Tom Flanagan says he looks up to Iggy

A must read. Lots of nuggets in this interview: Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says

Back to where we started... but the NDP are moving?

From Jane Taber's third point:

EKOS’s Frank Graves has

"...also looked at the political horserace, finding that the Liberals are “stuck in amber” along with the Conservatives. For the second week, the numbers show that we are exactly where we were on election day 2008 - 36.6 per cent for the Conservatives, 26.6 per cent for the Liberals, 16.8 per cent for the NDP, 11.2 per cent for the Green Party and 8.8 per cent for the Bloc. Mr. Graves is noticing, however, that Jack Layton and the NDP are on the move in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Atlantic."

The question has come up as to where voters are going. It has occurred to me that the NDP are in position to pick up votes, given the partisan hackery on the Hill. The Conservatives and the Liberals are bereft of ideas and decent policy, and the Greens are invisible and not represented.

That leaves Jack.

Of course, the NDP have long been the party of unrealized opportunity, so I'm not holding my breath.

WholeGovScam: Different MPs using same BigFatCheques

If Conservative MPs have been operating independently issuing big fat cheques with partisan messaging, as Harper's office pleaded yesterday, why are so many for different MPs using the same design with the same messaging?

From ChequesandBalances' photostream, here are some samples of the same cheque design, all from different Conservative MPs, including some ministers. The cheques feature a common slogan, Conservative colour, and the MPs name.

Who pays for the printing of the big fat cheques? The Conservative Party or taxpayers? No matter what the answer is, there is an ethical issue. If the party pays, then they're lifting credit off of our dime. If taxpayers pay, it's free partisan messaging. Again.

Curiously, this issue may be getting more mileage than the other overtly partisan, and far more expensive, abuses we've learned of recently. I think that's because there are visuals here, and they speak explicitly of money. Hearing about millions spent on partisan ads is not the same as an MP handing over a big fat cheque of our money as if it were his own.

Myself, I wouldn't care much about the cheques. After all, whenever you have an MP in public, you will have partisanship. But bundle this with tens of millions in partisan advertising spent with our dime, public funds being dolled out disproportionately to Conservative ridings, coerced PCO bureaucrats screaming partisanship, and you have a systemic problem which needs addressing.

Throw the bums out.

And if the next government doesn't get it, throw them out too.

And so on. Until someone gets it right.

Oh, and look, Harper signed a cheque too:

Yes, that's Stephen Harper's signature.

(h/t Impolitical)

WholeGovScam: Big Fat Cheques

Well, our Conservative MPs certainly are milking the handouts. We've got big fat cheques with Conservative logos, cheques which appear to be personally from the MP, and ones with Conservative slogans.

Oh, I know... "But... the Liberals..."

Well, I don't know if they ever did this,and I don't care. They aren't the government. I, for one, don't put up with shenanigans from anyone. Keeping throwing the bums out until someone does it right, I say.

Keep in mind, we the taxpayers may very well be paying for these promotional items Not much money, but the principle is there...

The photographic evidence.

First, David Miller, MP, who seems to have a huge wallet.

Peter Van Loan, MP, likes his slogans:

Then there's Colin Mayes, MP:

Oh, there's more.

Impolitical has more context, and reports on the PMO's official response.


You know, if this is what we can so easily see, what's under the hood?

Liberals collaborate with separatists to try to take the government down!

LOL. Just saying. With times being what they are, why not make the spurious accusation before someone else does?

So Harper survived the confidence vote. No surprise. I'm sure the Liberals are relieved.

The NDP saved the day by abstaining. Well, there's a page out of Dion's handbook.

What's the real spin out of this? "The NDP did not stand opposed to Harper's climate change policies"?

Oh, Liberal Denis Coderre skipped the vote. The sour grapes continue? Ironically, I'm sure the fading Liberal fortunes in Quebec helped the Bloc vote with the Liberals.

I hope we have an election soon and I hope there's a majority, even if its Harper. This minority goverment crap is making mincemeat out of our institutions (yes, I know Harper will), and a four year hiatus from this ongoing partisan insanity would give some parties time to reflect and rebuild.

Would-be Conservative MP steps down

No surprise here: The Markham-Unionville Conservative candidate, Gordon Landon, has resigned.

Landon was dumped Monday as the Conservative candidate for Markham-Unionville after publicly musing the GTA riding was being shut out of federal infrastructure funding because it is held by a Liberal.The York regional councillor says he complied with a request from the Conservative party to step aside, adding he is not used to people telling him what to say and think.

..."I didn't follow Conservative policy in terms of getting permission to go on that TV show and I made a comment on that show that was an embarrassment to some members of the Conservative party."

Of course, even Conservative MPs have to get such permission. They owe more fealty to their party than to their constituents.

He wants to speak his own mind? Wow. Did he ever pick the wrong party to run for.

Petty Iggy elitism

I am all too well familiar with ruthless internal party politics. But past leaders, unless forever mired in scandal, are a treasure. Stéphane Dion deserves better than this:

[Stéphane Dion] deserves better than to have his back stabbed by the likes of Denis Coderre, a party apparatchik whose contributions to Canada are minimal compared with those of Dion. But Coderre apparently has the ear and the support of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, which greatly enhances his ability to make mischief in the ranks of the party's Quebec wing. And Coderre seems to think, according to our columnist L.Ian MacDonald, that Dion should have the decency to disappear before the next election and leave his riding open for a "star candidate."

This is the kind of nastiness that gives party politics a bad name - and rightly so. For all his errors as leader, Dion has long been a stalwart defender of national unity. He rallied to the Liberal cause in the dark days following the 1995 referendum precisely to fight the very real threat of national dissolution. His three open letters to separatists demolished the arguments of those who would tear the country apart and his Clarity Act stiffened the spines of discouraged federalists and infuriated their foes.

After Jean Chrétien's departure as party leader, Dion was relegated to the back benches in an act of particular vindictiveness by the ascendant Paul Martin. But Dion hung in, a faithful Liberal soldier, eventually re-emerging into prominence as an eloquent defender of the environment.

Given his bruising experience in the world of real politics, we wouldn't blame Dion if he did decide to return to the more theoretical world of the Université de Montréal's political-science department. But he has served his country well and we suspect he still has contributions to make. Leave him alone, Mr. Coderre

Just one more reason why I don't support the Liberals anymore.

Why isn't this Adscam? Part 2

Our politicians should start demanding the Conservative Party to pay back the $36 million in taxpayers' money it has abused on partisan ads and web presence. This is fraud or whatever you call it when the PMO or its agents force civil servants to spend our money on the Conservative Party.


I had written last week on the massive amounts of our money ($36 million) spent on obviously partisan ads by the 'Harper Government' promoting stimulus spending, openly wondering why this isn't a major scandal along the scale of Adscam.

Well, I do have an answer. Apparently, if some party members embezzle money from contracts awarded by government and spend it on your party, that's wrong, and is worth changing governments, whereas if you order civil servants to spend public money promoting  your party it's just business as usual, not worth comment.

As if.

Just for comparison, the spending limit for a federal political party on an election is around $20 million. That's right. This dwarfs the amount spent on an election.

The ads clearly promote the Conservative Harper government message that an election should be avoided or else it would interfere with the economic stimulus spending. Such a clear lie as well as elections do not grind government programs to a standstill.

We need to know what meetings were held, what politicians and government employees were involved. To ignore this, is to belittle what we learned from Adscam.

The ads direct viewers to a website wallpapered with pictures of Harper, describing government as 'the Harper Government.' As of yesterday, there were less photos, a development made late one evening, obviously related to the ample public criticism and press coverage, the most effective being a comparison between this enormous partisan spending spree and the lack of advertisement over H1N1 precautions.

Given the obviously partisan nature of these ads, spent with -- I must say it again -- OUR MONEY, should not the Conservative Party start paying us back? That's $36 million, Harper. Pay up!

The Liberal Party paid back public funds due to Adscam. I say 'continue the tradition!'

Impolitical  has covered this well, and if you are not up to speed, please go read, in order:

Conservative advertising hijinks: using taxpayer funds to support their message
Is there anything else we taxpayers can get for you trough swilling Conservatives?
A retreat from Harper megalomania
The case of the missing mug shots

One telling radio interview, reposted here from Impolitical, is of Gerry Philips. Philips is a staunch Conservative (libertarian) and former colleague of Harper's when Harper headed the National Citizen's Coalition, a right wing org pressing for small government. Philips has emerged as a significant right wing critic of Harper. Philips is particularly lucid here. It is worth a listen.

May wins nomination

Not surprising: Elizabeth May is now the Green Party candidate for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The long-time incumbent there is, of course, Gary Lunn. He is the Minister of State for Sport. BC has the Olympics coming up. The Greens, Liberals and NDP are going to vote split.

As much as I want her in, I'm betting she's third, with the Liberal candidate second, and Lunn in first. If I'm wrong, May will take second. But Lunn, baring an Act of God, will still win.

The 'Prince' must stay out of the fray

More on this later, but Ignatieff has to avoid this sort of thing:

Mr. Ignatieff at first told reporters Friday that he did not want to play “games” by criticizing the NDP's position, but did later poke fun at his rivals on the opposition benches.

“Jack and Gilles have gone up the hill, and we know how that little fairy tale ends,” he said.

 That's a good quote, but one of his lieutenants should have pitched it.

The 'socialists' and 'separatists' save Harper

Harper has survived his first confidence vote of the session due to support from the 'socialist' and 'separatists' he recently spent millions in ads attacking.Oh, the irony. That's a lot of wasted ad money. I do enjoy those tables turning.

The NDP, desperate to avoid an election as they are in bad financial shape, are propping up Harper supporting a bill they know to be badly flawed, in the stated hope that after months of creeping negotiations, they won't get screwed over by Harper, who would rather see the money not spent at all. Given how hard Harper worked this past summer to not allow the EI Working Group to accomplish anything, should act as a a warning to the NDP.

While the NDP continue to bluster that the lipstick on this pig is worth propping Harper up, the Liberals continue to seek to expedite the bill, in order to remove the NDP's stated reason for supporting the government.

Any gains the NDP may get, won't last under a Harper majority. Indeed, Harper, who is up in the polls, may pull the plug on Parliament before the NDP get anything they are looking for.

Well, the longer this takes, the more money the NDP can get in to cover its fundraising deficit.

I hear the NDP own a building in Ottawa, and recently lost their tenant? That they are still heavily leveraged from the last election?

And while these games carry on, poverty in this nation grows worse. This EI bill will do nothing for people hardest hit this recession. And they don't have months to wait.

Jack the obstructionist

Well, the games continue in Ottawa. The Liberals want to expedite the paltry EI legislation through Parliament, so that they can get to their non-confidence vote early next month with those issues settled.

The NDP has stated that they wanted to support the government for as long as it took for the bill to wind its way through the usual process. That's several months.

The theme the Liberals want to have played in the media tonight: The NDP is foot-dragging on a bill they deemed so important to be worth propping Harper up over. Why isn't Jack immediately supporting those unemployed workers he is supposed to be champion of!?

The theme everyone else wants: The Liberals are flip-flippers. They were against the government before they were for it.

I'm not taking sides here -- I don't vote Liberal -- I'm just not seeing the shine for the NDP here, and I don't think the public will either. First, Jack won't support the government out of principle, now he will, and now he's the one holding the works up.

The Liberals can be dissected just fine. I'm not denying that. The public mostly only listens to sound bites though. Yesterday Jack was 'saving the Harper government' and did not get the best coverage out of that. Now he's going to be holding up the very bill he claims to be worth saving the government over.

Layton may be forced to speed the bill through as well, else suffer more of an image problem.

And then we are back to where the Liberals want us: On the cusp of an election.

What is Layton going to use to prop up Harper next?

Understand, the NDP don't want an election. They lack the money. That places the Liberals in a stronger position because they do.

Harper is pleased to try to give treats to the NDP so as to try to bleed votes from the Liberals and to prop himself up, but if the Liberals can play the game well enough (this is Harper's manipulations in the end -- he's playing the NDP and Liberals off of each other), they will look strong, and the NDP weak. Lefty swing voters are in play here.

The Liberals can deal with their 'flip flop' by saying "it's going through anyway, we'll improve it when we get in, and why delay it like the NDP want to do?" The shoe goes on the other foot. The NDP's insistence that this bill is so important to be worth propping up Harper is contradicted by their comparative foot dragging.

You know, if the NDP had negotiated a better bill (they didn't apparently negotiate at all), then we'd have news featuring down to the wire negotiations staring Jack Layton as the savior of the unemployed. But that's not what we have. Actually, with the Bloc supporting the bill, the only leverage left is that Harper wants to avoid the optics of being propped up by the Bloc alone.

Unless the NDP gets its thinking cap on straight, and their finances quickly in order, they are going to come out of this session in bad shape. Sadly, the only leverage they have is that Harper would prefer to have the NDP's support more than the Bloc's. Working against his strategy are the millions of dollars in ads Harper recently spent (are those out of date ads still running?) demonizing anyone who works with the NDP and the Bloc, those 'socialists' and 'separatists.'

But, hey, voters are fickle. You never know what they will think of all this. Just be clear that they often fail to keep track of events, and don't pay attention for long.

I'll throw this into the works: Harper is quite inconsistent himself on huge issues (for coalitions, then against them for example), but he gets away with it. Why is all due to image control and the psychology of voters. People can argue about what is best, what is moral and what really happened, but what goes down in the electorate's mind is often barely connected to those things.

If the Liberals can be seen to be driving Parliament, getting things done, and presenting a vision, then voters may very well take to them, regardless of the machinations. The Liberals are trying to drive the polls here, not follow them.

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are more often influenced by things that seem than by things that are.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli

===
Update:

It seems likely now that Jack is going to fast track the EI bill as well. What choice does he have?

h/t Scott Tribe.

===
Update:

Nah. The bill sucks. It'll be off to committee, by the looks of things. With the NDP not really wanting to support it in this form, suddenly the Liberals can go back to opposing it if they wish, citing everyones negative comments about it. If the Liberals do support it in first reading, I'm not so sure that's the best thing.

Ibbitson and Taber agree with me

A few hours after I wrote The Liberals Going Forward, arguing that the Liberals have turned tables, and, rather than having only plans for a quick election, have a longer term strategy in effect here, a Globe and Mail article appeared outlining what I wrote.

Well, they wrote it better:

This latest turn of events leaves both Mr. Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton facing the delicate political dance of keeping each other happy without surrendering the final vestiges of party ideology.

The winner in all of this, politically, may well be Michael Ignatieff. The Liberal Leader was determined at all costs to avoid the trap that ensnared his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who was forced repeatedly to prop up Mr. Harper's first government, rather than fight an election the Liberals correctly suspected they would not win.

When the Liberals withdrew support for the government two weeks ago, conventional wisdom held that they had made a serious mistake, as the Tories pushed ahead in the polls and a fall vote seemed increasingly ill-omened for the Official Opposition.

But with the embattled NDP now apparently resigned to keeping the government alive, the Liberals can play the role of a proper government-in-waiting, while also deriding the NDP for its failure of political courage.

Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc told reporters outside the House of Commons that the day's events proved “the NDP is for sale and for not a very high price.”

Ouch!

And this, if true, hits on a theme I'm been pushing: You have to lead opinion to win, not follow it. At least, that's part of the key to this crazy electoral mess we are in:

And Mr. Ignatieff showed no signs of backing away from his pre-election strategy when he addressed his troops at the closed-door caucus session Wednesday.

“You need to stand up to win,” he told his MPs and senators, according to an insider. His words were greeted with enthusiastic applause, though many of those MPs are quietly relieved that they won't be compelled to meet the voters this fall.

Can he follow through? Here's my issue: Why would I vote for him? I like the political strategy in use, but I want to see good policy and reliability. (Queue the dippers...)

The Liberals going forward

Harper will survive Friday. Though the Liberals will oppose the non-confidence vote, I think they prefer Harper to hang on. They want more time to frame Ignatieff as the logical replacement to Harper, and intend to do so by in part vigorously opposing the Conservatives. Certainly, this had best be what they are intending, unless they want to go back from the brink, wishy-washy all the way.

I believe that Liberal strategists see an advantage to disengaging from Parliament beyond the short term. With the shoe on the other foot now (the NDP lefty foot), swing voters who originally backed the NDP over their opposition to Harper may find themselves pondering the Liberals a little more if this reorientation of Parliament remains. Likewise, if Harper continuing to cooperate with the NDP is palatable to swing voters on the right, then there isn't anything wrong with the Liberals having done so before, is there? (Though I doubt that hardcore Conservatives who spit the word 'socialist' will vote Liberal, regardless of who Harper cooperates with.) The Liberals are trying to strongly be the default ABC party for voters.

The Liberals feel that they are ready for an election. They have changed leaders, successfully, if anti-democratically. Their fundraising is way up. The NDP, on the other hand, don't want an election. Their polls aren't the best, and Parliament's dynamics are shifting them into an unfamiliar position, with several years of anti-Harper themes threatened. Ad into it rumours of poor finances, and of losing their Quebec ad agency, and the Liberals see an NDP on the ropes.

Certainly, the NDP's apparent surrender to a paltry EI change, backs up the view that the NDP are in no position to negotiate. Harper intended as far back as last June to never give the Liberals an inch on EI, which is why the EI working group was such a sham. He's more than pleased to hand some of the credit to the NDP. In Harper's world, this makes sense as it pits the NDP against the Liberals. Indeed, the NDP is a jealous dog here, trying to make a lot out of this table scrap.

The Liberals will spend the whole time performing for the cameras: Why did the NDP roll over? We have far better reforms planned which the NDP previously liked. Why did they lower their expectations. Oh, right, they're broke. Then out rolls their better ideas, and Iggy's great Narnia vision (whatever...).

I think that the Liberals have a game plan that includes having an election as late as December, when their remaining opposition days are to come up. What we have been seeing these past weeks are the Liberals repositioning themselves as the *only* Opposition. Several months of the Liberals banging away at Harper at every turn, with the other parties trying to defend their turnabout, can really change how people see the Liberals.

Of course, if the NDP continue to prop up Harper, there won't be an election until Harper wants one, which is likely this Spring. I have trouble seeing the NDP do that, without losing all credibility. The Liberals will be sure to place the NDP on the spot during opposition days, and in the media as often as possible. At some point, the NDP will have to go as well.

Will the Liberals gain voters from this strategy? Time will tell. It certainly may turn them into the anti-Harper party, and polarization, though it can hurt you, can also help your fortunes.

Chantal Hébert thinks Layton should have resigned already

Well, she may be right. I certainly think the NDP now risk losing additional ground to the Liberals, though Harper may respond to that by using the old standby, seen used by Conservative everywhere when facing two opponents to their left: prop one up over the other in order to divode the vote.

Of course going against this is the cognitive distortion of both Harper declaring the NDP as socialists not worthy of working with, and of Jack working with a party he's made a virtue of opposing.

Over the past four years, the anti-Conservative approach of the NDP to the minority Parliaments may not have allowed the party to overtake the Liberals, but it still paid off, and there are political costs associated with relinquishing it.

Standing up to the Conservatives made the iconic New Democrat victory in Outremont possible. In 2007, a significant shift of Bloc voters, driven to the NDP by Gilles Duceppe's support for the first two Tory budgets, brought Thomas Mulcair to the Commons.

The black-and-white NDP position also allowed the party to more or less hold its own in voting intentions through successive changes at the Liberal helm.

On Monday, an Ipsos Reid poll had the NDP down to 12 per cent in voting intentions. A Nanos poll published by La Presse last week also showed a downward trend in NDP fortunes. The latest Harris-Decima poll has the party trailing badly in Ontario and Quebec and well behind in British Columbia.

Those who most want the current Parliament to work are largely spoken for by the Conservatives, and many of those who bought into Layton's previous rhetoric are losing the thread of his changing narrative.

Norman Spector mentioned yesterday that the NDP may have lost their ad agency in Quebec? Also, the NDP are behind on their fundraising. If true, an election is not something the NDP are ready for, and I think it shows.

And, ah, the Liberals know all this, don't they?

Oh, I like this one

This one is effective. Though technically a negative ad, it illustrates a flip flop close to everyone's heart: A clear promise to not increase taxes, contrasted with the recent news the EI rates are goign to go up.

The ominous background music gets a little loud, and I didn't like the Harper slowdown bit, but otherwise the whole look and feel is great!

At least one more could be done on this theme. Harper ran during the last election promising to run the EI fund at an arms-length, zero-balance curve. Instead, he's going to use it to raise money to pay down the debt.



I have little doubt that Harper will come to try to claim that the raise in EI rates is going to be due to the proposed changes in benefits we are now hearing about (amazing what opposition sabre rattling accomplishes). But we all know that the rate increase is coming regardless.

Stephen Harper, Just Visiting

Wish I had time to do this kind of work. This ad using the same style Harper is using to attack Ignatieff. Despite agreeing with the subject matter, and not at all liking Harper, I still find these types of ads rub me the wrong way.

Don't do it Jack II

Scott Tribe has an excellent theory: Jack is making a go of it with Harper over EI reforms only because he knows it will fail. That places Jack on top of the moral heap ('I tried making Parliament work...'), and also gives the Liberals justification to continue to seek an election, with the NDP supporting that vote.

I agree Scott may be right, and saw this possibility as well; however, I thought it more reasonable to take Jack at face value given the risks that come with making deals with someone like Harper, who is inherently unreliable and cunning.

As such, my plea of "Don't do it Jack" is reasonable. What if Jack is trying to do that, but then Harper gives him everything he asks for? Harper may do so just to put Jack on the spot. After all, the EI modifications being sought are only temporary, and cheap given how much red ink is flowing these days.

Temporarily improving  EI is not enough reason to keep Harper afloat until next year, when he will push hard for his majority, citing economic victory with a likely false good-news budget in hand. I still maintain we should have taken him down last January after camping out on the Hill protesting Harper's pseudo-fascist closing of Parliament. So, don't do it, Jack!


But if Jack doesn't get what he wants, and also pleads that 'you can't work with these guys' well, I agree. All the better.


But, I suspect Harper understands this, and will work hard to go negative on him as well in the lead up to the vote. Let's hope Jack has a counter.

(I call every other leader by their last name, except Jack. Why? I have no idea.)

Don't do it Jack!

Don't take the bribe!

Jack is making conciliatory noises towards Harper.

Harper averted a summer election by placating Ignatieff with a special EI committee. As we all know, Harper had the committee stonewalled, and then had his government produce partisan numbers to discredit the otherwise credible Liberal proposal.

Why, Jack, would you ever think that Harper wouldn't toy with you on this all the way to budget time, introduce a good news (read: filled with lies) budget and then call an election on his terms.

Is four years of a Conservative majority really worth it?

Think about it. You already know that you'll get more done with a Liberal minority. You should help pursue one.

Why isn't this Adscam?

Via Impolitical:

The media are picking up on the new government ads that are running, the advertising in support of the government's "action plan." The new ads differ from previous ones put out by the government this year in that there's an additional messaging angle thrown in. There is, for example, an elderly man who states at one point in the ad that we have to "stay on track," with the clear implication that there should be no election. You can watch that part here (it occurs around the 1:25 onwards point).

And here:

Tories like Transport Minister John Baird have argued an election would slow stimulus spending of infrastructure projects. The government’s new taxpayer-funded $4.1-million TV ad campaign to tout the stimulus package – purchased in August – airs commercials that include the tag line: “We can’t stop now.” 

So they are running government ads using public money spouting the same theme as their partisan electioneering. Just this current ad buy is cited at $5.6 million.

If the Conservatives were to redirect funds from the Government and use it for their purposes, we'd call it, well, Adscam. But instruct the civil service to do it, and it's... okay?