Divided, but not yet conquered...

In the past few weeks, a number of polls have been published and they all tell us the same thing - an election would not likely change much. In some, the Conservatives are falling; in others, they are holding a small lead.

No one is gaining or losing ground in any significant way. Why?

There have been some good pieces on this topic recently (Jeffrey Simpson's from the August 10 Globe and Mail being one that stands out for me). For this blogger, one point that would be worth exploring is the extent to which the Conservatives have not been better able to capitalize on a divided opposition.

Why is this on my mind? Perhaps the combination of the recent news about former PM Chrétien's health and the whole coalition chatter that followed the UK elections has me looking back at when - and why - we last had a majority government in Canada.

For many, the Liberal's success can be attributed to the fact that they faced divided opposition. Agreed - this played a big part. However, don't we have a similar situation today?

Let's consider this a moment.

From 1993-2003 we had 3 successive Liberal majority governments. Some key characteristics of their time in office included:

- a weakened opposition, with a lot of vote splitting on the right;
- the Bloc owned Quebec;
- a strong Minister of Finance who had to bring in fiscal restraint and then was able to be more expansive when the national finance's improved;
- a number of provinces were run by the Conservatives; and
- a national challenge in the form of the referendum.

From 2006-2010, the Conservatives have won 2 minority governments. Some key characteristics of their time in office include:

- a divided opposition, with the Liberals weakly-led and increasingly occupying the left with the NDP;
- the Bloc still own Quebec;
- a strong Minister of Finance who now has to bring in fiscal restraint, following a period in which he was able to be more expansive because the national finance's were strong;
- a number of provinces are run by the Liberals (or Danny Williams); and
- a national challenge in the form of the severe global economic contraction.

There are some important differences for sure.

First, the opposition the Liberals faced included the upstart Reform and the separatist Bloc. Today, the opposition are all established parties with relatively strong brands. Second, vote splitting among the right was more prevalent in 1993-2003period, particularly in vote-rich Ontario.

For me, while these differences are significant they don't fully explain the challenge the Conservatives have faced in reaching that electoral promised land. Are there other explanations worth discussing?

I think the events over the past 6-8 months start to answer this question.

In 2003, when Paul Martin was held to minority, you could argue that there was still public apprehension about Stephen Harper and what a "reform-conservative" government would look like. Perhaps the same thing occurred in 2006, when Harper won his first minority.

Today, what may be holding them back is not the public's fear of the unknown, but rather their concern with what they do know and have seen.

The proroguing of Parliament twice in 12 months to avoid the accountability of the House. The lack of respect for the same transparency campaigned upon. The disregard for almost unified advice on the census. The excessive expenditures on aircraft and summits during a time of apparent restraint.

Maybe the public is taking notice. And maybe this is why the Liberals hang on, the NDP remains a player, and the Bloc own Quebec.

You and I? We get more of the same.

Thoughts?

Stand up and be counted..or not, it's now your call

Here we are in the last days of July, a time when politics would normally take a back seat to BBQ's and holidays. So raise your hand and let me know if you are surprised that the debate on the long-form census has become such a big story.

As you raise your hand, please be sure to also indicate:

- your sex
- age
- mother tongue
- household income
- level of education
- how many pets you have
- what side of the bed you sleep on

What's that? You don't have to answer these intrusive questions anymore? You say you've been saved from this Big Brother-esque invasion of your privacy? Let's talk about this for a moment.

The issue that has unfolded over the past 2 weeks has been well-documented, so I won't rehash it all here. Briefly, numerous groups have criticized the decision made by the government, arguing that without the information provided through the long-form census the public policy process will be undermined; that decisions would be made absent key statistical evidence.

The government's decision was apparently made despite the advice provided by Statistics Canada, and subsequent government spin has resulted in the Chief Statistician resigning - an extremely rare course of action for a career public servant to take.

Given the furore, one has to ask why the government would move in this direction. The answer apparently lies in ideology, and a belief that the state should not compel people to reveal personal information.

Interestingly, privacy concerns such as these have not been raised in any significant way to the Privacy Commissioner. This simply was not an issue that seized the vast majority of Canadians.

However, while that might not appear to be an issue to the average Canadian it seems to be an issue for a Prime Minister who in certain areas takes a more traditional libertarian view on the role of the state. For the PM, there should be limits on what the government can compel of its citizens.

Now, I doubt anyone would disagree with this - of course there should be, and in fact are, limits. However, to deprive all levels of government and a host of other important organizations of the very information needed to make sound social and economic policy all in the name of ideology is, from my perspective, a bad idea.

So what next? Well, to start the House Industry Committee will hear from Minister Clement, who is responsible for the census. The Committee has also called Dr. Sheikh to appear, so that he can provide more information on the advice the agency gave. All to say, the story isn't going away just yet.

And that leads me to this final thought. Does the government want it to go away entirely, or is this another example of a decision intended to rally a base in advance of an election? Recent media articles have raised this as a distinct possibility.

Let's hope this isn't the case. A bad decision taken for partisan reasons is never a happy mix. Now, can I have my summer back?

Thoughts?

Back by popular demand...

Finally, at long last...the return. After what seemed an interminable period of time, a re-emergence sure to delight the faithful. Yes, back by popular demand...!

No, not the return of me and this blog. That would be a tad arrogant and presumptuous. Plus, I am still struggling to determine if there are faithful followers.

I am referring, of course, to the return of the Conservatives. The recent Speech from the Throne and Budget mark the government's return to its roots. Kind of like the Beatles "Get Back" sessions, but with less bickering and caught on-tape sniping.

You see, the past few years have seen the governing Tories focus their attention on growing the size of government. Federal spending grew, Quebec was wooed and the result was...another minority government.

In fact, save for those months in the not-so-distant past when Mr. Ignatieff tried to prompt an election and Liberal support plummeted, the government has never really been that close to its sought after majority.

Cue the financial crisis and the opening of the government taps. The purse strings were loosened and the government got into the business of, well, business. The measures themselves appear to have worked well, but then the bill came in.

Now, 12 months on from that "free for all-cash for all" budget, and the government has just delivered a new budget that starts to take them back to where they once belonged.

The stimulus will end, which was to be expected. And Canadians are being advised to prepare for some real belt-tightening. Again, to be expected.

But what I find interesting is the fact that the crisis and ensuing tab may actually position the government to do the things it has long favoured doing.

You see, if the government is not going to raise taxes (and don't for a minute underestimate the impact the GST cut has had on the federal purse) then something has to give. Most economists agree that Canada cannot grow out of this hole. So, if you don't raise more revenue or receive it through a growing economy, then the only option is to cut spending.

And by cutting spending, this does not mean freezing MP salaries or cutting down on government appointments. These are symbolic areas which may resonate with some quarters of the public, but which account for little in terms of overall government spending.

What will therefore be needed in order to reach the government's deficit reduction objectives are real cuts to spending. The kind of cuts favoured by many members of the government while in opposition or working for groups like the Taxpayer's Federation or the National Citizen's Coalition.

Maybe, just maybe, the crisis presented the government with an opportunity. An opportunity to get back to its core values and roots. A real chance to enact a change in the role of government.

If so, then shouldn't this be the area on which the Opposition focuses their questions? With all due respect, I think it's a far more important topic than the trials and tribulations of Mr. Jaffer and Ms. Guergis.

Thoughts?

New name, same deal

Apparently, someone out there has a registered trademark on the term "Politics Watch". No, I don't think they are posting anything these days, but that I gather doesn't matter. For some reason they are concerned my sporadic posts could cause their name and by extension themselves material damage. Sigh.

All to say, welcome "A Guy Watching Politics". Yes, that was the best I could come up with on short notice and a strongly worded email breathing down my neck.

New guy, same deal. Stay tuned...

Cabinet Shuffled. So what? Now what?

Well, there you go. We're 2+ days and change removed from the shuffle and there are really only two questions for me:

First question: so what? There were no major changes as the big guys all stayed put (though McKay lost some Atlantic clout). In addition, the Raitt move was expected. Day moving to TBS was somewhat of a surprise (more on that in the now what), but not earth-shattering.

However, for the reasons laid out in a previous post, it all amounts to little. Yes, it's great that Ambrose has shown hard work and a head-down attitude can lead to redemption, but ultimately decisions and communications are run so forcefully from PMO that it really doesn't make a difference who has moved where. The boss is the boss is the boss.

Second question: now what? Media has been all over the Day move, characterizing it as an important message from Harper about the move to austerity and fiscal restraint.

As this blog and others have noted, the Harper government had tax cut/spent themselves into deficit before the economic crisis took hold. In fact, public spending under Harper increased more than it did during the Chretien-Martin years. Stimulus compounded the problem (albeit it exponentially) - it didn't create it.

OK, but the spinners remind me that Day was the man who presided over fiscally conservative Alberta. Again, as others have pointed out that this doesn't quite ring true. Dinning tightened spending, Day spent. A lot. Oil prices were rising so as Treasurer he could afford to. Yes, he did introduce a flat-tax. Don't get me started on flat-taxes..

It is also timely to remember that some form of expenditure review has been underway at TBS for some time. John McCallum - yes that one - was tasked with finding $12 billion in savings. Not sure how far he got.

The problem is, once you rule out tax increases or cuts in social spending and defence, there's not much left. Sure, there are niche program cuts. But in the grand scheme of things, these are akin to what's behind the cushions and the occasional $20 bill you find in your winter coat in November.

Where is the dialogue on the upcoming discussion with the provinces on health care spending? Demographics will loom large in any discussion on health care and other benefit programs. Can you manage the budget deficit if these are off the table and there are no tax increases?

Important questions, but few answers.

We have a budget in about 5 weeks. What will be the focus? Will there be a longer-term vision, with clear year-over-year targets? I can tell you that if the focus of a deficit reduction plan is the "return to growth and therefore a return to tax revenue" story, I will be upset. Mind you, not surprised. Just upset.

Now is the time for serious thinking about what Canada needs in order to succeed and compete in the 21st century. The question touches at social and economic policy, and increasingly they need to considered in tandem.

Is this government prepared to do so? Is this opposition?

You tell me.

Coming Soon to a Blog Near You: Cabinet Shuffle

So, speculation abound that tomorrow will bring a Cabinet shuffle. I say speculation because as of right now (9:50 pm EST) we have no official confirmation that anything is planned. Sure, we have the usual "informed sources" and the like, but nothing official from the boys in blue.

What we know is that Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson stepped down on the weekend, thereby creating a vacancy. We also know that a shuffle of some sort was under consideration for some time - perhaps this is what re-calibration does to a PM.

So, what's the chatter?

• Vic Toews is rumoured to be heading out of Treasury Board;
• Lisa Raitt could be moved out of Natural Resources;
• Maxime Bernier could be back. No word yet on who he would bring to a swearing in ceremony or what they would be wearing...

Safe money is on the big players staying put. Flaherty can't be touched with a budget around the corner. As well, for all of the debate on the Afghan detainee issue I don't see the PM moving McKay. It's tantamount to an admission of a problem, and this guy doesn't make such admissions.

Really though, what we know is that we don't know anything. Speculation like this is like oxygen to pundits, bloggers and the twitter community.

The bigger question for me is not so much "who goes where", but "does it make any difference?" So much about this government is controlled from the centre.

The PM remains THE spokesperson on most issues of substance. PMO pens more scripts than Hollywood for its MPs. Who the Minister is seems to mean less and less these days. The phrase "there's no I in TEAM, but there's an M and an E" may have been uttered by the PM at a recent Cabinet meeting - we are looking into it.

All to say, stay tuned for tomorrow and try not to get too dizzy from the spin.

Thoughts? Comments?

Parliament in session...situation unstable....

OK, so the Prime Minister has suggested that when Parliament returns "the games begin." He went on to say that once the House is back in session the government could be subject to confidence votes, intimating that this is not the stable environment one needs to craft good policy. The market does not like "instability."

Right. Gotcha.

But, the funny thing is that for the past few years a number of these destabilizing confidence votes were actually deemed as such by the Prime Minister. That was back in what is fondly remembered as the "I dare you to defeat me, Mr. Dion" era. Faced with a weak opposition, the Prime Minister made several votes "votes of confidence", knowing that at least one party would support (usually the Liberals).

All to say, we are entering Day 15 of Prorogation. Perhaps tomorrow will bring a rationale that sticks.

Comments? Thoughts?

When the going gets tough, the tough...prorogue?

Shame on me. There, I said it. Taking time off from real work, focusing not on my job and blogging, and instead using the time for whatever I wanted. I should be ashamed of myself. Who do I think I am, the Prime Minister. Oh wait...

Well, this appears to be the world I am in these days. It's a world where so many of us have tended to sit and let politics and the creature that is Ottawa play out to an indifferent audience, yet for some reason are (depending on who you listen to) now being seized by what is essentially an execution of well-established Parliamentary procedure. Why?

Let me offer some views:

1. Yes, prorogation is standard procedure. However, the way it has been executed by this government is not. Prorogation was never intended to be an exit strategy. A population that is already cynical about politics will see this for what it is - duck and run.

2. The justification (a) is not clear and (b) keeps changing. Depending on who you speak with and when, prorogation is needed because: the government needs the time to recalibrate, the government is avoiding a Parliamentary Committee investigating the Afghan detainee issue, the government wants to stack the Senate, the Olympics is too much of a distraction. Should anyone out there in cyberspace be reading this, do me a favour. Speak to your boss and offer any one of these types of justifications for taking time off. Let me know how it goes.

3. Related to the point above, no justifications save for the avoidance ones make sense. As Andrew Coyne noted last week, you should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The Minister of Finance said as much today when he said prorogation or not, pre-budget consultations would occur. There goes the re-calibrate argument.

4. The arrogance thing. We don't seem to like it in Canada. Ultimately, it's why our celebrities go south and our politicians are eventually sent home. We're funny that way here.

5. Over time, even the disengaged sense a pattern. None of this is new for the government. It is part of a pattern which has seen the government criticize whistleblowers, despite the fact that they celebrated them while in opposition. It is a pattern of secrecy from a government which campaigned on transparency. Ultimately, it's a pattern which says you are with us or against us. So much for making things work.

6. The "you criticize us, therefore you are against Canadian soldiers" line of rhetoric is insulting - to Canadians and to Parliament.

Scathing stuff? Perhaps. Whether any of this makes a difference in polling numbers or in an eventual election is debatable. That's where the Liberals come in.

What will they do in this environment? To start, they have embarked on a policy-based tour and have committed to return to Ottawa at the originally appointed hour. This goodwill and openness to engage in discourse is complemented by a series of attack ads which criticize the government for "shutting down Parliament."

Will any of it work? I am not sure. This blog has noted on several occasions that the Liberals need to do a better job of defining who they are and what a Liberal government will stand for. Yes, it's true that historically governments are more likely to be "defeated" than oppositions are "elected", but that only works when you have at least some sense as to what the alternative stands for and how they will govern.

Right now, Canadians know they what they like and dislike about the government. Yes, there may be suspicions which are preventing a majority, but by and large they "get" the Conservatives.

Can we say the same about the Liberals? I would say no, but the potential is still there. Canadians want an alternative, so give it to them. That doesn't mean they want a change in government, it just means they want the next election to offer a credible and clearly understood choice. Give us one.

In the meantime, I will be watching with interest to see if this anti-prorogation "movement" grows, or whether it loses momentum when the Olympic flame is lit. We'll see...

Comments? Thoughts?

Raise your hand if you've been a bad blogger...

OK, show of hands. Who's been a bad blogger, failing to post regularly? C'mon, raise those hands. OK, so it's me. Mea culpa and all that.

Life, from time to time, prevails and blogging takes a backseat. However, my personal prorogation is over.

I feel recalibrated and ready to go!!! My self-imposed break has thwarted my enemies and opponents, distracted public attention and left me well-positioned for success. No, wait, that can't be right. Must be from someone else's blog...

Stay tuned.

Politics Watcher

The Year That Was...Part 1

Well, here we are fast approaching the end of 2009. What. A. Year. I'll start with a re-cap which I suspect will take a post or two to get through. The focus today is on setting the stage.

Let's go back to the end of 2008. If you recall, Canadians were presented with:

• A Government which initially said the economy was fine
• A Government which shortly thereafter said things were worse with the economy than they had been for many, many years
• An Opposition which couldn't agree on anything
• An Opposition which decided they agreed on enough that they could form a coalition
• A Governor General sending everyone to the naughty chair for a time-out.

And that was just last fall!

Since then we have seen the government embrace the downturn and spend, spend, spend.

• Billions for the automotive sector, in line with the measures taken in the U.S.
• Expanded EI.
• Infrastructure spending, including those ubiquitous "Canada's Economic Action Plan" signs (Wouldn't you love to have that contract?!?)
• A record deficit on the horizon due to increased spending and falling tax revenues

Canadians wanted stimulus and the Opposition wanted stimulus, and this what the Government gave them. You can argue about how much has been spent and the like, but from a political perspective the Opposition and the public handed the Government the opportunity to use the public purse to paint themselves as being responsive, caring and prepared to act on the public's behalf.

At the same time, we have witnessed the steps and missteps of Mr. Ignatieff. As this blog has noted on a number of occasions, it was necessary for him to break out of the "support the government for fear of an election" rut the Liberals were in. However, to do so by declaring you wanted an election without defining why was rash and ill-advised. The plummeting support is indicative of this failure to properly define a Liberal alternative.

Staffing changes in the OLO acknowledge these missteps and over time they should be addressed. A team of experience will be needed to balance against unbridled enthusiasm - equal measures of reality and kool-aid should be served in order to steady the ship and plot a course. Of course, only time will tell how damaging Mr. Rossi's forthcoming departure will be.

All of this on its own would make excellent watching. In the spirit of stimulus, however, we are being treated to even more. Step forward Afghanistan and take a bow. This issue and the questions it is raising may accomplish what the Opposition couldn't do over 12 months - hurt the Government.

More on that to come...