Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

Here we go! By the end of the weekend, the election should be officially underway. To borrow from Shakespeare, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

In truth, one could argue it's been underway for some time given successive minority governments, collective posturing and the threat of the election around the corner. Through it all, from all sides, we have been served a heavy plate of rhetoric and spin with often only limited helpings of substance offered.

Heads-up, rhetoric and spin are the MSG of politics watching. Tasty at first, but ultimately unsatisfying and leaving you hungry for something more filling.

This is where we come in.

We are about to enter into one of the true times when what's on our minds can matter, when we will be listened to, and when we have the potential to influence. This is our time to be engaged and to be responsible.

Demand more of your prospective MPs. Challenge them to define who they are, and what they represent. Don't accept messaging about "the other guy", if it is not accompanied by their own plan for governing; for representing you.

Think about what is important to you, your family, community, Canada. Think about it and let them know. Challenge the person who comes to your door to explain how they will address the things that matter to you. Make. Them. Earn. Your. Vote.

What is it for you?

- health care
- job stability
- the economy
- crime and security
- pensions
- the environment
- ethics, accountability and democracy

I want us to talk about these things and whatever else is on your mind over the coming weeks. Use this blog and some of the far, far better ones (see column to the right!) to raise issues, inform yourself and others, to debate.

And when the end is nearly there, please vote.

It's our democracy, our opportunity and our responsibility.

Thoughts?

It does not take much

Sometimes you just have to shake your head. Earlier today, during a news conference in BC, the Prime Minister noted that while Canada may not experience direct economic impacts resulting from the crisis in Japan, we should expect stock market volatility (see the story in the Globe online).

So far, so good.

However, Mr. Harper then went on to “All of these things should remind everyone, should remind everybody in Canada, should remind all the parties in Parliament, that the global economy remains extremely fragile. It does not take very much to make us all, not just in Canada and the United States but all around the world, very worried.”

It does not take much.

Now, I don't know what Mr. Harper's definition of "much" is, but I would guess that if you asked people what might fall into the category of "it does not take much", the following would not appear:

- devastating earthquake
- tsunami
- risk of nuclear meltdown

This sort of hyperbolic linkage is too often the norm in our politics. There's no need for it and I suspect little gain to be realized. Trying to link what is happening in Japan to the prospect of the Opposition defeating the Government in the House? C'mon...

Thoughts?

Speech! Speech!

So, the holidays are over and the House has returned. But for how long? Increasingly, it seems like the parties are gearing up for a spring election.

As I considered the prospects of a spring trip to the polls this past weekend, I came across an article in the Globe and Mail by Ian Brown entitled "State of the elocution: Obama and the history of political rhetoric." The article discusses the decline of the political speech. It's a good read and worth checking out.

It got me thinking about what I want to hear in the speeches that will be given in the coming weeks, and sadly, what I expect to hear.

I expect to hear a lot about coalitions and hyper-partisanship. I also expect to hear language intended to frighten or scare the voter. This isn't what we need.

So what do I want to hear? I'll start with some of what I would like to see from Mr. Ignatieff in terms of tone and direction...

"Ladies and gentleman, once again Canadians are going to the polls. We are being asked to choose. Not just choose 'who we want to govern Canada.' No, we are being asked to choose what type of society we want to live in. We are being asked to choose what should define the Canada of the 21st century.

This election is an opportunity. It's your opportunity. An opportunity to consider what's important to you and your family. An opportunity to ask yourself whether you see your priorities reflected in our politics; in your democracy.

Over the next month or so, the Liberal Party of Canada wants to engage you in a dialogue about Canada. We want to share with you our vision for a Canada that is productive and competitive; that is fair and compassionate; that is open and democratic. A Canada where differing points of views are celebrated, not marginalized. A Canada where both families and businesses can thrive.

Why? Because you have a choice.

As you consider the choices before you, ask yourself the following:

- Are the things that are important to my family getting the attention they deserve?

- Is my job or my pension safer today than it was 5 years ago?

- Will my children inherit the opportunities they deserve or the problems we weren't brave enough to tackle?

Our position is that the choices the government has made are not your choices. That the priorities of this government do not reflect the priorities of Canadians. That on so many of the defining issues of our day - health care, the environment, competitiveness and democratic reform - the government has chosen to marginalize debate rather than engage Canadians.

What can you expect from a Liberal government?

1. A commitment to investing in Canadians, and not just corporations. Yes, a productive, competitive economy needs business. But business needs you. We believe that social investments are just as important to our economy and prosperity. These are investments we will make - in families, in education and higher-learning, in health.

2. A commitment to a more open and engaged government. Engagement, debate and transparency are democracy's oxygen. Unfortunately, they are in short supply today. We will invest in our democracy so that you have the information you need to engage and to hold us to account.

3. A commitment to developing real solutions to climate change. This is one of the defining challenges of our generation. We need to move the dialogue away from one of fear and loss, and towards real discussion on what needs to be done. This means considering how we use energy. But is also means investing in innovation and in new technologies that can make Canada a green-industry leader.

Like much of the world, Canada is at a cross-roads. We see a world filled with both challenges and opportunities. And we need to act.

If we fail to act, the problems won't go away - they will get worse.

If we fail to act, the opportunities will be lost.

Too often over the past 5 years, Canadians have suffered from the worst of politics at the very time they needed the best of government. Today we have a chance to change that. We have a chance to re-set the discourse in Canada.

A Liberal government will be balanced and innovative. We will not have all the answers, but we are committed to asking the right questions. We are committed to engaging you on the future of your country.

I stand before you today asking you to make a choice. To choose a real, national alternative to the politics of the past 5 years. To choose the Liberal Party of Canada. Thank-you."

So, there it is. In fairness, I will use the next post to put down some thoughts on what Mr. Harper might say. In the meantime...

Thoughts?

Wanted: An Engaged Voter

Parliament is about to begin its winter break, and with that politics watchers out there will be treated to the usual year-end articles, podcasts and news features on "the year that was." As to be expected, these features will focus on the politicians.

Who had a good year, and who has disappointed. Who's up-and-coming Cabinet material, and who is destined for the backbench. We'll reflect on the main issues and the players in Ottawa, in the provinces and in major municipalities.

I would like to propose we add a group to this annual list - the public.

Someone commented to me recently that "democracy isn't a spectator sport. If it's not working then everyone's not working." I could not agree more. I have written on this blog on more than one occasion about the importance of an engaged citizenry; about the need for a public that needs to play a more active and informed role in its democracy.

If the informed chatter is to be believed, we should expect an election in 2011, be it in the spring or the fall. With that in mind, it's an opportune time to consider the voter and ask ourselves what kind of year they - no, we - had. Were we engaged, informed and active participants in our democracy? If we really are heading into an election year, let's consider the voter's state of "preparedness."

My take is that the reviews would be mixed.

Let's first consider how the year started - prorogation. I think on this front, we were all surprised about the degree to which people were engaged. It was quite interesting to see the reaction of many Canadians to the decision to prorogue for no apparent reason other than to avoid some tricky issues in the House. On our engagement meter, prorogation scores high.

I would also score potash as having generated a high degree of engagement, and not just in Saskatchewan. While I would have liked to have seen the public more aware of the pros AND the cons about allowing the sale (the debate became more of a nationalist one, versus the economic merits, implications for trade and market access, etc.), I still think the fact that this issue became a national one reflects well on the public and the media.

The municipal elections offer a mixed bag in terms of engagement. We had some very interesting results (Calgary), potentially significant results (Toronto), curious results (London) and not surprising results (Ottawa, at least in terms of the race for Mayor). Levels of engagement on the issues varied greatly, but what struck me was the strong interest in change. In many cases it truly was an "out with the old" mentality - something which could have implications for establishment politicians at the provincial and the federal level.

Beyond these areas, I see a public that can be prone to slumber only to be momentarily woken by an issue. The census is an example where we became engaged - but less on the substance, and more on the impression the decision left in terms of the government and what we thought of their, for want of a better word, behaviour. The G20 spending is another example - we were upset, nothing more. To me that's not really engagement.

I then add the relative lack of engagement on issues like Afghanistan, the environment and the economy. Here I see us failing to hold all elected officials to account for what are truly defining issues for the Canada of today and tomorrow. These are the types of issues around which the next election should be fought. I would also add to this list accountability. It was an issue in 2006, and should be again in 2011.

Whether this proves to be the case will depend on us. Hopefully we're up for it.

Thoughts?

To blog or not to blog, that is the question

As you know, I started this blog to provide commentary around what appeared to be an imminent federal election. However, in the same way that bringing an umbrella to work is a sure fire way to ensure it doesn't rain, starting this blog appears to have the effect of dampening/killing the prospects of an election.

So what's a blogger to do?

• Option 1 - stop blogging, and get back to life. Apparently things happen outside the bubble of Ottawa.

• Option 2 - slip into denial and continue to blog as if the election was tomorrow.

• Option 3 - continue to blog with a focus on politics and if an election comes jump all over it like a fat kid on a smartie.

Now I could start a poll on the site, but since..you know...no one reads it, I would more or less be relying on my own vote to make the decision. So if it's my choice, I will go with option 3. There's far too many interesting things going on here to give up now.

I'll be back later this evening with a wrap on where things stand up there with folks on the Hill.

Well, it was fun while it lasted...

So is that it then? Has election buzz given way to election fizzle? It certainly seems like it right now.

Over the past 24 hours we have seen the Bloc indicate they will support the ways and means bill before the House, and the NDP say they will support the government's EI changes through to enactment. These moves - particularly the NDP's - ensure that the government will live through the fall. As the Globe is noting this evening, it's "Harper's Reluctant Coalition".

When the dust settles on September, it will be interesting to see who is pleased and is who unhappy following the latest turn of events. A few questions to consider:

• Will Ignatieff be that unhappy about not getting a chance to bring down the government this fall? Jack and Gilles may be supporting Harper, but they have helped the Liberals out of what could have been an awful mess of an election.

• Will Harper really be happy to have avoided an election? As many have noted in recent days, he might well have welcomed an opportunity to be forced to go to the polls by the Liberals-Separatists-Socialists. If you close your eyes you can just see the ads and hear the talk radio chatter in that campaign scenario.

• How happy are the NDP to be helping to prop up a government they have spent something like eternity vilifying? And what did they get for their support?

Readers (ok, I am not sure there are any but a blogger can dream...) will recall the following from my last post:

"At some point, the Liberals needed to break themselves free from supporting the government. While it may have been a necessary evil, it was damaging credibility, sapping party morale, and for many made them look weak.Mr. Ignatieff needed to make a break with the past and begin to set his own tone."

They swallowed hard, took a chance and have now broken free without paying a real cost. Polls may be worrisome right now, but in-between elections they mean less.

As Taber and Ibbitson commented this evening, they can stop looking like they are capitulating and start acting like a government-in-waiting. Time will tell if they can run with the reprieve they have been given.

When we look back on these days, will any of it matter?

One question we may want to start asking ourselves is what long-term damage a Conservative-NDP deal would do to the Liberals. Will they look like they weren't prepared to make Parliament work? That they sought an election without being clear as to why now?

Short-term, yes. The polling information is already starting to reveal this sort of view. Longer-term, I am not as sure. At some point, the Liberals needed to break themselves free from supporting the government. While it may have been a necessary evil, it was damaging credibility, sapping party morale, and for many made them look weak.

Mr. Ignatieff needed to make a break with the past and begin to set his own tone. In some respects he has done so. It is useful to remember exactly where the Liberals were 11 months ago. Funding was poor, organization was scattered and the party was getting no traction with the green shift. Today, regardless of the current perception, they are in far better shape.

If an election is delayed until next year, their actions over the past few weeks will mean little in a future campaign.

That's my two cents. Thoughts?

But there has to be an election - I started a blog!

As posted earlier, the government has tabled their proposed changes to the EI program which may be enough to convince the NDP to support the government and prevent an election this fall.

There is good reason to believe the NDP will support:

• Their poll numbers are poor (down from the last election);
• They are not ready to go to the polls financially or in terms of a slate of candidates; and
• Jack likes to make a deal.

Should an election fall by the wayside expect to see Jack on the air, in the householder, streetcorners...basically anywhere there is a chance of a camera or of being seen (he's like City TV for pete's sake, he's everywhere!). And expect him to be telling you how he's listened to Canadians and done what he can to make Parliament work.

Probably the bigger question right now is will he accept this olive branch as is or hold out for more. I suspect the former, as Jack knows the PM will be reluctant to do more and this will be as good as it gets.

For the Liberals, the question would then be whether all of this has done them lasting damage. More on that shortly - I have another post to go tonight.

This leaves one last question for this post and it's for the PM. Be honest Mr. Harper, is this gesture really about the unemployed or is it an opportunistic ploy to take a rookie blog out of the game. We demand the truth!

Conservative-Socialist Coalition Anyone?

The government tabled proposals today which would extend EI benefits - something long sought by the Opposition. The NDP are cautiously making nice, batting their eyelids at the PM and saying all the right things. Has the government done enough? Stay tuned...

Dear Canada, you're not as rich as you think

Earlier today the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, let us know that (a) we will be in deficit longer than expected and (b) that our deficits are going to be much higher than expected. Not to worry, as there is a plan (not shared) to get us out. That plan will apparently not involve cuts to individual transfers (OAP, for example) or higher taxes.

So what will it involve? That old favourite, cuts to government spending. Now government spending as been increasing for some time and there are big ticket bills yet to come (e.g. a new health care accord with the provinces). So what is left that hasn't been looked at through several years of various spending reviews? And what savings are truly out there without introducing cuts to services?

This is the sort of topic that I hope the other parties will pursue. In the same way they will be challenged (accused?) on tax increases, they should be challenging the government on where it wants to cut spending.

The size of the deficit presents an opportunity for parties to present their views on how to address it. As voters, we should take the time to consider these different plans as, like it or not, deficits will be with us for some time. This should be part of our public discourse over the foreseeable future. We'll see.

The grass is always greener...

Well, tonight a major political leader came out and addressed friend, foe and the undecided about a major public policy issue. There was vision and substance (though not as much of the latter as many would like), and an effort to frame the debate and build support. Alas, this did not happen in Canada. It was Obama. Again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/president-obamas-remarks-to-congress/article1281358/

As this blog is about Canadian politics and our upcoming election, I raise the Obama speech as an example of the type of discourse which is lacking in Canada. Increasingly it seems we are resorting to fear mongering ("vote Liberal and the crime bill will die, and your tax credit is gone!") or vagueness ("We can do better"), missing an opportunity to meaningfully engage Canadians on issues like innovation or democratic reform.

The debate in the U.S. is far from perfect and contains its own healthy doses of fear mongering and a lack of mutual respect. But it is a debate around issues, around the role of government and what citizens should and should not expect from the state.

As we head into our (annual) campaign season, here's hoping we can see a similar effort to frame issues and engage the public on the issues which mean the most to them.

Liberal Ads: Could they have done better?

This past weekend the Liberals released a series of pre-election ads (go to http://www.liberal.ca/ to have a look). The launch was accompanied by a message from National Director Rocco Rossi which described the ads as follows:

"This week, the Liberal Party will begin airing a series of powerful new television ads that highlight Michael Ignatieff’s vision for Canada. The message: we can do better."

I am still trying to make my mind up on these ads. As the Globe reported yesterday, the approach and tone differs between English and French. I have no issue with that - tailored marketing is normal practice.

I guess what I am struggling with is whether the ads - particularly the more general English ones - are going to help me or anyone else frame the all-important ballot-box question.

• Have they told me why I am about to vote...again? No.
• Are the ads "powerful", as Mr. Rossi wrote? Uhm, not so much.
• Does any of that matter today, in a pre-writ period. Probably not.

There will be time for each party to frame and tell their story, define their value proposition, and make their case to Canadians - but not too much time. And I guess that's what troubles me about the ads.

The Liberals had time - time to give their leader visibility, tell his story and articulate his vision. I am not sure it was used well enough to allow these ads to be what they should be, which is a decisive jump out of the blocks. Time will tell.

Oh, and don't get me started on the tag line "We can do better"...

Thoughts?

From poll to poll

The first of many polls we'll highlight here came out this morning. Conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and the Globe and Mail, the poll puts the Conservatives up by 5 points over the Liberals (35-30). The NDP are at 14, the Greens at 9. In Quebec, the Bloc is up to 49 - it's highest score since the 2004 election. Here's the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-gives-tories-the-edge/article1278722/

Of course the poll does not take into account the ads recently released by the Liberals (more on those later this week).

Polls are funny things - part snapshot, part trend analysis. As more come out, including the daily tracking ones conducted by Nick Nanos and co., we'll discuss what to look for in a poll.

Later.

The first (past the) post...

Well, here we are on the verge of another federal election. Has it only been 11 months since the last one? I guess time flies when you're...no, wait, that's not right. Who's been having fun since the last vote? C'mon, raise your hands.

What has happened since October 2008? Perhaps a short recap is in order:

• Another minority government - not fun.
• Major global economic crisis - not fun.
• Laughable/mean-spirited economic and fiscal update - not fun.
• Prospects of the coalition - funny, maybe. But not fun.
• Governor General allows kids to take a time-out. Again, funny but also not fun.
• Dion, gone; Iggy in. Fun for one, not so much for the other.
• Having to introduce a budget that goes against every fibre of your political being - not fun.

You get the picture. And now, after a summer of absolutely nothing except bad weather we're told an election is on the way. Kids go back to school, grown-ups go back to vote. But what exactly are we voting on? Surely to God if we are going to spend $300 million on this we should have some sense as to what it's about.

Well, over the next 2 months, that's exactly what I want to explore on this blog. Who's who in the zoo? What are the leaders saying (and not saying)? How do the platforms measure up (Dear Conservatives, no glossy concert-style programmes this time, please. Let's get some discussion of the issues). Who won the debates? Who's wearing the blue sweater?

Importantly, all without spin. My comments will aim to be critical, but impartial. There will be no partisan ranting from me. That's where you come in...

Tell me (and the 2.4 other people likely to read this) what you think about a post, an issue, a leader, an ad, anything at all about this campaign. My blog, your forum. Deal? Your comments are welcome and encouraged. Fire away!

That's it for the first post. The House returns on September 14th, so we have a week of posturing and punditry ahead of us. Yippee!

Later.