staunch environmental opposition to both the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines, the province goes into the new year facing another uphill battle. (by Kelly Cryderman in Calgary)

Saskatchewan: Even in booming Saskatchewan, a budget battle looms. Premier Brad Wall’s province has boasted surpluses and strong growth in recent years – but as potash fortunes slide, Mr. Wall is warning of a belt-tightening year. “We’re going to make sure the budget is balanced in the spring, and finances are going to be tighter,” he told reporters in December. Meanwhile, a long-simmering battle over labour laws is set to flare up again –the Supreme Court is scheduled to rule in May on the legality of a pair of laws passed by Mr. Wall’s right-leaning Saskatchewan Party government, with labour leaders arguing the premier is pushing through changes that violate workers’ fundamental rights. (by Josh Wingrove)

Manitoba: All is not well for the last-standing NDP government in Canada. Polls suggest Premier Greg Selinger’s party’s popularity has sunk well below that of the Progressive Conservatives – in part due to a controversial PST hike that saw the legislative session drag on through the entire summer. The Opposition Progressive Conservatives have signalled they’ll mount a court challenge of the hike, as Manitoba law had required a referendum before the PST was raised. That could come by late January. Two by-elections are also scheduled for January, each in opposition-held seats. Amid it all, Mr. Selinger has time to turn things around – a general election isn’t expected until late 2015 or early 2016. (by Josh Wingrove)

Ontario: With Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats under pressure to stop propping up the Liberals’ minority government, and Premier Kathleen Wynne less inclined than previously to bend over backwards for the NDP’s support, the smart money is on a spring election in Ontario. Everything in the next few months, including a pair of winter by-elections and the preparation of the province’s next budget, will build up to that expected campaign. But with polls showing all three major parties in the province competitive, what happens after that is much less predictable. With very different approaches – a push by Ms. Wynne for government to do big things, pocketbook populism on the part of Ms. Horwath and the promise of a war on organized labour by Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak – the leaders will be trying to break through to an Ontario electorate that seems to be more disengaged than ever. (by Adam Radwanski in Toronto)

Quebec: The Parti Québécois are ready to fight a provincial election in 2014. Debate over the controversial secular charter bill will heat up in public hearings in January and the tabling of a budget in the spring will set the stage for an election that the opposition parties expect no later than May. In her pursuit to stay in power, Premier Pauline Marois’ minority government will be pressed to outline if the PQ will hold a referendum on sovereignty should it win a majority mandate. If so, an election may awaken the debate over national unity. (by Rhéal Séguin in Quebec City)

New Brunswick: New Brunswick will likely have a change in government next fall. Expect Premier David Alward and his Progressive Conservatives, who won a majority government in Oct. 2010, to be replaced by the Liberals and their 31-year-old rookie leader, Brian Gallant. New Brunswick is hurting economically – its young people are fleeing west – and it is pushing controversial policies, such as exploration for shale gas (fracking), as the government tries to boost the economy. (by Jane Taber in Halifax)

Prince Edward Island: The Senate isn’t just a worry for those in Ottawa – it will be top of mind for PEI Premier Robert Ghiz in 2014, too. The province has a guaranteed four seats in the Red Chamber, the most seats per capita of any province in the country. When the Supreme Court of Canada rules in 2014 on the constitutionality of Senate reform or abolition, the premier will be watching closely. “The Senate helps protect [PEI] for the representation we have with the federal government. If we lose that, we lose a big component of our representation,” Mr. Ghiz said in a year-end interview with CBC, adding: “I’m not willing to jeopardize that.” (by Chris Hannay)

Nova Scotia: Stephen McNeil begins his first full year in power after defeating Darrell Dexter’s NDP government last fall. He campaigned on a careful platform, with no promises about cutting taxes or balancing budgets until the books are in order. The economic update released just before Christmas shows a $482-million deficit after the NDP had forecast a small surplus – $18.3-million – before they lost the election. It is expected the Liberals will take a cautious approach to governing, as they did with their campaigning. In fact, in the spring the Liberals will have to bring in legislation to undo the law passed by the previous government to reduce the HST by two percentage points – from 15 to 13 percentage points over two years. (by Jane Taber in Halifax)

Newfoundland and Labrador: Premier Kathy Dunderdale has her work cut out for her in the new year as her popularity and that of her Progressive Conservative government is not faring well in the polls. She is trailing the newly elected Liberal leader, Dwight Ball, who just took over in November. His party has 52 per cent support compared to 29 per cent for the PCs and 19 per cent for the NDP, according to a poll released in December by Corporate Research Associates. The big question in the province is whether Premier Dunderdale will run in the next election, which is not expected until October 2015. With the massive $7.7-billion Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric project now finalized, meanwhile, there are expectations the government will continue to do more with energy and resource development, including possibly purchasing the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation from the federal government. (by Jane Taber in Halifax)

Yukon: The mining boom has slowed somewhat in the westernmost territory, but development maintains a key priority. In particular, Yukon’s government is asking Ottawa for help building a new hydro dam, which it hopes will help spur development. An initial work plan is expected in 2014, and the costly project will test the resolve of the federal government that has emphasized northern development. The Yukon government also expects to announce a land use plan for the Peel Watershed in the north of the territory, and could begin selling oil, gas and mining rights in the region by early 2014. (by Josh Wingrove)

Northwest Territories: Canada’s most populous territory finally has its own deal on devolution, giving it province-like powers over resource development. A federal bill enacting the deal was tabled in December, and carrying out the transition of powers will be nearly an all-consuming process for Premier Bob McLeod’s government. Otherwise, it’s a year of infrastructure: construction is expected to begin on a highway to Tuktoyaktuk, a major priority of the Harper government. The territory has also released an ambitious energy plan and is making a push to deliver high-speed Internet access to the community of Inuvik, which has potential as a satellite monitoring site. The territory also expects to host meetings of the Arctic Council and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in 2014. (by Josh Wingrove)

Nunavut: Nunavut went to the polls Oct. 28, and MLAs have since chosen a new premier, Peter Taptuna, a former deputy premier and energy minister who was an oil-and-gas worker before entering politics. Mr. Taptuna has already brought in new staff, and is set to meet in February with cabinet to lay out a four-year mandate – his spokeswoman said he’ll focus on “education, employment and economic development.” Among Nunavut’s challenges is negotiating a deal on devolution, or giving it province-like powers over resources. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a fall Throne Speech that devolution talks with Nunavut were a key part of the government’s northern development strategy. (by Josh Wingrove)

It is "small map, big hand" prognostication of the worst sort ... but it may provide some hints for the coming year.

 

[Kirkhill]

One bit of the puzzle I'm looking at is Christy Clark / Alison Redford LNG / Northern Gateway.

The people that Christy needs to deal with to get her LNG programme implemented are the same people that also want her to get the Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines implemented.

Yes Christy, you can have a booming LNG export economy and specialized shipyards but the price for that will be the implementation of the heavy oil pipelines.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I read/heard somewhere, just recently, a quip about "all energy and finance ministers 'get it,' but the rest, president, prime ministers, premiers and the like, are 'tone deaf' to the realities of the 21st century."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Michael Den Tandt takes aim at election financing in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/05/michael-den-tandt-funding-system-making-politics-meaner-and-dumber-as-cash-starved-parties-beg-for-money/

Funding system making politics meaner and dumber as cash-starved parties beg for money

Michael Den Tandt

January 5, 2014

During the just-passed season of giving and filial love, you may have observed that no potential giftee was more prominent in your in-box, hand figuratively extended, than your favourite political party. Their begging letters, once an occasional intrusion, are now ubiquitous. It’s as though they’re desperate, focused to the exclusion of all else on emptying your wallet. Surely a political party should have something beyond money – the greater good, say, or a just society – to warm the cockles of its heart?

Well, no. Not any more. Our political parties are cash-starved and ravenous for cash, around the clock, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Thanks to reforms begun by then-prime-minister Jean Chretien in 2004 and broadened by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006 and 2011, we enjoy a wonderfully egalitarian political fundraising model – that isn’t working. In fact the system itself is helping make our politics meaner, dumber and more myopic than ever before.

Before 1974, when the Election Expenses Act was passed, political funding in Canada was a free-for-all. The act introduced spending limits and requirements for disclosure. But until 2004, when the soon-to-retire Chretien had his Paulian conversion on the road to Damascus, individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations could all still donate. Many large corporations gave to both Liberals and Conservatives, hedging their bets. The New Democrats were propped up by the unions.

Chretien never intended for things to go in the direction they’ve gone. His reform, Bill C-24, limited corporate and union donations to $1,000. Corporations without operations in Canada were banned from giving, as were Crown corporations. Individuals were limited to contributing $1,000 to any riding or candidate, up to a total of $5,000. Any donation of more than $200 had to be disclosed. But C-24 also introduced the $2-per-vote subsidy, for any political party that managed to garner two per cent or more of the popular vote.

In 2006, in the full blush of its early puritan zeal, the new Harper government slashed the total individual limit to $1,000, indexed to inflation, and banned corporate and union donations outright. In 2008 Harper famously moved to wipe out the per-vote subsidy, precipitating the coalition-prorogation crisis, but was forced to recant. Following his majority win in 2011 he pressed ahead, resulting in the system we have now – no corporate or union donations, no per-vote subsidy, a $1,200 individual annual limit and endless, cadging emails begging for your money.

It’s a system that until now has worked heavily in the Conservatives’ favour, both because it suits their populist bent and because they long ago mastered its logistics. Until very recently the Tories routinely trounced both the other two major parties in fundraising. In the first nine months of 2013 the governing party raised nearly $13 million, compared with just under $7 million for the Grits and $4.5 million for the NDP.

All of which leads us to this past Christmas season, and the frenetic $2-million challenge between Liberal and Conservative fundraising teams. The top-line driver or “sell” for both was the calendar deadline for receiving the 75 per cent political-donation rebate for the 2013 tax year. The subtext, for householders who are politically engaged, had to be the dawning horror that this is the new normal. Political parties will either stay in your face or they will go bankrupt.

But that may be the least of it. There are more fundamental consequences, as was first pointed out by Ken Whyte in last November’s issue of Maclean’s. The most obvious is that fractious, dumb, bitterly personal politics are no longer a matter of political preference; they’re embedded in the system. The Conservatives have established, most notably with the bonanza they made of the now-defunct federal long-gun registry, that an angry, frightened or resentful small donor is a generous small donor. The Liberals are having greater fundraising success now because they’re applying similar methods – micro-targeting, “action-based” messaging and deliberate stoking of the fear of Harper himself. The bilious partisanship on Twitter is merely an effervescence of this emerging Canadian political culture.

At the root of it all, some simple questions emerge: Why should a corporation or a union not contribute in a limited way to a political party, if the sums and sources are rigorously disclosed? And who decided that a $1,200 individual limit is reasonable? Political finance reform was intended to remove the bagman from the process. Instead it has bequeathed to us a system that is dishonest, dysfunctional and ultimately harmful to our politics. It’s time for a review.

I think Mr Den Tandt has the right disease: politics has, indeed, become dumber and meaner. But he has the wrong cure: campaign financing.

I think it is "a good thing" that political issues energize voters, even if they are often "angry, frightened or resentful." I think it is good that parties "target" voters with policies and campaigns. Maybe if we talked more and more about issues, as some (but not all, i agree) Conservatives want to do, and less about vague generalities, as M. Trudeau's campaign brain trust prefers, we would have less "dumbing down" and less anger., fear and resentment. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have made choices about attacking persons rather than offering policies ~ that's a shame but I doubt that letting RBC, Power Corp and the CAW donate hundreds of thousands to parties and individual riding candidates will make anything any better. I, personally, would like to see the "adjusted for inflation" rule changed: make $1,200.oo per year ($100 per month) the maximum until after the next general election. Then consider raising the limit. Lower contributions will lead to cheaper campaigns: less reliance upon expensive PR firms and sophisticated "marketing" and more on good old fashioned, foot slogging, door-to-door campaigning.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I cannot "source" this - I ran into it on Twitter - but I think it sums up M. Trudeau's challenge in 2014:

P.S. If anyone has a source please add it; we should, always acknowledge our sources when we use other people's work.

 

[Remius]

I saw Justin Trudeau's end of year interview on CTV's QP on Sunday.  He's been getting some coaching it seems.  His answers were quite good (especially the bait question Fife put to him about meeting the POTUS).

Still short on substance but gave a semi-policy answer to job creation and supported the current corporate tax rate.

I wonder if we'll see a more polished version or if the CPC machine can keep him framed in his policy weakness image.

2014 promises to be an interesting year.