Tie goes to the governor

I generally don’t try to declare winners or losers of political debates (well, not winners – I’ll regularly call out the losers). I know that my metric for judging these things will be different than many people’s, and I know that the leaders aren’t necessarily looking to “win”, they’re looking to advance some sort of campaign strategy. Nonetheless, a few days removed from the English debate, if I have to call a winner (which, I guess, I don’t), I’m giving it to the Prime Minister.

Each leader got some good points in. Each leader had a chunk taken out once or twice (or, occasionally, just looked silly). I wouldn’t say that Harper got in the best shots. but I think he emerged from the debate in the best spot.

Much has been written, including by our friend Richard, suggesting Stephen Harper “won” the debate because he came off as the most Prime Ministerial (is that even a word?). While I agree with that, I think the calm demeanour he wore brought more than just an air of Prime Ministerialship.

The other three leaders spent much time attacking Mr. Harper. Of course, they did. He’s the Prime Minister, he’s in the lead, they need to take him down. But through all of the attacks, Mr. Haprer stayed calm and stayed on point. This coolness had the effect of slightly diminishing the other three. They attacked and attacked, and the got nothing out of him. They made him look like the big dog, all the while appearing as chihuahuas.

A while back, my friend Max Fawcett suggested that there is a lack of stars in our political ranks. In many ways, the three opposition leaders lived down to that observation. Don’t get me wrong, I have a decent level of respect for them, and I think they all did fairly well in the debate, but through this dynamic of three wanna be Davids trying with all their might to take down Goliath – and failing – they undermined their own stature. If one of them – specifically, Mr. Ignatieff – had been able to attack Mr. Harper, score some points and then build off of that to advance their vision (and, no, raising the corporate tax rate is not a vision), they would have come off much better.

Still, this was no great win for Mr. Harper. It wasn’t a real win at all; it was just survival. He was fine, but he wasn’t spectacular. He protected his ground, but I can’t say he advanced very much. But, since he’s the Prime Minister, and since he’s in the lead, he wins any such stalemate.

The Election Race on Facebook

As of Sunday, March 27, at 9:30pm EST, Prime Minister Stephen Harper leads Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff in Facebook fans.

The Conservative leader has 43,055 fans. The Liberal leader has a couple of thousand supporters fewer: 40,895.

What can this comparison tell about whose party will win on May 2? About as much as we can glean from public opinion polls conducted today, five weeks before voting day: nothing.

Public Funding for Political Parties

The Conservative Party will make campaign finance a central pillar of its reelection platform in the next federal election, which observers expect this coming spring or fall.

Under the Conservatives’ plan, political parties will retain the power to issue tax receipts to individual donors. Political parties will also remain entitled to receive reimbursements for authorized campaign expenditures. But gone will be the direct subsidies that grant political parties roughly $2 for every vote they get at the polls.

That strikes me as not only fair and reasonable, but also quite right. I think it’s a winner.

If there is a compelling reason to disagree with the Conservative Party on campaign finance, I cannot think of it, particularly given how well Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the point here:

I think we’ve been pretty clear that we don’t think there’s really strong justification for this direct subsidy to parties. … Our view is that there is a role for some public finance, but it has got to be tied to a party’s own efforts, or to the willingness of voters to actually contribute this money.

It remains to be seen, though, whether the rest of the Conservative Party’s platform will earn my similarly enthusiastic support.

The New Conservative Cabinet

Today, Mark Kennedy speculates on a looming federal Cabinet shuffle.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, with an eye on a potential spring election, is contemplating a cabinet shuffle to re-energize his team and bring greater focus to his government’s priorities.

Let’s assume Kennedy is right. Who should be shuffled in, shuffled out, promoted, demoted?

Keep in mind that the Conservatives have a new addition to their team: Julian Fantino, the former Ontario Provincial Police commissioner who was recently elected in a Vaughn by-election.

Let me kick things off with three recommendations:

1. Fantino would fit in well as Minister of Public Safety, a portfolio currently held by Vic Toews. If current National Defence Minister Peter MacKay does indeed step down in the days/weeks ahead, as some have suggested he might, then Rob Nicholson, the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General, could take over at Defence and Toews, a lawyer, could fill the office vacated by Nicholson.

2. Larry Smith, the former CFL commissioner whom the Conservative Party is said to be courting, should be appointed to the Cabinet even without a seat. Smith would then be expected to contest an election at the first available opportunity, either a general election or a by-election. (Appointing someone without a seat in the House of Commons to the Cabinet is unconventional but not unprecedented: Jean Chretien appointed Stephane Dion to the Cabinet in January 1996 long before Dion had won a seat in the House.) Where would Smith go? One option is for Smith to takeover for Tony Clement at the Ministry of Industry, and Clement could then replace Chuck Strahl (who is rumoured to be leaving) as Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

3. The prime minister needs to find room for Michael Chong. He is just too good to be left out of the Cabinet.

That’s my advice for the prime minister. What’s yours?

Harper vs. Ignatieff

Stephen Harper often speaks glowingly about the Canadian economy. And with reason, because Canada has weathered the storm that has rattled the economic foundations of many countries over the past 18-24 months.

But Michael Ignatieff argues that Harper does not give enough credit to his Liberal predecessors, both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien:

Meanwhile, when Stephen Harper goes around the world boasting about Canada’s economy – what he’s really boasting about is the Liberal record.

So, is Ignatieff right?

It appears so, according to The Economist:

Much of the country’s resilience stems from policies—such as bank regulation and sound public finances—which predate Mr Harper.

Advice to Liberals: Lose and then Reflect

Jeffrey Simpson writes:

Mr. Ignatieff, therefore, has to appeal beyond the travails of today to offer a better tomorrow and, in so doing, reconnect with those convictions that once defined the Liberal Party. Giving effect to those convictions – a strong central government, an activist state and an internationalist foreign policy – will take money that the federal government doesn’t have, and won’t have without raising taxes.

It’s good advice, but it’ll never happen under the current minority government situation; with the Liberal Party a whisper and a vote away from being the next government.

The Liberal Party of Canada needs to spend one term, possibly two, sitting in the opposition benches of a majority Conservative government before any real perspective on governing is achieved. The Liberal party had grown stale and corrupt under the heavy hand of Prime Minister Chretien (as any government would after 12 years) and the constant saber-rattling from the official opposition has done nothing to quell the stench of that staleness. I think the parade of new Liberal party leaders further proves the party needs to do some deep reflection before it can be handed the keys to Canadian government.

It should also be said that if Conservative supporters across the country (both big “C” and little “c”) feel like they didn’t get a chance to effect change – without the hindrance of a minority government situation – they are unlikely to consider any other party in the near future.

Polarization of the vote and constant minority governments may become the norm in Canadian politics, and that should strike fear in any Canadian concerned about the future of Canadian democracy.

The Liberal Party needs to lose and lose badly.

Michael Ignatieff and the Continuing Saga of Unfulfilled Promise

(No, I’m not going to write a Dear John letter to Michael Ignatieff.  I never expected him to amount to great leader; I just hoped he might become one.)

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

Stephen, If This Is It, Please Let Me Know

Dear Stephen,

It seems we need to talk.  Our relationship just isn’t what it used to be, and now that you’ve decided that we need a break for a few weeks, I think it’s time that we re-evaluate just where we think we’re headed.

I remember when we first met.  From what everybody said, you just seemed perfect, ooh, he’s soooo wonky.  Sure, you didn’t have the usual charisma that we’ve all come to expect, but that’s really overrated.  I was looking for someone of substance, and you were supposed to be it.  From that initial courtship, everything seemed good.  I knew that it would be an up hill climb, and that all the chattering classes would be predicting our failure, but I had faith in us.  Even if no one else saw in you what I saw, it didn’t matter.  You seemed like a keeper.

The initial flair of a relationship never lasts.  No one is the perfect vessel we believe them to be upon first meeting – one in whom we can pour all of our dreams and expectations.  Dreams linger and fade, and life interrupts honeymoons.  Through such stresses, all we need is to find someone who will still, in essence, be the person we always thought they were; be the person we always needed, even when blinded by desire.

We certainly had our share of ups, but we also had a few downs.  The downs seemed to mount, and grow, and envelop that initial flame.  I may have had some harsh words, but I was mature and confident enough to know that no relationship can be perfect.  There is no Suzanne Somers for my Patrick Duffy, but I didn’t care.  Waking up from a dream or nightmare, I still believed you were the right choice for me.

But I don’t know why you had to go after my friends.  I don’t know why you were so worried about what they might say.  I already knew you weren’t perfect, and I wasn’t expecting perfection; I was expecting the intestinal fortitude, the confidence, I was led to believe you had.  Unfortunately, your jealousy seems to have gotten the better of you.  Insecurity does wear well, Stephen, even on you.  I don’t know if I will be able to remain true to you, if you do not remain true to all the principles I thought we shared.

So here we are, the dark days of January.  Ottawa has been cold; Ottawa has been grey; Ottawa has been quiet.  I know you will return, but I know it won’t be as soon as you’d promised.  You say you need some time.  You need to get composed, take care of some housekeeping issues, and then come back fresh after the Olympics, ready take on everything anew.

I hope you get some rest, Stephen.  I hope you have the chance to reflect on the past few years we’ve spent together.  They’ve meant a lot.

I’m not a child.  I know that people grow.  I know that people’s priorities change.  I’m sad to think that yours have changed so much… or maybe it’s just that I never quite knew you to begin with… no, I don’t think that can be it.  I was prepared for some disappointment, but not this much.  You broke my heart, Stephen, you most cynical of pols.

We’ll talk when you return.

Farewell,

Jonathan

Michael Ignatieff is Right About Pay Equity

Below, Richard notes a couple of new initiatives by the Liberal Party, including their intention to recognize pay equity as a human right.

Here’s the thing, they are, partially, correct.

A quick caveat, I am, generally, not a fan of the way pay equity is wielded.  A concept that was born to address discriminatory behaviour against vulnerable segments of the population has become a weapon used to engineer wealth redistribution surreptitiously.  It’s dishonest, and it’s an abuse of the legislative process.

A second caveat, I am on record as being against the expansion of ‘human rights’.  I hold a narrow definition, and I do not think pay equity (even the good kind) falls into it.  Further, I am offended by the Human Rights industry in Canada.

So, let’s assume, arguendo, that we’re talking about an acceptable form of pay equity, and by ‘human right’ we mean some good legislation that the government enforces through an appropriate process.  (I know this is open for debate, but these topics are being debated thoroughly on Richard’s post; I want to talk about something more narrow.)  With these assumptions, Michael Ignatieff is right.

From the article in The Toronto Star:

To that end, he [Michael Ignatieff] introduced Wednesday a private member’s bill aimed at reversing a controversial measure in the 2009 federal budget.

The budget essentially reclassified pay equity as a labour issue to be negotiated in collective agreements, stripping the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its authority to adjudicate pay equity complaints.

Anyone see the same problem with the Conservative’s re-classification that I do?  The Conservative’s measure has put pay equity in the hands of unions.  If we assume that pay equity (however defined) is worthwhile, it has no place as a bargaining chip in a contract negotiation; a union should not have the right ditch it on behalf of its membership and those who will eventually join the union.

You could almost argue that Stephen Harper’s government is acting as a shill for Big Labour.

(By the way, I’m not suggesting that any unions would do away with pay equity in order to secure a better dental plan; I’m just saying we shouldn’t even give them the option.)

Now, I can envision a convincing counter-argument that pay equity isn’t a good thing as it is currently enacted, and that its enforcement shouldn’t be delegated to Human Rights Commissions.  These may be solid points, but they do not justify the action taken by the Conservative government.  Just as it is wrong to use pay equity to enact wealth re-distribution, it is wrong to use procedural measures as a salvo against the nature of pay equity and the use of Human Rights Commissions.  It seems especially egregious to do it through the budget.  If the government wishes to take on pay equity or Human Rights Commissions, they should do so head on.  Crafting duplicitous legislation is unbecoming of a democratic government.

I still don’t trust Michael Ignatieff with the task of crafting appropriate pay equity legislation, but I don’t really trust Stephen Harper with it either.

Jim Prentice Not Swayed by ‘Climategate’

National Post is reporting that the Conservative government is not changing its opinion on the science behind climate change, despite the recent CRU email scandal:

OTTAWA – The Harper government said controversy surrounding hacked e-mails of climate scientists doesn’t change its concern about global warming or its position heading into a major international summit this month in Copenhagen.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice said it was unfortunate that a prominent scientist was forced to resign because of revelations in the e-mails, but the government still believes the science is clear that human activity is causing climate change.

Take this for what it’s worth.  We all know that the words and deeds of politicians do not always coincide.  However, I’m cautiously thinking this is a good thing.  As Mark noted the other day, skepticism is healthy.  If the government is going to be a blind follower of conventional wisdom, that’s not good.  However, I don’t recall Stephen Harper ever sounding like Elizabeth May, so I’m guessing the Conservatives will never actually be leading the fight against climate change.

(Yeah, I hate the ‘-gate’ nomenclature for political scandals, but whatcha gonna do?)

(H/T: @stageleft.)

Next Page »